Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided
Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
Or just keep them from getting worse.
That would be a great disturbance in the Farce.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Successful votes: 46%
Unsuccessful votes: 2%
George Bush: 52%
Any idea if the stock market will rally or tank on the news that the Democrats have taken over Congress?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
You fell right into Karl Rove's Dieboldian scheme of Haliburtonist warforoilism! You fools!
This
Yes, it's good for everyone, even the citizens that call themselves Republican.
Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat. They didn't have 2/3 majority in both the House & Senate but it put the rest of the country in a really bad spot. You see, the three branches were put in place so that no one party/person could go nuts and foul up the country.
What has been happening as of late, is that bills are flying through all three branches and being approved. Some of these are good for Republicans, some aren't. Some of the things George W. Bush has been doing are aligned with his party and some weren't. The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.
Compounding on these problems, it seems the Democrats were resigned that this would happen after their defeat in a lot of prior elections.
The fact is, I don't want anything to fly through the process of passing bills. I want there to be a large discussion before it becomes law. Recently, I've seen headings that say, "Bill passed that allows president to do X" and my response was, "When the hell was that even proposed? Oh, six days ago? That's aweful fast!"
The Democrats have a majority in one branch now, I don't care who gets the Senate. Let's just keep a nice balanced government. I'm not naive enough to think that this process actually works but I do know that as of late it's been really crappy--probably for both parties. I'd like to see the Republicans take the Senate, the Democrats have the House & let whatever nut jobs we want to be president.
So if you call yourself Republican, just remember that the other half of the country is Democrat--and it benefits you to keep them happy. A balanced government is more important for my health than balanced meals.
My work here is dung.
...will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings. (ha, you thought I was going to say something abuot overlords, didn't you?)
Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.
(BTW - can you really call Liberman a Democrat now? I mean he votes with the Republicans and the national Democrats gave him the finger earlier this year. I wonder if he will consider switching parties? That woul d be the ultimate up-yours, especially if the Dems get both tight races left - as his switch would put it at 50-50, and "the duck" would then cast all tie-breaking votes)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
As a believer in liberty, limited government, and rule of law, I'm no fan of the Democrats. BUT I do recognize that with a divided government, less gets done. And the less that gets done, the better off all of us are. Fewer wars are started. Fewer liberties are infringed. Fewer taxes get raised. Fewer vile "regulations" get passed. Fewer obstacles are placed in the path of economic growth and prosperity. Hence, although I'd never have voted for any Democrat, I'm still glad they took at least the House.
Nonaggression works!
It seems to me that, even with a house majority, the democrats won't be able to change much in the next two years. They won't be able to override vetos and may not even be able to pass much of their dream legislation in the first place because of the number of conservative democrats who were recruited and elected. The one thing that will certainly happen though, is a minimum wage increase. Most republicans will not dare to vote against that, even though they were happy to prevent it through the ploy of never bringing up legislation in the first place.
Hello United States of America!
Maybe You should consider inviting the UN for supervising the next election like any other Banana Republic out there?
Oh sorry - You couldn't take a joke ;-)
What's the diff? Republicans and republicans lite. They all share a similar agenda anyway.. they mostly support a christian agenda (you have to in the US) and are opposed to changing the status quo (e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)
were in ur house, beetin ur repz!
So far, in the close Senate races (Tester Vs Burns in Montana and Webb Vs Allen in Virginia), the vote counts all favor the Democrats, leaving the incumbant Republicans in the position of legal challenger. In percentage terms, the advantage for the Democrats is much higher than in Florida 2000's presidential election, so the benefit of the doubt before the votes are checked will be very high for the Democrats taking the Senate.
I'm actually very glad that we have such close races in this election - this makes for one of the best possible cases for both parties to demand drastic changes in the standards needed for the voting process. Especially in the case of the 'electronic' voting machines and optical scanners using software like GEMS, and with extremely lax enforcement of standards across the board. Even without the expected cases of shennanigans, I hope we can expect some level of bi-partisan smackdown of these dangerously flawed voting systems.
Ryan Fenton
What? So now nerds aren't allowed to have a political interest?
Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby
Blog -
you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
Gone!
It should read, "Concerns of election fraud..."
Voter fraud is people voting under false identities. It rarely happens. Election fraud is the kind of mass voter suppression and dubious vote counting we've been seeing in this country. Even the most celebrated examples of "voter fraud" are really election fraud, such as Chicago Mayor Daley allegedly engineered dead people voting for JFK.
You remember how you were going to send pro-war democrats a big message and kick Lieberman's sorry ass out of the senate?
Well, the way the senate results are coming down, guess what: you just made Independent Joe Lieberman the most powerful man in the Senate.
How do you like them apples?
With love,
-- Irony
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
US border agents noted a surge in US citizens returning from extended stays in Canada...
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
No, just kidding, of course she didn't say that. We all know there's only problems with voting machines when Republicans get elected.
(shamelessly stolen from qando.net)
But seriously, while I generally support Republicans, the current batch has been almost entirely useless over the past several years, so perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
A macacaphonic chorus.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
As an ex-Republican (Bush created a lot of us) who still leans conservative at least on economic issues, this is no surprise to me. What is interesting to me is that a party that includes some pretty intelligent people seems to primarily target idiots in their rhetoric.
;)
For example, most conservatives I know could care less about gay marriage. It is not a huge issue for me, I find myself being for it. I have no reason to oppose it so it just seems fair. Yet Rove and co. keep making this a cornerstone of their "get out the vote" campaign. The Christian fundamentalists do not have enough numbers that you need only focus on them to win, especially when it comes out that your own party might be covering up for a gay (the horror!) teen-predator who inexplicably held a co-chairmanship in the "missing and exploited children caucus". That probably did not play well in the bible belt.
Corruption anyone? Of course this is a cyclical thing and I fully expect the Republicans will probably regain Congress in a few election cycles after the Democrats turn out to be just a corrupt. And the cycle will go on and on because corruption is not a party issue, it is a requirement for office in DC.
Then you have Iraq, the elephant in the room that none of the Republican commentators wanted to touch (no pun intended). Again, you would have to be a totally uninformed moron to think that everything is going great and we need to "stay the course", yet that has been the message for years, flying in the face of reality (with its well known liberal bias
But the most ridiculous thing to me has to be the "listen to mommy and daddy you stupid little children" approach the Republicans have taken in warning us what would happen if the Democrats win. Probably plays well to those who only get their information from Rush/Hannity/etc., but for those of us who are not spoon fed our beliefs by paid mouthpieces it is insulting. "The terrorists are cheering the Democrats on", "The Democrats want us to lose", "If the Democrats win, we will lose the war on terror", "The future of civilization rests in the balance of the election"
Give me a break, both parties are pro-America and want the best for us, they just differ on how to get there. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering of the worst kind.
Then you have the issue of how far Republicans have come from the "94 take over" years. Go back and re-read the "Contract With America", it is chock full of some really good stuff that I could really get behind. However, it is as far from the Republican party as you can get.
A good number of us are not religious/social conservative fanatics (or as I like to say, Shiite Christians), but that seems to be all the Republicans are targeting. Many of us ARE fiscally conservative and you will not find a more fiscally irresponsible government that the Republican controlled federal government of yesterday. Almost none of us are willing to join Bush's delusion regarding Iraq anymore. The WMD scam, the clueless management on the part of Rumsfeld, and the "la la la, I can't hear you" approach Bush takes to any news that is not positive has clearly taken its toll.
Personally, I hope the Democrats take the Senate for a clean Congressional sweep. I still disagree with many of their positions, but more important that that is my belief that checks and balances between the two branches of government is preferable to a mono-culture.
I am Finkployd, and I approve this message
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
WTF was this little gem thrown into the summary? Not only does the article not mention fraud at all (if it did, I blinked...), but according to CNN, Number of civil rights voting complaints 'low'.
With a summary like that, seems like the editor is angling for a new job at Fox News...
Well, the Democrats got a favorable outcome, so I guess that means they don't think there was any voting fraud this time.
"Karl Rove somehow also controls how quickly the justices age or how healthy they are"
Where's my tinfoil hat?!?!?
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
You don't understand: The election districts have been so gerrymandered (by both the Democrats and the Republicans) that the number of seats where it is thought to be even theoretically possible to defeat the incumbent of each party is generally considered to be less than 10% of the total seats. For the Democrats to take 4-6 Senate seats (out of only 33 up for election this year) and 28-30 House seats without losing a single seat of their own is an absolutely stunning thing.
Pollsters had characterized this election as a irresistible force (the 'tsunami' of public opinion against the Bush and the Republicans) vs the immovable object (the incredibly rigged system of incumbent protecting districts plus the advantages of incumbency in getting re-elected in general). Apparently the immovable object wasn't quite as immovable as the Republicans had hoped.
They still have one thing going for them - GWB is in the White House and he will probably veto anything the Dems try to get passed. That's going to be their "ace" in 2008 - a cry that "it's His fault." Will that really count for much? Not in my book, but this is national politics where you've got 100,000,000 uninformed voters that take the pink or blue slip handed to them at the poll entrances and dutifully vote the party line.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The Republican majority has never understood or respected Congress. They literally believe that it should do as little as possible. That's what they came into power on in 1994. Immediately they cut oversight hearings in 1/2 (Yes, they only spent 1/2 as much time doing oversight of the Clinton administration as the Democratic Congress), and it has been on a downward trend to oblivion ever since. They spent 10x as much time investigating Clinton's Christmas Card mailing list as they did Abu Ghrab.
This is because Republicans have always viewed Congressional hearings as merely a club to attack the other party with when they are truly essential to a well running government. A lot of our problems would have been avoided if they had kept fulfilling that role, but they are phobic about saying anything bad about other Republicans. Let's just hope that there are enough old hands in Congress that can remember how this is supposed to work!
Does this mean House Democrats will actually vote Democrat? After they've been voting Republican for the past 6 years?
Let's not forget that the Democrats voted for the PATRIOT act, too. Everytime you hear of Bush & Co. invading our personal liberties, remember that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who passed the legislation allowing him to do so. The Republicans voted their conscience, however poorly formed it might be, while the Democrats simply betrayed both their principles and their constituents.
The primary difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that a Republican votes according to the principles which got him elected, where a Democrat doesn't care how he votes, as long as he can blame the Republicans should something go wrong.
This really means nothing. The Republicans are still running both the House and the Senate; they can always count on their "Democrat friends" to vote Republican.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"we'd be better off relying on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a basis for a system of government."
Makes no difference where the politicians tell their lies. It's all the same to me.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If I take anything away from this outcome, it is that most American's have a better sense of politics than I had previously given them credit for.
As I have over the years watched the political discourse across the net, one truism seemed to stand out. People across the globe seemed to distrust the American government, but appreciate the American people in general. As recently as 2004 this appreciation of the American people began to change.
I do not feel like going into a great defense of this position, but I think most readers hear could understand and most likely echo that sentiment.
Let me be clear, I do not think that the American people allowed global opinion to "greatly" sway their decision making when it came to voting this cycle, but I do think it played a role. This must provide at least some level of comfort to those around the world who had become disenchanted with America AND its people.
IMO, the world (America included) needed this outcome to begin to heal some of the divisiveness that has cropped up over the last few years.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
To be up front, I will state that I am a conservative and vote along that ideology. Even so, I am pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of the "Repugnacan" Party.
:-)
:-( Will the Demoncrats live up to their promises of affordable, quality healthcare? Will they do something to steady the flow of American jobs to overseas slave labor countries? Will they repeal the "Patriot" Act? Will they restore the legal protections that Americans had under the Constitution? The most likely answer to all of these questions is likely not just no, but HELL NO!!! Remember the Democrats' promise when they ran against George Bush Senior? They railed against the republicans about their eagerness to send American jobs overseas (to repressive countries such as Red China). When in office, they did nothing to stem the flow of American jobs overseas. In fact most voted for the North American "Free Trade" Agreement. Healthcare costs also skyrocketed during the Clinton era. There were also the uncoinstitutional intrusions on peoples freedoms. Will there be any real changes in the way we are governed in the next few years? HELL NO!!! It will be business as usual.
The Republicans had control of both houses of congress, the presidency, and "right wing" majority in Supreme Court. In other words, they had a monopoly on power in the United States? Did they live up to their "party platform?" NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Rather than reduce the size and scop of government they have made the government size and scope the largest in U.S. history. As far as abortions and "gay marriage," the carnage continues at abortion mills, and NO LAW was passed to prevent "gay marriage." In fact, the Bush administration has appointed the largest number of openly gay people to office. The Republicans claim that they were tough on Muslim extremeists, yet they voted to outsource our nation's security to Arab companies while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws that intrude upon American freedoms. Christians and other moral majority type people fell for the Republican con plain and simple, and the Republicans did not keep their promises as a party. As a result, FED UP voters rightfully threw their sorry asses out of office
The problem I have with the election, however, is the fact that Demoncrats were elected in their place
I call the state of American politics the "swinging pendulum of sameness." When voters become fed up with the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Democrats, they fall for the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Republicans. It is the same game, but with a different name. The main difference between each political party is which group of voters they target with their empty campaign promises and lies, deceit, and corruption. Each election, voters are still stupid enough to actually swallow these lies. It is the stupidity of voters that allow these assholes to get away with all their crap. I am sure that this post will be modded down or catagorized as a troll. So be it. However, that still does not change the fact that the American voters as a whole are still stupid. Most believe that they have no choice but to vote the "Lessor of Two Evils." ost are also too lazy to do research on the candidates on the ballot even when sample ballots are available weeks in advance. If they would actually take about 15 minutes to do research, they would see that they never even heard of the majority of the candidates on the ballot. This is because the vooice of these candidates are squelched by the mainstream media. In fact, most media outlets will not even list them as being in the race.
I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote." I say that they are throwing away th
I for one welcome our new Democratic overlords
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I couldn't agree with you more. In the long run, this is probably the worst thing that could happen to the democrats. I am glad they will be there for the next two years to hopefuly put the brakes on some of what's been going on. But, they just consigned themselves to defeat in 2008.
I say this for two reasons - first, things aren't likely to really improve in the next two years, especially Iraq - and now that the Democrats share power, they'll be sharing plenty of blame too. Unfortunately the people did not wake up in 2004 when all the signs of Iraq being bungled were there. Probably the country could have avoided much of what's happened, and perhaps the Democrats might have even received some electoral credit in 2006 and 2008 for that. Now, Bush will continue with his chosen path, without the Democrats being able to do much to stop him - only now they'll get much of the blame during the 2008 elections.
We can look forward to two years of Bush and his ilk blaming Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for EVERYTHING that goes wrong.
But, second and more importantly, when it comes to domestic issues, to social issues, more of the country seems to be in line with the conservatives and the Republicans (and more of the country seems to be in line with them on foreign policy issues too, except in the case of Iraq), and that's not likely to change in two years. The Democrats simply cannot win in a lot of the more conservative areas of the country without some seriously divisive issue for them to hang their hats on. This time, Bush came along and provided that issue. If Bush hadn't bungled Iraq, the Democrats would have had no prayer in this election. In fact I think it likely that they would have lost seats and been even further marginalized.
I for one am not looking forward to 2008 - especially if we're still in Iraq and (heaven help us) someone like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. gets elected.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
George "macaca" Allen hasn't been declared a loser yet. He's in one of those 'too close to call' races.
As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.
The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.
My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution or Libertarian if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.
Constitutionally Correct
"Don't fuck it up".
Seriously, they have a chance to at least put a brake on one of the most incompetent and reactionary administrations in US history (worse even than Nixon).
They better make good use of it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Some very good points. I would disagree about the U.S. not being a sovereign nation in 20 years, though certainly I won't say that it's impossible.
The "You're throwing away your vote!" garbage gets me real steamed. You should always vote for the best person (not necessarily candidate, as some would take that as being someone who can win) according to your beliefs. If that happened, we wouldn't be in the messes we are in now. We have a "Extreme right wing" president who is afraid of or undesirous of standing up for conservative principles. We had a Republican Legislature trying to forward the concept of a Mommy-state while spending all of their time trying to figure out how to "bring home the bacon". Supposed "Conservatives" who supposedly cherish our System but refuse to ensure the enforcement of laws regarding immigration, pass bills restricting our privacy and freedoms, and appear to be just as beholden to various industries and organizations who obviously can't win them elections with financial support.
On the other hand, the Democrats will be no better. They are beholden to the same industries and organizations. They will have the same lobbyists courting them. Sure, they will try to rapid-fire impress some folks with a few quick moves. But even if they take the White House in 2008, we won't see much real change.
Except that when your parents pass away and leave you the house, you will magically owe the government money.
I agree that the only way to fix this, barring a leader who has the will and charisma and popular support of the people who can force change in the party, is to support alternative parties. Unfortunately, many promising people feel it is easier to take a party over from within, and push it to victory. This is sometimes the case, and certainly parties can be moved by strong personality to effect real changes. Ronald Reagan, for example, was able to shove the Republican party and create a short term change in their true tack. But often, once that personality leaves, the river starts to return to its original course. Here's a history tip for the young among you: Republicans weren't always enamored of tax cuts. Nor were they proponents of reducing the size of government. As you can see, some tax cutting attitudes remain. But the government reduction now seems to have been reduced itself to a talking point.
If Republican candidates hadn't drifted so far from the right, the Conservative base would have kept the party in full control. If people ignored the ridiculous campaign ads, educated themselves, and voted their conscience, we probably wouldn't have the Republican and Democrat parties in power, or at least the parties themselves would be vastly different.
Vidar
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
Just so we're clear: it is not hard in America to become an influential lobbyist *or* the staffer for a Congressperson, if you were so inclined.
...
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes.
2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work.
3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government.
4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!)
5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to
6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff.
7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.)
8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.)
9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it.
10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.
Or as Fox News has put it, "Al Queda invades Washington, cattle raped, women stampeded!"
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
While they officially list Virginia and Montana as "undecided" in this data, browsing their individual county figures shows all districts 100% in with both states.
The smallest margin is montana with roughly 2000 votes lead for the democratic candidate.
Barring an upset in a recount (which has been judged by expert analysts to be highly unlikely in leads over the hundreds) and the conclusion you come to is they essentially have only formalities standing between them and official control of the senate.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Your taxes are going to go up because the Republicans have been cutting taxes and spending like drunken schoolboys for the last six years. Just because they didn't pay for it then doesn't make it the fault of the people who inherit their mess.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
They didn't tell you that "Green" stands for Get Republicans Elected Every November?
No, no, no, dig up stupid.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
USA is a 1st world economy but a 3rd world society. The new Banana Republic!
Indeed; or, as my father used to say: "America, the world's fastest-growing third-world country."
I guess we haven't really hit rock-bottom yet though, since it still seems like a whole lot of people from actual third-world countries want to come here. When I start seeing Californians swimming south across the Rio Grande, then I'll know we've arrived.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Once upon a time, war was the (almost) exclusive purview of uniformed armies fighting other uniformed armies.
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
Government should be minimal. People should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness - remember that line?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
I understand your sentiment, and partially agree. It just seems bad that it's either a system where a 25% vote wins, or a system where you have one of two choices, neither of which are good, but people feel like they must pick a "lesser of two evils". Ours is a system where there very well could be a "perfect leader" out there, a man of the people, who would never see the light of day because he doesn't play the games the Big Two do.
Maybe I'm just too cynical....it all reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they had to vote between the two aliens....it's funny and sad because it's true.
Speaking of, why does the Green Party get so much support as opposed to the Libertarians (which from what I can tell, seem much more "mainstream" in that if you asked someone their thoughts, would probably fall in line with them)?
Most people I know dislike Libertarians because they're seen as economically too right-wing. That is, the whole personal economic freedom thing is great, but people want social economic responsibility enforced as well, i.e. a social safety net of some sort, which the libertarians don't seem too fond of. The greens are more economically moderate, and as you'd expect from just statistical distribution, most people have moderate views of some sort or another.
Incidentally, I'd say that what we call "socially liberal" is actually quite socially moderate, hence it's popularity; only a few of the most radical anarchistic liberals say that "people should be able to do whatever the want to long as they aren't harming others, and there should be no system in place to catch those who do try to harm others and protect those in danger of coming to harm". Fewer still say simple "people should be able to do whatever they want, period, even if it hurts others". Most everybody favors the existence of some sort of police, and emergency services like firefighters, and nobody wants complete anomie; all of which would be more liberal positions than even libertarians hold.
Which doesn't make them better positions mind you, at least in my book - there has to be a proper balance between personal freedom and social responsibility and too little of either (or conversely, too much of the other) will give equally bad results. Too much "social responsibility" - when you start not only supporting the needs and general wellbeing of a society, but also giving in to it's arbitrary whims - leads to authoritarian tyranny of the majority, and is just as bad as the anarchy in the above extremes. (Consider it analogous to giving your child what it needs, which is a responsibility and thus somewhat a limit on your freedom, versus giving your child everything it demands, which would go beyond mere responsibility and make you a whipped parent). Apply this same line of reasoning (something the likes of which I suspect lies in the back of most people's minds) to economic issues and you'll see why more moderate economic stances are more popular than either of the extreme capitalist or extreme socialist positions.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Don't let "I'm not an American" stop you! With all those Diebolds around, I'm sure you can figure out a way to vote as many times as you like. You won't get a sticker, though.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kotos!
This is not the greatest
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
You are confusing "conservative" with libertarian (or "classical liberal", or sometimes even just "liberal" though it's more of a 18th century meaning of the word) which means "that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference". thus "liberal" as in "liberty".
Conservative on the other hand means you like things the way they are or used to be in the fairly recent past. You want to "conserve" what is good about society and you are pessimistic about the likely benefits of proposed reforms. It's essentially political pessimism, or if you prefer, humility. A belief that society is unknowably complex and grand changes to our social structures even when they sound good on their face are likely to have unintended bad consequences. Conservatism in this sense has been described as an "antiideology" because the policies it defends may not be logically consistent (since it's just the way things happen to be, not as they would be if they reflected a coherent political ideology)
The united states was founded on liberal (in the old sense of the word) principles so conservatives in America tend to be defending classically liberal policies and ideas, and to adhere to a classically liberal political philosophy (albeit inconsistently). Opposing gay marriage, which is a pretty radical change to *very* long-standing social convention in the name of a logically consistent egalitarian political ideology is very rightly called "conservative". Abortion is less about liberal/conservative in this sense since the nature of the government intrusion involved is one that even the most libertarian would agree is within the proper sphere of government intrusion (protecting someone from bodily harm). The point of disagreement is about whether or not unborn children are entitled to that protection. You can be a perfectly logically consistent hyper-libertarian and still be pro-life if you are of the conviction that unborn children are entitled to that government protection.
Well, first, because we already have mere plurality winners elected, both to the Presidency (Clinton '92 and, I believe, '96, plus certainly Bush '00, just for the most recent ones) and lesser offices, so that's not a new feature. OTOH, a electoral system which favored multiple parties rather than allowing them to be relevant as occasional quirks in the system would, necessarily, involve something beyond first place votes, likely a preference voting system, which would make it much more likely that a candidate would have a clear majority preference over each competing candidate (even if they did not secure a majority of the vote), and where they didn't, something establishing a priority beyond a mere plurality of the first place preferences. So this would be an improvement.
Also, its quite likely that such a system which didn't punish honest voting when preferences don't align with the major party would mean more people actually participating, which also makes the system more representative.
Also, it would make ballot results more credible as honest results, rather than endlessly debated as wins as the result of "spoilers" and "tactical voting", as spoiler effects would be minimized and most of the incentive for tactical voting removed.
Well, no, you could have a preference voting system using IRV or any number of other single-winner preference systems nationally, or you could construct a system to direct electoral votes to be cast as preference votes based on preference voting in the population, or lots of other ways.
You've missed lots of options, including those that most directly address the problem identified.
But that happens regularly now, with the combination of low turnout and bare majority or plurality winners. That are system achieves that result by discouraging voters and suppressing turnouts doesn't make it better than one that has the same number of people voting for the winner with more eligible people voting.
I can't speak for all signatories, but in *my* Army, the Convention is taken very VERY seriously with enormous penalties for those who violate it.
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Dag gunnit, why didn't we think of it before?
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.