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.
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.
Nothing will get done. Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years. I am sure it is going to get a major workout in the next two. This is not a bad thing, government is best when it does least.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
They're democrats, not magicians.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
we'd be better off relying on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a basis for a system of government.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
Gone!
It's more like: Lobbyists write new laws; congress votes for them in exchange for campaign donations.
As I'm from the UK, I can't claim to understand the ins and outs of your voting in the US, but from what I just read you're saying "I would never have aligned my vote with a politician who I wanted to win to help stabilize our political system, because he from that other party. Sounds like utterly stupid tribalist, partisan politics, which is responsible for most intelligent people in Western democracies being so utterly bored with politics as a whole...
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
The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. In fact, the US government is now the most powerful government and world empire that has ever existed in the history of organized coercion.
Over the last 100 years, US political power has been domainated by the republicans and the democrats together. Neither party dominated by itself; they shared in the power over this period. This trend continues today in full force, as does the trend for expansion of power. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, thousands more ways for a peaceful individual to become a criminal.
Given this near-exponential growth of the US government, it is clear that both parties are primarily driven by power -- otherwise, why would they have fought so hard to expand their powers over the past century? If they valued the freedom of the individual more than their own power, then logically, the incredible growth of the US government over the past century wouldn't have been possible. If even one of the two dominant parties actually worked to reduce, rather than expand government power over the individual, then wouldn't they have cancelled each other out?
Of course that's not the case. So let's answer your question: Will the democrats be able to make things better, or will they only be able to keep things from getting worse?
You're going to have to deny history to come up with a positive answer on either count. I'll bet my life that when the democrats are finished, the US government will be (drum roll please) bigger, more powerful (measured in both revenue and power over the people), and last but not least, there will be yet even more ways for peaceful individuals to become criminals.
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
How many times do I have to say this?
Ahem...
strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is NO basis for a system of government.
You cannot just call yourself Senator just because some watery tart tossed a sword at you.
I mean, if I went round, calling myself Congressman, just because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
They'll go along with a minimum wage increase, but the president will add a signing statement:
"Within the context of this statute, the term 'Dollar' shall defined to be equal to 68 cents."
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.
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!
He didn't invent this practice, so don't give him so much credit. Also, it is incredibly un-democratic for a single ruler to be able to manipulate the law to the extent that Bush has. Here are some sample statements he added from the Boston Globe. If these don't make your blood boil, you truely are a moron - or really believe that Bush is the incarnation of Jesus.
March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.
Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)
Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.
Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.
Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.
Bush's signing
http://www.coderoshi.com/
At least it would be pretty ... imagine how many different crayons he would use :)
burrocrisy
/. spelling error been more apropos.
Ahh.. and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses?
Methinks never has a
You obviously don't understand what he means by a signing statement. Essentially, with every bill he has signed during his two terms, Bush has been attaching a little letter that says, "I can ignore this law whenever it suits me." Seriously, I would wager less than 1 in 100 citizens in the U.S. even know about these letters.
This is a president with absolutely no respect for anyone other than himself and what he thinks is right, either that or someone that has been totally manipulated by some unknown group or entity into a unilateral form of government.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
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
But even assuming the Democrats pull together and show brilliant leadership and vision (and I'm not holding my breath), it would take years to undo Bush's damage. I think a key issue to watch is going to be Rumsfeld. It's clear his strategies have failed, repeatedly; he needs to be held accountable. And it's clear he can't fix things in Iraq. He has to go. Bush's instincts will be to protect him, because Bush rewards loyalty (a good character, to a point) and because Bush thinks that firing him would be an admission of failure, and Bush does not admit failure (but admitting failure is a technicality at this point, Rumsfeld and Bush's efforts in Iraq so far have failed utterly).
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.
You seem to be trying to be sarcastic, so I'm not sure you remember the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress in a matter of days. There are many statements from congressional staffers saying that basically nobody had time to even read the bill since it was so huge, but the Presdient wanted it passed, so everyone lined up and passed it. There was basically no discussion or debate whatsoever before the Patriot Act was passed, it was only after the fact that anyone could read the darn thing and see how much bad stuff had been put in by the Executive, some of which were allowed to expire when the act went up for renewal.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
No, no, no, dig up stupid.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
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