No, not at all. Clearly he lost by large numbers due to the fact that he never had a very strong platform and it was not clearly articulated.
The Dems have learned their lesson, and I believe that this Congressional election has been a very clear indication of that. Democratic candidates are doing their level best to show their platforms and contrast them against their GOP rivals. I believe it will pay off in the House. Not so sure about the Senate, but I think they will retake the House.
Which really scares me, because regardless of your party affiliation, doesn't "President Pelosi" just give you a chill? If Dems retake the House, Nancy Pelosi will be third in line for the Presidency. Just think about THAT for a second...
It's easy to blame Bush. He's the stupid Texas hick who caused 9/11 and lied to the country to get us to go to war over it, right?
But Congress has tacitly condoned everything he has done. And I do mean tacitly. The Iraq Liberation Act (which was passed while Clinton was in office, incidentally) passed by a 360 to 38 vote in the House, and was passed unanimously by the Senate.
Our Congress needs to grab a pair and stand up for what we elected them to profess.
The original post essentially said that if we had a divided government, we essentially would have not acted in Iraq, because, as you describe, we didn't have consensus
So are you saying that we didn't have consensus when we went into Iraq initially? George Schultz said, "President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime."
Isn't that consensus? You're assuming that Republicans, the war-mongers that they are, were all in agreement that Iraq was a convenient target and we should definitely waste billions over there. But Democrats didn't like the idea at all, but they still voted for it? Unanimously in the Senate? 360 to 38 in the House? So Demecrats vote yes on things that they know are wrong?
I'd really have a problem electing a Democrat knowing that were true. I elect someone who votes his conscience, not follows the herd. Your convenient recollection of recent history runs counter to the facts.
Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus." It means "paralysis." I, for one, feel lucky that we had a unified government during those times when the sovereignty of our Nation came under fire, be it abroad, in Hawaii, or in New York City. Because we had a unified government, we were able to act to protect ourselves, and to prevent further tragedies.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not at all. Clearly he lost by large numbers due to the fact that he never had a very strong platform and it was not clearly articulated. The Dems have learned their lesson, and I believe that this Congressional election has been a very clear indication of that. Democratic candidates are doing their level best to show their platforms and contrast them against their GOP rivals. I believe it will pay off in the House. Not so sure about the Senate, but I think they will retake the House. Which really scares me, because regardless of your party affiliation, doesn't "President Pelosi" just give you a chill? If Dems retake the House, Nancy Pelosi will be third in line for the Presidency. Just think about THAT for a second...
What is it that Yahoo does "unbelievably well"? Being a portal? Writing pithy commercials?
It's easy to blame Bush. He's the stupid Texas hick who caused 9/11 and lied to the country to get us to go to war over it, right? But Congress has tacitly condoned everything he has done. And I do mean tacitly. The Iraq Liberation Act (which was passed while Clinton was in office, incidentally) passed by a 360 to 38 vote in the House, and was passed unanimously by the Senate. Our Congress needs to grab a pair and stand up for what we elected them to profess.
Isn't that consensus? You're assuming that Republicans, the war-mongers that they are, were all in agreement that Iraq was a convenient target and we should definitely waste billions over there. But Democrats didn't like the idea at all, but they still voted for it? Unanimously in the Senate? 360 to 38 in the House? So Demecrats vote yes on things that they know are wrong?
I'd really have a problem electing a Democrat knowing that were true. I elect someone who votes his conscience, not follows the herd. Your convenient recollection of recent history runs counter to the facts.
Divided government doesn't give you "restraint." It gives you a "failure to reach consensus." It means "paralysis." I, for one, feel lucky that we had a unified government during those times when the sovereignty of our Nation came under fire, be it abroad, in Hawaii, or in New York City. Because we had a unified government, we were able to act to protect ourselves, and to prevent further tragedies.