Every generation needs a new revolution.
November 8, 2006 12:32 AM   Subscribe

It's official. Democrats have taken control of the United States Congress.
posted by plexi (259 comments total)
 
Wow! I'm glad you posted; I never would have known about this otherwise.
posted by louie at 12:35 AM on November 8, 2006


And it's not official. Virginia isn't a done deal yet.
posted by 2sheets at 12:36 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm up way, way too late listening to the NPR stream tonight. Think I'll leave it on as I fall asleep.
posted by jmhodges at 12:37 AM on November 8, 2006


If by Congress you mean the House of Representatives, then yes. The Senate race is still close.
posted by b1tr0t at 12:39 AM on November 8, 2006


2sheets, I think you're thinking of the Senate. The House is a lock. But the Senate looks pretty good at this point, too (if you like Democrats, that is).
posted by zardoz at 12:39 AM on November 8, 2006


There are two bodies in the Congress.

Control of the Senate is still too close to call.

If it were not such good news that the voters are turfing the Republicans, it would be a tragedy that the rudderless and directionless and clueless Democrats are taking helm.
posted by three blind mice at 12:41 AM on November 8, 2006 [3 favorites]


with all the lies, with all the fucked foreign policy, with all the terror of the american army... Republicans can still have people vote for them.

Since 2004, I thought american people are so stupid but know they are just bunch of mother fuckers.
posted by zouhair at 12:44 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


I don't know about montana, but isn't Virginia a done deal? The official site is showing a Webb win with all but six (of 2443) precincts reporting.

I can't wait to vote.
posted by phrontist at 12:50 AM on November 8, 2006


What is astonishing to me is a swing of 30 votes in a chamber of over 400 can be considered a significant shift (and I understand how and why it is a huge swing, relatively speaking). The only way that is possible is against the backdrop of the unbelievable gerrymandering of districts, meaning most Americans cast a vote in a race that has already been decided by politically-motivated cartographers. Since most representatives are in bullet-proof seats naturally they are not very responsive to public opinion (at least not that portion which disagrees with them), and are therefore not, in fact, "representative".

I mean, think about. The swing to Dem. is less than 10% of seats. In a parliamentary democracy that isn't even a blip. In Canada, the Conservatives got wiped out to two seats nationally, from 200, -- and yet have re-formed to be the government again. Any test must have a possibility of failure. Like the exaggerated importance of New Hampshire in the primary system, gerrymandering is a quaint feature of the American system which, frankly, isn't very cute. This is the real issue, in my view, as a non-American, the real problem at the heart of American democracy.
posted by Rumple at 12:53 AM on November 8, 2006 [7 favorites]


If it's a win for Webb, it looks really close, ~8K votes out of 2.3M cast. Sounds like a sure recount. Plus there are the absentee ballots, those may trend republican, though I don't know.
posted by Good Brain at 12:56 AM on November 8, 2006


Plus there are the absentee ballots

they're in there. What's left is the provisional ballots.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:58 AM on November 8, 2006


I'd love to be excited. But I'm not.
posted by recurve at 12:58 AM on November 8, 2006


MetaFilter: Since 2004, I thought american people are so stupid but know they are just bunch of mother fuckers and also ham
posted by jimmy at 12:59 AM on November 8, 2006


As a partisan Dem, my panties are wetter than anyone's, but this thread is completely unecessary in light of the current one.

(And this framing is all fucked anyways. Senate is looking good, but it isn't a sure thing yet.)

And tbm, I'll take rudderless over competely fucking incompetent and partisan any day. "That government is best which governs least and all that." Republicans used to be able to say that with a straight face.
posted by bardic at 1:02 AM on November 8, 2006


I for one welcome our new Democrat masters.
posted by mr. strange at 1:02 AM on November 8, 2006


(This thread is going to get deleted, right?)
posted by mr. strange at 1:03 AM on November 8, 2006


Woohoo! Happy days are here again!

Everything will now be perfect, since the wonderful, flawless party of the Democrats is now in power. Never again will there by lies, distortions, deceit or corrpution in the U.S. government!

Because truly, this election was about ousting the crooks in favor of, um, more politicians.

I suppose I'm jaded.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:04 AM on November 8, 2006


Break out the subpoenas.
posted by homunculus at 1:04 AM on November 8, 2006


The other thread is about a thousand comments and is a pain in the ass to reload. Therefore, this one is necessary - and surely less load on the servers.
posted by Rumple at 1:13 AM on November 8, 2006


Rumple: The sickness of gerrymandered districts makes a 10% change pretty serious. Our beloved two parties have made sure most seats are safe, so they can spend decades shoveling federal money to their district and then get an overpass named after them.

When the space monsters finally blow up DC while Congress is in session, maybe we'll come up with a better system.
posted by kenlayne at 1:15 AM on November 8, 2006


kenlayne: I know it makes 10% serious, but, like you suggest, if it takes aliens to mean that 90% of the possible seats become competitive, that is absolutely sick. Any meaningful test has to have a meaningful rate of failure, above all - the election test.
posted by Rumple at 1:18 AM on November 8, 2006


just bunch of mother fuckers.

zouhair, that's generally spelled as one word these days: "motherfuckers". So that, you know, it doesn't really literally mean "people who fuck their mothers".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:18 AM on November 8, 2006


Since most representatives are in bullet-proof seats naturally they are not very responsive to public opinion

Well, they're not very responsive to public opinion because most voters are too ignorant to have cohesive opinions. They only listen to the big issues, and that's about 40% of the time.
posted by spiderskull at 1:19 AM on November 8, 2006


Everything will now be perfect, since the wonderful, flawless party of the Democrats is now in power. Never again will there by lies, distortions, deceit or corrpution in the U.S. government!

Gradations of suckitude. They exist. Right now, the Dems are less evil. They have a better job of reparing our country than the Republicans do, that's for sure.
posted by bardic at 1:20 AM on November 8, 2006


Well, they're not very responsive to public opinion because most voters are too ignorant to have cohesive opinions. They only listen to the big issues, and that's about 40% of the time.

Bullshit. "cohesive opinions"? What the hell does that mean? Better not let them vote at all then!

Or, jeez, maybe if their vote had a snowball's chance of making a difference, they might get more involved and their opinions might "improve". No, they are not responsive to public opinion because they represent a carefully engineered district that allows them to take the voters for fucking granted. But, hey, lets blame the electorate anyway.
posted by Rumple at 1:31 AM on November 8, 2006


*chance at repairing, I should say
posted by bardic at 1:40 AM on November 8, 2006


the Republicans are beating off a strong challenge from the Democrats

Heh.

Yeah, I got nothing.
posted by slimepuppy at 1:45 AM on November 8, 2006


I suppose I'm jaded.

Or feeble-minded.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:48 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


First attempts by Rove et al. at a modern Dolchstosslegende in 3... 2... 1...
posted by uncle harold at 1:56 AM on November 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


Someone reads Harper's
posted by redteam at 2:03 AM on November 8, 2006


the Republicans are beating off

Foley, Haggard, then this? horny bastards...
posted by matteo at 2:24 AM on November 8, 2006


The title of this post demeans the word "revolution".
posted by gsb at 2:26 AM on November 8, 2006


GWB72: OMG! YOU WON!?!
pelosi69: YEH! U SUX!
GWB72: SUX IT BIOTCH!
pelosi69: whatever, ur so inpeachd! LOL!
posted by wfrgms at 2:30 AM on November 8, 2006 [10 favorites]


Wow! I'm glad you posted; I never would have known about this otherwise. (louie)

Yeah, and? It's the first I'd heard about it, being a non-USian.

Hopefully the discussion here won't degenerate into rendom drivel (ack - too late!), but the combined brainpower of the mefi masses will combine to discuss how much difference this will make to the US, and how the US is viewed by the rest of the world...
posted by Chunder at 2:31 AM on November 8, 2006


Halle-fuckin'-lujah. And don't piss on my parade -- all caveats accepted, and I'm still really goddamn happy about this.
posted by mistermoore at 2:34 AM on November 8, 2006


It's 5:30 EST. The Senate is still undecided. There are reported tabulation problems in two conservative-leaning states with local Republican leadership.

Oh well.
posted by ardgedee at 2:35 AM on November 8, 2006


I remember watching some news program this morning stressing how in many of the "contested" races that both Republicans and Democrats had lawyers ready to spring into action. It's fucking sad that something that should be so simple and secure (Hell, sacred even considering how now most politicians consider it their God-given mandate to "spread Democracy") as an election has the oblique threat of a court deciding who wins, not the actual voters.
posted by Talanvor at 2:36 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


The King is Dead! Long Live The King!
posted by Dunwitty at 2:39 AM on November 8, 2006


I guess this thing with the House would be called a "mandate-plus."
posted by adipocere at 2:53 AM on November 8, 2006


Just when things were looking bleak for the Republican Party, at the very last minute... a scapegoat appeared - two houses of bewildered Democrats to carry the can for everything the GOP had fucked up!

Watch the impressive display of Blame Transference on all major media outlets, beginning Thursday morning.

(Sorry, that's unbelievably cynical, and I'm not American by any stretch of the imagination, so I shouldn't be commenting, but I've been having a bout of Internet Incontinence recently. It's been pretty bad, but I've not descended to the level of commenting on the Guardian's Comment is Free pages yet, so there's still hope.

Congratulations to anyone who feels buoyed by this news and apologies for any inconvenience or irritation.)
posted by Grangousier at 2:59 AM on November 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


If anything, this is great news for Republicans. You can have the rest of the world unhappy with your foreign policy, you can fuck over your own citizens for 6 years... and you still manage to have an election race this close.

Half of Americans are totally retarded and the other half don't give enough of a shit to put an end to this farce of a democracy your crazy country has. (That's my completely uninformed and xenophobic opinion btw)

From this day on anyone who tries to say how great Americas democracy and freedom is will be laughed at like the delusional fools they are.
posted by twistedonion at 3:11 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Wow that's some bleak cynicism on this thread. Never seen such defeatism as a result of, you know, a victory.

If anything, this is great news for Republicans. You can have the rest of the world unhappy with your foreign policy, you can fuck over your own citizens for 6 years... and you still manage to have an election race this close.

Well, that door swings both ways. The fact that we were "at war" and the President was re-elected by one of the slimmest margins in history in 2004 (running against one of the lamest candidates in history) tells us something about how a significant portion of the populace was not willing to be fooled.
posted by psmealey at 3:18 AM on November 8, 2006


Pottery Barn Rule re: Iraq. Bush owns it completely.

Please give this suffering progressive at least a few hours of enjoyment. I'm pretty sure Pelosi is smart enough to know that "triumphalism" went out with "Mission Accomplished," and she'll strike the right tone tomorrow morning.

FFS, it's the start of a long journey. Don't kill it before it even starts.

If that doesn't convince you, check out Claire McCaskill's victory speech, or Harold Ford's concession. There are still some worthy politicians out there in American, and right now, most of them are Dems.
posted by bardic at 3:27 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]



If anything, this is great news for Republicans. You can have the rest of the world unhappy with your foreign policy, you can fuck over your own citizens for 6 years... and you still manage to have an election race this close.


It wasn't really that close. The Republicans had their asses handed to them in the House races. The Senate races seem artificially close because only a third of the hundred seats were actually up for grabs. So picking up between four and six new seats from incumbents is actually not bad at all, given the aforementioned gerrymandering (and the fact that certain areas of the United States will seemingly never shift their voting allegians from the red).

it would be a tragedy that the rudderless and directionless and clueless Democrats are taking helm.

This is only a somewhat fair charge. For the past year or so, at least in terms of actual campaigning, the Democrats have actually been remarkably on point, much more so than they have been in recent years. I think Dean and Pelosi have done a pretty decent job of righting the Democratic ship; I mean, let's be honest, their campaigning tactics were pretty abysmal, and it's going to take more than a couple of years to completely turn things around.

On another note, it is nice, as a Canadian, to actually see the result of an American election and feel something other than despair. Let's hope it's a portent of things to come.
posted by The God Complex at 3:40 AM on November 8, 2006


Half of Americans are totally retarded and the other half don't give enough of a shit to put an end to this farce of a democracy your crazy country has. (That's my completely uninformed and xenophobic opinion btw)

...and oversimplified. Here in Maine we have a republican senator (Snowe) who is considered liberal by the current party mindset. She won re-election handily in a state that leans left. It's not always about party politics, nor should it be.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:41 AM on November 8, 2006


From this day on anyone who tries to say how great Americas democracy and freedom is will be laughed at like the delusional fools they are.

I did enjoy this piece by Simon Jenkins though.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:43 AM on November 8, 2006


If this doesn't work out, I hope Independent Green voters in Virginia are fucking pleased with themselves. /bites nails
posted by Arcaz Ino at 4:13 AM on November 8, 2006


It wasn't really that close. The Republicans had their asses handed to them in the House races. The Senate races seem artificially close because only a third of the hundred seats were actually up for grabs. So picking up between four and six new seats from incumbents is actually not bad at all, given the aforementioned gerrymandering (and the fact that certain areas of the United States will seemingly never shift their voting allegians from the red).

thanks for explaining that. When you look at the gains from an uneducated perspective it just seems pathetically little. I would have hoped for (though never really expected) a complete landslide.

I just don't get it, but then, I'm not American so I'll leave you all to your celebrating and fingers crossed your newly elected House of Representatives will impeach that warcriminal that's been in power for the past 6 years.
posted by twistedonion at 4:17 AM on November 8, 2006


America. Fuck yeah.
posted by EarBucket at 4:28 AM on November 8, 2006




a republican senator (Snowe) who is considered liberal by the current party mindset. She won re-election handily in a state that leans left. It's not always about party politics, nor should it be.

her voting record does not seem to be that liberal

your newly elected House of Representatives will impeach that warcriminal that's been in power for the past 6 years
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
no impeachment in sight, no serious initiative for a pullout from Iraq. investigations on no-bid contracts? who knows. I guess the liberals cheering is a bit too confident, as of today.
posted by matteo at 4:30 AM on November 8, 2006


Gerrymandering doesn't have much to do with US Senate incumbency rates, as the "districts" from which the Senators are elected are fixed.
posted by Tullius at 4:33 AM on November 8, 2006


It's hard to think of impeachment as a viable option in this case. At least not with the Republicans still having at least a majority in the Senate (51 votes, counting Cheney).
posted by clevershark at 4:41 AM on November 8, 2006


matteo, you have to consider that that is a position Pelosi (wisely) took to deprive Republicans of a campaign issue. I don't believe she, or anybody, has been committed to anything that wouldn't change in the light of significant constituent interest.

I, for one, bet W looks lovely in orange.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:41 AM on November 8, 2006


...although as I look at the CNN tally the Reps only have 49 Senate seats. Plus Lieberman.
posted by clevershark at 4:43 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm just glad that we'll now have a congress that'll defend the borders, cut spending, etc.

Just kidding. We traded "Evil, but a bit stupid" for "Stupid, but a bit evil". At least being divided will slow the hole-digging.
posted by codswallop at 4:43 AM on November 8, 2006


Gotta love Vermont... one independent replaces another :-)
posted by clevershark at 4:45 AM on November 8, 2006


It's fun to see Montana getting so much press with the Tester/Burns race still up in the air!
posted by davidmsc at 4:46 AM on November 8, 2006


I wonder how the marijuana initiatives (like they will matter since...F THE DEA) are fairing in CO and NV?
posted by evilelvis at 4:46 AM on November 8, 2006


nm I just found out...wtf is wrong with people?! yeargh!! Well, time to stuff more Americans into tiny little boxes with bars.
posted by evilelvis at 4:56 AM on November 8, 2006


evilelvis, might I suggest that marijuana reform is about the 12,461st most important issue before us today?

Seriously, it's not that I disagree with you. But those reforms are the kind of thing you pursue and devote energy to when everything else is peachy-keen - not when the house is on fire.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:59 AM on November 8, 2006


It makes me want to sing.
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!

posted by caddis at 5:01 AM on November 8, 2006


caddis, is that the original cast recording or the Fifth Dimension cover? Because it matters, you know.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:05 AM on November 8, 2006


So that, you know, it doesn't really literally mean "people who fuck their mothers".

Well, now, that just takes all the fucking fun out of it.
posted by lodurr at 5:13 AM on November 8, 2006


And it's not official. Virginia isn't a done deal yet.

Nor Montana, and even if Tester and Webb both win, the Senate is 50-49-1, and Lieberman will vote with the GOP on anything that matters, up to and including the Majority Leader.

I'm actually hoping that one of the loses, so that Holy Joe has no power at all.

It's a shame that this would mean losing Tester or Webb -- I'd much rather have them win and McCaskill lose.

Of course, it isn't truly over until the new Congress is seated. Just because they got the most votes doesn't mean they've won.
posted by eriko at 5:15 AM on November 8, 2006


"Since 2004, I thought american people are so stupid but know they are just bunch of mother fuckers."

Hey, thanks for the indictment of all of us...we think well of you too..

Tell your mom I said "Hi"... :)
posted by HuronBob at 5:18 AM on November 8, 2006


adamg - agreed, except that I consider the arrest and/or incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Americans a huge burning issue.
posted by evilelvis at 5:20 AM on November 8, 2006


I'd forgotten what a bellend Simon Jenkins is...
posted by i_cola at 5:34 AM on November 8, 2006


If this doesn't work out, I hope Independent Green voters in Virginia are fucking pleased with themselves. /bites nails

Yeah, screw them for voting for who they want!

Seriously though, this is politics 101. If you would like to capture those voters, the Dems/Repubs need to approach the third party and say "What can we do to build a coalition with you?" And then the third party says "Add Z to your platform and pledge to introduce this legislation during your term." And the major party says "Done" and the third party tells people that they've joined with X and to vote for them.

Or the Dems can continue to whine mightily, do nothing, and hose the major races.
posted by unixrat at 5:37 AM on November 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


Lieberman will vote with the GOP on anything that matters, up to and including the Majority Leader.

Phony Joe would have to have more of a tin ear than even I suspected him of having if he does that. Realistically, I think he'll have to accede to the vox populi at least a little... I think as a result of the Dem victory, he'll probably do some work to bring himself back into the Democratic fold.
posted by psmealey at 5:42 AM on November 8, 2006


The swing to Dem. is less than 10% of seats. In a parliamentary democracy that isn't even a blip.

In the UK's 1997 election, Labour's "landslide" was a swing to Labour of 8.8%. Blair got 43.2% of the total vote, which netted 66% of the Westminster seats.

That's how 19th century plurality voting systems work.
posted by meehawl at 5:42 AM on November 8, 2006


Watch the impressive display of Blame Transference on all major media outlets, beginning Thursday morning.

It's not cynical, it's a realistic view. The constant propaganda of the last years was that the Dems would sell the US up the river to the terrorists as soon as you gave them the chance. The blame game that will now follow is only the logical conclusion to that. In fact, part of the benefit of that propaganda strategy was that it provided for easy absolution of the GOP in the future.

(Sorry, that's unbelievably cynical, and I'm not American by any stretch of the imagination, so I shouldn't be commenting, [...]

I'm also not American, but since US politics has affected the world quite a bit in the last years, I feel pretty much able to comment.
posted by uncle harold at 5:43 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Patience. It was off the table as an election issue (too much red meat for the GOP base), but given the time to thoroughly investigate all of the wrongdoing and malfeasance of the past 6 years, how knows where we'll end up?
posted by psmealey at 5:44 AM on November 8, 2006


You could've all voted republican, and then pinching your nose in '08, put a republican in the Whitehouse. What the voters are doing reminds of me of people who don't finish a course of antibiotics. Only translated & reversed, had you allowed the (biotic)GOP to run its course, America as we know it would've died inside a decade. Replaced by the USofCanada and JesusLand. I keep on wishing that the polarity evident in the US will be enough to split the country in two, a modern forward looking liberal democracy willing to engage the world in trade and diplomacy, and a stunted theocracy, with a hard coded ideology, willing to engage the world military, using democracy as a fig leaf. Now that would've been a revolution, this is just business as usual.
posted by econous at 5:48 AM on November 8, 2006


You've obviously economized a little too much on your nous there, dude.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:58 AM on November 8, 2006


Someone reads Harper's

Someone reads history.
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:58 AM on November 8, 2006


Yellowstone goes republican!

What does this mean? Does montana go?
posted by phrontist at 6:09 AM on November 8, 2006


NYT seems to be indicating Tester has won.
posted by phrontist at 6:14 AM on November 8, 2006


Not sure where you are getting that, phrontist, as a search through the NYT indicates that MT is still a toss up. What are you referring to?
posted by psmealey at 6:19 AM on November 8, 2006


The constant propaganda of the last years was that the Dems would sell the US up the river to the terrorists as soon as you gave them the chance.

The only way to avoid that fate is if they could somehow get the 'events of terror' tied to Republican operatives.

Based on the number of bumperstickers I've seen that say '9/11 was an inside job' , at least a few people would believe that Republican operatives 'did it'.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:20 AM on November 8, 2006


psmealey: The numbers it's reporting give Tester a thin lead. 99.9% of precincts have reported...
posted by phrontist at 6:21 AM on November 8, 2006


Why does the NYT summary by the map show 51 Rep senate seats?
posted by cillit bang at 6:22 AM on November 8, 2006


But in Montana, the race between Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and state Sen. John Tester is too close to call, although Tester shows a razor-thin lead. With 99 percent of the ballots counted, Tester has 190,486 votes to Burns' 188,900. - CNN

I'm confused. The precincts have reported, Tester has more, what else does one need to know to call?
posted by phrontist at 6:23 AM on November 8, 2006


What cillit bang said. wtf?
posted by phrontist at 6:26 AM on November 8, 2006



Yellowstone goes republican!


The bears are voting now?
posted by IronLizard at 6:27 AM on November 8, 2006


I feel a lot better then I would if this hadn't come to pass, but it just seems way to late, and quite frankly the democrats didn't really deserve it in my mind. Some of them did, but most of the incumbent dems just sat on their ass through all this shit.

Plus all the 'conciliatory' speeches last night, Obama on CNN talking about how we need to work together to "stabilize" iraq. Bla bla bla. I know people always say crap like that, and I hope it is just rhetoric, but it's certainly disappointing. Bush drove the country off a cliff in Iraq and he needs to be held accountable.

Ah well.

I'm confused. The precincts have reported, Tester has more, what else does one need to know to call?

In case that last 1% is a doozy.
posted by delmoi at 6:29 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm confused. The precincts have reported, Tester has more, what else does one need to know to call?

Rove's minions haven't had a chance yet to report some mysteriously "found" ballot boxes. Give it a few more hours.
posted by briank at 6:31 AM on November 8, 2006


You mean 0.01%
posted by phrontist at 6:33 AM on November 8, 2006


Sorry, 0.1%
posted by phrontist at 6:33 AM on November 8, 2006


At this point, why do you care whether the NYT has called a race? On election night, they have information you don't (like how the unreported districts typically lean or polled, and more time to analyze the data), but now the numbers are in, go look at them yourself (numbers via CNN)!

Montana Senate:
Tester (D) - 194,914
Burns(R) - 193,179
99% of precincts reporting
Virginia Senate:
Webb (D) - 1,170,564
Allen (R) - 1,162,717
99% of precincts reporting
Looks good for the Democrats..
posted by Chuckles at 6:34 AM on November 8, 2006


So to which dark god of democracy must I sacrifice a bull to that the Spirit of Jim Jeffords fill the heart and mind of a lone, moderate Republican who senses change in the air and the right-wing crazy backlash at the doorstep?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:36 AM on November 8, 2006


TPM quoting the NYT: We May Not Know Who Controls The Senate Until Next Month:

According to a statement issued this month by the state’s Board of Elections, no request for a recount may be filed until the vote is certified, which is scheduled to happen this year on Nov. 27th.

After certification, a losing candidate has 10 days to file a recount request in the state courts. The petition will be considered by a panel made up of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court in Richmond and two judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. Those judges then set out guidelines for conducting the recount...Last year, a recount involving the race for state attorney general did not begin until Dec. 20th.

posted by mediareport at 6:36 AM on November 8, 2006


Why does the NYT summary by the map show 51 Rep senate seats?

I think the NYT is assigning seats that are too close to call to the incumbent. Pretty odd..
posted by Chuckles at 6:38 AM on November 8, 2006


Montana may not be as simple as it seems. From Hotline:
An aide to Sen. Conrad Burns (R) tells the Hotline this morning that Burns has no plans to concede the MT Senate race anytime soon. The aide said that 21K absentee ballots have yet to be counted and other counties still haven’t finished canvassing their regular returns. Democratic officials are confident that Jon Tester (D) will win.
If there really are 21K absentee ballots out still, Burns just needs to beat Tester by 8.2% in them to win.
posted by gsteff at 6:42 AM on November 8, 2006


Seriously though, this is politics 101. If you would like to capture those voters, the Dems/Repubs need to approach the third party and say "What can we do to build a coalition with you?" And then the third party says "Add Z to your platform and pledge to introduce this legislation during your term." And the major party says "Done" and the third party tells people that they've joined with X and to vote for them.

Or the Dems can continue to whine mightily, do nothing, and hose the major races.
posted by unixrat


Or the voters could insist on instant runoff voting. That would solve everyone's panty-wads except the hardcore Dems or Reps who do not ever, ever, ever want to give up two-party control. Even though it would be good for the country.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:46 AM on November 8, 2006


As a Moby over at Redstate, I'm having a sweeeeeet-ass time watching them plotz all over themselves this am, esp. as all my fellow Mobys stand up and gloat. Fuck yeah!
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:53 AM on November 8, 2006


Subpoena time.

Too bad we can't do something similar to the cretins who supported Republicans over the last six years.

There's plenty of blood on their hands, too.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:54 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


no impeachment in sight, no serious initiative for a pullout from Iraq

a) Impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. 66 > 50 even if we have that. Republican Senators who would potentially join that vote are, even at best, in the single digits.*
b) Bush remains Commander-in-Chief. Congress is virtually powerless to force him to withdraw (they would have to take the politically dangerous position of withdrawing funds from "the troops").

Let's focus on the possible, OK? Like blocking further undermining of the Bill of Rights. And putting batteries on the flashlight that we need to start shining in dark places. If it weren't for Iraq, it would very much be a where do you begin? situation. The difficulty now will be ensuring that Rove is unable to paint their oversight as overly partisan.

Seriously though, this is politics 101. If you would like to capture those voters, the Dems/Repubs need to approach the third party and say "What can we do to build a coalition with you?"

That's the way it works in a parliamentary system. It just doesn't work that way in the US, which does not have such a system. Ours is strongly biased against third parties and pretty much forces them into spoiler roles ... and they attract people who enjoy playing that role in exchange for a little visibility, either for themselves or their pet issues. It is not really comparable.

That said ... I'm surprised Burns made it so close, and that he picked up so many votes late in the game. I guess the pundits were right about Missouri being close, but they didn't count on Virginia being closer! But I went to bed thinking McCaskill had a lot of ground to make up. My biggest worry about the Senate is that unless we lose both MT and VA, Lieberman will have inordinate personal power. He's in the enviable position I just pooh-poohed as generally not found in American politics -- a splinter party to be wooed by both sides. He can throw almost any vote either way (under one set of circumstances, Cheney's vote only comes if Lieberman votes D, which means he can engineer a win for the GOP and Joe at the expense of the Dems). It's very much a catbird seat and I'm sure he's going to make the most of it. It's the only reason I doubt the scenario where he gets promoted to SECDEF and takes it "for the good of the country" and Republican Gov. Rell appoints an R to replace him.

As for the House, wow. 28 seats plus about half the undecideds means a 35 seat gain -- exactly the upper limit predicted by several analsysts like Charlie Cook. And a lot of those were flipped in deeply red states like IN, OH, and AZ -- even NH (the "Texas of the Northeast", I believe it's been called). At the same time I'm surprised there wasn't more change in traditionally bellwether states like California. When you look at the bright blue on the CNN map, though, you really can see how Pelosi's majority is probably the first in decades that doesn't depend on the South. Some of the D wins are moderates and even former Rs, and there's enough of them that they can demand a voice, but the more progressive elements of the party did stand their ground and will feel fully entitled to act. (That's something that Rove is counting on, actually.)

We also picked up 6+ governorships, and all indications were that the balance in the statehouses will tilt even more dramatically for the Ds (out of about 5000 legislative seats, the Ds held an advantage of just 12 -- now many more). That bodes well for redistricting.

Now for the bad news. Some of these seats flipped because they weren't all that red to begin with. The ones that flipped because of the Iraq issue alone -- and there are a few -- will be vulnerable in two years. In addition to the presidency, for 2008 we'll be playing defense on a number of these seats. Even if more Senate seats are up for grabs (a big if, but I have a couple of candidates), the House is probably not going to be looking like it will expand its majority. That's fine, we don't need supermajorities in the House for much of anything, and these gains are big enough that we may not have to worry about losing control, just losing the margin of control. But it's something to be aware of down the road.
posted by dhartung at 6:56 AM on November 8, 2006 [4 favorites]


Yeah. Too bad we can't punish people who vote the wrong way. Maybe put them in camps, or something.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:59 AM on November 8, 2006


Although most of the news is focused on the new Democrat majority in the House, and perhaps in the Senate, I will also happily note that the abortion ban on the ballot in South Dakota was defeated. Unfortunately, it looks like bans on same-sex marriage passed in 7 of the 8 states were they were being considered.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:00 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm confused. The precincts have reported, Tester has more, what else does one need to know to call?

With so much (money) riding on who wins, there will be recounts on close states. If you win a recount, you are the happiest bastard in the world. If you lose a recount, you mumble something about it having been fixed, how the winner certainly has no mandate, and you go away little poorer than you were when you first heard the bad news. But if you don't even bother to have a recount, after spending millions to try to buy the seat, you are an idiot.

Seriously though, this is politics 101. If you would like to capture those voters, the Dems/Repubs need to approach the third party and say "What can we do to build a coalition with you?" And then the third party says "Add Z to your platform and pledge to introduce this legislation during your term."

And then the Democrats realize that they cannot please the third party without losing even more centrist voters to the Republicans, so they reject the proposal. It isn't so easy.

In close elections they cannot win, it is smarter for the third party to try to get the friendliest major party elected -- back them with no strings attached, or just keep quiet if your vocal support could hurt the major party -- and then try to work with the major party when it wins, rather than cause the less friendly party to win. Green candidates, for example, should always try to get Democrats elected when they know they can't win the seat themselves and when the alternative is to help the Republicans win. If the Greens help get the Dems into office and the Dems are led to realize their debt, they are likely to pay them back a bit. That's a substantial gain for the Greens rather than the total loss they get with a Republican win.
posted by pracowity at 7:11 AM on November 8, 2006


Subpoena time.

Too bad we can't do something similar to the cretins who supported Republicans over the last six years.

There's plenty of blood on their hands, too.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:54 AM EST on November 8


Reminds me of this cartoon.
posted by caddis at 7:21 AM on November 8, 2006


We can't go impeaching our presidents one after the other. He's out in two years anyway. Give it a rest (even though there are better reasons for impeaching GW than there ever were against Clinton).
posted by caddis at 7:24 AM on November 8, 2006


The other Absolutely critical task the Dems have to tackle: begin to dismantle the structural advantages that the Republicans have built into the systems. For one thing, this means:

K-Street needs to be whipped into shape. There had better be a whole shitload of former GOP-staffers-turned-lobbyists out of a job by this time next week. Word needs to go out that if you want to play ball in the next congress, you'd better start chopping Republican heads in your firm. If you are a special interest, you better get that checkbook out right now, and if there is any backsliding, expect to never see your pet legislation (not to mention earmarks) even get into committee. The Dems need to take their advocacy-management and fundraising efforts to a whole new level--and that begins by demanding a purge of the Republican-heavy lobbying establishment.
posted by Chrischris at 7:29 AM on November 8, 2006


i_cola: "I'd forgotten what a bellend Simon Jenkins is..."

Don't know him except for the linked piece, but he seems very informed on the topic he writes about:
Voters cannot make that choice if, as increasingly in Europe, candidates are bland mirrors of each other.
That must be why our parliaments are stuffed with real, dyed-red-in-the-wool-Socialists, radical Libertarians, ecology-first Greens, true Conservatives and several fringe groupings. I'm really glad that America has such a wider choice, such a range of diversity that ours pales by comparison, and that the true mindset of the voters is therefore reflected so perfectly in the abundance of different choices that make it into your house and senate...
posted by PontifexPrimus at 7:30 AM on November 8, 2006


In close elections they cannot win, it is smarter for the third party to try to get the friendliest major party elected -- back them with no strings attached, or just keep quiet if your vocal support could hurt the major party -- and then try to work with the major party when it wins, rather than cause the less friendly party to win. posted by pracowity

So vote for someone you don't really want so that someone that you really don't want doesn't win.

How does that help democracy more than IRV, which would take the whole "spoiler" element out of the election entirely?
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:32 AM on November 8, 2006


a) Impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. 66 > 50 even if we have that. Republican Senators who would potentially join that vote are, even at best, in the single digits.*

OK, just so everyone gets this right:

ONLY the House can impeach, ONLY the Senate can REMOVE.

The House can vote for Articles of Impeachment. The Senate then tries the defendant and votes to remove. This is where the 2/3rds majority comes in.

And I really think Dubya won't even make it to the impeachment stage. The American people had a distaste for the Clinton impeachment, so it's hard to see how they'd be OK with impeaching Bush without some smoking gun evidence of some major malfeasence.

Yes, I know, Iraq. But unless someone comes up with some videotape of him talking about his plan to depose Congress and make himself a living god that demands worship, it's not going to matter.

What will matter is this: Don Rumsfeld is about to be fired.
posted by dw at 7:37 AM on November 8, 2006


Technically Cheney gets to cast a tie-breaker vote in the Senate when things go 50-50, so that's the equivalent of a 51st Republican Senator (counting Lieberman of course).
posted by clevershark at 7:38 AM on November 8, 2006


If the Dems win Montana and Virginia, they own Lieberman.
If the Dems lose either one, he owns them.
posted by Chrischris at 7:41 AM on November 8, 2006


How does that help democracy more than IRV

I'm talking about what is and you're talking about what would be cool. I'm not against instant-runoff voting (though Greens probably would prefer another name for it), but it's not the reality under discussion here.
posted by pracowity at 7:43 AM on November 8, 2006


if it affects anyone's opinions of third parties, Gail Parker, who is the "Green Party Candidate" is from the "Independant Green Party of Virginia" which is different from the national green party of Nader fame (and apparently far more conservative. Also her website describes her as a "common sense conservative independant" which leaves a decent chance she was filtering votes from both parties, if not more from the GOP.
posted by haveanicesummer at 7:43 AM on November 8, 2006


Except that she spells "independent" correctly.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:48 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm talking about what is and you're talking about what would be cool. I'm not against instant-runoff voting (though Greens probably would prefer another name for it), but it's not the reality under discussion here.
posted by pracowity


Sorry, pracowity--I guess that I didn't get the memo that MeFi only discusses your "reality" and not what "would be cool."

Carry on with your reality (which, by the way, is vastly overrated.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:55 AM on November 8, 2006


Plexi: Dude is the title on this page a joke or what? Replacing far right with center-right ain't a revolution, it's a slightly different shade of grey. Not that I'm agin it, I'm just saying, for one thing, this shit was televised; hence not a revolution.

I think the one potentially revolutionary thing that will come from this, if the dems can field an actual human being and successfully run for pres in 2008, is that, assuming a continuing majority in the house until 2010 (another big if, I know), we will have some kind of universal healthcare in the US. This is because people are slowly realizing that universal healthcare is actually pro-business, not just pro-uninsured! GM is being strangled by healthcare costs; they'd be in trouble even if they made decent cars.
posted by Mister_A at 8:00 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm in ur congress impeaching ur d00ds.
posted by schoolgirl report at 8:04 AM on November 8, 2006


We can't go impeaching our presidents one after the other.
posted by caddis at 7:24 AM PST


Why not? Do you think if you violated a law, that due to the number of others in the court system and an excess of arrests, you'd get to walk free?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:10 AM on November 8, 2006


I still get the feeling the election was tweaked. Maybe they gave the Dems some small inkling of winning so that nobody would question what was happening. Or worse, so they could accuse each other and cause total confusion.

We're talking about easily-hackable, untraceable voting machines, put in place by a bunch of guys who cling to power like a teddy bear. You really think they wouldn't take advantage of something like that?

You can laugh at my tinfoil hat, but it will come in handy when they declare us all enemy combatants.
posted by fungible at 8:11 AM on November 8, 2006


It's nice to win for once.
posted by drezdn at 8:14 AM on November 8, 2006


Except that she spells "independent" correctly.
posted by leftcoastbob


Woah! Let's not assume things here. There is every possibility she stayed up all night watching election results with her fingers crossed. Hoping her opponents would accidentally BOTH concede the race, and has therefore entirely lost her ability to spell words correctly.

Plus maybe she's at work... in a mall... on a damn computer that uses IE so misspellings don't autounderline and his, i mean uhh, her, bleary eyes can't see the difference between e's and a's.
posted by haveanicesummer at 8:14 AM on November 8, 2006


From some MeFite in the know. What is going on with Washington state? 30 - some% of the votes counted. I can't find another race across the nation with less than 90% counted.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:14 AM on November 8, 2006


Maybe the flooding is causing them troubles?
posted by smackfu at 8:17 AM on November 8, 2006


Does anybody here honestly think this will make any difference, at all? With the democrats' track record, I expect the pork to be spread around a little bit more equitably, that's about it.
posted by signal at 8:23 AM on November 8, 2006


I know it's far too late to undo any jinxing that might have come from the original poster's confusing "House of Representatives" with "Congress", but I would have loved to have seen this up top in a dark blue box with a line around it:

This post was deleted for the following reason: Tempting the Whatever from High Atop the Thing

posted by tzikeh at 8:23 AM on November 8, 2006


I don't understand why the CNN coverage of the Senate race still lists no independents as having won. There were 2 of them elected, and both with fairly high margins.
posted by clevershark at 8:24 AM on November 8, 2006


:I wonder how the marijuana initiatives (like they will matter since...F THE DEA) are fairing in CO and NV?:

The State of Nevada says nanya on the ganja.
posted by drstein at 8:29 AM on November 8, 2006


"I HAD POLITICAL CAPITAL, BUT I FUCKING SPENT IT ALL." -DuhByuh
posted by quonsar at 8:37 AM on November 8, 2006


Um, what happens if they forget impeaching Dubya and impeach Cheney? Surely he can't vote on his own impeachment?

Smart Republicans can hang the albatros around Cheney and the neocons necks and honestly say "we were lied to!!" I think it's a win-win, we need a villain, and Cheney plays the part.
posted by rzklkng at 8:37 AM on November 8, 2006


Then Bush just appoints someone like Guiliani VP and increases his chances of winning the presidency in '08.
posted by caddis at 8:41 AM on November 8, 2006


Not only is this great news but so far I havent seen anyone try to spin this into a "win for the netroots." Now even the keyboard commandos know their echo chamber doesnt get results one way or another, just a lot of electrons bouncing around.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:46 AM on November 8, 2006


With the democrats' track record, I expect the pork to be spread around a little bit more equitably, that's about it.

Total earmarks for 2005: 15,000, costing $47 billion.

Total cost of the Iraq war, 2005: oh, maybe $100 billion.

At least pork does have some salutary capital investment and trickle down things, rather than the counter-productive exercise of killing some thousand of Arabs and blowing a lot of shit up.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:47 AM on November 8, 2006


From some MeFite in the know. What is going on with Washington state? 30 - some% of the votes counted. I can't find another race across the nation with less than 90% counted.

A majority of King County residents vote by absentee, and the King County elections people have yet to figure out how to effectively handle the counting process.

Also, in Washington an absentee is valid if it's postmarked on Election Day. This is different from Oregon, where all mail ballots have to be into the election offices by 8pm Election Night. And that's meant that as many as 10% of the ballots are only going to be received into state elections offices when the mail comes this morning.

The election system in Washington is quite broken, but it's a long way from being fixed. Washingtonians like not having a party-based primary, and they like the convenience of absentees. Thus, you get the two months of recounts in the '04 governor's race on top of the two recounts in the 2000 Senate race dragging on forever.

Right now, Darcy Burner still has a shot at another Dem pickup -- she's leading the King County vote, and most of the 8th district is in King County. But we probably won't know how the votes will fall until Thursday.
posted by dw at 9:04 AM on November 8, 2006


I don't understand why the CNN coverage of the Senate race still lists no independents as having won. There were 2 of them elected, and both with fairly high margins.

Both have pledged to support the Democrats, even if they don't caucus with them.

Yes, even Lieberman.
posted by dw at 9:06 AM on November 8, 2006




First, congratulations from a Canadian. I'm glad to see sanity returning to American politics. After 2004, I was starting to worry that Karl Rove had succeeded in his goal of creating a permanent Republican majority.

I'm happy that the Democrats have retaken the House, and it's awesome that they may retake the Senate as well--that means that they can pass legislation (e.g. on treatment of prisoners), right? At least to the point where Bush has to veto it (which he may not be able to do). Even with just the House, they can launch investigations of Abu Ghraib and the pre-war intelligence.

zouhair: with all the lies, with all the fucked foreign policy, with all the terror of the american army... Republicans can still have people vote for them.

That's political pluralism. You're never going to get 100% of voters to agree on anything. In a liberal democracy, you don't govern with the support of 100% of the people, just 60% of them. That's actually a good thing: it means the 60% majority has to proceed more carefully, it can't just trample on the 40% minority, because they might become the majority in the next election. That wouldn't be the case with a 90% majority.

Grangousier: Just when things were looking bleak for the Republican Party, at the very last minute... a scapegoat appeared - two houses of bewildered Democrats to carry the can for everything the GOP had fucked up!

What's better: being able to blame the Republicans for their disastrous policies, or actually having the power to do something about it?
posted by russilwvong at 9:09 AM on November 8, 2006


Total cost of the Iraq war, 2005: oh, maybe $100 billion.

Try $340 billion.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:35 AM on November 8, 2006


This post was deleted for the following reason: Tempting the Whatever from High Atop the Thing

Well, I laughed.
posted by flashboy at 9:36 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


"2sheets, I think you're thinking of the Senate."
Last I checked, the senate was part of congress.
And it's still not official, and Virginia still isn't a done deal.
I think it will happen, but there were only two sentences in this FPP and they were both wrong. Can't we do a little better than Drudge?
posted by 2sheets at 9:37 AM on November 8, 2006




moonbird: that is one of the greatest photos I've ever seen.
posted by Mach5 at 9:41 AM on November 8, 2006


I don't think anyone has mentioned this here, but Tester (D) just declared victory in Montana on CNN. No word from Conrad Burns yet.
posted by stopgap at 9:45 AM on November 8, 2006


Rumsfeld resigns.
posted by stopgap at 9:50 AM on November 8, 2006


a) Impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. 66 > 50 even if we have that. Republican Senators who would potentially join that vote are, even at best, in the single digits.*

Wrong:

The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."

Conviction on impeachment articles — and subsequent removal from office — does require a 2/3rds vote, but Clinton was impeached with a simple House majority, and his presidential record was tarnished forever, simply for getting oral sex.

Some would argue, myself included, that Bush deserves no less — certainly more — for lying to the public about his justification for a war that has placed us another $2 trillion in debt and killed hundreds of thousands of people.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:51 AM on November 8, 2006


MSNBC is reporting that the AP is stating that Rumsfeld is stepping down...

oh, SNAP!
posted by WhipSmart at 9:51 AM on November 8, 2006


Holy smokes, Rumsfeld is stepping down. I didn't expect that.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:52 AM on November 8, 2006


Thanks, russil. And moonbird, that is a wonderful photo, one of the all-timers, like Huey Long speechifying, or Dewey Beats Truman.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:54 AM on November 8, 2006


The only thing that could top this day is if I won the Powerball and got laid. Woohoo!
posted by MegoSteve at 9:54 AM on November 8, 2006


"stepping down"
posted by gsteff at 9:54 AM on November 8, 2006


It's almost like the little girl in moonbird's photo just realized what her last name means.
posted by quin at 9:55 AM on November 8, 2006


Rumsfeld resigns

Associated Press article.
posted by ericb at 9:55 AM on November 8, 2006


So... Lieberman for SecDef? That would be a classic Rove move to mess with the Senate results and Bush has considered Lieberman before. I think it's pretty clear Lieberman would have no problem throwing the Democrats under the bus in the Senate. The issue is what would inflate his ego more: runnning the Defense Department or being primadonna of the Senate.
posted by stopgap at 9:55 AM on November 8, 2006


Bob Gates, former head of the CIA, looks to be named Sec of Def... Lieberman will have to settle for primadonna of the Senate...
posted by WhipSmart at 9:59 AM on November 8, 2006


I think it's pretty clear Lieberman would have no problem throwing the Democrats under the bus in the Senate.

Boy, that would be quite a move. It would piss off Democrats everywhere, especially those in Connecticut.
posted by ericb at 9:59 AM on November 8, 2006


That's interesting ericb. This was posted just an hour before.
posted by quin at 10:01 AM on November 8, 2006


THIS JUST IN - RUMSFELD HAS RESIGNED!
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:02 AM on November 8, 2006


Tester wins in Montana. Coincidentally, he'll likely be named the member of congress with the least number of fingers.
posted by SteveInMaine at 10:05 AM on November 8, 2006


Fuck yeah.

Santorum gone, Rumseld gone, Bush kicked in the arse.

And the sun is out too, after days of rain.

It's a beautiful day in the neighbourhood.
posted by jokeefe at 10:17 AM on November 8, 2006


ok, watching MSNBC, there was a short *bleep* while Bush was responding to a question by David Gregory... please tell me that Bush said "fuck you" to somebody... please tell me that happened...
posted by WhipSmart at 10:19 AM on November 8, 2006


When the final history is written on this administration, these midterms will look like just an exclamation mark.
posted by mazola at 10:20 AM on November 8, 2006


Now we start to hear the flip-flopping on bi-partisanship:

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, “Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way — Republicans and Democrats — to outline the path to success in Iraq.”
posted by DesbaratsDays at 10:23 AM on November 8, 2006


"I HAD POLITICAL CAPITAL, BUT I FUCKING SPENT IT ALL." -DuhByuh

Yes. He must have failed business school. You INVEST capital.

The Righties keep going on about how this was referendum on "PC Warfare." That we should have unleashed all our might on Iraq.

Um. Three years ago they stretched themselves inside out about how the invasion, and shock and awe, was a all about a war of self defense to stop the development of WMD. No serious programs were found.

Two years ago they stretched themselves inside out about how the occupation, and the growing sectarian violence, was a all about a war of liberation for the Iraqi people.

This year it was all about the meddling of Iran a new front on terror and...er... something.

Can't they see?

Yes. This election was clearly a referendum on how this war was justified, executed, and timed. In that the people who started it were totally incompetent for the task. YES. They were PC. In that they were blinded by ideology. RIGHT WING ideology. PC works BOTH ways. Allowing ideology to trump good judgment. And then they did every conceivable thing to obfuscate the reality of the war until it over took them.

And now it's too late. We have lost. This talk of victory is totally hollow. DFEFINE victory Mr. President. I would like on person on LGF to DEFINE victory for me so I can get behind it. I would LOVE victory. Who doesn't love a good tickertape parade?

Problem is nobody can define victory. Nobody knows what that would even look like at this point.

All they had to do was let the much reviled inspectors do their work in 2002-2003. Saddam would have eventually fucked that up.

Let Afghanistan play out another year or two. Allow a successful front in central Asia to put pressure on Iran and Pakistan. It's likely we could have gotten more EU support... even though it would have been token. It would have generated the good will Bush needed to be taken seriously. And let Saddam fester. Cook him with international pressure.

Then he could have started to build pressure for invasion AFTER the 2004 election.

None of this is hindsight. Scowcroft, Bush I and others advised this course.

A successful and prosperous Afghanistan would have gotten Bush elected with REAL capital.

And by the time an Iraq invasion started to fracture Iraq... 2008. BAM. Republicans get re-elected to "finish" the job.

And troughout all of Bush's missteps he NEVER self corrected. He NEVER embraced conservative fiscal values convincingly. Thus he alienated the workhorse mainstream of the GOP - the rich white people who only want to be left alone with thier money. They dont give a SHIT about Terry Shivo or fags.

That Bush never saw any of this convinced me he was a complete idiot.
posted by tkchrist at 10:26 AM on November 8, 2006


Post election headlines I want to see:

Rumsfled Resigns! Cry's like little girl. Security called to remove him from Pentagon.

Karl Rove Found Passed Out in Mall. Thirteen year old Laotian boy found in trunk of car.

Katharine Harris Reveals Self to be a Man! "My name is Kevin."

Insurgents in Iraq Lay Down Arms. Say "Eh. What's the Point?"

Osama Bin Laden found in Houston Texas Condo with Pop Star. Said "Whitney Huston divorced Bobby. People hate Bush. My job was done."

Terry Shivo Still Dead!
posted by tkchrist at 10:40 AM on November 8, 2006


Before we get ahead of ourselves and declare any sort of political victory in this country...

But despite the new House leaders, White House officials are not writing off the chamber as a bastion of liberalism, Snow said, adding that Bush believes the chamber will actually mirror his thinking on issues -- and perhaps even reject Pelosi's on occasion.

"Three dozen blue dogs have voted against her on various issues," Snow said, using a nickname for conservative Democrats. "And it's the conservative Democrats who made real gains."

The gains by conservative and moderate Democrats, which some analysts say will force the party to shift more toward center, is encouraging to Bush. The president believes they will support him in his fight for tax cuts, which Snow said the president has vowed not to give up.

posted by leftcoastbob at 10:40 AM on November 8, 2006


leftcoast bob - yes. We should be cautious. It IS politics after all. These fuckers are all decietful.

But you gotta see that it's now a fact that most of America has woke up. A little. Maybe enough? Maybe not. I don't care. At least sizable percentage will operating in 60-70% reality, now. That is a good thing. If short lived.
posted by tkchrist at 10:46 AM on November 8, 2006


I want an apology to
a) all the anti-war protesters
b) the left blogosphere
c) the Dixie Chicks
d) everyone else who was called a "traitor" or "irrelevant" for opposing the Iraq fiasco

We were right. And now we have the majority on our side. Took you idiots long enough to wake up.

And the apologies should start from the Dems who continued to support the war and kiss Bush's ass up until last week.

And then I want hearings, subpoenas, and charges. Let's tie this government up in knots until there's accountability.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:49 AM on November 8, 2006


I'm so glad the Democrats won!!

Oh no, wait. Aren't Democrats those completely spineless, useless weasels who've sat by while Bush stole two elections? And who didn't do anything about anything when they were in power all those years ago?

Ah well. Go team!
posted by reklaw at 11:02 AM on November 8, 2006


I, for one, bet W looks lovely in orange

the Hare Krishnas are compassionate and forgiving, but up to a point -- there's no fucking way they'll take him in
posted by matteo at 11:03 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


The terrorists have already won
posted by qvantamon at 11:13 AM on November 8, 2006


The terrorists won the day Bush began the war in Iraq.

And this season's Osama video never showed up in time. Damn Netflix.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:19 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


I for one am pleasantly surprised.

However, my rep and my Senators are going to get very tired of hearing from me, sooner than later. Because now that they've got some power, I'm not going to let them off the hook - I'm going to exhort them rather strongly to fix this mess.

And so should you, whether you're D or R. Please do.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:19 AM on November 8, 2006


russelvwong: "World Sees Democrats' Win as Rejection of Bush"

I wish we could tell you that it'll get better, but the democrats are just as fucking bad. As much as you'd all like to believe that there's some group of people in the US that sympathizes with your views, there isn't.
posted by koeselitz at 11:42 AM on November 8, 2006


As much as you'd all like to believe that there's some group of people in the US that sympathizes with your views, there isn't.

And who is "you all"? Because apparently there is a majority in the US who does sympathize with the perspective of a significant majority of educated, intelligent citizens in most of our sister democracies. Cynicism has its place, but some of us do indeed give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. A lot of us, apparently.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:49 AM on November 8, 2006


Her name wasn't "Terri Shivo." How quickly they forget.
posted by agregoli at 12:01 PM on November 8, 2006


pracowity: And then the Democrats realize that they cannot please the third party without losing even more centrist voters to the Republicans, so they reject the proposal. It isn't so easy.

*sigh*

This is one of the areas in which the Republicans have been kicking the ass of the Democrats since the '80s. It's called coalition-building.

In close elections they cannot win, it is smarter for the third party to try to get the friendliest major party elected -- back them with no strings attached, or just keep quiet if your vocal support could hurt the major party -- and then try to work with the major party when it wins, rather than cause the less friendly party to win.

And what should we do when the Dems throw in the towel before the election race has even started? Or take for granted the one-of-a-majority vote?

If the Dems are not even putting up a serious fight in the district where I vote, I don't feel an obligation to give them my vote. This applies to both sacrificial candidates and heavily-favored incumbents. I make no apologies for voting Nader and Cobb in a state where a 10-point Republican victory was conceeded before the primaries.

(And well, my hatred for what the Clinton Administration did to real progressive politics means would make it very difficult for me to vote for Mr. Gore or Ms. Clinton. I might vote for Ms. Clinton over Zombie Hitler, then again, I might not.)

And 3-rd party critics need to just get over it. In any election year, at least one race will be decided by a margin lower than the number of 3-rd party votes, write in votes, no votes on that race, and stay-at-home voters.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:16 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


when some political good thing happens, i tend to buy into it enough for just a little bit of optimism to come through...yeah, it's frustrating that, having been in position to resolve for quite a long time now, now suddenly bush is up for joining with the other side and getting something done...and though i haven't put much personal stake in the gay marriage thing (i tend to be against legal recognition of all marriage), the persistence of the effort against it (and any legal benefit for gay couples along with it) is starting to feel a bit demoralizing...

...but there remains a little flicker of hope that in order to accomplish anything of value, bush has all along needed some kind of tempering element and that there can be something good to come of it despite all the bad so far...

my hope overall is that the democrats can keep things on the positive side and see some benefit from that (learning a lesson from the years of republican arrogance of power)...

...at the same time, it's hard for me not to hope that corker's horrid subtle appeal to racism (in the tradition of helms) will haunt him for his entire political career...

...so i don't know, most of the time i think the system irreparable, which i guess is made worse by entertaining the possibility of a different course...
posted by troybob at 12:36 PM on November 8, 2006


Her name wasn't "Terri Shivo." How quickly they forget.

ZING. "They?" You mean me.

Ok. "Terri Schiavo."

(Happy now? I guess now you know you're smarter than "they."... jeebus... er... sorry... Jesus.)
posted by tkchrist at 1:04 PM on November 8, 2006


Has Libby Dole's head been served on a platter yet? Because she's going to take a big hit if/when the Democrats officially have the majority in the Senate.
posted by malaprohibita at 1:12 PM on November 8, 2006


Let the back-stabbing begin!
posted by homunculus at 1:15 PM on November 8, 2006


Someone better check on McCain.
posted by homunculus at 1:27 PM on November 8, 2006


Well, this was a great 24 hours, but no silver bullet. We've all been in a careening car without brakes for the last six years, and all that's happened is someone managed to find the emergency brake before we teetered over the cliff. There are miles to go before we can rest easy - this is only the first step in confronting a rogue president.

Can anyone else think of any president in their life time who was so blatantly partisan and toxic during an election? I go back a fair piece, and I don't remember any other president doing this to anywhere near this extent. And every day, the media - or at least the cable news - would carry his hateful rantings like they were policy speeches, giving untold free air time and advantage to republicans.

I don't think Democrats are a solution, but I get tired of hearing people say "they are just as bad" or "they are all the same." No, they are all not just as bad. That's precisely the attitude that saddled us with these criminals and sociopaths in the first place.
posted by madamjujujive at 1:42 PM on November 8, 2006




Yeah, that digby piece was better than usual madamjujujive.

Up next -- Constitutional crises, engineered and brought on by Rove via Bush.

I'm pleased as hell for my country and my fellow Americans. But ya know, this is just starting. Bush throwing Rumsfeld under the train was a figureative snausage aimed at the ankle-biters in the MSM who get wet every time they here the phony word "bi-partisanship." Behind the curtain, we've got some extreme shit being brewed up.

My prediction -- a bombing campaign and limited ground invasion of Iran, with no Congressional declaration of war, with the justification being that the Iraq vote (not an actual declaration of war in itself, mind you) justifies the POTUS to take military action anywhere, everywhere, and at any time of his or her choosing.

What I do know for certain? More American kids are dying in the middle east as we speak, for a grand, tragic mistake.
posted by bardic at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2006


ZING. "They?" You mean me.

Nope, was speaking broadly, like many people do. It's really cute how you got your panties in a twist over it though! =)
posted by agregoli at 2:18 PM on November 8, 2006


(And there are two twisted bigots you'll never have to worry about running our country, at the very least -- Rick Santorum and George Allen. Kudos to Casey and Webb for running great campaigns.)
posted by bardic at 2:22 PM on November 8, 2006


dw and Blazecock, thank you for your pedantic responses. It's clear that the country actually living through articles of impeachment and a Senate trial hasn't really changed the popular definition of impeachment as a rough cognate of impeachment and removal.

My basic point remains valid: there is no way that an impeachment procedure will succeed at removing Bush. I don't even think it will succeed at the aim that the Republicans had vs. Clinton, sapping the party's political capital. In fact, the Republicans right now are as divided and fratricidal as they have been since, oh, the post-Nixon era, and it would be absymally stupid to force them to unite on impeachment.

If you wish to dispute that point, feel free.
posted by dhartung at 2:58 PM on November 8, 2006


Rush feels liberated.
posted by caddis at 3:49 PM on November 8, 2006


My prediction -- a bombing campaign and limited ground invasion of Iran, with no Congressional declaration of war, with the justification being that the Iraq vote (not an actual declaration of war in itself, mind you) justifies the POTUS to take military action anywhere, everywhere, and at any time of his or her choosing

So shouldn't one of the first things is for the new congress to pass the "Our bad, we will just rescind that little thing and return the balance of power to the way it was before that, which means that you got to come to us to ask if you can do something fucking stupid before you can do it" resolution?
posted by mss at 4:43 PM on November 8, 2006


Yeah, that would be a good thing to do, but it's not that simple. All Rove and Bush have left is the White House, and a desperate hope that they can have a legacy that's something other than a bungled Iraq. Expect some serious Constitutional jousting, with Bush maneuvering to do something incredibly outrageous and then claiming the Dem Congress won't fund it, and therefore, once again, Nancy Pelosi hates America, our troops, and heterosexual babies.
posted by bardic at 4:53 PM on November 8, 2006


Sen. George Allen (R-VA) urged to concede race.
“Top Republicans in Washington will give Sen. George Allen a few days to take stock of his legal and political options before beginning to pressure him to concede to James Webb. Senior Republican officials and White House aides believe that Webb won the race.”
posted by ericb at 5:11 PM on November 8, 2006


So...uh...maybe there's nothing wrong with those voting machines after all?
posted by jaronson at 5:11 PM on November 8, 2006


jaronson: they're still just as messed up as ever. There's no paper trail.

Looks like maybe the Republicans weren't as dirty as many of us (including myself) thought, but that's still no reason to keep doing it that way. Machine assistance, sure... but with a paper trail. Otherwise, recounts become meaningless, and a single bad egg can steal an election.

With Diebold-style machines, we can't ever know what the actual votes were. All we have are the electronic records, and we all know how easily those are manipulated. Changing paper ballots is hard and takes a conspiracy of multiple people. Adjusting electronic records takes only one smart guy with a grudge.

Think for a minute.. maybe the votes WERE rigged, and the Republicans should have lost even worse than they did. Or maybe the Democrats cheated and stole the election. I don't believe that for a second, but it's possible. How can we ever know for sure?
posted by Malor at 5:25 PM on November 8, 2006


With Diebold-style machines, we can't ever know what the actual votes were. All we have are the electronic records,

I really can not fully understand the depth of objection to having a paper record. I realize that it adds to the expense, perhaps even significantly, yet it adds immeasurably to faith in the integrity of the vote.
posted by caddis at 5:40 PM on November 8, 2006


Actually, I agree with you, Malor.

I'm just afraid that the issue will now be swept under the rug...

...only to resurface after something happens.
posted by jaronson at 5:41 PM on November 8, 2006


It's really cute how you got your panties in a twist over it though! =)

Lol. It's way cuter when "people" can't own up and have to issue passive-aggressive drive-bys about speeling and such just so's "they" can feel superior. Y' know. Just speaking broadly to nobody in particular.

(BTW: Not wearing any panties t'all. Them suckers dangle free.)
posted by tkchrist at 5:48 PM on November 8, 2006


It's over - NBC is calling it for Webb - Allen will concede tomorrow, I guess. The Senate is democratic.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:49 PM on November 8, 2006


siren.gif on drudgereport - it must be for real!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 5:50 PM on November 8, 2006




I really can not fully understand the depth of objection to having a paper record.

Tree hater!

Won't somebody please think of the Forest.
posted by tkchrist at 5:51 PM on November 8, 2006


Never imagined we'd get both Houses. Hot damn.

Mission Fucking Accomplished.
posted by bardic at 6:02 PM on November 8, 2006


Good lord, can this day get better? Dems, win, Rummy loses, Britney has a sex tape.....
posted by tristeza at 6:10 PM on November 8, 2006


Good lord, can this day get better?

Try this week--seven days ago, Ted Haggard hadn't been outed yet. It's been quite a ride, hasn't it?
posted by EarBucket at 6:14 PM on November 8, 2006


Good lord, can this day get better?

Try this week--seven days ago, Ted Haggard hadn't been outed yet. It's been quite a ride, hasn't it?


Indeed. I've been feeling so cheery in the last seven days that I was wondering if there was Prozac in the water cooler or something.
posted by jokeefe at 6:19 PM on November 8, 2006


Britney has a sex tape.....

Whoa. What?

If I didn't think masturbation an unpardonable sin against my body and the lord that might excite me.

Oh. Wait. The Democrats won. That means: Jerk'n off is back in! HALELUJAH!
posted by tkchrist at 6:21 PM on November 8, 2006


I haven't masturbated in nearly twenty minutes.
posted by EarBucket at 6:22 PM on November 8, 2006


Good lord, can this day get better?

The downside is that the more responsibility the Dems get the more they will need to deliver to keep this majority and to gain the presidency in 2008. Some fret over this, but I kind of see it like fretting over how high your taxes will be when you earn too much money - we should all have such problems.
posted by caddis at 6:23 PM on November 8, 2006


Allen set to concede.
posted by EarBucket at 7:07 PM on November 8, 2006


You know, the irony of the Bush-Gore debacle is that the GOP can't call for recounts without looking really stupid. So, they end up not going for recounts in races that may well flip their way for the sake of making themselves look better than Dems.

And I think Allen could win a recount, especially with there being paper ballots in Richmond and no receipts in the Beltway counties.

But, you know, if conceding is what he wants to do, then I'm not about to talk him out of it.
posted by dw at 7:19 PM on November 8, 2006


Oh, and the original post is now correct -- The Democrats control Congress.
posted by dw at 7:21 PM on November 8, 2006


The AP and Webb do not call races. Please wait for an official announcement. Not that it's going to be different, but the FPP is not correct. It's unofficial as it has been for 24 hours already.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:24 PM on November 8, 2006


If Allen and Burns concede, I think some props are due the GOP for going gracefully, rather than whining like a bunch of babies like the Dems did in 200 and 2004. (I plead guilty.)
posted by caddis at 7:31 PM on November 8, 2006


Bollocks.
posted by econous at 7:57 PM on November 8, 2006


It's official now, the Dems complete an election sweep of Congress.
posted by londontube at 8:29 PM on November 8, 2006


No caddis, the Democratic party and the American people don't owe the Republicans jack-shit. Allen wants a recount, but knows that there's already an FBI investigation into Republican "dirty tricks" and robo-calls. It could backfire on him. Burns lost last night, but he's too much of a baby to give up gracefully until now.

If there was a snowball's chance in hell of either of them winning in a recount, they'd be all over it. But they know there isn't, because Americans have rejected them and their party.
posted by bardic at 8:31 PM on November 8, 2006


I hope everyone is well aware that this is still only an opportunity for good change.

I remain highly skeptical that the US government is going to change much at all. It's almost certain to remain a corporate-controlled, corrupt, gerrymandering asswash of a system.

Y'all need some real reforms put in place, with an intent to end the ability for incumbents and mega-spenders to purchase or steal their seat again and again.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:19 PM on November 8, 2006


Way to rally our spirits five fresh fish. Are you available for weddings?
posted by bardic at 9:22 PM on November 8, 2006


Here, let this guy really make you cry. He says it all, but longer.

This would be an excellent week to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind.

The USA is only going to change when citizens start demanding it.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 PM on November 8, 2006


whenever I read or hear someone say, "oh the democrats are just as bad!" or, "man the democrats don't have a stand on anything!" I think to myself, "how can so many people not know how to use google?"
posted by mcsweetie at 10:11 PM on November 8, 2006


I'm just jealous that Canadia doesn't have any problems.
posted by bardic at 10:24 PM on November 8, 2006


It's official now, the Dems complete an election sweep of Congress.

No, it's still not official. That's just more from the AP, this time on Yahoo. Come on guys, just be patient. Whn Allen concedes of the VA Board of Elections makes an announcement, then, then it will actally be "official," no matter what news outlet says it's likely. Untill then it's just more unofficial news confirming previous unofficial news.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:58 PM on November 8, 2006


Wow, I should maybe proofread or something. When, or, bah!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:59 PM on November 8, 2006


It must be official, the People's Daily is reporting it.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:21 PM on November 8, 2006


Crushing the developing myths
posted by homunculus at 11:24 PM on November 8, 2006


bardic: pshaw. We're ruled by yahoos up here. My fed rep was Daryl "Fightin' Man" Stintson, a redneck peabrain who challenged an opponent to fisticuffs in our Legislature. And worse, many in my area were proud of the asshat. Ugh.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:06 AM on November 9, 2006


Fun with Predictions.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:45 AM on November 9, 2006


Good lord, can this day get better? Dems, win, Rummy loses, Britney has a sex tape.....

worm.

Yay!
posted by pracowity at 5:19 AM on November 9, 2006


whenever I read or hear someone say, "oh the democrats are just as bad!" or, "man the democrats don't have a stand on anything!" I think to myself, "how can so many people not know how to use google?"
posted by mcsweetie


THANK YOU.

Saying they're the same is saying LITERALLY that Al Gore and Karl Rove have the same decision making process. I'd find it comparable to saying "I have no vested interest in choosing between getting punched in the nose or getting castrated because I consider them both bad things."

Democrats are definitely at most the Diet Pepsi Blue of evil. The Republicans would be horrified to see you placing them on the same level, they WORK for that shit.
posted by haveanicesummer at 5:35 AM on November 9, 2006


haveanicesummer: I'd find it comparable to saying "I have no vested interest in choosing between getting punched in the nose or getting castrated because I consider them both bad things."

Well, the question becomes, are there any basic moral principles that you would not compromise in the name of politics?

There are many positions on which the Democrats are either unwilling to take a stand, or are actually hostile to the left: gay rights, the death penality, war (in general, not just our specific loss in Iraq), labor, the stronger forms of environmentalism.

People who believe that these issues are moral imperatives need to get over the illusion that the Democrats are allies.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:22 AM on November 9, 2006


So, someone who furthers your goal, yet not absolutely, is not an ally? Tactically, you will never succeed. This unilateralism thing, it didn't work out so well for GW, and it won't work out so well for you either,
posted by caddis at 8:35 AM on November 9, 2006


MSNBC: Allen to concede this afternoon.
posted by ericb at 8:40 AM on November 9, 2006


Tactically, you will never succeed.

If it's as simple as the way you state it, no, you will not. But it never is.

Everyone has to make their own decision about whether they think a given issue is a moral imperative. If you think that issue x is a moral imperative, and Democrats are hostile to that issue, then it's a mistake for you to regard them as other than a flag of convenience for your other issues, that (presumably) aren't a moral imperative.

I, personally, will never register Democratic until the party makes crystal clear its position on puffy directing pants. It's just that important to me.
posted by lodurr at 8:46 AM on November 9, 2006


caddis: So, someone who furthers your goal, yet not absolutely, is not an ally?

I don't see where the Dems in general are furthering those goals, and have in many cases acted to hinder those goals when it has been in their economic or political interest.

Tactically, you will never succeed. This unilateralism thing, it didn't work out so well for GW, and it won't work out so well for you either,

Well, I'd point out that no social movement in U.S. history has ever had the support of both political parties. Not first-wave feminists, not the labor movement, not the NAACP and Martin Luther King. All of them had to engage in an uphill struggle to get their issues perceived by the political establishment as moral imperatives for a just government.

Now am I saying that progressives shouldn't cast votes for the lesser of two evils as a tactical necessity? No.

But neither should progressives repeat the same mistake some made with Clinton and assume that reassigning the deck chairs on a ship with a bent rudder and a broken screw is a "revolution."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:55 AM on November 9, 2006


And yes, I think I said before that I held my nose and voted for the Dem wave this year. That doesn't mean that I'm going to sit back for the next 23 months.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:32 AM on November 9, 2006




You know what the best of the web is right now? Free republic. They're eating their young over there.
posted by found missing at 11:02 AM on November 9, 2006


CNN.com just flashed that Allen's conceding to Webb in VA.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:03 AM on November 9, 2006


"This would be an excellent week to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind."

I heartily second that, as I posted similar way above. I'm actually going to send them letters, printed on paper, with my signature on them.

I think that's going to be key. I think that now each of us who cares has to get active about telling our Reps and Senators exactly what we want from them, and to try to get some acknowledgment that they're listening (apart from their newsletters). I might even go down and knock on Ms. Watson's local office door, since it's within walking distance from my place, and speak my mind in person to whomever's there.

If they get enough letters and emails and phone calls pouring in, they will listen. And if they don't, we can throw 'em out next time.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:20 PM on November 9, 2006




Cheney better start shredding before the investigations start.
posted by homunculus at 2:11 PM on November 9, 2006


There will be no socialized medicine, no impeachment and no investigations, well OK some investigations, but mostly into fiscal waste in Iraq etc. The blue dog democrats just voted in will see to that. Rather than seeking revenge for the last six years or some super liberal agenda, democrats cna benefit the country and themselves by showing themselves to be the real grown-ups who can find bipartisan solutions to problems like the Iraq war.
posted by caddis at 2:41 PM on November 9, 2006


Just 4 days ago, Bush said a vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists. I guess the terrorists really did win after all!
posted by cell divide at 2:45 PM on November 9, 2006


Bi-partisan solution to problems like the Iraq war? Time machine.

Oh wait, I forgot that science isn't bi-partisan anymore.
posted by haveanicesummer at 5:27 PM on November 9, 2006




Christian Newswire: 'Americans For Truth' Says Pro-'Gay' Political Correctness Led to Sen. Allen's Loss; Calls on Republican Senatorial Comm. to Rescind 'Sexual Orientation' Policy.
posted by ericb at 1:43 PM on November 10, 2006




Greenwald: Coming attractions
posted by homunculus at 3:52 PM on November 10, 2006


Now watch the corporate-whore "liberals" screw America even worse their "conservative" counterparts. And watch the radik3wl "progressives" here applaud them for doing it. Y'all do realize JFK and LBJ (of War In Vietnam fame) were Democrats, eh? (And for that matter so was Jefferson Davis.)
posted by davy at 10:37 AM on November 12, 2006


You don’t often hear someone criticizing people for liking the Democratic party because JFK was a member. Well done!
posted by found missing at 10:55 AM on November 12, 2006


You don’t often hear someone pointing out that JFK was a Democrat, and on that basis criticizing people for liking the Democratic party. Well done!

/grammar corrected
posted by found missing at 10:59 AM on November 12, 2006


Progressive Caucus Rising
posted by homunculus at 11:58 AM on November 12, 2006




My simple point, found missing, is Democrats have long proven themselves as adept at fucking America up as Republicans. How you missed that simple point is something about which I will charitably not speculate.
posted by davy at 9:40 PM on November 12, 2006




I just read what you wrote, davy.
posted by found missing at 9:23 AM on November 13, 2006


And, if your argument is that it is fruitless to expect positive change due to this election, I respectfully disagree with that cynical view. Things can't get better with an empowered Democratic party opposing the folly of GW Bush? Poppycock.
posted by found missing at 9:41 AM on November 13, 2006


My simple point, found missing, is Democrats have long proven themselves as adept at fucking America up as Republicans.

Wow. Anymore spectacularly obvious declarations to make?

I think the point here is that this administration has been particularly bad/partisan/self-dealing/amoral/violent/greedy, and the GOP-dominated Congress has done nothing but enable them. Clearly any change away from that, whether Bush is still in the WH or not, is a marked improvement.
posted by psmealey at 4:56 PM on November 13, 2006




New Congress: Americanism Means No Torture, Eavesdropping With Warrants, Honest Elections, Habeas Corpus

I wish all wishes came true, but most are merely fairy tales.
posted by caddis at 7:16 PM on November 13, 2006


"I think the point here is that this administration has been particularly bad/partisan/self-dealing/amoral/violent/greedy,"

True enough. But then I can think of several administrations in my adult lifetime, including Democratic ones, that also fit that description.

"and the GOP-dominated Congress has done nothing but enable them."

Naturally. But how exactly does this differ from any Democratic-controlled Congress during a Democratic reign? Or for that matter during a time when major party labels are pretty much irrelevant because both major parties agree on most things? (The latter, you see, is most of the time; read some history, d00d.)

"Clearly any change away from that,"

...Which the Democratic Party of Corporate Whores cannot provide... Or did you miss the fact that most of the Democrat Congresspeople and Senators voted for the Patriot Act, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and other similarly odious enactments?

"whether Bush is still in the WH or not,"

...Americans will still be living under a corporate imperialist regime...

"is a marked improvement."

So you think the answer for Republican bad partisanship, self-dealing, amorality, violence and greed is Democratic bad partisanship, self-dealing, amorality, violence and greed. I see.

"Down with that evil gang the Bloods! Up with the GOOD gang, the Crips!"
posted by davy at 9:40 PM on November 13, 2006


The Democrats, if left unchallenged, will do sweet bugger-all to fix the problems in the USA.

Y'all are going to have to get more politically active.

Which might mean writing letters to your representatives. Might been demanding answers. It'll be worth doing it, though. You gotta get active if you want to influence what's going on.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:30 PM on November 13, 2006


I don't share your bleak outlook, davy, but you're right to point a couple of things out.

I do not believe that this election by itself will give us (we, the people) back the level of accountability and transparency that we need to have as a functioning republic. It will also require a level of vigilance on our part, as five fresh fish points out, to keep them on the straight and narrow.

So while I do agree that the Dems are every bit in the pocket of big business and K-street, my hope is the fact that they have been in the wilderness for the past 12 years, will make them less predisposed to the laziness, self-dealing and corruption we've been made to endure of late. So, I'll view that, at least for the moment, as a marked improvement over where we've been lately.
posted by psmealey at 6:57 AM on November 14, 2006


« Older Abandoned Outdoor Swimming Pool   |   Chinese Public Health Posters Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments