Uechi-Ryu.com

Well, all of our bickering aside, the masses have spoken and democracy is truly the best! Not in Iraq obviously, but here in the "Good ole US of A". The people of the United States came out and said that they have had enough of Iraq and President Bush. Without being specific, but the NBC exit polling showed that the disapproval rating concerning Iraq being in the 60% range. And if anyone is wondering why the Republicans lost the House and as of now, look like they'll lose the Senate, you don't have to look too far.

BTW, the response by Bush today.....fire Donald Rumsfeld. Tell me this wasn't a long time coming. Oh, wait a minute, we are supposed to believe that Bush was going to do it before the elections? Right. And if you believe that one, I have some marsh land in Florida to sell.

Looking into the future, how do you think Pelosi is going to treat the Bush Administration? Can't wait to find out. But, I think one thing is for sure, I think Bush's Iraqi policy is in severe trouble. Maybe we'll get the boys and girls home before any more are killed. I hope so.

Time to barracade the doors to the Executive Mansion!!!!!


mike

Wondering (with tongue in cheek) if Rumsfield will go to work for Haliburton!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Would it shock you?

The country didn't buy itself Democrats, Mike, they bought gridlock. In the words of Professor Larry Sabato of UVa (today), "I love gridlock. It's been said that life, liberty, and property aren't safe when the legislature is in session." (FoxNews, 08Nov2006)

But you are entitled to feel satisfaction. That's what representational government is about. Hopefully you voted and earned the right to that satisfaction. (I'm sure you did...)

Mike wrote:
BTW, the response by Bush today.....fire Donald Rumsfeld. Tell me this wasn't a long time coming. Oh, wait a minute, we are supposed to believe that Bush was going to do it before the elections? Right. And if you believe that one, I have some marsh land in Florida to sell.

Sorry, Mike, but he did. You don't have a President of a major University as big as Texas A&M resigning and moving to the private sector AND flying into DC for introduction all in a matter of 12 hours. Doesn't happen.

It was going to happen irrespective of the outcome of the elections. Bush didn't want to do it beforehand because he didn't want the appearance of caving just before an election. Perhaps you've been too busy in Democrat politics to notice the regular shuffling of the Bush cabinet.

BTW, Rumsfield resigned. He wasn't fired. Semantics I know, but let's be precise. When in such an office you always "serve at the pleasure of The President." Your days are numbered the day you step in the office. FWIW, in a month Rumsfeld will have been the longest serving Secretary of Defense in history. He'll stay on long enough to complete the transition, so that will happen. Just in case you weren't aware...

Mike wrote:
Looking into the future, how do you think Pelosi is going to treat the Bush Administration? Can't wait to find out. But, I think one thing is for sure, I think Bush's Iraqi policy is in severe trouble. Maybe we'll get the boys and girls home before any more are killed. I hope so.

That won't happen, Mike.

Don't you listen to members of your own party? Barack Obama - the Democrat most likely to run for prez - himself said in an interview yesterday that voters who spoke to him said they don't want partisan bickering any more. If Nancy Pelosi resorts to investigations and battles, voters will clean house again in 2 years.

This is the traditional mid-term change in course. It happened to Reagan in 1982, and Clinton in 1998. What it did to both is yank them away from their pandering to the extreme wings of their respective parties, and more towards the center.

And that's a good thing - for the country.

- Bill

P.S. Glad you like the results. Now... Get some sleep!

mikemurphy wrote: Looking into the future, how do you think Pelosi is going to treat the Bush Administration? Can't wait to find out. But, I think one thing is for sure, I think Bush's Iraqi policy is in severe trouble. Maybe we'll get the boys and girls home before any more are killed. I hope so.

Bush was governor in Texas when I lived there, and he worked with a democrat-controlled legislature there. He seemed exceptionally good at it, although after the fact some of the democrats in the legislature seemed to feel like you do after being sold a used car at too high a price. I actually think the biggest fundamental problem with his presidency has been that the republican-controlled congress has provided no effective check on the executive branch.

Be that as it may. I have a sense that Pelosi has been more diplomatic in the last few months than I remember her in the past, and I expect this to continue as she takes on the speaker role, leaving the attack-dog role to more junior colleagues.

I think you may see some movement on immigration reform, perhaps a guest-worker program, especially if the senate also swings to democrat control, and the smart money is on that happening. My understanding is that there's not a lot the legislature can do about the war plan without cutting the purse strings, a politically risky move, but I expect there will be some changes prior to the 2008 elections. I don't expect a withdrawal in the near-term, however, certainly not before there are more casualties, unfortunately. The 110th Congress won't even convene until January, so anything in meantime will be the work of the lame duck 109th.

Mary wrote:
Wondering (with tongue in cheek) if Rumsfield will go to work for Haliburton!!!

No need for the tongue to be in cheek.

It is a tradition in American politics, Mary, for fame to be made in public service, and fortune to follow shortly after. Rumsfield will make more money in his first year out of the Cabinet than all his previous years of public service put together.

Don't shed any tears for him. I guarantee you he sure isn't. I sure wouldn't mind walking around with his resume right now...

- Bill

Don't shed any tears for him.

Far from it...remember....(and I semi-quote):

There are things we know we know.
There are also things we don't know we know.
There are things we don't know that we know.
There are things we don't know that we don't know.
And years from now there will be things we know we don't know that we don't know....

WHA??????

Rumsfield will make more money in his first year out of the Cabinet than all his previous years of public service put together.

The man is already a multi-millionaire....trust me, no tears here at all...ba-bye!

He'll live a good life, so long as he avoids hunting trips with his buddy Dick "kill the wabbit" Cheney.



- Bill

Bill,

I like the new school patch!

F.

Bill,

The country didn't buy itself Democrats, Mike, they bought gridlock. In the words of Professor Larry Sabato of UVa (today), "I love gridlock. It's been said that life, liberty, and property aren't safe when the legislature is in session." (FoxNews, 08Nov2006)

Sorry, I'm not buying the doom and gloom of your UVa professor. Any gridlock in this session of Congress will come from the Executive Branch. The Democrats have waited too long I think.

But you are entitled to feel satisfaction. That's what representational government is about. Hopefully you voted and earned the right to that satisfaction. (I'm sure you did...)

The feeling of satisfaction doesn't come from party affiliation, rather from the country speaking up and righting a terrible wrong. And of course I voted. I was first in line at the polls yesterday speaking with a state trooper who used to be a student of Bob Bethoney and wanted to start up again. Mixing a little business with pleasure I guess.

It was going to happen irrespective of the outcome of the elections. Bush didn't want to do it beforehand because he didn't want the appearance of caving just before an election. Perhaps you've been too busy in Democrat politics to notice the regular shuffling of the Bush cabinet.

It doesn't matter what "poster boy for fund raising" position Gates had and how long it took him to get to Washington. Bush had this planned. One more of daddy's cronies coming in to help right the ship. Or maybe he was picked to keep Jim Baker company.

FWIW, in a month Rumsfeld will have been the longest serving Secretary of Defense in history. He'll stay on long enough to complete the transition, so that will happen. Just in case you weren't aware...

quote:

We are all so very proud. I can picture the whole paragraph he gets in the history books, right after the part of being one of the architechs of this debacle in Iraq.

Don't you listen to members of your own party? Barack Obama - the Democrat most likely to run for prez - himself said in an interview yesterday that voters who spoke to him said they don't want partisan bickering any more. If Nancy Pelosi resorts to investigations and battles, voters will clean house again in 2 years.

First of all, never said I was a democrat. Second, both Obama and McCain sounded political in their interviews after the election results. You could sense that they were both trying to ride the fence regardless. Don't underestimate Pelosi as she has quite a history in the House, and no love loss for the Bush clan. It threre is a chance for an investigation, she'll take it.

This is the traditional mid-term change in course. It happened to Reagan in 1982, and Clinton in 1998. What it did to both is yank them away from their pandering to the extreme wings of their respective parties, and more towards the center.

This mid-term change is quite different than the Reagan and Clinton changes. This was a mandate based almost solely on one national/international question...Iraq. But, don't believe me, read one of your own, George Wills in the Washington Post. Where it directs Bush is to be seen, but the people have spoken. Do you think that dubbya will bring out his veto pen in the last two years?

BTW, love the patch!

mike

You're nothing if not entertaining, Mike.

This was a mandate

Like Bush's mandate, right? After his landslide victory, right? Boy do I remember the howling when GW taunted his opponents with that line.

I'm thinking about the mandate in Virginia, where Webb beat Allen by a 0.3% margin, and only after a "macaca" gaffe.

Mike wrote:
Don't underestimate Pelosi as she has quite a history in the House, and no love loss for the Bush clan. It threre is a chance for an investigation, she'll take it.

In the words of Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day!" If the litigeously-minded show they can't help themselves and start the subpoena wars, it'll be an interesting climate in 2008.

Meanwhile, if you ask me I think GW and Nancy both deserve an Academy Award for their performances in Washington yesterday.

FWIW, Professor Sabato was not painting a "doom and gloom" scenario. You obviously don't get the quote. That same gridlock scenario (Democratic President, Republican Congress) bought us a surplus in the 1990s. With Congress and The President not agreeing, no taxes or spending were legislated. Who could ask for more... er... less ?

And since you fashion yourself a history buff, the original quote that Professor Sabato used...

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session

...is a classic political phrase that popularly began with a New York court decision in 1866.

And here's a little more on Larry Sabato, in case you've never heard the name.



UVa Center for Politics

Larry J. Sabato's CrystalBall

FWIW, Sabato's predictions for this last election were spot on, and better than every other prediction based upon national polls. Why? In Sabato's words, "We're sick people! We do analysis right down to the county level in every state."

- Bill

mikemurphy wrote: This mid-term change is quite different than the Reagan and Clinton changes. This was a mandate based almost solely on one national/international question...Iraq.

I haven't checked it out, but I heard on TV that the Iraq war came out 3rd in the exit polls (about 2/3 listing it), corruption 1st (about 3/4). Iraq was a big issue, obviously, but perhaps the Abramov and Foley scandals were even more significant.

I also saw some analysis that suggested that the democrats were finally "getting it" insofar as the winners over incumbents were mainly centrist democrats, particularly in the Senate, and the centrists have not been calling for an immediate withdrawal. The House will be interesting to watch, to be sure, as the leaders are rather far to the left.

I offer this as second-hand analysis only, not my own, although it makes sense to me. Historically, so-called election "mandates" are tricky.

Exit polls are highly unreliable, Mike. For example, experience has shown them to have as much as a 6% Democrat bias. Because of this and the election year 2000 debacle of declaring Gore the winner, news networks no longer use them to project winners. The reason for this is somewhere in-between something called sampling bias (some folks want to be heard, some not), and downright fibbing to hide one's true intent or piss off the sampler.

"Iraq" though was the number 1 issue for most polls. But exactly what it means that it is an "issue" ranges from one end of the spectrum to the next. I might quote Sun Tzu's The Art of War, whereas someone else may look to their pacifist roots.

mhosea wrote:
I also saw some analysis that suggested that the democrats were finally "getting it" insofar as the winners over incumbents were mainly centrist democrats, particularly in the Senate, and the centrists have not been calling for an immediate withdrawal. The House will be interesting to watch, to be sure, as the leaders are rather far to the left.

I would agree with your assessment. To me, the bellweather election result was Connecticut. Lieberman - a centrist and supporter of Bush's Iraq strategy - lost the Democratic primary to the vocal, anti-war Lamont. He went independent and then absolutely thumped the field.

Lieberman (CTL) - 50%
Lamont (Dem) - 40%
Schlesinger (GOP) 10%

He got the most Republican votes, virtually all of the swing/independent votes, and almost as many Democrat votes as Lamont - the Democrat candidate. This speaks to a Washington Post editorial I read about the problem with extremists in the Democratic party - even to the point that they unleashed a "bot" attack on Lieberman's website the day of the primary election. In this editorialist's words, such extremists risk nominating "unelectable" candidates.

More to your point...

The power shift that gave Democrats control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate was a clear call by voters for new -- and bipartisan -- approaches on issues ranging from the Iraq war to fiscal discipline to ethics in government. That realignment could open the door to candidates who are independent, unorthodox or have a history of working across party lines.

- WSJ.com

And let's not forget The Governator, another "high profile" independent (registered as GOP) who beat out the traditional, liberal establishment in Kaleeforneea. He easily won re-election to governor. If we believe what they say about California setting national trends...

- Bill

Well:

Al-Quaida said today(no time wasted there) that they are winning the war.

why should we care?

We can stay out of hi rises I guess.

Saddam is a very bad man, but he was the Iraqi president and he was only oppressing a bunch of other Ay-rab Sheee-eyetes; so

why should we care?

We put the S---man in power and maybe if we were smart we would have let him alone and hoped that he would take another whack at Iran-so

why should we care?

"We didn't know " said the Burgermeister---" about those camps at the edge of town-------" and if he had known he wouldn't have done diddly , so;

why should we care?

Well, the war is FUBAR anyway; so

why should we care?

I know, I know, I am not being rational, so,

just don't quote me.

Bill,

You're nothing if not entertaining, Mike.

That may be true enough, but at least I'm not crying in my atttempted rationalization as to the recent election. Hindsight is 20/20 and in two years we will see where this democratic-controlled Congress leads us.

And since you fashion yourself a history buff

As you so often remind us, I fashion myself nothing here Bill. My two masters degrees in history make me more than just a buff. It would be akin to me saying that test tubes are a simple pasttime to you. How about we just not go there?

BTW, the mandate was national not sectional (i.e. Virginia), and it was overwhelming as more than one news source stated. You say tomaaaato and I say tomahhhhhto. It is what it is!

mike