The Victory of the Democrats

Politics as Usual

from JoeUser Forums
Now that the Democrats have 51 seats in the Senate and the Republicans 49 there is a small bot effective shift in the balance of power in the political establishment . Beltway politics will be a wee bit different as a result. However the Rpublicans have won a convincing majority in the House of Representatives. If the USA had a parliamntary form of government then the government of the day would have to resign. Bush is trying to brazen his way out of a political crisis by sacrifcing the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeldt. It is clear from the results that the Iraq war has been the single most important factor in pushiong the political fortunes of the Democrats.

Right from the start I have been saying that the Iraq War is not in American interests. I received a torrent of the most spiteful invective for suggesting as much. Now it appears that the American public too is tired of the badaly faught and badly flawed war. It is hoped that the Democrats will use their majority to throttle the war effort of the US administration. At the very least they must insist on a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It is too early to predict whether Robert Gates the new Secretary of Defence will be more effective in the procecution of the war.

The defeat of all prominet Republican supporters of the US President underscores the political isolation of George W Bush. Is there a way out of the political muddle. The first order of business would be to seek the a way to end the war. This will, of course, involve all regional powers and USA will have to deal with Iran which holds the key to stability in the Shiaa section of Iraq.

Violence in Iraq will not come down until a political solution is found. The al Maliki regime does not enjoy the confidence of the Iraqi people and the threatened excecution of Saddam Hussein will only send the wrong signals. It is hoped that the new political forces in the USA will show more maturity that the Bush Administration.
politics
5,338 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

When opining about an election, it would be best to avoid obvious faux pas'. First, no one won a convincing majority in the House.  Second, least of all the republicans.

I understand your embellishment on the first error, and one can be forgiven for being gleeful that their philosophy won.  However, when writing about politics, to mis-name the party is tantamount to yelling "Hey!  I dont know what the hell I am talking about.".

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
However the Rpublicans have won a convincing majority in the House of Representatives.

I meant the Democrats. Thank you for pointing out the error.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The exit of Donald Rumsleldt has shown that the Democrats have tasted blood, and will not hesitate to extract their concessions for compromising with Bush for his legislative agenda. A weakened Bush with 2 more years left to go bodes ill for the war in Iraq and other problems facing the country.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Isn't it interesting how the election lines changed comparing to, say 1860?
It is almost the opposite of what it used to be in the past. Back then progression rose from the now Blue States; now progression comes from the Red States which used to be the blue ones. A complete reshift. One thing remained unchanged: the Republicans were and are the carriers of progression.

The Democrats? Look at their voter demography. The majority of actives vote Republican, and passives vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Really, they are kind of a parasite, they pose as socially sensitive, while they abuse the poor and ignorant masses. That is the Democratic Party is about. Parasitism.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look at their voter demography. The majority of actives vote Republican, and passives vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Really, they are kind of a parasite, they pose as socially sensitive, while they abuse the poor and ignorant masses. That is the Democratic Party is about. Parasitism


What you say was true until the period of FDR when the rural votes in the south and south west shifted to the Democrats. But now the issue is the Iraq war and hopefu;;y the Dems have aan exit strategy in mind.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The exit of Donald Rumsleldt has shown that the Democrats have tasted blood, and will not hesitate to extract their concessions for compromising with Bush for his legislative agenda. A weakened Bush with 2 more years left to go bodes ill for the war in Iraq and other problems facing the country.


And it boded well before Democract victory?

Let's face it, the whole Iraqi War have been a huge mess runned by politicans.

From:
- The reasons to invade Iraq (WMD, Ties to Al-Qaeda, Biochemicals, restoring democracy (the last excuse standing at the end))

To:
- The results (sectarial wars, terrorism-crops, 6-digits death toll)
- The consequences (huge, HUGE loss of America's influence and respect worldwide)

Going trough:

- Abu Graibh (wrong spelling, I know)
- The 5-6-7 (or is it more?) "mistakes" commited by cohalition troops


I can't see exactly how the past Congress + Senate has done a good job to prevent this whole mess. Maybe now that the administration will be under the looking glass, it will begin something efficient.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't see exactly how the past Congress + Senate has done a good job to prevent this whole mess. Maybe now that the administration will be under the looking glass, it will begin something efficient.


Please do not lump the congressional slop with the current administration. They are not one in the same. For you to lump them together they would have to been put in/ appointed to their office by Bush. But they weren't.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please do not lump the congressional slop with the current administration. They are not one in the same. For you to lump them together they would have to been put in/ appointed to their office by Bush. But they weren't.


they haven't done their jobs into protecting american citizen's interests, and USA's financial integrity.

I do not lump them with Bush. I accuse them of giving Bush almost a free pass.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact that the Republicans controlled both Houses and had a Republican in the White House meant that George Bush could do anything without serious discussion and dissent. Now it will be difficult for him to get away with the sort of scandals that plagued the Bush regime.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The idea of a regional conference of Iran, Iraq, USA that we mentioned has now become the policy of the post election Bush regime.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact that the Republicans controlled both Houses and had a Republican in the White House meant that George Bush could do anything without serious discussion and dissent.


This shows how delusional you are, Bahu. If you think there hasn't been "serious discussion and dissent" for the past 6 years you're living on a planet without oxygen somewhere.