PDA

View Full Version : Breaking the Gridlock



Dixie - In Memoriam
11-04-2006, 10:11 AM
I recently read a good article by Charles Krauthammer: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201597.html)

According to the pollsters, pundits and pols -- Democratic and nervous Republican -- a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: 20 to 25 House seats and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate probably stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority.

What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?" (His answer to: "How's your wife?") Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House and Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

Krauthammer raises an interesting point, regardless of the outcome, this election will not give a governing mandate to either side. It will simply result in changes in chairmanship seats, if Republicans lose the majority. Legislatively, there will still be a fairly even split, and neither party has the power to implement an agenda.

I used this article to segway into a discussion about gridlock, because this is the classic conditions of gridlock, and regardless of how the elections go on Tuesday, the next Congress is destined to endure it hopelessly. In light of this inevitable reality, and using common sense, one can understand, at some point in time, left and right are going to have to resolve the partisan divide, and get on with what is best for the country. This can't happen when the two sides are so vehemently polarized, and stubbornly defiant. Yet, it will ultimately happen in this instance, just as it has in every previous instance.

The point of this thread, is to discuss how we get from A to B. We realize and understand that we must come to some compromise on our viewpoints at some point, in order to work together again, in bipartisan manner, to address the problems facing America and our future. How can this be done?

Now, I am certain the first pinhead response to this, will be the same old angry and bitter cries to impeach Bush and Cheney and run every Republican out of Washington who they can't lock up.... blah blah blah. But in the reality of the political world we live in, this isn't going to happen. See gridlock/mandate explanation above. Democrats will lack the power in Congress to even bring impeachment hearings, much less, actually impeach the president. This election will not provide enough of a power shift for that to happen, no matter how much koolaid you're currently consuming.

If Democrats do win control of either house, it will not be a mandate, and they have no plan for resolving the current problems, just a generic call for change. But, in the words of the Great Philosopher, Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want. Change is not conducive with Gridlock.

Jarod
11-04-2006, 10:23 AM
So you are finally eating shit are you Dixie... Glad to see you have woken up to reality... I hope Bush and Rove wake up some day!

You are already, three days before the election, trying to minimize the damaga! HA!


Bush claimed a mandate when he BARELY beat Kerry...

Hell, Bush claimed a mandate when he lost the popular vote to Gore!

Prakosh
11-04-2006, 10:36 AM
I bet Bush claims a mandate after this election, too. Just to keep up his optimistism. Meanwhile FoxSpews and other righties are already beginning to blame the media for no good news...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jarod
11-04-2006, 10:46 AM
I lived in Washington D.C. in 1994 and the Republicans called there take over of the house historic then!

maineman
11-04-2006, 12:30 PM
and one only needs to contrast this posting from the alabama idiot with ones written a little over a year ago when he predicted the demise of the democratic party to know just how everything he writes is just bilious flatulent spewage. The insurgency would wither away and die...democracy would flower across Iraq like a beacon of freedom, we would hardly lose any more troops.... America would rebel against the democrats because of Terri Schiavo - who anyone could tell was coherent and begging to be kept alive ... the US Senate would indeed invoke the nuclear option and do away with filibusters.... Harriet Miers was going to be a great supreme court justice....blah blah blah... and on and on and on and on.

Another day, another helping of verbal diarrhea from Dixie. how-fucking-hum.

I swear....tearing his arguments apart is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Cypress
11-04-2006, 12:52 PM
I recently read a good article by Charles Krauthammer: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201597.html)

According to the pollsters, pundits and pols -- Democratic and nervous Republican -- a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: 20 to 25 House seats and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate probably stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority.

What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?" (His answer to: "How's your wife?") Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House and Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

Krauthammer raises an interesting point, regardless of the outcome, this election will not give a governing mandate to either side. It will simply result in changes in chairmanship seats, if Republicans lose the majority. Legislatively, there will still be a fairly even split, and neither party has the power to implement an agenda.

I used this article to segway into a discussion about gridlock, because this is the classic conditions of gridlock, and regardless of how the elections go on Tuesday, the next Congress is destined to endure it hopelessly. In light of this inevitable reality, and using common sense, one can understand, at some point in time, left and right are going to have to resolve the partisan divide, and get on with what is best for the country. This can't happen when the two sides are so vehemently polarized, and stubbornly defiant. Yet, it will ultimately happen in this instance, just as it has in every previous instance.

The point of this thread, is to discuss how we get from A to B. We realize and understand that we must come to some compromise on our viewpoints at some point, in order to work together again, in bipartisan manner, to address the problems facing America and our future. How can this be done?

Now, I am certain the first pinhead response to this, will be the same old angry and bitter cries to impeach Bush and Cheney and run every Republican out of Washington who they can't lock up.... blah blah blah. But in the reality of the political world we live in, this isn't going to happen. See gridlock/mandate explanation above. Democrats will lack the power in Congress to even bring impeachment hearings, much less, actually impeach the president. This election will not provide enough of a power shift for that to happen, no matter how much koolaid you're currently consuming.

If Democrats do win control of either house, it will not be a mandate, and they have no plan for resolving the current problems, just a generic call for change. But, in the words of the Great Philosopher, Mick Jagger, you can't always get what you want. Change is not conducive with Gridlock.

LOL - all of a sudden, Dixie muses about gridlock and bipartisanship. That's not what dixie was saying mere months ago!

************************************************** ****

DIXIE, Ocoter 2006: "At what point in time, does the Democrat party actually attempt to "reach out" across the isle and work with those who totally disagree with their viewpoint?"

Examples of Dixie's "bipartisanship" and "reaching out" across the aisle (fullpolitics.com):


-DIXIE: You're Getting Bolton Dammit! Like it or not, John Bolton is going to be the new UN Ambassador! His nomination will move to the floor for a vote…. opposed to him are seeming more and more like little spoiled kids who didn't get their way. I hope and pray the Dumbocrats decide to filibuster this! GO FOR IT ASSHOLES! GO FOR IT! ------I DARE YA!


-DIXIE: There is a mechanism by which unqualified judges can be turned away... it's called "voting them down". Is "Democracy" too difficult for your Socialist ass to understand? Why is it, that after being defeated in the most recent elections, you think that 40% of Congress can run the show and call the shots? How much of a fucking majority do WE need now Care? 80% 90%... does it matter?


-DIXIE: You don't need to end the filibuster, just hold their feet to the fire, make those 40 bastards have to experience a good old fashioned filibuster, and wear their asses out. If it shuts down government for a week, we'll live. It's important that [they learn this lesson now, and stop using this rule to intimidate their will on us. This is not why we elected Republicans! Stand up to these sons of bitches or we'll find candidates with the balls to do it in 2006.

-DIXIE: Personally, I don't care if they change the rules, they have that right according to the Constitution! What I do care about, is the subverting of the rules to obstruct judicial nominees. That practice is going to stop and it's going to stop NOW!

-DIXIE: You can whine and cry about it all you like, but that is how it's going to be, and you may as well get used to it!! Whether they use the "CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION" or hold the Democrats feet to the fire and shut down government for a few weeks, this shit is going to STOP! Have I made myself clear on that?

Cypress
11-04-2006, 12:56 PM
Also, merely a year ago Dixie, you made a bet that the Dems wouldn't pick up a single seat in either the Senate or the House.

maineman
11-04-2006, 01:14 PM
which he. of course, will renege on.

no surprise there.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-04-2006, 03:05 PM
I guess there must be a lack of ability to discuss this issue.

Typical.

maineman
11-04-2006, 03:14 PM
you don't want to discuss anything! You just want to bloviate.

YOu know full well, from back in the days when you were not so desparate and despondent about how terrible things have gone for your side, that you and I were capable of discussing subjects at great length....page after page after page of discussion. Ask yourself what changed. Ask yourself who poisoned the well... not just between you and ME, but between you and all of the folks who view the world differently than you do.

Jarod
11-04-2006, 07:25 PM
Dixie discuss anything... HA!

Timshel
11-04-2006, 07:37 PM
Krauthammer raises an interesting point, regardless of the outcome, this election will not give a governing mandate to either side. It will simply result in changes in chairmanship seats, if Republicans lose the majority. Legislatively, there will still be a fairly even split, and neither party has the power to implement an agenda.

HAAAA le lujah
HAAAA le lujah
halelujah halelujah
Haaa lee lujaahh!!!!

maineman
11-04-2006, 07:41 PM
no... there was a time when he could really force you to think...there was a time when I relished our debates...they left me invigorated and exhausted.... there was a time when I viewed Dixie as a very worthy adversary. It would seem that, ever since the war in Iraq started to turn into a bucket of shit, that Dixie has become more and more strident, and move and more willing to shed MORE heat and LESS light on any given subject. My guess is that he can really see it all slipping away...the grand neocon dream is disintegrating before his eyes.... melted, if you will, in the river of unnecessarily shed blood that is Iraq. He was so personally vested in the success of Bush, that Bush's demise has been Dixie's demise.

I do not rejoice in this... I would love to have the old Dixie back, irascible, to be sure, but thoughtful and witty and cogent.

Who he has become is really a shame.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 01:09 AM
HAAAA le lujah
HAAAA le lujah
halelujah halelujah
Haaa lee lujaahh!!!!


Oh, I am with you, in so far as a 'do-nothing' Congress is a good thing for smaller government. I don't know that I can deal with absolute nutballs running our national security and foreign policy at this time, that's my only concern. If it weren't for that, I would probably just vote libertarian out of principle or something, because Republicans have disappointed me on several issues.

It's amazing how no one seems to want to speak up here, I mean, on topic. At some point in time, we have to move beyond making every topic about Dixie and shifting the thread into a troll-fest. That is the point of the thread, to discuss what has to happen, for the two differing ideological powers to co-exist, because we will have to do so, regardless of this election. You can't live in a delusional fantasy world, believing that if Democrats win, there is suddenly going to be some huge change, and Iraq, NK, Iran, alQaeda, etc... is all going to vanish. Bush, Neocons, Bible-thumpers, rednecks, and conservatives will still be around, they won't crawl off into a cave somewhere and let the Demomonkey's completely run the whole show. So, nothing will really change with regard to policy, and agenda-driven ideas are dead in a gridlock of power. Other than a few chairman seats, and two more years of shrill liberal Bush-hate rhetoric, nothing much is going to change.

History tells us, eventually the gridlock will break, and the two parties will work together again, in bipartisan manner, for the good of the people. So, presuming that we don't have total anarchy and self destruct as a nation, what has to happen for both sides to 'come together' again?

Care4all
11-05-2006, 07:32 AM
HAAAA le lujah
HAAAA le lujah
halelujah halelujah
Haaa lee lujaahh!!!!

lol hahaha....were you Catholic when you were young? I just heard the choir/parishioners singing the Halelujah song in my head.... :)

Care4all
11-05-2006, 07:42 AM
I think that the divisiveness won't change....as much as I would hope that it would.... I have a feeling that the Republicans will do everything they can to be obstructionists....

and maybe that is a good thing...if it slows down the spending.

And the republicans that are left when this wipe out is over, will be plotting, scheming, and coniving their spin so that they can win in 2008....

God willing, Bush/Cheney will be impeached for their impeacable offenses....but the Dems won't have the balls to do it.... :(

God willing, we will redeploy out of Iraq....

The mess the dems will now have in their control to clean up from the Repubs will take a long, long time....a generation to fix, perhaps.... :(

Demwit
11-05-2006, 08:28 AM
Democrats will lack the power in Congress to even bring impeachment hearings, much less, actually impeach the president.
//

Ahh your favorite point Dixie. Finally figured that out and are relieved are you ?

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 08:49 AM
Care, the thing is, Democrats lack the public support to make the kind of sweeping change you think needs to be made. Too many Democrats are living this fantasy reality, that if they can just win back power, all the 'evil neocon' nightmares will end, and justice will be served to the 'evil-doers'. Unless you believe in fairy tales, this can't happen because of the relatively even split of ideology in America.

Think about what I am saying here, regardless of whether Democrats win control or Republicans hold control, the margin of control is virtually nothing, and therefore, nothing 'agenda-driven' is going to fly. All of your grandiose plans of impeaching people and 'cleaning up' Washington, isn't going to happen. Those who politically disagree with you, are not going to disappear or become non-existent if you win, they will still be around, and they will still have a strong voice in Congress.

It's really simple, at some point in time, you will have to find a way to accept the half of the country who disagrees with you, and work toward solving the divisive gridlock. It's really about compromise and acceptance, and at some point, some day, Democrats will have to discover this reality.

For instance, you mentioned redeploy from Iraq. If Democrats win control of the house by a few seats, do you really think this will happen? Those who don't favor redeployment are still going to be around after the election, and it doesn't matter if Democrats sweep every seat, they simply will not have enough power to implement this 'agenda-driven' initiative. Impeachment? It takes 2/3 of Congress to impeach, and Democrats are a long way from having 2/3 of Congress on their side. All these things you are hoping will happen, ain't gonna happen! You do not have enough support or power to implement them, and you will not get enough support from this election. You can very well, make a wish list of things you hope will happen, I could do the same thing from my conservative perspective, but the truth of reality is, neither of us are going to see an agenda-driven Congress.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 08:52 AM
Democrats will lack the power in Congress to even bring impeachment hearings, much less, actually impeach the president.
//

Ahh your favorite point Dixie. Finally figured that out and are relieved are you ?


No, I've known this all along, I am hoping to educate a few pinheads.

Jarod
11-05-2006, 09:06 AM
I dont want an impeachment, unless evidence is turned up to warrant one... and then we would have the votes.!

I do want INVESTIGATIONS into what happened over the last 6 years.

I want congress to start doing its job on oversight.

BRING ON THE INVESTIGATIONS! Bring em on! ----LETS ROLL----

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 09:20 AM
I dont want an impeachment, unless evidence is turned up to warrant one... and then we would have the votes.!

I do want INVESTIGATIONS into what happened over the last 6 years.

I want congress to start doing its job on oversight.

BRING ON THE INVESTIGATIONS! Bring em on! ----LETS ROLL----

This is the point, even IF you win control of Congress, your party lacks the number of votes it would need to even bring an investigation, unless you had something undeniably obvious to bring about half of the Republicans on board. Oh, no doubt, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will certainly TRY to do this, they just won't succeed, they lack the number of votes needed.

At some point in time, pinheads will have to start to realize, winning this election is not going to bring about the sweeping changes they are wetting their panties over. It isn't going to happen in the real world. A few chairmanship seats will change, the rhetoric will be louder and more shrill, but from a standpoint of action, nothing is going to really change.

Cypress
11-05-2006, 09:24 AM
This is the point, even IF you win control of Congress, your party lacks the number of votes it would need to even bring an investigation, unless you had something undeniably obvious to bring about half of the Republicans on board. Oh, no doubt, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will certainly TRY to do this, they just won't succeed, they lack the number of votes needed.

At some point in time, pinheads will have to start to realize, winning this election is not going to bring about the sweeping changes they are wetting their panties over. It isn't going to happen in the real world. A few chairmanship seats will change, the rhetoric will be louder and more shrill, but from a standpoint of action, nothing is going to really change.

LOL - all of a "sudden' dixie is promoting bipartisanship!


DIXIE: It's really simple, at some point in time, you will have to find a way to accept the half of the country who disagrees with you, and work toward solving the divisive gridlock. It's really about compromise and acceptance, and at some point, some day, Democrats will have to discover this reality.

DIXIE: "At what point in time, does the Democrat party actually attempt to "reach out" across the isle and work with those who totally disagree with their viewpoint?"

************************************************** ******************

Examples of Dixie's "bipartisanship" and "reaching out" across the aisle, mere months ago: (fullpolitics.com):


-DIXIE: You're Getting Bolton Dammit! Like it or not, John Bolton is going to be the new UN Ambassador! His nomination will move to the floor for a vote…. opposed to him are seeming more and more like little spoiled kids who didn't get their way. I hope and pray the Dumbocrats decide to filibuster this! GO FOR IT ASSHOLES! GO FOR IT! ------I DARE YA!


-DIXIE: There is a mechanism by which unqualified judges can be turned away... it's called "voting them down". Is "Democracy" too difficult for your Socialist ass to understand? Why is it, that after being defeated in the most recent elections, you think that 40% of Congress can run the show and call the shots? How much of a fucking majority do WE need now Care? 80% 90%... does it matter?


-DIXIE: You don't need to end the filibuster, just hold their feet to the fire, make those 40 bastards have to experience a good old fashioned filibuster, and wear their asses out. If it shuts down government for a week, we'll live. It's important that they learn this lesson now, and stop using this rule to intimidate their will on us. This is not why we elected Republicans! Stand up to these sons of bitches or we'll find candidates with the balls to do it in 2006.

-DIXIE: Personally, I don't care if they change the rules, they have that right according to the Constitution! What I do care about, is the subverting of the rules to obstruct judicial nominees. That practice is going to stop and it's going to stop NOW!

-DIXIE: You can whine and cry about it all you like, but that is how it's going to be, and you may as well get used to it!! Whether they use the "CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION" or hold the Democrats feet to the fire and shut down government for a few weeks, this shit is going to STOP! Have I made myself clear on that?

DIXIE: I am only goin to tell you this one more time Care, and then I'm done with you on this.... THE FILIBUSTER WILL NO LONGER BE USED TO OBSTRUCT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT TO NOMINATE JUDGES!"……this shit is going to stop now, and there is not a hell of a lot you can do about it! Some of these judges have been held up for nearly 4 years, waiting to be confirmed so they can start hearing cases which are backing up more and more each day, while Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi try to make some Grande Political Issue out of the filibuster rule. If you want to go on thinking that the Republicans are in the wrong, that is fine... it's not like they are counting on YOUR support for a damn thing anyway!


DIXIE: “the rules are the rules, and the majority is the majority!. I actively worked to get Republicans elected, supported a republican platform and agenda, and excercised my rights as a citizen, to change the political power structure in Congress. After all my hard work, and the hard work of others like me, we get to hear Democrats whine and pitch little baby fits, and demand that they be GIVEN something they haven't earned!

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 09:34 AM
Yeah Prissy, we know you have to try and make this thread about Dixie, it seems to be your obsession these days, but that isn't the topic of discussion here. As I said, at some point in time, you will have to stop making every thread about Dixie, and move on with life. Dixie isn't going away, and is not planning on shutting up any time soon, so you may as well get used to Dixie, and learn to live with him.

Capiche?

Cypress
11-05-2006, 09:43 AM
Yeah Prissy, we know you have to try and make this thread about Dixie, it seems to be your obsession these days, but that isn't the topic of discussion here. As I said, at some point in time, you will have to stop making every thread about Dixie, and move on with life. Dixie isn't going away, and is not planning on shutting up any time soon, so you may as well get used to Dixie, and learn to live with him.

Capiche?

No explanation for your new-found love affair with bipartisanship and common ground, when your history of posting suggests you prefer ramming your policies down the throats of the minority party?

Perhaps your "sudden" change in philosophy is related to the possibility that the GOP might find itself in the House minority?

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 10:04 AM
No explanation for your new-found love affair with bipartisanship and common ground, when your history of posting suggests you prefer ramming your policies down the throats of the minority party?

Perhaps your "sudden" change in philosophy is related to the possibility that the GOP might find itself in the House minority?

I've always been for bipartisanship, it's why I am a registered independent. My history of posting suggests something different to you than reality, as well it should, we are on a political message board. There has been no change in philosophy, but you are entitled to believe that if you like. The point is, regardless of these elections, there will be no controlling mandate from either side, thus there will be no real change, and there will be gridlock.

I am merely trying to help pinheads cope with reality here. It seems that some of you actually think, if Dems win on Tuesday, everything is going to suddenly change, with regard to policy, direction, the war, etc., and the truth is, it's not going to change at all. Some Democrats might have newfound power as chairmen, and Congress might have to be bogged down chasing dead end investigations, but real change? Nope... not so much.

Try to get this through your head, go read what Krauthammer wrote, re-read what I posted in my opening, and try to adapt to reality here, because right now, you are living in some more fantasy land. Whether Republicans barely hold on by the skin of their teeth, or Democrats regain power by the skin of their teeth, we are destined for 2 more years of gridlock.

My question, and point of this thread, is to discuss what to do about that. How do we break this gridlock? We know, by history, the gridlock will ultimately be broken, it always has before, and it will again. Try to let it sink in to your pinheaded minds, that the politics in Washington do not revolve around your way of thinking alone, and winning a slight majority in one of the houses of Congress is not a mandate, particularly when there has been no foundational plan, just a call for generic change.

Change doesn't occur in Gridlock, it's a really easy concept to grasp. I know you can do it, I have faith in you!

Cypress
11-05-2006, 10:15 AM
If it make you feel any better Dix, I will push my Democratic representatives (fi they take over the House) to be exactly as bipartisan as the republican were when they had the majority. That includes behaving exactly like the GOP majority did on offering the minority party the ability to offer amendments, inviting them to closed meetings to get their input on proposed legislation, and strictly adhering to house rules about not holding votes open past their official deadlines.

sound fair?

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 10:56 AM
I predict you'll get as far as the Republicans did with that.

At some point, both sides will have to realize the neccessity of compromise, in order to get anything done. If you want to play a game of tit-for-tat the next 2 years, then Republicans will cream you in '08, for the exact same reasons you are creaming them now, it's a never-ending cycle, don't you see?

You can push your representatives for whatever you wish, it's America, but to believe that a slim majority of one house is going to affect a change, is a dream. Keep in mind, we do not live in a vacuum, and if Democrats win control of something, you can bet the Republican response will not be to 'roll over' and let the Dems have their way. I anticipate a major push by true conservatives of the party, and much more viable platform for '08, should the Republicans lose here. Every action has a reaction, and Dems winning a slight majority now, is going to cause Republicans to change strategy for '08, which will probably not help the liberal cause.

Cypress
11-05-2006, 11:06 AM
I've always been for bipartisanship, it's why I am a registered independent. My history of posting suggests something different to you than reality, as well it should, we are on a political message board. There has been no change in philosophy, but you are entitled to believe that if you like. The point is, regardless of these elections, there will be no controlling mandate from either side, thus there will be no real change, and there will be gridlock.

I am merely trying to help pinheads cope with reality here. It seems that some of you actually think, if Dems win on Tuesday, everything is going to suddenly change, with regard to policy, direction, the war, etc., and the truth is, it's not going to change at all. Some Democrats might have newfound power as chairmen, and Congress might have to be bogged down chasing dead end investigations, but real change? Nope... not so much.

Try to get this through your head, go read what Krauthammer wrote, re-read what I posted in my opening, and try to adapt to reality here, because right now, you are living in some more fantasy land. Whether Republicans barely hold on by the skin of their teeth, or Democrats regain power by the skin of their teeth, we are destined for 2 more years of gridlock.

My question, and point of this thread, is to discuss what to do about that. How do we break this gridlock? We know, by history, the gridlock will ultimately be broken, it always has before, and it will again. Try to let it sink in to your pinheaded minds, that the politics in Washington do not revolve around your way of thinking alone, and winning a slight majority in one of the houses of Congress is not a mandate, particularly when there has been no foundational plan, just a call for generic change.

Change doesn't occur in Gridlock, it's a really easy concept to grasp. I know you can do it, I have faith in you!

Dixie, today: "I've always been for bipartisanship, it's why I am a registered independent."...."It's really simple, at some point in time, you will have to find a way to accept the half of the country who disagrees with you--It's really about compromise and acceptance, and at some point, some day, Democrats will have to discover this reality."


DIXIE, July 2005: "Desh, I tell you what you obsessive little bitch... what goes around comes around! IF and WHEN your pathetic Socialist Party EVER gets back in power, you can look for me to be probing your asshole every fucking day and night for the slightest step out of line! I'll post every goddamn thing I suspect, and you worthless shitheads better not blow your damn noses wrong! God help your asses if Hillary gets elected, because every fucking day, you will have a new fire to put out and another new scandal on the horizon. Hell, I am a conservative, it suits me just fine if we freeze Washington for the next 20 years and don't pass any legislation for all the investigating of scandals... that's how you wanna play the game, it's going to be rough." (ffullpolitics.com)

Cypress
11-05-2006, 11:18 AM
Make up your mind Dixie:


-DIXIE: “I've always been for bipartisanship, it's why I am a registered independent.”


-DIXIE: “I actively worked to get Republicans elected, supported a republican platform and agenda, and excercised my rights as a citizen, to change the political power structure in Congress.”

-DIXIE: Dear Republican Party, I have steadfastly supported the platform of the party for the past decade, endured much criticism for being an extremist, Kool-Aid drinking fool and idiot, and gave you a pass on forsaking conservative principles in governmental intrusion into our lives and the budget because of the war on terror.

-DIXIE: “…I flew my flag, and bought my yellow ribbon magnet, I stayed on these boards day and night, defending the actions we took as a nation, deflecting the criticisms of Bush as a Commander in Chief, and having WMD's and Osama thrown in my face on a daily basis for endless months. Even after this, I didn't lose faith in the party or wane in my support,


-DIXIE: what goes around comes around! IF and WHEN your pathetic Socialist Party EVER gets back in power, you can look for me to be probing your asshole every fucking day and night for the slightest step out of line! Hell, I am a conservative, it suits me just fine if we freeze Washington for the next 20 years and don't pass any legislation for all the investigating of scandals... that's how you wanna play the game, it's going to be rough."

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 11:24 AM
Make up your mind Dixie:

I'm sorry, I don't see where it says I am a registered Republican. My statement was, I am a registered Independent. Do you have something to contradict that, or not? If you don't, then we can presume my statement to be correct, because you should have that in the Dixie Database, if I've said otherwise.

Cypress
11-05-2006, 11:31 AM
Make up your mind Dixie:

I'm sorry, I don't see where it says I am a registered Republican. My statement was, I am a registered Independent. Do you have something to contradict that, or not? If you don't, then we can presume my statement to be correct, because you should have that in the Dixie Database, if I've said otherwise.

LOL

Who cares what a piece of paper says you're "registered" as. Bill O'Reilly claims he's a "registered" independent too. And his nose is so far up bush's ass, he can't even breath.

You said yourself, you've actively supported the republican party, platform, and agenda for over a decade, and you're on message boards "day and night" defending them.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-05-2006, 12:02 PM
I have supported Republicans, and I have supported some Democrats. I've supported Zell Miller his entire political career. Sam Nunn is another Democrat I have supported, and wished he had run for president. I've not ever really supported Lieberman, a northeast lib, until this election, but in the local and state races, I often vote for the Democrat over the Republican. I am conservative, I make no bones about that, but this does not tie me to any particular party, when it comes to principles and ideals.

This thread is not a debate about my political persuasion, and I can appreciate the fact that you seem to want to make it about that, but at some point in time, don't we have to come to grips with the fact that we disagree fundamentally on some things, and find a way to work together again?

You all seem to think, if you win, republicans are just going to go away and never be heard from again, and all of the initiative in Washington will be the collective will of the liberal party, and I'm telling you, this isn't reality. Everyone isn't going to wake up Wednesday morning, and just accept the "Get Bush!" agenda, and follow along. If you live in this fantasy world, and believe this will be the case, you need to wake up and join reality.

maineman
11-05-2006, 12:15 PM
This is the point, even IF you win control of Congress, your party lacks the number of votes it would need to even bring an investigation, unless you had something undeniably obvious to bring about half of the Republicans on board. Oh, no doubt, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will certainly TRY to do this, they just won't succeed, they lack the number of votes needed.

At some point in time, pinheads will have to start to realize, winning this election is not going to bring about the sweeping changes they are wetting their panties over. It isn't going to happen in the real world. A few chairmanship seats will change, the rhetoric will be louder and more shrill, but from a standpoint of action, nothing is going to really change.

I have no idea where you get that. Of course we will have the votes to start investigating.Speaker Pelosi and her democratic committee chairs (and majority membership on those committees) can begin investigating immediately. We won't need Senate concurrence in any of it.... the democrats in the house will be able to begin in January. WHy in the world would you think we would need any republicans, let alone HALF to begin doing the job of congressional oversight?

Cypress
11-05-2006, 12:20 PM
I have supported Republicans, and I have supported some Democrats. I've supported Zell Miller his entire political career. Sam Nunn is another Democrat I have supported, and wished he had run for president. I've not ever really supported Lieberman, a northeast lib, until this election, but in the local and state races, I often vote for the Democrat over the Republican. I am conservative, I make no bones about that, but this does not tie me to any particular party, when it comes to principles and ideals.

This thread is not a debate about my political persuasion, and I can appreciate the fact that you seem to want to make it about that, but at some point in time, don't we have to come to grips with the fact that we disagree fundamentally on some things, and find a way to work together again?

You all seem to think, if you win, republicans are just going to go away and never be heard from again, and all of the initiative in Washington will be the collective will of the liberal party, and I'm telling you, this isn't reality. Everyone isn't going to wake up Wednesday morning, and just accept the "Get Bush!" agenda, and follow along. If you live in this fantasy world, and believe this will be the case, you need to wake up and join reality.

Trying to mislead again?

Who cares if you supported Sam Nunn. Nunn hasn't been in public office for over a decade. You said: Over the PAST DECADE you have spent "day and night" supporting the republican PARTY, plaform and agenda

You're being dishonest trying to pose as a bipartisan "independent".

Who gives a shit what or who you supported over a decade ago? Its not relevant to who you support NOW.

I voted for Ronald Reagan TWICE. I'm not dishonest enough, to claim that entitles me to some kind of "independent" mantle TODAY.

Damocles
11-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Gawd bless Gridlock!

Cancel7
11-05-2006, 04:04 PM
I have supported Republicans, and I have supported some Democrats. I've supported Zell Miller his entire political career. Sam Nunn is another Democrat I have supported, and wished he had run for president. I've not ever really supported Lieberman, a northeast lib, until this election, but in the local and state races, I often vote for the Democrat over the Republican. I am conservative, I make no bones about that, but this does not tie me to any particular party, when it comes to principles and ideals.

This thread is not a debate about my political persuasion, and I can appreciate the fact that you seem to want to make it about that, but at some point in time, don't we have to come to grips with the fact that we disagree fundamentally on some things, and find a way to work together again?

You all seem to think, if you win, republicans are just going to go away and never be heard from again, and all of the initiative in Washington will be the collective will of the liberal party, and I'm telling you, this isn't reality. Everyone isn't going to wake up Wednesday morning, and just accept the "Get Bush!" agenda, and follow along. If you live in this fantasy world, and believe this will be the case, you need to wake up and join reality.

Dixie, if I thought that if the dems won this election it meant that republicans would "go away and never be heard from again" instead of getting about 4 hours of sleep a night the past two weeks, I would have gotten none because I would have worked that much harder.

Nobody thinks those squeaky, yapping, whiners are ever going to go away and not be heard from again.

OrnotBitwise
11-05-2006, 07:08 PM
Gawd bless Gridlock!Amen, brother.

Efficient government is bad government, pretty much by definition.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-06-2006, 06:52 AM
Well, I can certainly understand the 'libertine' types, who are happy as pigs in mud about gridlock. I somewhat share that sentiment, however, this is not how our government is set up to operate, and it hasn't historically done so for very long. At some point, there will be a shift to one side or the other, or a compromise issue that pulls the two sides together again. Being that, nothing ever happens without a reason, I thought it would be healthy to discuss what has to happen, for gridlock to break.

Conservatives and Liberals are not just going to drop off the planet after the elections, so regardless of how it turns out, we will still have a partisan division in ideology, and this means gridlock. As many libertarians have lamented, this is a good thing for smaller government and spending, but persistent gridlock over a long period, results in problems not being addressed, which really should be addressed and resolved. This is why, ultimately, the gridlock will be broken and we will once again have bipartisanship on the hill. My question again, as it seems to be getting largely ignored, is... how do we get there from here?

AnyOldIron
11-06-2006, 06:55 AM
Krauthammer raises an interesting point, regardless of the outcome, this election will not give a governing mandate to either side.

It makes Bush a 'sitting duck' President...

uscitizen
11-06-2006, 07:00 AM
a dead duck president would be better.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-06-2006, 07:13 AM
Krauthammer raises an interesting point, regardless of the outcome, this election will not give a governing mandate to either side.

It makes Bush a 'sitting duck' President...

I think you mean "lame duck" president, but maybe not.

In essence, isn't that what Bush is already? He lacks enough control to implement an agenda, the split of power is so evenly divided, he hasn't been able to govern in the manner he would have liked. The few things that have passed under Bush, are watered-down versions, full of pork and compromises, for the sheer purpose of political expediency.

The thing is, a Democrat House is not going to make things all perfect and rosy in Washington, and this seems to be the thinking at this point. We will still be a sharply and evenly divided nation, and while you might be perfectly okay with that, we will not stay that way forever.

maineman
11-06-2006, 07:25 AM
at a minimum, a democratic house will start investigating the deceit employed by this administration. To suggest that they will need significant republican support to commence such investigations is evidence that you do not know how our government actually works.

Blackflag
11-06-2006, 07:40 AM
Well I don't think the (D) will gain control of either house. They will definitely pick up seats though and along with the liberal Republicans (Snowe, etc.) it will be hard for anything to get passed which sounds friggin great to me.

Care4all
11-06-2006, 07:41 AM
I think you mean "lame duck" president, but maybe not.

In essence, isn't that what Bush is already? He lacks enough control to implement an agenda, the split of power is so evenly divided, he hasn't been able to govern in the manner he would have liked. The few things that have passed under Bush, are watered-down versions, full of pork and compromises, for the sheer purpose of political expediency.

The thing is, a Democrat House is not going to make things all perfect and rosy in Washington, and this seems to be the thinking at this point. We will still be a sharply and evenly divided nation, and while you might be perfectly okay with that, we will not stay that way forever.

Congress has been destroyed by the republicans the past 6 years, allowing no Democratic amendments, passing irresponsible legislation left and right, and they have forfeited our constitutional rights to this president, they have done nothing but passed legislation that the president wanted that ONLY HELPED the very wealthy become wealthier while the middle class has been held stagnant, and more middle class has fallen in to the lower class. This Republican lead congress has investigated NO ONE that has been corrupt in their party, they have passed illegal legislation in the middle of the night to benefit their contributors or the president's contributors... They have elevated the Bush presidency to KINGSHIP....

They have also accepted bribe after bribe from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, they leadership of the house has been nothing less than corrupt...

They have spent our tax dollars foolishly...they have stolen our money for their friends to better themselves off of it.

There is NOTHING that has been good about the Republican held congress these past 6 years....they are the MOST CORRUPT congress in our history....can't wait till they get wipred out of office and off the face of the earth would be even better as far as I am concerned....because they are evil, evil's pawns....

Vote Democratic on tuesday, it is our only hope of saving our country from tyranny.

care

Cancel7
11-06-2006, 07:49 AM
I think you mean "lame duck" president, but maybe not.

In essence, isn't that what Bush is already? He lacks enough control to implement an agenda, the split of power is so evenly divided, he hasn't been able to govern in the manner he would have liked. The few things that have passed under Bush, are watered-down versions, full of pork and compromises, for the sheer purpose of political expediency.

The thing is, a Democrat House is not going to make things all perfect and rosy in Washington, and this seems to be the thinking at this point. We will still be a sharply and evenly divided nation, and while you might be perfectly okay with that, we will not stay that way forever.

I have an idea Dixie. How about, when the repugs are in control of the House, we become divided and consider bipartisanship "date rape" and we have one party writing legislation late at night, in rooms the other party can't find, and then the one party gives the party on the "outs" the bills in the morning and tells them "SIGN THAT BOY" and if the BOY don't sign it, the BOY will get the old "Mr Smith IS FOR THE TERRORISTS!" treatment on the news.

And then how about when the dems hold the House, we get all mushy and repukes like you who have happily flailed that whip around for years, start getting all teary-eyed and talkin bout where is the bipartisanship? We is all Americans, we gots to work together my brothers! And then the dems will crawl aroudn on their knees just beggin the minority party to please take a look at my little ole legislation and tell me iffin you got any changes you would like me to make because I will make them poste hasty sir. And then we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Or, maybe not. Maybe you and your repuke friends can go f yourselves. You know what? Yeah, let's go with that plan.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-06-2006, 07:49 AM
at a minimum, a democratic house will start investigating the deceit employed by this administration.

Oh, I certainly hope they do! I hope they completely ignore the problems Americans want fixed, and obsess on trying to impeach Bush and Cheney for the next two years. In fact, I am counting on that!

maineman
11-06-2006, 07:53 AM
actually, Dixie...the Iraq war is the single biggest issue on the minds of voters...they WANT answers... and, unlike republicans, democrats can multitask...we can have some committees investigating the misleading done in the runup to war, and we can have other committees sending legislation to the floor.

And you never did fess up to your ignorance about democrats needing significant republican support in order to start holding hearings.

why am I not surprised?

Demwit
11-06-2006, 07:54 AM
at a minimum, a democratic house will start investigating the deceit employed by this administration.

Oh, I certainly hope they do! I hope they completely ignore the problems Americans want fixed, and obsess on trying to impeach Bush and Cheney for the next two years. In fact, I am counting on that!

I think the democrats will not be following the example of the Republicans during the Clinton years.
They have things to fix now that The Republicans screwed up.

Jarod
11-06-2006, 07:54 AM
This is the point, even IF you win control of Congress, your party lacks the number of votes it would need to even bring an investigation, unless you had something undeniably obvious to bring about half of the Republicans on board. Oh, no doubt, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will certainly TRY to do this, they just won't succeed, they lack the number of votes needed.

At some point in time, pinheads will have to start to realize, winning this election is not going to bring about the sweeping changes they are wetting their panties over. It isn't going to happen in the real world. A few chairmanship seats will change, the rhetoric will be louder and more shrill, but from a standpoint of action, nothing is going to really change.


You Really are ain IDIOT... If The Democrats win a MAJORITY they can issue subpoena's and start any investigation they want. It just takes a majority to start an investigation... TO impeach that would be another thing, I think you are confused!

maineman
11-06-2006, 07:59 AM
and I have never claimed to have infinite wisdom about the military or anything else, for that matter, but I do know enough about the military to know the difference between the missions and weapons systems employed by fighter aircraft versus attack aircraft. I guess those missions could have changed since I retired, but I doubt it. I think that fighter squadrons are still employed to defensively counter an airborne threat, while attack squadrons are still employed to offensively attack enemy targets on land and at sea.... but I am sure that if anyone is more up to date on all things having to do with the military, it would be a chickenhawk film developer from an alabama trailer park who never served a minute in uniform....

Cancel7
11-06-2006, 07:59 AM
actually, Dixie...the Iraq war is the single biggest issue on the minds of voters...they WANT answers... and, unlike republicans, democrats can multitask...we can have some committees investigating the misleading done in the runup to war, and we can have other committees sending legislation to the floor.

And you never did fess up to your ignorance about democrats needing significant republican support in order to start holding hearings.

why am I not surprised?

I saw a poll yesterday showing that a real high majority of Americans answered YES when asked if they wanted Halliburton Iraqi contracts investigated.

Idiots like Dixie do not understand what is coming. All he can think about is Impeachment. That would never be the first step. I don't think the dems will ever impeach...you know, unless after a few investigations that the American people want, it is shown that this admistration is so corrupt that the American people start demanding that they do it.

As for legislation, one of the first things we are going to see coming out of a Dem congress, is a raise in the minimum wage, putting Bush in the position of vetoing it. Do you know the percentages of support on that?

But bush might have no choice but to veto it because he is beholden to his corporate masters. Oh, it will be so funny. Yeah. No, good times are coming, and impeachment, gosh you know what Dix? That would be almost letting him off easy. Nah, let's send him some bills that enjoy approx 80 public support, but that he has to veto cause his corporate masters say "veto that BOY".

Let us have some fun with him Dixie. Don't be a spoilsport.

maineman
11-06-2006, 08:03 AM
You Really are ain IDIOT... If The Democrats win a MAJORITY they can issue subpoena's and start any investigation they want. It just takes a majority to start an investigation... TO impeach that would be another thing, I think you are confused!

actually, to impeach only takes a majority as well. The House could very well impeach Dubya in 2007 for his deceit in misleading us into the bloody, costly and counterproductive war in Iraq...

although I think that just holding hearings that end up spewing Bush's skunk scent on a whole host of congressional republican presidential wannabes would be every bit as nice.

Cypress
11-06-2006, 08:05 AM
I think you mean "lame duck" president, but maybe not.

In essence, isn't that what Bush is already? He lacks enough control to implement an agenda, the split of power is so evenly divided, he hasn't been able to govern in the manner he would have liked. The few things that have passed under Bush, are watered-down versions, full of pork and compromises, for the sheer purpose of political expediency.

The thing is, a Democrat House is not going to make things all perfect and rosy in Washington, and this seems to be the thinking at this point. We will still be a sharply and evenly divided nation, and while you might be perfectly okay with that, we will not stay that way forever.


The thing is, a Democrat House is not going to make things all perfect and rosy in Washington, and this seems to be the thinking at this point.

Are you drunk? No one ever said this. At best, we need divided government to provide a check on the incompetence and horrendous judgements and decisions the Chimp is making.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-07-2006, 09:15 AM
Are you drunk? No one ever said this. At best, we need divided government to provide a check on the incompetence and horrendous judgements and decisions the Chimp is making.

I just keep hearing stuff like.... "After Tuesday, the long national nightmare will begin to end!" As if, a Democrat gain of a few seats, in the 6th year of a two-term presidency, is some big deal. You would think, by hearing pinheads talk, the Democrats are going to have a 70-80% control of both houses, and all of this liberal tripe you've spewed the past 6 years, is going to suddenly start being implemented. I got news for ya, it ain't going down like that. Regardless of how the elections go, we will still be fairly evenly split, and without resolve for the bitter partisan divide, will continue to have gridlock. The president will still be the president, he will not be impeached, and if Democrats want to spend their two years of temporary power, trying to bluster up enough bullshit to bring impeachment hearings, you will pay for it in '08, because people will grow sick of the shenanigans. The President still controls the policy agenda, and this will not change with Congress. The Legislative branch of government, regardless of party control, has little to do with Executive branch policy. You indicate a Democrat congress will "provide a check on the incompetence" but how do you think this will happen? Congress doesn't establish Executive policy, the President does.

Face it, the next two years are going to be much like the last two years, we might have to put up with Speaker Pelosi, and we might have to endure more of the shrill incessant rhetoric of the liberal left, and all of Congress' time, as well as millions of tax dollars, might be flushed down the toilet, trying to impeach the president, but as far as Iraq and our foreign policy, nothing is going to change.

maineman
11-07-2006, 09:30 AM
Dixie....why won't you retract your idiotic claim that for democrats to start holding hearings into administration malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance will require significant republican support?

Speaker Pelosi and the new democratic majority in the house can - and hopefully WILL - begin that process unilaterally....

kinda like the way Henry Hyde investigated Clinton.