Play nice or play hardball
WindNoSail
Posts: 580
So, do you think that since we have a divided goverment where the two sides can offset each other, we will have gridlock or better governemt?
Will the dems play nice with the President or will they try to destroy him so they can take power in 2008?
Which is best for us, the people?
Will the dems play nice with the President or will they try to destroy him so they can take power in 2008?
Which is best for us, the people?
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I think even power is always better than a one way funnel. If the dems were smart, they would try their best to work WITH the president. That way they can say that they tried and if it doesn't work, it's because bush is too stubborn to looks past his own political views to decide what's best for this country. Trying to destroy him will only end up in a future defeat.
Do you realize most conservatives don't see Bush as far right? Even liberals know he isn't really very conservative. Policy wise he is far more liberal than many conservatives, take a look at his programs, his fiscal attitudes, etc. Iraq is the only thing that one could label him as a hardliner, but that is more him being a hawk than a dove, not a conservative vs liberal.
I think it somehow ironic that the Democratic party basically placed candidates that were essentially Republicans except for the fact that they believed the country/war needed a "different direction." Harold Ford Jr. for example...
The Democrats have done everything possible to provide candidates that seem to be "centrist." Yet they will be placing the hardliners of their party, Pelosi and Reid, in positions of power.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I have always contended that Democrats should move to the center to win, but Republicans move to the right to win. Why? Because America is more right center in total, and the left general falls center, not left. I could draw a pic that would better explain that theory.
But this Congress is being painted as some sort of crazy right wing group that lost because they were extreme, but really they were more moderate and that is why the base didn't show up for a win. Moderation works better for Dems, not Rebuplicans.
But leftists dems hate the middle label, they really want to be leftists so it drive them crazy when they realize that to win they are not signifigantly different than the BIG BAD Republicans.
I expect a lot of libs here to be dissapointed if Dems work with Bush for that very reasoning.
And what do you call his bringing his very Christian faith into the game? Relying through prayers on how to decide to run his administration and anwer tough questions? Do you remember that this country was founded on the separation of the Church and State? He forgot about that whole thing....
How about trying to add an amendment to ban gays from marrying? Waging war without being threatened in the first place and without Congress' approval? Waging a proposed national language?
Not far right, huh.
Huh? Did God tell you that? Trying to figure out how you know about Bush's prayers in relation to running administration. You must have prayed about that..right?
I prayed today (I think) but it didn't make me a loony, trading in my brain for my prayer.
Banning gay marriage, hell it isn't legal so how can you ban it?
If Congress didn't do the due dilligence, then that is because Bush is a man of faith...again, huh?
Um, English seems okay by me. Even France has an official language.
Hyperbola.
Didn't Bush say that jesus told him to invade Iraq?
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
This might be hard to percieve, but prayer is a routine, not a revelation. I would imagine when we pray our brains are still active, that is just a theory and can't be proven
When I pray it is that I make the best decision, sort of like show me delicately the correct path. I don't need a burning bush or a preacher pointing his finger while his hand is out for donation to talk to God.
oh my god!! that made my day, thanks!
will the president play nice with the Dems...?
The vote was a refernedum on the war. The majority of voters, voted to end the war. The dems need to stand up and honor the vote.
End the war. Plain and simple
It would be foolish to think that the Democrats won't have their day with all of the power they now have. Perhaps we will finally get answers on the blank-check, no-bid, illegal government cntracts that were handed out like candy to the Bush elite. We might even see some indictments...but that's about it.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Well I think there will be a political struggle right off the bat with the new House inside the Dems between those moving to impeach and those not. If she plays politicis a bit longer, Pelosi will quiet them until Bush makes it clear whether he will listen to the Dems or not. If he does, they do nothing, probably. However, I think it's likely that the House Majority WILL seek investigations into the "evidence" that Colin Powell and Rumsfeld presented to the U.N. and to the U.S., as well as seeking reconciliation for not meeting to the standards of the Geneva Convention. I personally, would like to see pressure put on the Administration to reach out to Japan after snubbing the Kyoto Protocol. That means there will have to be enough Dems now in power who DO NOT have ties to Coal and Oil money. Not as many as Reps do, but still some. If Bush is uncooperative on any investigation, I do see impeachment at least being considered seriously.
In terms of Iraq, the situation is that some Democrats want a timetable, it's true. I honestly have not heard any that would confirm Bush's accusation that they want to immediately withdraw (save for one House or Senate winner, who no one thinking straight will let speak too loudly). I think immediate withdraw is a terrible idea, and a timetable should only be set when it's clear the Iraq government has a firm democracy in place that can govern. Which it doesn't and basicly has the opposite of-a government that is so weak, its actually seeking the approval of radical Religious opposition groups and Militias. Meaning that we stay, for a long time. It was a mistake to go in the first place, ofcourse. But leaving would make the region exponentially worse than it was when Saddam was in power, especially in regards to breeding new terrorist cells. What this points out which no one in the Media or Washington has admitted is that this is not a "War" it's an Occupation. Which is an Imperialistic act, which in turn no one in DC wants to be accused of being or allowing unchecked Imperialism, which is what Iraq is. But the only option is to drasticly increase troops there and get a proactive strategy going now that Rumsfeld is gone, one that utilizes the Generals, not someone in an office. And it means we will need to stay until talk of civil war is quelled.
Few.
None of that is good for the people, really. But we need to go through it in order to come out better in the end, in my opinion. It's the only way we don't end up in even more trouble than we already are.
On domestic issues, I think we need to move forward with minimum wage as well as LOTS more funding for Education. And Way more Environmental focus (ie Kyoto)
Postive thinking is the key, Postive doing is the door...
Chaq, I hate to hit you hard two nights in a row....but anarchists must be buffered with reason
Perspective: 3000 Americans dead in Iraq, Viet Nam 50000, WWII was like 4 million, WWI was even bigger...all death sucks but you are confused possibly by your own sense of moral outrage, but yet have no perspective.
Bush lied to us...hmm. Did he really lie? If he lied that would mean he knew it was untrue when it was told. Did anyone know, did any democrat say this is a lie? Think, I will wait for your response but will I get one?
So you think the war was the issue, but I would be careful. The Congress does not decide foreign policy, conservatives DID NOT vote, the dems ran mostly as moderates, American's are not happy with the Iraq situation....those four factors say something, but not neccesarilly Americans want to leave Iraq
You are smart, you know that there is more to it than that, right?
He gave the generals half of what they needed to be successful.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader