Nobody can do squat with gridlock.
And folks, that’s what we’ve got.
If Chief Scott comes in here, there is going to be hell to pay. I’m heading to my bunker right now.
Ahem. We will stay, and fight like women, TYVM.
When was the last time you saw mama bear fight for her cubs?
That said, I’m gonna go hide from Chief Scott, too.
They re-ran the election day episode of The West Wing tonight (which I guess is good in a way because the Christmas episode will be closer to Christmas)…
and CJ said “In a democracy sometimes other people win.”
That sucks.
((Actually, the entire show felt like it was mocking us*))
Fuck.
*don’t ask me who “us” is, I’m not really prepared to deal with that question right now. But I don’t think I’m alone.
Would you believe it, but I’m actually returning to the States just as Shrub is confirmed as Holder of the Nuclear Suitcase. I think I’ll go down to Washington on January 20 to join the rest of the people throwing rotten fruit at him as he walks down Pennsylvania Avenue.
No more stupid recount jokes!!
the pressure’s on bush now to learn the names of all the cabinet positions.
maybe tom hanks will reprise his ‘big’ character for the george bush movie. i can just see it now - dubya and his best friend spraying each other with silly string in the oval office. imagine how cool it’s going to be for him walking down a line of soldiers while they snap to a salute.
Well, they can appoint Supreme Court justices. Yikes!
SaintZero,
Pat Buchanan or the Natural Law Party cantidate?
Great horned toads! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more ham-handed, hypocritical display of silliness than I see here. Especially from people who I personally know to be smarter and from whom I expect more integrity.
When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 (I voted for him), Rush Limbaugh and the similarly truth-deficient warned everyone that, in no time flat, we would be living in the American Soviet Socialist Republic. When the first issues he addressed were gays in the military and national health care, they said, “See? See?” The Republicans immediately started looking for scandal. And the Democrats, rightfully (and I’ll bet including many of you) said, “Oh, quit your whining. You’re just pissed that he put an end to the Reagan/Bush era.”
When Clinton was re-elected in 1996 (I didn’t vote for him) the Republicans said, “Wow, how could you fall for him again? He’s got a scandal-ridden administration. He’s corrupt. Jennifer Flowers. Arkansas state troopers. Yadda yadda yadda.” They said, “Besides, 57% of the American voters didn’t want him.” And the Democrats, again rightfully, said, “Oh, quit your whining. He won a plurality of the votes, he’s the rightfully elected President, and you’re just pissed that he managed to weather all your brickbats and preside over a booming economy.”
Now, Al Gore (I voted for Bill Bradley in the primaries and Harry Browne in the election) loses to George W. Bush in a close, controversial, and undoubtedly f-ed up election. And what’s the first thing the Democrats do? They start immediately with the same tired, boring, stupid riffing that the told the Republicans to stuff up their ass for the past eight years.
The Senate is split 50/50 this session, and although Dick Cheney has the tie-breaking vote, the Republicans would be nuts to try to push through a bunch of hard-right legislation on 51-50 votes and claim they were expressing the will of the people. It would spell doom in the off-year elections. It also will mean no ideologues nominated to the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, should vacancies arise.
Similarly, the Republicans have a slim, 10-vote lead in the House. Not enough to railroad through controversial legislation. Not enough to filibuster or, should the need arise, bust vetos.
Anyone who really thinks that there will be significant, meaningful negative changes in the social fabric of this country over the next four years has abandoned all pretense to reason. If there are, it will come from people like Stoidela, who appears to believe that people get to have different presidents.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OpalCat *
**
No, he can NOMINATE Supreme Court justices. They still need to get approved by Congress. And there is no rule that locks us in at nine justices–we’ve had as few as seven and as many as fifteen.
What, I can’t display my frustration at having Idiot-Boy Bush in the White House?
pldennison
Let’s face it, Clinton may be a scuzz but he’s a smart scuzz. To be honest, I never really cared who he was or wasn’t screwing as long as it wasn’t the country. Anything else was Hillary’s problem.
Actually, my problem wasn’t with your OP. It was simple, concise, and to the point. You don’t like Bush, and you’re pissed that he won. I didn’t want him to win. I didn’t want Gore to win either. How do you think I feel?
No, my problem, is with people who think that George Bush is going to remake this country in the image of the Jim Crow South starting on Jan. 22, 2001. Get a grip, folks. With the election results nationwide clearly showing a nearly 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats, does anyone honestly think that all but the most moderate policy initiatives will be anything but political suicide for at least the next four years?
Hey… Look at the brightside, iit could have been worse. Gore could have won.
I voted for Nader. How do you think I feel? Bush is much further from Nader, politically speaking, than he is from Harry Browne.
I figure he’ll start on January 20. 
Just as Clinton tried to get gays in the military right after his inauguration, I think Bush will start trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned. (I don’t think he’ll ever succeed, but he will TRY.)
But I could be wrong.
I disagree. Libertarians are as far from Republicans as they are from Democrats.
eh zoff? you’re not making sense. Nader ain’t a democrat ya know.
Bad phrasing. The implication of jab1’s comment is that Nader is closer to the Democratic Party and Browne is closer to Republican Party, so it is more painful for a Nader supporter to have Bush than it is for a Browne supporter. But, this isn’t true. Libertarians are not any closer to the Republican Party than they are to Democratic Party.
Are libertarians left-wing or right-wing or somewhere in the middle?