Freedom and liberty? And this is a charge the Democrats lead? Have they changed their position on the War on Drugs? Have they sponsored legislation to legalize gay marriage? Have they moved toward dismantling OSHA and other niggling government nanny agencies? Criminey.
Yeah, god forbid that employers be required to provide safe work places. :rolleyes:
See, Lib, that’s why Libertarianism is bollocks.
You misunderstand me Lib - I am not “on the Democrat’s side”.
I am on the side of freedom - the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness - no matter the color of one’s skin, the religion (or lack thereof!) one subsribes to, or the gender of the person one loves.
Criminey yerself 
Yeah, but I’m used to losing elections. Welcome to my world.
Is there a factual basis for this, or is this your analysis of the situation? I.e cite? Not that I’m calling you a liar - I just think it’s an interesting point, and would like the opportunity to explore it at greater depth.
War in Iraq?
It will never happen and one year from now no one will even have Iraq on their list of concerns. The war was trumped up by Bush to get a bunch of Democrats on record with an “anti-American” vote. And, hey, it worked.
Attention to corporate problems?
More corporate wrong-doers appointed to oversight organizations a-la William Webster. Otherwise, as long as no other companies go down in blazes, the republicans will wait six months and decide what the accounting industry really needs is deregulation.
The environment?
No forest left unlogged and no wilderness left undrilled. I wonder if James Watts is available for Interior Secretary?
The pro-marijuana push that Newsweek (or was it Time?), at least, seems to see?
There will be no meaningful movement on this countries disasterous illegal drug policies while the GOP is in charge. Be that MJ or “The War on Drugs”
Supreme Court justices?
That is only a small part of the problem. The real issue is that W will be appointing his entire rolodex to Lifetime possitions in the Federal Judiciary at all levels. The short sighted electorate are going to rue their choices yesterday while his crop of activist judges are handing down rulings for the next 30 years.
How much is a risk of the economy still tanking in two years and Republicans getting all the blame?
What difference does the Economy make? It sucks now largely because W gave away the budget surplus to rich folks. Did the Dems run on that issue? No. Why? Because half of the igits voted for the stupid thing hoping to look “centrist”.
No good can come from either major party holding a majority of possitions in all three branches of the Federal Government. Especially when the political divide in this country is something like 33% - 33% - 33%. That being Rep - Dem - and none of the above. What ever happens the result is going to be that 33% of the country get what they want and the other 66% can just go and get stuffed. At least until 2004 that is.
BTW: I am a committed Independant and I would be just as worried if the Dems had full control.
The difference of having a Senate that has 50 Democrats or 47 is not terribly significant. Keep in mind that Elizabeth Dole is not Jesse Helms and that this is not a shift to extreme right wing fanaticism.
The first casualty will be any hope of ever balancing the budget again. Corporations throw millions at the GOP to put them at the front of the tax break trough, those little piggies are going to be eating very well under this government. Republicans were so fond of saying that the surplus belonged to us, but apparently the national debt and the new deficit are orphans.
If Bush is able to make appointments to the Supreme Court, then we will see right of center appointments but there are enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to keep the flaming edge of the right wing from being appointed to the high court. Bush will get his Homeland Security Department, and the employees will be stripped of Civil Service protection.
The war WILL come, and Bush’s reelection and control of Congress in 2004 depends on its outcome. If casualties are unacceptable to the American people, or if there is another major terrorist attack in the US, then the Republican reign will be short.
One could argue that Kalt’s evidence tends to porve the opposite of his/her assertion. The corporations got away with fraud during the Clinton Administration; the recent wave of indictments is arguably to the credit of the Bush Administration.
However, I don’t actually think the Bushies deserve credit for the enhanced enforcement. I think the huge collapses forced them to take action.
Bankruptcy Law - The Republicans will pass so-called “Bankruptcy Reform” which is code for “screw the consumer.” It will become more difficult to escape credit card debt. The credit card companies (primarily MBNA) will, by changing the law through their lobbying of Republicans, effectively change the terms of their contracts with credit card holders mid-stream.
Tax Law - The Capital Gains Tax will be repealed, and the estate tax repeal will be made permanent. This means that only working people will pay federal taxes. People who make their money playing the stock market or the real estate market won’t pay federal taxes. People who inherit their money won’t pay federal taxes. This policy may be referred to by it’s shorthand name: “screw the middle class.”
The Environment - Bwa ha ha ha ha…
The Judiciary - Right-wing appointments will sail through. As strict constructionists come to dominate the bench, we will see an erosion of civil liberties, an erosion of environmental protections (as environmental laws are construed narrowly), and erosion of the separation of church and state, and an erosion of consumer rights.
And yet, many folks will remain blind to the connection between election of Republicans and the occurrence of these events, insisting that “there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.” Watch and see the difference.
You guys are acting like the Republicans are a bunch of Nazis.
And I think you might see something surprising - being in power may cause the Republicans to actually moderate their positions. After all, there is no blaming of Democrats any more if things go badly. The Republicans will have no excuses if they screw up the government. This is going to cause them to govern a lot more carefully than you’d think.
The biggest advantage for Bush now is that he gets to clear the logjam of judges. And the Democrats have only themselves to blame here - they opposed just about every nominee Bush sent their way - even the moderate ones. Their blocking of appointees was disgraceful, and now they are paying a price, because they no longer have much of a say in the matter.
gex gex: I’ll have to look up the demographics when I get home - I’m on my way to work and don’t have time right now.
Back when I worked for the gummint, we had a saying about changes of Administration: “Same circus, different clowns.” In other words, down in the trenches, things don’t really change all that much.
I do worry about the things that can’t be easily undone. Once you’ve cut down old-growth forests or put up oil rigs in the wilderness, for example, there’s no going back. And I strongly suspect that the American voters aren’t actually prepared for the kind of judiciary they’re going to have to live with for the next 20 years or so.
Having said that, however, there could be a few silver linings in this for those of us who are mostly left-of-center. First, it could actually make war with Iraq less likely. Before this election, Saddam looked at GWB and thought, “Well, the guy’s really dangerous, but his own people don’t really support him, so he won’t actually be able to go to war with me, so I’ll keep jerking the UN around.” Now, Saddam sees a President who appears to have the full support of the electorate (true or not, I think Saddam will see it that way). Suddenly, the saber-rattling looks like it might actually produce an attack. So maybe Saddam backs down to save his hide. The subtleties of power in a healthy democracy probably escape autocrats like Saddam (and, for that matter, most leaders in the Middle East, even in nominal democracies); the equation is never as simple as they think it is.
Second silver lining is that it could make the 2004 elections easier for the Dems. Virtually anything that goes wrong in the next two years can safely be blamed on the GOP, even if it isn’t actually their fault. Hell, if we have more hurricanes than usual, the Dems can run against the GOP on that plank!
Finally, it may open up the Democratic party to some new blood. The clear failure of Clinton and Gore to help Democratic candidates, added to Erskine Bowles’ loss in NC, has pretty much put an end to that era.
No, just that the Republican party is beholden to some seriously out-of-the mainstream interests.
spoke, will the skies darken and locusts ravage our crops too? Sheesh.
One thing is for sure, I am never going to trust the pre-election polls again. In my neck of the woods, all the elections that were too “close” to call actually were decisively won by the republicans.
What’s really interesting is that the Mass question #1 to completely abolish the income tax, which would cut the state budget by 40% nearly passed!!!
It got 47% yes votes. The talking heads on the media-box didn’t quite no what to say on that one. There was no money spent on this issue, no media coverage given to it. The polls predicted that only 30% would vote for it. It was a great shock to the system to see that it almost came through.
minty, the mainstream ain’t where you believe it to be, methinks.
Just the opposite - the only chance we have to re-balance the budget came when the Republicans regained control of Congress.
Check out what the Dems were saying -
-
Revoke the tax cuts (and no, Apos, it is not at all misleading to refer to this as a tax hike)
-
Spend more money on everything.
No one said, and no one believes, that the Dems were going to eliminate the deficit. They controlled the House (where all spending bills originate) for twenty-some years, and increased the deficit almost continuously. The Republicans take over in 1994, and the budget is balanced in two years.
Easy Out is probably correct that Saddam is more likely to back down, but I am still convinced that he will stall for as long as he can get away with it. I think he will get the US to attack him, back down and allow inspectors, then renege after six months or so. Repeat until 2004, and hope the next President is weaker.
I look forward to Peter Jennings referring to this election as a “temper tantrum”.
Regards,
Shodan
Bullshit. The mainstream is pro-environment, pro-education, pr-choice, seriously pissed at corporate fraud, and can’t stand the bastards who run their HMO’s.
The observations in my previous post are based on openly-announced Republican policies.
They intend to revise the Bankruptcy code just as I have said.
They intend to revise the tax code just as I have said.
Their environmental “policies” speak for themselves.
They intend to appoint strict constructionist judges, just as I have said.
All I’m doing is shining the spotlight on Republican plans.
MSU said:
I would quibble with your last point here. More terrorists attacks on the US I think would promote a more hardline stance rather than a less hardline stance. That seems to be what happens in Israel and Palestine.
I believe you are right.
The war on terrorism will be used to scare people into voting Republican. It distracts voters from the Republican economic and judicial agenda.
I must have missed the anti-environment and anti-educations clauses in the Republican platform. :rolleyes:
pro-environment doesn’t mean at the expense of jobs. pro-education doesn’t mean simply throwing more money at the problem. School choice is “pro-education” IMO.
Bush is also seriously pissed at corporate fraud.
But, you’re right though about those all being mainstream beliefs.
Here are some more:
The mainstream is pro-tax cuts, anti-gun control, pro-jobs, pro-harsher treatment of criminals, and anti-big government.