Moderator: JOHN THURSTON
BTW, the response by Bush today.....fire Donald Rumsfeld. Tell me this wasn't a long time coming. Oh, wait a minute, we are supposed to believe that Bush was going to do it before the elections? Right. And if you believe that one, I have some marsh land in Florida to sell.
Looking into the future, how do you think Pelosi is going to treat the Bush Administration? Can't wait to find out. But, I think one thing is for sure, I think Bush's Iraqi policy is in severe trouble. Maybe we'll get the boys and girls home before any more are killed. I hope so.
mikemurphy wrote:Looking into the future, how do you think Pelosi is going to treat the Bush Administration? Can't wait to find out. But, I think one thing is for sure, I think Bush's Iraqi policy is in severe trouble. Maybe we'll get the boys and girls home before any more are killed. I hope so.
Wondering (with tongue in cheek) if Rumsfield will go to work for Haliburton!!!
Don't shed any tears for him.
Rumsfield will make more money in his first year out of the Cabinet than all his previous years of public service put together.
The country didn't buy itself Democrats, Mike, they bought gridlock. In the words of Professor Larry Sabato of UVa (today), "I love gridlock. It's been said that life, liberty, and property aren't safe when the legislature is in session." (FoxNews, 08Nov2006)
But you are entitled to feel satisfaction. That's what representational government is about. Hopefully you voted and earned the right to that satisfaction. (I'm sure you did...)
It was going to happen irrespective of the outcome of the elections. Bush didn't want to do it beforehand because he didn't want the appearance of caving just before an election. Perhaps you've been too busy in Democrat politics to notice the regular shuffling of the Bush cabinet.
FWIW, in a month Rumsfeld will have been the longest serving Secretary of Defense in history. He'll stay on long enough to complete the transition, so that will happen. Just in case you weren't aware...
Don't you listen to members of your own party? Barack Obama - the Democrat most likely to run for prez - himself said in an interview yesterday that voters who spoke to him said they don't want partisan bickering any more. If Nancy Pelosi resorts to investigations and battles, voters will clean house again in 2 years.
This is the traditional mid-term change in course. It happened to Reagan in 1982, and Clinton in 1998. What it did to both is yank them away from their pandering to the extreme wings of their respective parties, and more towards the center.
This was a mandate
Don't underestimate Pelosi as she has quite a history in the House, and no love loss for the Bush clan. It threre is a chance for an investigation, she'll take it.
No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session
mikemurphy wrote:This mid-term change is quite different than the Reagan and Clinton changes. This was a mandate based almost solely on one national/international question...Iraq.
I also saw some analysis that suggested that the democrats were finally "getting it" insofar as the winners over incumbents were mainly centrist democrats, particularly in the Senate, and the centrists have not been calling for an immediate withdrawal. The House will be interesting to watch, to be sure, as the leaders are rather far to the left.
- WSJ.comThe power shift that gave Democrats control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate was a clear call by voters for new -- and bipartisan -- approaches on issues ranging from the Iraq war to fiscal discipline to ethics in government. That realignment could open the door to candidates who are independent, unorthodox or have a history of working across party lines.
You're nothing if not entertaining, Mike.
And since you fashion yourself a history buff
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests