The Elections
This is just a quick post to say I'm thrilled with the results so far of the elections. At this point the Republicans have lost control of the House and the Senate lies in the balance. It is such a relief to get some balance back into our government. The people have finally spoken that they are not happy with what the Republicans have been doing.
More on this later as results are finalized.
Update: Bush admitted the election results say that the people want a new direction in the Iraq and therefore Rumsfeld is resigning. Things are looking good in the Senate as it has now come down to the election in Virginia and the Democrat is leading although it's close enough that it might go to recount.
This is truly amazing. We got our Democracy back.
More on this later as results are finalized.
Update: Bush admitted the election results say that the people want a new direction in the Iraq and therefore Rumsfeld is resigning. Things are looking good in the Senate as it has now come down to the election in Virginia and the Democrat is leading although it's close enough that it might go to recount.
This is truly amazing. We got our Democracy back.
Labels: Politics
7 Comments:
Your Neighbour from the north says YAAAAAY!!! Sorry, not much time to write anymore, but that about sums it up!
It is such a relief to get some balance back into our government.
Divided government makes it hard to pass legislation and confirm executive/judicial posts.
Some people--usually libertarians--like that kind of balance. They call it "gridlock."
The people have finally spoken that they are not happy with what the Republicans have been doing.
Historically, the election results were normal. A two-term president's party usually loses a few more seats than this (Clinton was an exception, but his party lost a ton of seats after his first two years).
Update: Bush admitted the election results say that the people want a new direction in the Iraq and therefore Rumsfeld is resigning.
Is he sincere, or is he up to something?
Da5id doesn't use quite so many epithets in referring to the president as do many liberal bloggers. :)
Things are looking good in the Senate as it has now come down to the election in Virginia and the Democrat is leading although it's close enough that it might go to recount.
Webb was declared the winner in Virginia, so it looks official.
This is truly amazing. We got our Democracy back.
Who is "we"?
The US is a constitutional republic, fwiw--the framers of the constitution deliberately put checks on the ability of the people to effect rapid change in the government--staggered elections is just one example among many.
If you don't like the constitution, then what kind of patriot are you?
:)
Divided government makes it hard to pass legislation...
This may be true, but it's better there be some gridlock due to equal representation than total domination by a party that only represents half of America (give or take a few). If there is gridlock then there is at least some hope that they will find some way to work together and come up with compromises instead of being stubborn. With 1 party dominance, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise and the citizens of the other party are left frustrated and angry as they have virtually no representation in our government. When a Democrat president gets voted in in 2008 and the dems dominate the government, I'm sure you'll be wishing it was divided again. :)
it's better there be some gridlock due to equal representation than total domination by a party that only represents half of America (give or take a few).
Doesn't that depend entirely on the particular policies?
Or do you truly believe that a majority is always right--or even something bizarre like the right thing to do is to compromise among all views represented?
I wonder what the philosophic muser would think of that (assuming that the title isn't an exercise in hyperbole)?
With 1 party dominance, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise and the citizens of the other party are left frustrated and angry as they have virtually no representation in our government.
Wouldn't the desire to be re-elected serve as some sort of incentive? Or are you advocating for the right of the minority to lead (or at least be part of consensus decisionmaking)?
You sound like an opponent of democracy--either that or an advocate of some strange new impossibly self-stultifying multicultocracy
When a Democrat president gets voted in in 2008 and the dems dominate the government, I'm sure you'll be wishing it was divided again. :)
You'll be right there with me, unless you enjoy inflation, unchecked immigration, and vulnerability to terrorism. :)
Seriously, I'm hoping that the Democrats have been insincere in their rhetoric and will actually do a good job in aiding the war on terror.
Except for new immigrants, the country is tending toward conservatism.
That's part of the reason why neither party can bring itself to deal with the illegal immigration problem.
Doesn't that depend entirely on the particular policies?
Yes, it does. The problem is that neither the democrats or the republicans truly represent the majority. Each party has picked which side of each debate they want to be on (abortion, guns, gays, etc.)to create their platform and it's not necessarily in sync with the feelings of the people that voted them in. For example, if the gop represents sides A, B, C and D and the dems represent sides E, F, G and H, the majority of the people may truly believe in B, D, E and H. If the ruling party just votes the sides they've chosen for their platform, then neither the minority party or the majority of the people will be happy. Things just aren't as black and white as they want to make it. I don't think the minority should lead and I do believe in democracy, it's not the problem here, the problem is that I think the people who get elected don't truly represent the majority, they represent themselves more than anyone. We need progress and we need our representatives to represent us and stop just voting the party line just because it's the party line.
Wouldn't the desire to be re-elected serve as some sort of incentive?
It would appear not. The current standard appears to be do whatever you want in office, and when it comes time for reelection bash the other guy to the ground, use fear tactices to scare voters into voting the way they want or make one or two highly controversial topics the whole basis for ones reelection. Whatever it takes to keep your voters from noticing that you didn't represent them in many other areas.
You'll be right there with me
That is correct, I don't want to see a democratically dominated government just as much as I don't want to see a republican dominated government. Our checks and balances just work better when they are not.
unless you enjoy inflation, unchecked immigration, and vulnerability to terrorism.
Don't fool yourself, we get unchecked immigration and vulnerability to terrorism no matter which party is in charge. ;) The economy is a whole other topic that I don't want to get into, but I'll just say that the current policies of cutting taxes but increasing spending sure aren't doing us any favors.
I don't think the minority should lead and I do believe in democracy,
Should we get rid of representatives and go with a voter's referendum on all issues of policy?
That would ensure majority rule, but it would cost.
The current standard appears to be do whatever you want in office, and when it comes time for reelection
Uh--people like lower taxes with more spending.
:)
The Republicans get in the hottest water when they sensibly suggest spending cuts. The Democrats crucify the Republicans on those issues any chance they get.
We need progress and we need our representatives to represent us and stop just voting the party line just because it's the party line.
The party line is what should let people know what they're voting for.
Much of disappointment with Bush from the right stems from the perception that he abandoned the party line (the one that got him elected) in favor of compromising with Democrats on big-spending bills such as the education bill and the Medicare prescription plan.
Except when it comes to the military, Democrats will nearly always spend more than Republicans. Bank it. Watch the next two years.
Our checks and balances just work better when they are not.
I don't see how you can say that so soon after the Democrats discovered that they can tie up all but the most popular legislation/executive appointment through the use of a procedural filibuster (hello, minority power).
I'll just say that the current policies of cutting taxes but increasing spending sure aren't doing us any favors.
Why, then, are tax revenues up and the deficit shrinking in the wake of Bush's tax cuts?
I do like talking about the economy.
Taxation puts brakes on an economy. Once taxation goes above a certain rate (probably in the neighborhood of 25%, though it varies), tax revenues start shrinking because of the induced shrinkage of the economic pie.
In short, there is no good excuse (other than various forms of "sin tax") to tax above the optimal revenue rate.
The Democrats do not yet understand that (or if they do, they are evil).
If the Democrat majority in congress (combined with Bush faltering) gives up on victory in Iraq, the cost in future regret will be staggering.
That's not worth pursuing the ideal of gridlock at the federal level.
Oops--did I scare you? :)
I'm not so thrilled with the GOP's defeat. It's nice to see Pelosi take power -- first woman in the post and all -- though she better continue to moderate her radical left views. Good thing there won't be a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, in any case. The GOP will come back in 2008, you watch!
Burkean Reflections
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home