Americans choose Democrats

[mawilson 2,133]

By Thomas C Greene

Americans have chosen to send Democrats to Capitol Hill in hopes that

they will restrain the bumbling and imperious Bush administration and

correct its many blunders. According to exit polls, nearly 40 per cent of

voters said they were consciously voting against the President and his

numerous failed policies and national misadventures.

Democrats now enjoy a comfortable majority in the House. At this writing,

the Senate remains too close to call, with key races in Virginia and Montana

showing a slight advantage for Democrats, but possibly requiring recounts.

Democrats do stand a reasonable chance of taking control of both chambers,

but, even without the Senate in Democratic hands, the political climate in

Washington is about to change, although perhaps not as much as citizens

would wish.

If the Democrats have been given a mandate by the people, it has little to

do with their own leadership. As an opposition party, they were continually

intimidated by Republican national-security rhetoric. For five years, they

allowed Congress to operate as an arm of the White House. They voted for

the war in Iraq, and for the so-called "Patriot" Act. It was not until the

national mood swung against the White House and Congress that they began

to venture the occasional complaint.

Vague rumblings came only after the populace noodled out for itself the futility

of the Iraq war and the outrage that many thousands of people have been

killed, maimed, and dispossessed over a catastrophic blunder made possible

by bald-faced lies; the sheer duplicity of the so-called war on terror, which

has been used as a pretext to erect the surveillance society that federal

bureaucrats have lusted after for so many decades; and the scam accounting

by which Congress has permitted the government to borrow more money

than it can imagine ever repaying.

Democrats had little to say on these matters, until Republican national-security

rhetoric and family-values alarm bells stopped working in the face of unpleasant

facts too vast to be concealed. Democrats minded their place until the public

could no longer overlook the incompetence, corruption, and duplicity at the

centre of the Bush administration and its handmaidens on the Hill.

The party has not earned its current good fortune: this change is the product

of widespread public disgust with the status quo. The election was for the

Republicans to lose, which they did by themselves. The American people have

turned forcefully against the incumbent government, all right; but the Democrats

are a mere beneficiary. They might as well have won a lottery. They're in power

only because the Republican government has discredited itself so profoundly.

Consider the observation of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat,

Nevada): The nation has "come to the conclusion - as we did some time ago -

that a one-party town simply doesn't work." Translation: 'It's good that the

Republicans were thrown out of Congress, just as it was good that we Democrats

were thrown out during the Clinton administration.' Hardly the words of a man

who deserves to become a leader of the United States Senate.

There will of course be some changes. There will be hearings, and possibly some

insight into the mechanics of how the USA was led by the nose into a major war

for no reason. If Democrats take the Senate, as they might well do, there will be

fewer right-wing federal judges appointed. And there could be some positive

changes to the nastiest of the national-security legislation passed by Republicans

on behalf of ####### Cheney. For example, wiretaps might again require a warrant;

foreign prisoners might be permitted to challenge their detention in federal court,

and so on.

But it's important to note that Republicans always make for a more effective

opposition party. They will find ways to jam up Democratic initiatives in ways that

the Democrats would never have dared attempt. Republicans are eager to cry foul,

to go for the throat, and are largely unafraid of offending people who would never

vote for them in the first place.

Democrats don't enjoy these luxuries. They're in power now because they

straddled the fence and successfully courted independents. They will not risk

alienating them before 2008. For the next two years, they will experience powerful

temptations to be moderate and reasonable to a fault.

Thus The Register won't be expecting much from the 110th Congress. We suggest

that readers might do well to revise their own expectations accordingly.

[Jenn! 918]

No! Not another thread!

[mawilson 2,133]

No! Not another thread!

Very good analysis - worth a read.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

lets hope so!

Daniel

:energetic:

[DeadPoolX 9]

lets hope so!

Daniel

:energetic:

What? No 'nad hangings?

[almaty 19]

lets hope so!

Daniel

:energetic:

What? No 'nad hangings?

he is out of rope..

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

lets hope so!

Daniel

:energetic:

What? No 'nad hangings?

sowy!

emmm whose 'nads we hanging now?

Daniel

:energetic:

[garya505 2]

The nightmare is just beginning!

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

The nightmare is just beginning!

why? are you rummy?

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

The nightmare is just beginning!

why? are you rummy?

Daniel

:energetic:

the nightmare is iraq and it has been here for awhile..the american voters.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

The nightmare is just beginning!

why? are you rummy?

Daniel

:energetic:

the nightmare is iraq and it has been here for awhile..the american voters.

that is correct. thank you bro Dean.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mawilson 2,133]

The nightmare is just beginning!

Why? What can the Democrats possibly do that's worse than the Bush administration?

One thing I can think of (which will affect me directly) is a rollback of Bush's tax

cuts for people making more than $200,000 p.a.

Other than that, they can't make things any worse than they already are.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The nightmare is just beginning!

Why? What can the Democrats possibly do that's worse than the Bush administration?

One thing I can think of (which will affect me directly) is a rollback of Bush's tax

cuts for people making more than $200,000 p.a.

Other than that, they can't make things any worse than they already are.

Mark, you make over 200g's?

[mawilson 2,133]

The nightmare is just beginning!

Why? What can the Democrats possibly do that's worse than the Bush administration?

One thing I can think of (which will affect me directly) is a rollback of Bush's tax

cuts for people making more than $200,000 p.a.

Other than that, they can't make things any worse than they already are.

Mark, you make over 200g's?

A little bit over that, between my full-time job and consulting, but I'm only getting started.

Anyhow, I wouldn't mind the rollback if it was for a good cause -- better public schools,

national healthcare system, etc.

Iraq isn't one of them.

[Ban Hammer 14,275]

Mark, you make over 200g's?

it's ny, steven.....everything there is expensive.