Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
A Big November Ahead For Senate Democrats
salon.com — Three experts tell Salon that the Democrats may expand their Senate majority by half a dozen seats. The environment for Republicans is awful. The problem for Republicans is not only has it not gotten better, it's probably gotten worse.
alapoet- 529 diggs
- digg it
- lucy22, on 07/22/2008, -4/+27True, November will be a very interesting month for both parties.
- alapoet, on 07/22/2008, -2/+13In the Republicans' case, I'm thinking it will be "interesting" in the Chinese sense. ;-)
- electricwaffles, on 07/22/2008, -16/+1Reelection month will be a big time for both political parties... No *****, Sherlock.
- LeeSoong, on 07/23/2008, -9/+14Hopefully more democrats will come under criminal investigation and removed from office:
http://digg.com/politics/Bonusgate_Corruption_Prob ...
Pennsylvania is a good start, now is the time for the people of all the States to investigate the back room dealings of their leaders...- newwildlife, on 07/23/2008, -7/+7Oh lets not point fingers, we know any republican is as corrupt as any democrat.
- swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I wouldn't bet on it, Pat Leahy took care of the GOP's ever-popular "investigate democrats right before elections" tactic when he kicked Attorney General Gonzales' ass out of the Department of Justice.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Are you retarded?
So you want to go after Dems, but you don't even mention the most corrupt party in US history, the Bush GOP?
Did it hurt jamming your head that far up your ass?
- motivatedmama, on 07/22/2008, -8/+28Wooohoo! Bring on the bloodbath!
- Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -4/+15Careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
If Obama is elected and Democrats expand their lead in Congress, there will be significantly more pressure to get things done, including reducing the deficit and being tough on terrorism, two traditionally weak Democratic areas.
And if they don't, which they probably won't, they'll be voted out of office in droves.
Let's not forget all the broken promises from the 2006 election. Remember getting rid of the "culture of corruption", ending the war in Iraq, being the "most open and honest Congress in history", and all other sort of promises that were broken?
William Jefferson, Christopher Dodd, closed door sessions, voting for FISA, voting for more and more programs while not cutting spending, the list goes on and on.- SethEllis, on 07/23/2008, -2/+12It's true that this will be a difficult cycle for Republicans simply because more of their incumbents are up for re-election. However, I think Democrats are deluding themselves when they think that all the bad is good for them. The story conveniently forgets that the current Democratic congress has done jack squat. The do nothing congress is just as much if not more to blame for the current state of things.
- compdude32, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Look at the approval numbers for Congress, which is controlled by democrats, the future of the democrat party is weak, noone is happy with what they have done.
- diggduggDOOM, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3I agree there will be pressure to get things done. It's the same pressure that the Republicans felt until 2006, and we saw how well that worked out for them.
Congress approval ratings are normally very low, although I think the ratings for the current session have broken records. This is primarily because everyone thinks (almost every) Congress does a horrible job, but their specific representatives are great (hence we keep voting the same idiots in).
The Democrats barely control the Senate at 51-49, and that includes Joe Lieberman. I believe it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster and 67 votes to overturn a veto. While I'm not happy with lack of spine shown by the Democrats, it's hardly as if they have an iron grip on Congress. - motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Ooook. The Dems. have held the majority for how long out of the past 8 years? And look! Huh! diggduggdoom gets dugg down for issuing facts? Well shame on him! Who needs the truth? I think I'll just have to digg him up for that.
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2You know, it does suck that the Dems. are gonna be handed this Repug generated pile of crap. It's really a toughie. Perhaps some will see it as, things can't get any worse.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2How do you get that high?
You are seriously mentioning Jefferson, but failing to mention the many many Republicans charged?
You mention Dodd, but fail to mention Cheney's closed door sessions with WHO, big oil, the most profitable industry on earth, thanks to Cheney's secret meetings.
Voting for FISA?
Uh, in case you weren't paying attention, you rightards CHEERED for that.
It's pretty pathetic blaming the Dems for the things you supported. - Wargalas, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@CryRightardCry
Bb.b.b.but Republicans! Seriously, are you that dumb that you can't see that I'm pointing out the hypocritical nature of Democrats?
Why am I asking this rhetorical question, clearly, you are that dumb.
Corrupt members of Congress need to be removed from office, regardless of political party.
Hypocritical ones need to be publicly shamed and removed.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -5/+14Socialism, here we come!!!
Be ready, the solution to every problem is going to be government programs and higher taxes!!- xenuxenuts, on 07/23/2008, -6/+5As usual, it'll be programs to correct the screw ups of the republicans and increased taxes to pay for the debt that resulted from tax cuts and spending increases by the republicans. The last fiscally responsible republican president was Nixon.
- motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3The trend is pretty clear. The Repugs run up a deficit so they can howl about the need for cutting domestic programs.
And you! xenuxenuts! Enough truth telling here! The Repugs don't like it when you tell the truth! You wan't to end up in gitmo or somethin? - skrowl, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4All Obama is saaaaaying... is give Socialism a chaaaaaance.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Higher taxes if you are rich, most likely lower taxes otherwise.
You really should try reading about the issues and finding out what the real plans are instead of parroting rightard talking points.
Higher taxes for the rich folk that Bush cut taxes on, less taxes for you and me.
But don't let the facts get in the way, you just keep pushing that rightard stupidity. - BigW, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2True, tax cuts will only be for the rich.
Now all that matters is what the definition of "rich" is.
There are some tax policies that Obama is espousing that will affect me. And I don't consider myself rich.....
Also, I'd be willing to be that universal health care will become yet another payroll tax item on every paycheck for everyone (like social security and medicare) before all is said and done.
- xenuxenuts, on 07/23/2008, -6/+5As usual, it'll be programs to correct the screw ups of the republicans and increased taxes to pay for the debt that resulted from tax cuts and spending increases by the republicans. The last fiscally responsible republican president was Nixon.
- Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -4/+15Careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/22/2008, -6/+40Time to pressure the Democrats into serving the people of the United States, instead of the corporations, special interests, and Israeli Lobby. If they have political capital to burn, it will be very telling how they use it.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11Wrongly, they will use it wrongly.
Politics today is about power over the people, not power for the people.- CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1And a big thank you for giving up and just letting it happen.
Get the ***** out of the way and let the rest of us try to make some changes.
I'm sick of jackasses actively trying to convince America it's too late to change.
- CryRightardCry, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1And a big thank you for giving up and just letting it happen.
- sodade, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2Frankly, I'd rather the liberals have power to implement their "socialist" agenda than the neocons having power to act on their imperialistic will.
- wafla, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3You won't find many liberals pushing a socialist agenda. You might find a few socialists doing it, though.
/Words mean things.
- wafla, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3You won't find many liberals pushing a socialist agenda. You might find a few socialists doing it, though.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11Wrongly, they will use it wrongly.
- VKMO, on 07/22/2008, -11/+12Let's just say I don't see any elephants in my voting this year.
- alapoet, on 07/23/2008, -2/+15I think the early Democratic Congressional victories in special elections in normally solid Republican states like Mississippi are a bellwether of what's going to happen this fall.
- drachemorder, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Perhaps, but I'm from Mississippi, and the Democrats running for office here are running as conservatives. Ideologically they're almost identical to the Republican candidates. Even if the Democrats pick up those seats, they won't pick up much in the way of liberal votes. The voters might be annoyed at the party, but they haven't changed their fundamental values, and the candidates know that.
It won't bother me much, as a conservative, if the Mississippi Democrats currently running win their races (even though I'm not going to vote for them). They might even be a counterbalance to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I would love to see the Democrats move away from the left.
- drachemorder, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Perhaps, but I'm from Mississippi, and the Democrats running for office here are running as conservatives. Ideologically they're almost identical to the Republican candidates. Even if the Democrats pick up those seats, they won't pick up much in the way of liberal votes. The voters might be annoyed at the party, but they haven't changed their fundamental values, and the candidates know that.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 07/23/2008, -13/+11It is possible that both parties may lose seats to extra party favorites that run outside their collective platforms. The reason being the unpopularity of the entire Congress. Independents candidates could retake the Senate with three-five seats and Green party candidates could reach into the House to pull away at least 13 seats.
- onetimer, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8GP candidates getting thirteen seats? What have you been smoking?
- BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5You know...if more people thought the way that Fangsinmybeard does, it wouldn't be such a laughable prospect. Try voting for someone other then a Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter who, but if the 2 major parties actually had some competition then they might just clean up their act...
- sugarazor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"What have you been smoking?"
They don't call it the "Green" Party for nothing.
- kinerry, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7The only party even close to winning a seat are the Libertarians.
Greens are a joke and a fraction of the size. - ldw4686, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2don't know why you got dugg-down. Probably the people who can't think for themselves. I think it would be great news to shake up the political system. Because, look at the situation we are in now - I bet a lot of things would be different if we had more than 2 parties, with the more the merrier!
- richbleak, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3He is getting dugg down because he isn't saying what should happen, he is giving an analysis of what is possible; this analysis is ridiculous. I agree that we need a viable third, fourth, or fifth party; I would never claim that this is a possibility this election.
- onetimer, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8GP candidates getting thirteen seats? What have you been smoking?
- Surferess, on 07/23/2008, -8/+16It used to be that when you controlled the congress you had a lot of power. Nowadays the whole checks and balances thing has me confused. Either way more Dems couldn't hurt.
- Bilabrin, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I think the big losers here and for the next 8 years at least will be the social conservatives and those with an aggressive foriegn policy stance. I don't think economic conservatives are going to get hammered too badly.
The big winners will be the environmentalists.- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9The big winner is going to be the IRS.
Economic conservatism is dead. The blue dog Democrats will not hold the line. Our government is addicted to big spending programs. - krAzykrAkr01, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5The real losers here are the American people. ***** rolls downhill and we're always at the bottom.
- skrowl, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1@krAzykrAkr01:
You haven't seen anything yet. Wait until Barack and the other socialists get in power. Think economic disaster the likes of which they've only seen recently in places like France.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9The big winner is going to be the IRS.
- Bilabrin, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I think the big losers here and for the next 8 years at least will be the social conservatives and those with an aggressive foriegn policy stance. I don't think economic conservatives are going to get hammered too badly.
- tillerman00, on 07/23/2008, -12/+6Undeserved, straight up.
- inigomntoya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Word.
- tillerman00, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Glad to know not everyone thinks these Democrats deserve our adulation after selling us out consistently and aiding & abetting a criminal administration.
- Bilabrin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The democrats aren't winning. The Republicans are losing and the people don't feel they have many choices to oust them so they turn to democrats.
- SQLserver, on 07/23/2008, -15/+7Lets face it: Dems aren't perfect(As FISA showed us), but with Obama in the whitehouse and a large democratic majority in the senate, topped off with a possible impeachment trial for Bush and his cronies, well, then things might actually begin to get done.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9Yes, we'll become more socialist. That will definately get done.
- SQLserver, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4Exactly.
After all, these days the Socialist countries are the only ones getting anything done. - shauncorleone, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7"Please insert your paycheck here, so that we public servants may get things done."
- Dave91143, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I heard that ole Adolph got a lot of things done - trains ran on time, the VW was built, and yes, the trains carried "undesirables" often past churches who merely "sang louder" so they wouldn't hear the screaming people being carted off to the gas chambers.
Dave.
- brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -10/+12We need those seats, without major control of both the house and senate, we will not be able to undo all the ***** of the past 8 years.
- wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7We need to undo the ***** of the past 28 years.
- drachemorder, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2I'm a hardcore Southerner, so I'm still looking to undo the crap of the last 140 years.
- WhoWatches, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Amen.
- wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7We need to undo the ***** of the past 28 years.
- crice, on 07/23/2008, -10/+8"The problem for Republicans is not only has it not gotten better, it's probably gotten worse."
That's terribly redundant.- Ahnteis, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11Not it's not. Not getting better includes staying the same. Getting worse does not.
- Nintendesert, on 07/23/2008, -4/+23With Democrats doing the hard work and passing things like FISA, who needs Republicans?
- macdady843, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1You mean the same democrats that didn't vote against FISA.. Yea your statement makes a lot of sense??
- Troy64, on 07/23/2008, -5/+17If the Democrats don't change there position on drilling, they may end up losing seats.
If nothing changes by November gas prices will be biggest issue in the elections. Even though most Diggers don't believe drilling will help. Most voters are not going to be satisfied with a congress that will not even try to get more oil.- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10"It won't help for years to start drilling in ANWR," will not be a tolerated excuse by the voters paying $4 a gallon for gas much longer.
The reason for this is that they've been saying this for YEARS and if they'd have gotten off their asses years ago and actually approved drilling in ANWR we'd be getting that oil NOW.
Congress is so damn shortsighted its ridiculous.- sodade, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Gee, if we had acted back in the 70s to focus on alternative energy, we'd be realizing the benefits NOW.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -3/+9People need to understand. If we open up drilling, we won't see that for seven years! Oh, BUT, prices will go down immediately. Why? Oil is a commodity people are investing in. They will not want to have their investments there if a big new supply of oil is coming on later. So, we won't see the oil for seven years but we'll see price relief immediately.
- sodade, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3Why don't you people understand that the ANWR oil will simply go on the open market. You act as if we would be nationalizing the oil so we could keep oil prices down - that is not reality.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Yes, it will be additional supply on the open market, which will drive prices down.
- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The additional supply from ANWR will likely not drive prices down, at least not in a way visible at the pumps. The supply from ANWR is too small to have a major impact on on the global market.
Additionally, by the federal government's own studies, offshore oil drilling will not be able to induce a noticeable effect on world prices until 2030.
None the less, Screwy, you do have a point with the speculation market. If there is lots of hype about additional supply, regardless of whether or not it will actually have a real effect, it might drive prices down.
- evilbob333, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Energy cost is definitely an issue that the Republicans can capitalize on this year. And it may be the one that saves their asses. The problem is that they can't wait till after November to start pushing the issue. What they ought to do is start putting in bill to do things like fast track building nuclear power and refineries, remove the taxes on imported ethanol, allow for recovery of American shale oil, even the importation of Canadian shale oil. Force the Democrats to block these or better vote on these issues. And then they can come back and say the Democrats are blocking affordable energy.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10"It won't help for years to start drilling in ANWR," will not be a tolerated excuse by the voters paying $4 a gallon for gas much longer.
- crackberri, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5I’m black not white, hot not cold, STUPID NOT SMART………
- tman84, on 07/23/2008, -6/+14This is Political Opinion, not Political News, buried.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3LAWL we'd have to bury 3/4 of digg.
- tman84, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2No, we just have to file things under the proper category, that's all.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3tman... I was just making a joke, I didn't digg you down or anything.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3LAWL we'd have to bury 3/4 of digg.
- iduridur07, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12Yes because the price of oil in America has done SO WELL under Democrats that got in last time. The brilliant, absolutely brilliant new plans to make energy cheaper or affordable.
Woohoo- BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the average gas price in the US was $1.06 per gallon. On January 20, 2001, the day Bush took office, the national average gas price in the US was $1.46 per gallon. In the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the price of gas jumped 40 cents. The current average price is $4.06 per gallon. In the 8 years that Bush Jr. has been in office, the price of gas has jumped $2.60.
Please explain to me how Clinton can be responsible for that large of a jump *after* he left the White House.- wafla, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1He can't. @iduridur07 is obviously a turd, playing word games when everybody needs to pull together to get the country out of this mess.
- keymanjim2, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Price of oil when Bush took office - $29
Price of oil when democrats took over Congress - $51
Price of oil today, July 11, 2008 - $145
Price of gasoline when Bush took office - $1.60
Price of gasoline when Democrats took over Congress - $2.34
Price of gasoline today, July 11, 2008 - $4.30
- treehugger87, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I don't think that the price of oil is the only measure or how effective our government policy is under either dems or repubs, but since you mention it. From the U.S. Energy Information Administration. All prices national average for regular gas. Prices not adjusted for inflation.
U.S. Regular Aug 20, 1990: $1.19
U.S. Regular Dec 2, 1991: $1.10. A respectable job by Bush Sr.
U.S. Regular Dec 11, 1995: $1.06.
U.S. Regular Dec 27, 1999: $1.27. Up about 15% from the start of the Clinton presidency 8 years ago
U.S. Regular Dec 29, 2003: $1.47. Up about 15% from the start of the Bush presidency 4 years ago
U.S. Regular July 21, 2008: $4.06. Up about 300% from the start of the Bush presidency 8 years ago
The only brilliant plan new plan to make energy "cheaper or affordable" is to move our entire economy to renewable sources of fuel. Solar panels in the deserts, electric powered cars, clean coal energy plants, hydro and wind are the future.- Troy64, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Bush tried to open up new drilling from the start of his administration and it was blocked by Democrats every single time it was brought up. Republicans realize we cannot get to alternative forms of energy overnight. Increasing oil supply along with building nuclear powerplants and wind energy combined are the only ways we can make it through 10 to 20 years.
- treehugger87, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1@Troy64
Bush's desire to drill in the ANWAR has been brought up many times. I know, I've written letters to my representative and senators each time. Each time, the outcry from the public has been effective in blocking it. Even republicans at the height of their power did not want to touch this issue. Those who have pushed it, have found themselves voted out of office.
If we can't get to alternative forms of energy overnight, when CAN we get there? Had Gore stepped in to office in January of 2000 and said "we are going to be energy independent by 2010" and spent $540 billion dollars (the cost of the Iraq war to date) of taxpayer money doing so, don't you think we would be well on our way by now? I contend that we wouldn't even be talking about trying to "make it through" the next 10 or 20 years.
Compare that to a successful lobby to pass an offshore drilling bill in 2000. The oil from that drilling would still be 10 years away from flowing into our system. Even if it did start to flow now, the U.S. will never be in position to supply itself with more than 10-15% of its total energy needs.
- BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the average gas price in the US was $1.06 per gallon. On January 20, 2001, the day Bush took office, the national average gas price in the US was $1.46 per gallon. In the 8 years that Clinton was in office, the price of gas jumped 40 cents. The current average price is $4.06 per gallon. In the 8 years that Bush Jr. has been in office, the price of gas has jumped $2.60.
- wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -10/+5I would like to hear any reasons why anyone would support a republican. They have spent the past 30 years demonstrating how bad they are at everything.
Trickle-down economics?
Free trade?
Laissez faire regulation?
Privatization?
Debt spending?
Foreign intervention?
All bad republican ideas that have been sold to some Americans in the past 30 years.
What are the good ideas republicans have had?
.
Anything?- altgeeky1, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Yes but you're taking the naive view that these people want policies that ADVANCE the USA, it's people, it's economy, and it's prestige.
With massive blood loss due to trade and energy policy, the country was bound for extreme politics. It's just history repeating itself. The ONLY way Republicans can maintain their privileges is to go "cannibalistic" on the Middle Class and poor. The best Americans don't have to wear "flag pins". - h3lx, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Letting the Assault Weapons ban expire was pretty good. That's about it really, just the gun thing. They've been like King Midas but with ***** on everything else, no arguments there. That said, a complicit enabling Democrat is 5 times worse than any Republican.
- phoenixshard, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I'm all for gun rights, but I've as yet seen any reason to need an AK-47 or any other assault rifle. I had no issues with the assault weapons ban. The only thing that lifting it does is take away something they could put an extra charge onto the crook that just held up the corner store with.
- h3lx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1AK-47s were prohibited without permit prior to the ban, during the ban, and after it expired. The AW ban limited the availability of weapons that fell into the congressional definition of assault weapons, ie, single fire magazine fed 'military' styled weapons. The language of the measure made little sense. High capacity magazine fed weapons such as mini-14s et al are seldom used in crimes, often it's a handgun, not a rifle or a shotgun. I can do more damage with my 7mm Mauser than 5 ak-47s and that rifle is almost 100 years old. The ban was ignorant, misguided, hastily approved and did more to promote the sale and distribution of the defined weapons than limit their supply. Possession of a weapon while committing a crime ups the ante anyways, there was no reason to tack it on.
- Infidelcastr0, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Nepotism?
Corporate Socialism? - kinerry, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Half of those ideas are liberal ideals. Foreign intervention? That's not even remotely conservative, hell Bush campaigned against it in 2000.
- treehugger87, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2You should pick up a paper more recent than January of 2000. A lot of interesting stuff has happened since then.
- bffoley, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2And thats why the Republicans need to get their asses kicked this year, to remind them of what they once stood for.
I mean, remember when Bush was saying in 1999 that we shouldnt be nation-builders? Then he gets voted in and we've been stuck in a "We can't leave Iraq because the situation is getting better/worse" loop thanks to the Republicans. - wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I do not believe I used the word "conservative" anywhere in my post. You are confusing "conservative" with "republican".
You think people should elect someone based on what they say while campaigning regardless of what they do when they are in office? Interesting concept that, apparently, most republicans follow.
I guess that concept would explain why more people don't burst out laughing when republicans refer to themselves as conservatives.
- Dave91143, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0My problem with Democrats
First of all they (or their platform is) Pro-Death
(some 50 mill plus future American citizens have been executed often moments from the womb and Obama wouldn't protect those who survived PBA)
Same Sex - (DUH!) refer to #1 and biology 101
Anti-drilling - (wouldn't you do all you could to get away from $4.00 plus per gallon?)
Extremely Left bias - (pressing for cutting out the only avenues for free expression, radio (the Fairness Doctrine) and the Internet).
Additionally, consider their stand on ENDA and LOST, and trying to negotiate with people who are "eternally offended by the crusades" which they started!!.
Dave. - NorthMass, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1wilywondr there is so much wrong with what you said.
(1.) The Republicans and Democrats are equally bad because both are corrupt. Both vote the way their lobbyist friends influence them too, so people need to stop voting all these collective fools in office.
(2.) The Republicans are NOT practicing Laissez faire economics at all, are you serious? George Bush just bailed out Fannie May and Freddie Mac which would NEVER happen if we ran a Laissez faire economic policy. It is the opposite of Laissez faire. You don't know what Laissez faire is obviously.
(3.) The Republicans and Democrats are both terrible when it comes to debt spending. They both do it, and your just blaming the Republicans.- wilywondr, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1So you couldn't come up with anything and made an attempt to obfuscate the issue with the "they are all bad" argument.
Thank you for participating.
BTW
Laissez faire has been the republican economic platform for the past 28 years.
Laissex faire - "It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed a minimal of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights."
That is raygun, daddy bush and dumby bush's economic policies summed up in 1 sentence. But I think you knew that already. And I think you already know who is the worse debt spender by FAR or you should look it up. Here it is in a nice simple graph you may be able to understand.
http://home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/federa ...
Who do you think removed the regulations that allowed the mortgage houses to loan money to anyone with a pulse(laissez faire)?
I really hope you are just playing stupid because otherwise you should ask your mommy if you can go to summer school. - NorthMass, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Bush bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which is freaking corporate socialism! Laissez faire is anything but socialism, so Bush does not practice laissez faire. I do not know enough specifics about Reagen as I was not alive then, but I do know he cut taxes, and maybe he did practice laissez faire to an extinct I dont know. But he also started the War on Drugs which is the least libertarian thing you can do, and laissez faire is the libertarian economic plan. But George Bush is ANYTHING but someone who practices laissez faire economics.
Oh, and Clinton looted social security to hide his debt, he was just as bad as the current Bush.
- wilywondr, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1So you couldn't come up with anything and made an attempt to obfuscate the issue with the "they are all bad" argument.
- altgeeky1, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Yes but you're taking the naive view that these people want policies that ADVANCE the USA, it's people, it's economy, and it's prestige.
- makenshin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Maybe Republicans should be focusing more on getting congressmen elected than McCain. I know it's nice for them to win the presidential election again, but I doubt the Democrats are going to be so nice to Republicans with the next president. Some have (probably accurately) theorized that the Dems have let Bush do what he wants so can gain a majority in congress and the presidency. Unfortunately, one party having more than a simple majority is bad to have within congress, especially if that party holds the presidency as well. Though I don't like the Republicans and am hoping for third party candidates to get some power this year, I don't want the Dems to get the extreme majority they are likely to get this year (even though i've helped vote some of them into office...)
- Fallout911, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8If the Repugnitants don't change their party towards a more libertarian message they will disappear in a few years.
The people are tired. - kingp, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3"The problem for Republicans is not only has it not gotten better, it's probably gotten worse."
That's almost a triple negative...and possibly the most bestest worded sentence I've ever seen.- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Lets try replacing the words with synonyms:
--The problem for Republicans is that, in addition to the fact that it has not improved, it has likely declined.--
Makes sense really. Just an elaborate way of saying things are not getting better and not staying the same
- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Lets try replacing the words with synonyms:
- zacharytelschow, on 07/23/2008, -5/+6What I find funny is how the country is supposedly in shambles, yet the Democrats have a majority in both bodies of Congress, which has its lowest approval rating of all time. Common sense would dictate that its a bad year to be a Democrat as well, but I doubt you'll hear that from any media outlet.
- KicktheDonkey, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1oh.... cry me a river.
- shauncorleone, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1ZING!!!
/sarcasm
- shauncorleone, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1ZING!!!
- joe122370, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6yep bye-bye dems. They've had control and done nothing!
545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.
They and they alone, have the power.
They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! - wafla, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2It's called filibustering. Republicans are filibustering 4x higher rate than the Democrats when the "nuclear option" was being discussed.
Look up Trent Lott. "Our strategy is to close down government and then run on a do-nothing Democrat-owned congress."
- KicktheDonkey, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1oh.... cry me a river.
- wesdenton, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Yes, November will be an interesting month for the Republidems.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -5/+11Bring on the socialism!
I predict '12 will be a terrible year for the democrats.
By the way, the f'n republicans deserve this. They totally f'd the republican ideas. I voted for Ron Paul. I want my god damned party back. - dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9Yay for the two party system. I love how the elite has brainwashed the world into thinking everything is a binary choice. ***** Democrats. ***** Repubicans. ***** political parties. Political affiliation should be forbidden. There should be no part of government that recognizes political party. That ***** is what makes people lazy. "Oh, I'm for social progress, so I vote Democrat like all the other sheeple." "Oh, I'm for family values and social conservatism while throwing in 'small government' just to make it sound like my Bible doesn't do all the talking. I'm voting Republican blindly like all the other sheeple."
I know there are people out there who DON'T vote like this, but stupid ***** articles like this only encourage it. The only think good about Democrats extending a stronger hold on either the house or senate is that there is less chance of some ***** religious ***** getting mixed in with legislation that affects people who don't believe in it. They both spend more than we have, they both serve themselves first, their friends second, and if there is enough time, they might support a bill that will make the socialists among the Democratic party happy.
NEITHER OF THESE ***** PARTIES GIVES A ***** ABOUT YOUR CIVIL ***** LIBERTIES. Don't expect Barack Obama to repeal or veto the third round of the Patriot Act. He voted for it the second time. Don't expect those who contribute to illegal wiretapping to be accountable. He voted to protect them too. That's OK though, just call anyone who rails against the erosion of civil liberties and the integration of globalist organizations like the Bilderbergers into the your government without any check on their power, a conspiracy theorist and it'll all be OK.- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Agreed. It's almost like cheering your favorite sports team on. Sad.
- dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Your favorite sports team will not pass legislation that affects your life and the lives of those around you. No idea why your completely irrelevant attempt at being snarky is getting dugg up.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Calm down, it's okay. I hate it too. But you have to admit, people are attached to their party like sports teams. They want to see 'their team' win. I'm not the first one to make this comparison. It emphasizes your point, which I agree with.
I may not be voting for either of the republicans or democrats this year. I don't believe voting third party is a waste of a vote. Sure they may not win this year, but the more votes they get, the more attention they get. The more attention they get, the more votes they get. Voting third party is the only way to break the system. My wife says if I don't vote for X then I'm letting Y win. Yes, I may be, in the short term, but my vote is a vote for Z to win in the long term.
- SQLserver, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1LOL GUYS! IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY~!!!~~!
LOLZ!!! VOTEZFOR RON PAULS CAUSE SOCIALISMS IS EVILZ!!!
You don't realize how idiotic you sound. In case you haven't noticed Socialist countries are the only ones getting anything done.- dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1REGURGITATE OTHERS ATEMPTS AT DILUTING THE POLITICAL PROCESS 'CUZ YER LAZY, LOLZORZ!!! WHO CARES IF WAHT AYE SAY IS TRUE. OTHER PEOPLE SAY IT TOO SO MY OPINION IS VALID LOLLERSSKATES!!
- SQLserver, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Idiot. IT isn't true.
Obama > Ron Paul will ever be.
Ron Paul is no different from any other Republican.
All Republicans run on fear. Ron Paul just runs on the fear of 'Big Government'.
It's time for Americans to get over their childish paranoia, and realize the difference between Government help(Democrat) and Government Control.(Republican)
The rest of the world reaps the benefits of socialism. - Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1"Ron Paul just runs on the fear of 'Big Government'."
That, my friend, is the idea. One we are founded on. - WhoWatches, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1@SQL - keep drinkin the kool-aid pal. Its workin wonders.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Agreed. It's almost like cheering your favorite sports team on. Sad.
- lokee73, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3To a certain degree, the Democrats have been held hostage by Joe Lieberman. Right now if Joe caucuses with the Republican's that would make a 50/50 power split; give Cheney the deciding vote and therefore power of the Senate back to Republicans.
I think it will be interesting to see how they work if they don't have to kiss Joe's ass to maintain power.- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Its a good point. While there is a lot of talk about the democrats controlling congress, the technically don't if you do not count the 2 independents toward the democratic party. Especially Lieberman who lost his democratic primary last election cycle because he tends to vote with the republicans.
- duckyinc, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3FFS, why are these interviews even done? Just wait till the thing actually happens before starting to predict wins for your *insert whatever* party.
- FlaNative, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I intend to vote out any Democrat who voted for Telecom immunity.
California should "Say No to Nancy" and fire her for not doing her job and impeaching Bush like she promised in 2005.- Troy64, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1How many districts can you vote in?
- jfreeman, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Conventional thinking says that if the party in power pisses people off, it is rewarded with a loss of seats. But what if the other party is just as bad? Giving the Democrats more power will not fix the problems, because they have shown that they are *not* an opposition party.
- alleged, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Yes, it looks good for Democrats, and it would be good for the country to shake up the GOP a bit and put them on the back bench for a while.
But the Democrats have a way of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Democrats, now is not the time to f(ck this up. - onedeep, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3Once the Democrats have more than a one-seat majority in the Senate, I guarantee you will see Lieberman stripped of all of his power.
- ancientshoes, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5***** the democratic party, i'm voting republican
- appleseed1234, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2im sure that will pay off
- NorthMass, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2***** both parties, vote Libertarian or Nader
- skrowl, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I'm voting Republican not because I support the Republicans' agenda that much but because I oppose the Democrats' agenda.
- skrowl, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I'm voting AGAINST the Dems, not so much FOR the Republicans. The Republicans are just the ones who are going to benefit ;)
- IronDonut, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2The system actually works. Looking at the 8 year performance of the republicans they deserve to get fired.
- Lamadave222, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I'm moving what little equity interests I have to foreign markets. With a Demokrat Congress and a Marxist/Leninist as President the American markets are in for great difficulty when it comes to wealth generation....what Obama would consider "excess profit" and if the Dems resist every option for holding down energy costs, i.e. drill here, drill now, then their reign will be short indeed. And the pent up demand will create a market explosion in 2012. That's the time to get back into the market. You heard it here first.
- IronDonut, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Republicans handle the economy better than the Democrats? How exactly do you explain the economic glory days of the Clinton years vs the economic collapse during the Bush years?
- IronDonut, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Republicans handle the economy better than the Democrats? How exactly do you explain the economic glory days of the Clinton years vs the economic collapse during the Bush years?
- bcarl314, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Key numbers to remember for strong power in congress (by either party)...
House of Rep: 290 - number needed to override a veto
Senate: 67 - number needed to override a veto
Senate: 60 - number needed to stop a filibuster
If either party doesn't attain the last number (60 in the Senate), there will be gridlock. - Pillage, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Is this sort like how the experts at Fox news predict republican victories?
- ozymandias2012, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
- spamcrusher, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Lets remember the Democrat party isn't gaining big because they are loved, they are just hated a tad less than Republicans.
- nirvanix, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Do you really believe there are two parties with two ideologies? I don't anymore after being exposed to Pelosi and the other Dems like her.
- edyang, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2The Dems haven't done anything productive in the last 2 years. Why would we think that would change in the next 4?
- trollick, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Wow. It looks like sheeple really thinks that will make some difference one way or another.
- edyang, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1Having lived in Canada for 25 years I know the pros and cons of a socialist government. The province I lived in, British Columbia, was driven into the ground by a socialist NDP party that pandered to unions, increased taxes and created a very poor economic environment.
Garbage workers would strike, teachers would strike, even movie projectionists would strike. Bus drivers went on a 2 month strike that forced my mother to walk 45 minutes each way to work in the pouring rain.
Government workers almost had an aneurism when it was suggested they should work 5 days a week like normal private enterprise folks.
Sales tax was a whopping 14% (federal and provincial).
The medical system was in serious crisis mode. Stories would come out on how people would die in emergency rooms for lack of care. A two tiered system emerged where those who could afford it got tired of waiting 9 months for heart surgery and flew to the US. Citizens fat and lazy on free health care flew into a tizzy when user fees were suggested...we're talking about $20 user fees!
The welfare system was broken. Why should anyone work when they were collecting unemployment benefits that were marginally better than minimum wage? Line ups on welfare Wednesday would always translate to a spike in overdose heroin deaths in Vancouver's skid row with people blowing the government benefits on drugs.
This is a glimpse of what is possible if the Dems have full control of the US.
Epilogue: In the last 8 years a financially conservative government took power in BC. Now the province has its first SURPLUS and is ready to host the 2010 winter olympics.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
