Thursday, November 09, 2006

A THUMPING WE WILL GO -- OK, so Rummy's outta here. The Prez sez that the timing means nothing and it was planned all along for Rummy to step down at this time -- Coincidentally after this huge "thumping" at the voting booth for the Republican Party and conversely the Bush Administration. Of course, that's ridiculous. We're actuallys seeing the typical behaviour of a spoiled rich kid caught doing something wrong. So he points his finger and says, "No, you don't understand! It was HIS fault! HE did it!" I'd be interested to see who else in the administration will be leaving in the weeks and months to come. Also, if it actually WAS planned for Rummy to go now when they're dumber than we thought they were because, no matter what they say, it looks to all the rest of the planet as if the guy was canned because the American public has turned on the administration and its policies. Granted, Rummy botched things from the start and should've been gone LONG ago. But hey, who hired him and agreed with him on starting a war with absolutely no plan of what to do once we were there or, in fact, how to successfully conclude it? Who was the guy's boss, after all? The buck stops where? Right here --->

So it's going to be a LONG two years for the Prez faced with a Democratic Congress. Can you say "gridlock"? Prez can either veto everything and be viewed as an obstructionist who is thwarting the will of the people (demonstrated by the results of this election) or he can allow his policies to be reversed one by one. Since he has perverted the Republican Party to his (and his ultra-right wing cronies') personal agendas, I'm hoping for the latter but I don't see that happening. I also really don't see the former happening either; unless he really IS as stupid as he looks and I don't believe he is. I think he'll probably let minor reversals through and veto the big ones; which will STILL look like obstruction if he starts vetoing too many. Of course, now we have the Democratic Party in the majority in the House and the Senate. In typical Democratic fashion, I suspect they may very probably start gloating and feeling vindicated; shouting to the skies that they were right all along and start over-taxing the American public and generally slipping into the same old behaviour that lost them control of Congress for the last 12 years. The Democratic Party needs to realize that they didn't really WIN this election so much as the Republican Party lost it; the stance of Bush Republicans has become SO reprehensible to the vast majority of American people that swing voters went around 60% for Democratic candidates in order to voice their displeasure with the status quo. As always in politics, people voted for the lesser of two evils. So if they're not very careful, the Democratic Party could hand over the next election right back to the Republican Party in two years. I guess, as always, we'll all just have to wait and see.


Dis Guy said...

Yo Dude, am I like one of those swinger votes? Whoa, like far out man. Do I make you horny? Do I? Yeah baby yeah!!

Fink Master Flash said...

here come the tax hikes. . .
now they are gonna try to 'balance the budget' and we are gonna suffer. under clinton we had a surplus(another way of saying we are over-taxing you) but people are too dumb to realize this. so it will be an interesting two years. the republicans really let me down these past two years. maybe if bush would stop saying "stay the course" or that we are gonna get the job done no matter how long it takes. then i think we would still have a congress controlled by the GOP. but we dont cause he is 'steadfast'. this blows.

Cerpts said...




Just wait 2 years. Remember in Clinton's midterm elections when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over? Clinton was supposed to be finished but then 2 years later he was re-elected. The same thing could happen this time when the Democrats are liable to get cocky and tork people off so the Publicans win in 2008. Again, we'll have to wait and Tim Finn said.

Pax Romano said...

I think a lot of people are just fed up with this current administration, it's unwinnable war, the decimation of the middle class, the overall cocky attitude of the White House and a lot of other things.

Do I think the Dems will fare better? Probably not, but with the way things are going now, a change had to happen.

And yes Mr. Fink, I do think tax hikes are coming; there's an old saying that goes, "When you give a dance, you have to pay the band"...and Mr. Bush has thrown a doozie over in Iraq and that bill will come due.

Anonymous said...

As Angela Arden says, "I'm clearing out the deadwood!"

Mr Fink... you have to be kidding me, right? You said you are a fiscal conservative, but have you seen the defict lately? Your grandchildren (if you have any, that is) will be paying this off. Bush has spent his way through this war and his lackeys have profited from it. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to the soldiers who are over there fighting, but they AREN'T GETTING the supplies they need. No joke, there are civilians having fundraisers so they can pay for their sons and daughters armor and helmets. So if you are a fiscal conservative you have to ask, where is the money going?

As for Bush staying the course; Rumsfeld should have been fired a long time ago. His cabinet doesn't seem serious about winning the war. Here's a little nugget for you: 541 gay soldiers have been relieved of duty under the don't ask, don't tell law (yes, this was clinton's debacle.). But check this out, the majority of those soldiers dischared were ARABIC translators. How's that for being serious about winning the war? We have been sold a really bad bill of goods here. And the costs of training those soldiers is in the millions! How's that for fiscal responsibility?

Bush is responsible for running up the budget carelessly on many pork projects. Unfortunatley we will have to pay the price. Many Americans like you will gripe about tax raises, but this war isn't FREE. WE owe money to other nations such as China; is that fiscal responsibility? I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the Democrats are angels, but it's time for a change-- a real change. As I have said before, you deserve the government you voted for....

Cerpts said...


Quite rightly the people were desirous of change since the present administration has made more screw-ups than the guy who signed K-Fed to a recording contract! However, while I don't expect much from ANY politician of ANY party (I always say the only people in politics are those who couldn't hold a REAL job), I'm afraid the Democrats will take this as a mandate (the close races clearly show it isn't) for their old ways and lose their majority as quickly as they were given it.

Since this election was not necessarily FOR Democrats but AGAINST Bush Republicans, the Democrats need to tread VERY carefully here in order not to botch things. The last ten years have shown a Democratic Party woefully incapable of having a clue: playing right into the Republicans' hands with wishy-washy non-stances and providing very poor candidates as an alternative to the Republicans.

If the Democrats couldn't defeat an extremist punchline like the current Prez, they're just choosing horrible candidates. Hopefully the next election will find the Democrats backing someone who has a pulse for a change as well as an opinion without flipflopping back & forth in every press conference. Because if they choose another Al Gore or a John Kerry (or, in fact a Hillary Clinton whose only stance is her own personal advancement), the Republicans need only put up a more moderate, more centrist candidate to win in 2008. And since the current prez is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, that doesn't seem that unlikely.

Cerpts said...

Rob C.?!?!? Who the hizzle is Rob C.?!?!?! tee hee

Thank goodness I ain't gonna have any children or grandchildren because we simply ain't gonna get out from under this mess anytime soon. But wait . . . don't forget all the money the Bush family has raked in from the oil interests with the driven-up price of gas. Shake hands with your Saudi buddies once again, George H.

As for supporting our troops -- HA! Do you realize there are more police in Manhattan then there are troops in Iraq? And this is supposed to do anything other than make them sitting ducks??? And how many benefits has the prez denied the soldiers and veterans so far? We ALL know where the money's going and it's not to help the troops.

As for his cabinet not being serious about winning the war: they never pretended to be. OK maybe they PRETENDED to be but they were never serious about it. The goal is to have an ongoing conflict, never-ending and never-resolved but CONSTANTLY pouring money into those who profit highly from war; and this includes the entire Bush family and their oil interests.

It is also true that you deserve the government you voted for. Unfortunately, I didn't vote for this one. And neither did the majority of the American people. It may seem like digging up ancient history but the facts are the facts: the majority of the American voters voted for Al Gore in 2000. It was the unconstitutional electoral college (with quite a bit of help from Bush family cronies in positions to help) who gave the presidency to the man with less votes. As I told my Republican cousin as well as Mr. Fink, the electoral college disenfranchised them by essentially throwing out their votes when New Jersey went for Gore in the electoral college in 2000. Anyone who voted for Bush in New Jersey had their votes thrown in the garbage and ignored because the whole state was counted for Gore. That's called disenfranchisement. Just because the outcome came out the Republican's way doesn't mean they weren't disenfranchised. One person one vote; I don't see the problem with that concept. As long as there is an electoral college with appointed (not elected) people deciding who's going to be president, the concept of "every vote counting" is a lie. Mr. Fink's vote didn't count in 2000. . .and neither did the majority of the country who did not vote for this man as their president. I'm certainly no fan of Al Gore either but facts is facts and right is right.