I just saw a headline on CNN.com...and also saw it on MSNBC.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
And Montana's senate seat has apparently been won by the Democrat.
Lots of breaking news...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Just saw this and I must say I'm shocked. It's not that I think Rumsfield has been unjustly criticized, its that he is the ultimate administration insider. The Bush administration has been, to this point, undeviatingly loyal to its friends. This move demonstrates how much the administration has been shaken by the election.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And also, I'm out of turkey.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug*
So?
(i.e. The damage has already been done.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not convinced he has. Not until him or the President says.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Icarus, your lack of concern for JT's turkey makes me sad.... Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am not convinced he has. Not until him or the President says.
I'm listening to the President right now on NPR's audio stream, and he did say so.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am not convinced he has. Not until him or the President says.
The President has just confirmed it. Bob Gates (ex head of the CIA) is The Presidents pick to replace Rumsfeld.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's on Fox too. Yay! It's about time!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Perhaps this was also discussed in his conversation with Polosi? Perhaps something in the spirit of compromise?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
I posted slowly, so let me clarify: I mean about Rumsfeld. JT can still go out and buy more turkey, so I'll be following that situation a lot more closely. Good luck, JT! ((JT))
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Ooh, here comes the spin. Now he's saying that his previous statement to the press that Rumsfeld was going to stay was an attempt to keep the upcoming change from becoming an election issue. But the two are otherwise totally unrelated.
Edited to add: okay, he's still dancing. Apparently he didn't actually know that his decision would go through at the time of the previous interview, not having spoken to Rumsfeld or Gates at the time, but it was nonetheless on the horizon. Or something like that. But the point is, it had nothing to do with the election.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
He's already offered twice to resign in the past
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Buy turkey!? What'm I, made outta money?
I'm asking for more for Christmas. *fingers crossed*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
♫♪ The sun will come up
to-morr-ow ♪♫♪
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ooh, here comes the spin. Now he's saying that his previous statement to the press that Rumsfeld was going to stay was an attempt to keep the upcoming change from becoming an election issue. But the two are otherwise totally unrelated.
Edited to add: okay, he's still dancing. Apparently he didn't actually know that his decision would go through at the time of the previous interview, not having spoken to Rumsfeld or Gates at the time, but it was nonetheless on the horizon. Or something like that. But the point is, it had nothing to do with the election.
Yeah, that's so obviously a lie that even Bush's closest and most ardent supporters won't believe it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bob Gates (ex head of the CIA) is The Presidents pick to replace Rumsfeld.
*shudder* I'd accuse them of doing the bossa nova, except that's an obscure play on words even by my standards.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Very surprised by this news, certainly its out of the blue for me.
I feel good about Bob Gates, he declined the position previously to stay at Texas A&M, I can see him taking this position not because he wants power but because he feels its his duty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I genuinely believe Rumsfeld thought it was his duty, too. Loving your country doesn't immediately qualify you for the job.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Bob Gates (ex head of the CIA) is The Presidents pick to replace Rumsfeld.
*shudder* I'd accuse them of doing the bossa nova, except that's an obscure play on words even by my standards.
Would that be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," or am I completely clueless?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Ooh, here comes the spin. Now he's saying that his previous statement to the press that Rumsfeld was going to stay was an attempt to keep the upcoming change from becoming an election issue. But the two are otherwise totally unrelated.
Edited to add: okay, he's still dancing. Apparently he didn't actually know that his decision would go through at the time of the previous interview, not having spoken to Rumsfeld or Gates at the time, but it was nonetheless on the horizon. Or something like that. But the point is, it had nothing to do with the election.
Yeah, that's so obviously a lie that even Bush's closest and most ardent supporters won't believe it.
Wait until Dark Knight comes into the thread to say that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Good news, President Bush got the message--Loyalty is a great quality in minions, but apptitude is better.
Bad news, President still asks us to "Trust" him on the details. He refuses to "Trust" us, rather lieing about Rumsfeld future than risk letting us know the truth lest the truth affect the election. He does not yet realize that Trust can only be kept where it is given.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
DK may say it, Mig may say it, Rush Limbaugh may say it, but believing it is another story.
The real question now is whether Rumsfield will leave quitely taking the fall but remaining loyal to the administration or retaliate in some way.
These election results could very well lead to a feeding frenzy as factions in the republican party start turning on each other.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
...and Britney and K-Fed are splitting up... What is the world coming to?!? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wouldn't this have been smarter to do a month ago?
Republicans were being charged left and right by their "stay the course' mantra and refusing to adapt to changing circumstances. If he was going to fire him anyway, which it certainly looks like, why not fire him BEFORE the election and say "See? We ARE paying attention and we are changing our tactics as the situation changes. The people have spoken, and the generals have spoken, and we've responded."
It might not have made a huge difference, but they might not have lost so many seats, and it might have made the difference in Virginia and Montana, who knows. Either way it seems a stupid move to do if AFTER you lose if you were going to do it anyway, especially on the heels of saying that he expects Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay through the end of his term.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Honestly, I genuinely believe Rumsfeld thought it was his duty, too. Loving your country doesn't immediately qualify you for the job.
Granted, though perhaps I am unsure which I would rather have.
Capable man with a self centered agenda
Or incapable man with a firm resolve to serve the country.
edit: The first man reminds me of Peter Wiggins.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Now Democrats will have to put forth their "new ideas" for dealing with the situation in Iraq. And they won't have Rumsfeld to kick around any more--just the President, whom they still have to get along with for two more years. If all the Democrats can do is call for a policy of "cut-and-run," then they will find themselves behind the eight-ball in 2008, when they will be blamed for whatever goes wrong (as it surely will if we cut-and-run).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron
Define "cut and run," please.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dems may be blamed - and some of them should be for voting for it in the first place. But the fact that no matter what we do, it is and will be a ghastly, tragic mess rests with the President.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Please demonstrate it for us. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
From CNN.com article about it... CNN "Bush said while Rumsfeld's resignation had been in the works for a period of time he held off any announcement until Wednesday because he "didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days" of the election campaign." Sounds like a good idea to me? If he had let Rumsfeld go right before the election don't you think the media and Democrats would have gone bananas? Would you seriously have let Rumsfeld go right before the election or wait until after? Yes, I know what some of you are thinking....I never would have let Evil Lying Incompetent Totally Unqualified Rumsfeld have the job in the first place, and I would have fired him years ago!
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
The next person who says "cut and run" is going to get smacked.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
DK,
I think letting Rumsfeld go before the election would have just confirmed for a lot of people that the administration was on the wrong path in Iraq, and it wouldnt' have helped the Republicans.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't blame Bush for not announcing the Rumsfeld change the week before the election. I do note that he openly, flatly, undeniably lied to the American people about Rumsfeld staying for two more years the week before the election.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ron, do you have a "cut-and-run" macro on your PC? You keep repeating it like a magical incantation.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: DK,
I think letting Rumsfeld go before the election would have just confirmed for a lot of people that the administration was on the wrong path in Iraq, and it wouldnt' have helped the Republicans.
DK and Lyrhawn, I agree with this, mostly. The president had to project confidence to support the Republicans, so a last minute axing of Rumsfeld wouldn't have helped.
Although, Rumsfeld could have been given a Medal of Freedom and shown the door 6 months ago or more, and that might have helped Republicans yesterday.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
*smacks Morbo*
Anyone else want some?!
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Man, why stop at "cut and run"? I'm all for "eviscerate and skeddadle"!
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
snip and jog?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
*smacks Tarrsk*
Come on. Someone else say it!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
*stays the course in all rhetoric* We will not be deterred by the terrorist narrative of WMS (weapons for Morbo smacking)! Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ron
Define "cut and run," please.
What cut and run means to me:
Having the end goal and focusing on pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, as opposed to the end goal and focus being a rebuilt, strongly democratic Iraq.
Many of the Democrat speeches I've heard focus almost exclusively on pulling the troops out, which may be why many people feel 'cut and run' is the party policy. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The Democrats I've talked to are more interested in a Watch & Learn strategy. That is, a more fiscally responsible oversite on our war-profiteers, er, outsourcing contractors, and taking the time to learn from our allies, mistakes, and successes so we aren't stomping on toes as we bully our way around.
Less Arrogance. More experience.
Promote knowledge and success over loyalty.
Gates over Rumsfeld is a great start.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
*smacks BQT*
You people don't learn very quickly, do you?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Bush said earlier that he thought Rumsfeld was doing a fine job.
We ought to know by now that that's the kiss of death.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ♫♪ The sun will come up
to-morr-ow ♪♫♪
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Slice and scamper?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think Rumsfeld should have been let go the week before the election. I do think that he should have been let go a month or two, if not more, ago. Yes, it will be skewed by Democrats as Republicans being on the wrong track, but it takes ammo away from them. Republicans get to say:
"Look, you told us you wanted him gone, and we decided that it was the best course for the country. So we've switched tracks, we've got some problems to fix, and this shows how serious we are about it."
Democrats then don't get to claim that the White House and republicans by association are all stay the course and wrong, and they can't point to Rumsfeld as the poster child for all that is wrong with the war. They waited too long. It most certainy COULD have helped the Republicans, though we'll never know by how much.
BQT -
I've seen very, VERY few Democrats, enough to be counted on one hand, who say that we should just leave no, regardless of the situation. The mainstream thought on Iraq right now, both in the US population, and the hopes of the IRAQI population, is that we don't leave right away, but that we annouce we are leaving soon, and that we get them set up as fast as possible then retreat to a safe distance.
There's no rule that says we can't continue to help them once the majority of the troops are out. We're trying to set up a democracy there, and most Iraqis want us gone by the end of next year. Instead we're going with a condescending paternalism, reminiscent of the Europeans in Africa during the 19th century. We know what is best for you, and what is best is democracy, no, no, shhhh, quiet there young Iraq, you don't quite know how to use democracy responsibly, and we're going to teach you how.
The Democratic plan is favored by Iraqis, it's favored by a majority of Americans, it's favored by the world at large. The only people who seem to want to stay there forever are Bush and the far right of the Republican party.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: BQT -
I've seen very, VERY few Democrats, enough to be counted on one hand, who say that we should just leave no, regardless of the situation. The mainstream thought on Iraq right now, both in the US population, and the hopes of the IRAQI population, is that we don't leave right away, but that we annouce we are leaving soon, and that we get them set up as fast as possible then retreat to a safe distance.
Oh, I can't even think of one Democrat that I've heard an unqualified, "We need to pull out tomorrow" statement from. However, almost all of their short responses to answers are variations on, "We need to get those troops home."
I'm sure that most, if not all, Democrats understand that bringing the troops home now is not a good idea. However, the emphasis (regardless of detailed posistions on their websites, etc) is almost always on bringing the troops home, rarely on benchmarks, etc. It's a question of focus. I wonder how much of the bringing the troops home soundbytes are just what the politicians have found that people want to hear, and how much of it is really the focus of their policy.
Neither party is saying what I want to hear. I don't want to hear "stay the course." I don't want to hear "bring the troops home." I want to hear "let's achieve victory for both the American and Iraqi people."
So much of the Republican focus seems to be a pathological fear of admitting mistakes. Soldiers and Iraqis be damned, we need to keep doing what we're doing so it doesn't look like me made any mistakes. So much of the Democrat focus seems to be bring the troops home so we can get ourselves into power, Iraqi people be damned. If things are still screwed up over there after we hastily withdraw, we'll just blame it all on Bush- after all he got us into it, so it's all his fault. Already, just the day after winning the election, I've seen Democratic apologists say no matter what happens it's all Bush's fault.
Sorry to rant like that, I'm just get so fed up with both parties screwing over the entire world with their infighting. I don't think the situation in Iraq is unsalvageable, and this is really the Democrats chance to shine if they can figure out how to run things better than the Republicans have. The excuses being made already make the cynical side of me wonder if they even care about fixing it, or just playing the blame game well enough to win in '08.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The biggest thing you'll see from Democrats is hearings on the war, and in general, a lot more closely scrutinizing oversight of the entire war efforts. They won't just pass all of Bush's requests without stopping to see what they are funding, and who knows really, what they will do.
But Republicans can't really stop them at this point. The only way Bush can get in their way, is to lock up documents under executive privilege, and I can't really imagine what would make him do that, other than his having something to hide.
The right says that all we see on the news is bad stuff on Iraq, and the left says that the right is lying about Iraq, and it really is that bad. One of them could be right, it could be something in the middle, but whilst fighting this war, and searching for an end, I'd be perfectly okay with the Democrats calling anyone and everyone into a hearing room to find out what is REALLY going on, and then release all the results to the public, a la the 9/11 Comission Report. The Baker Report will be coming out soon, with recommendations on how to fix Iraq, I look forward to careful scrutiny of those plans.
Democrats aren't going to have us out of there before the end of 2007, but setting benchmarks and timetables is perfectly fine with me. Mostly because not setting them means we're almost planning on staying there FOREVER, which isn't viable.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
<smacks narrativium with Weapon of Mass Decapitation, and exits quickly>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BQT, I wish you were right about the situation being salvagable. It really isn't, though and the longer we stay there, the more unsalvagble it is. Do not look for "a victory for the American and Iraqi people". The administration has perpetuated this myth that all we have to do to win is wait. That is just not true. The longer we wait, the more armed and trained and deadly the civil war is going to be. The best we can do is to minimize the damage we do from now on.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
*collapses in a bloody heap and dies*
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
*Sews narrativium's head back on perfectly and narrativium decides to live again*
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT I DECIDE!
*decides to live again*
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I note it says nothing about his participation in Iran-Contra: ie the guns for drugs for US military technology trade between the CIA, LatinAmerican death squads, and the Iranians.
[ November 09, 2006, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
aspectre, it specifically mentions him withdrawing a nomination for CIA director based on his involvement in Iran-Contra.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Let us bear in mind that a number of the new Democrat seats taken in Congeress are by Democrats who are conservative. So the Democrat stronghold on Congress may not be as effectively total as some may suppose. People like Senator Joseph Lieberman still pretty much support the president's policies in Iraq. Democrats certainly do not have a large enough majority to stop any Republican fillibusters.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep. Historically, there has been a far far higher percentage of Democrats likely to vote with the Republicans on any given issue than Republicans likely to vote with the Democrats. Which is why WillRogers noted: I don't belong to any organized political party... I'm a Democrat. Those who expect major changes in US policies are due to be greatly disappointed. Other than on the issues of a minor increase in minimum wage (one absurdly less than the purchasing power lost due to inflation over the last decade-plus), better oversight to prevent looting of government contracts, a decrease in "pork barrel"ing, and possibly a change in the free drugs program to allow Medicare to negotiate with manufacturors on drug prices and to eliminate the "donut hole", President Bush will have a lot more leverage with the Democrats in modifying Congressional legislation than he ever did with the Republicans in control.
[ November 09, 2006, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, fugu13, scanned over the article too quickly to notice the blurb.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleezy politically, but predictable.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Considering that the main opponent to confirmation as CIA head has already stated his approval, I doubt that such partisan manuevering will be necessary.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yipes, the partisan divide may be worse than I thought. A GoogleBannerAd for Quality Armored Vehicles?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
On the other hand, I hope the Senate pushes through the judicial nominations for all those who have cleared committee.
It seems responsible to restart the committee process for those who have not been reported out. Delaying nominees who have already had hearings does not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let us bear in mind that a number of the new Democrat seats taken in Congeress are by Democrats who are conservative. So the Democrat stronghold on Congress may not be as effectively total as some may suppose. People like Senator Joseph Lieberman still pretty much support the president's policies in Iraq. Democrats certainly do not have a large enough majority to stop any Republican fillibusters.
Who cares? Sorry but, Dems got what they wanted. Whether or not the 20 or 30 newbies in the Congress are centrist or not doesn't matter. Having control of the House is immensely important and powerful. Democrats can effectively stifle ALL Republican legislation from reaching the floor now, just like the GOP did to them over the last 12 years.
And I doubt people will miss the irony of Republican fillibusters to halt Democratic legislation after a few years of Republicans chastizing Democrats six ways from Sunday over their efforts. I guess Republicans just want to get in the way and gum up the works, and don't care about America. That's the charge Republicans made agaisnt Democrats when they tried to stop what they saw as damaging legislation. It must be true of Republicans too.
aspectre -
I wouldn't call a two dollar raise in the minimum wage "minor." What would you consider a fair increase to be? Two dollars is what, a 40% increase? That's nothing to shake a stick at, and it's more than most of the states that have an individually increased minimum wage.
I'm going to call it right now, I think there WILL be a shift in Iraq policy in the next two years. Democrats are going to call hearing, and they will scrutinize every move made on Iraq. Sure we aren't leaving tomorrow, but I bet we're on our way out by the time the next election rolls around. Bush is going to get pressure from both sides of the aisle now to change our strategy there, and between us saying we want out, and Iraq's government telling us to get out, Bush is going to be hardpressed to be the only man in the world saying we need to stay.
You're also going to see a change in immigration policy. Bush and the Democrats will get a guest worker program pushed through.
You'll see tax cuts for middle class families, no renewals of any tax cuts that are set to expire in the next couple years. And you might also see some tax hikes and increased regulation on Big Oil. Republicans can't afford to be tagged as Big Oil's buddies, it only serves to further Democratic claims of corruption.
We've already seen Rumsfeld fired, and Bush talking about being open to new ideas. Change is in the wind.
But the biggest efforts will be made on a domestic front. Democrats WON'T roll out what you might think of as a Liberal wishlist, but you will see a dozen major pieces of legislation rolled out and you'll see a stifling of the type of legislation along the lines of the Patriot Act. For better or for worse, Democrats have been trying to grow a spine in the last year, and I think this is the final push needed to finish that off. They're emboldened, and they feel this is their chance, and I think they'll hit the ground running.
Even if they lose half the battles they fight, due to Republican fillibusters or Bush vetoes, they'll do it anyway. It gives them canon fodder in two years if the Republicans kill popular measures, and it may hurt them in 08.
Also look for healthcare reform. There will be a push to cover ALL children, regardless of their financial situation. And there will be a big push to negotiate prices of prescription drugs with pharmaceuticals. Pharmas will lose some income, but they still make well more than enough of the billions necessary to R&D and still turn a profit. You'll also see a push for more, cheaper generics.
You're also going to see some MAJOR pushes for renewable energies, clean coal (bleh!) and nuclear power. Democrats are going to make energy independence one of the centerpieces of their "comeback." Green reform is already a pretty popular in business, do to the savings it can afford. That will turn to a major push for actual power generation.
Finally, look for a revisiting of education in this country. Democrats will push for a new, bigger tax credit to replace the HOPE and the other two (whose names I forget) for College education, look for ways to make it more affordable in general, and you'll see a hard, hard look at No Child Left Behind. Bush's plan for public schools didn't work, and it isn't going to be rubber stamped for renewal.
Just my guesses anyway, I look forward to seeing how many of them hold true in the next year or two.
Edit to add: Forgot to add, you'll probably also see a big, big push for an increase in fuel efficiency. Quite frankly, this isn't as anti-car company as you might think. The rest of the world's car consumers almost all live in nations that have much higher fuel economy standards than we do, even China. Forcing US producers to live up to higher standards makes them more competitive abroad, and if we can even push ours above those of other nations, while making sure domestics can keep up, gives them a major edge in domestic markets, while cutting our dependence on oil, cutting emissions, and in general is better for the country.
[ November 09, 2006, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Gimmee a break. The Republicans will start filibustering the instant they cease holding the majority.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleezy politically, but predictable.
His confirmation hearing has already been set for early December. Democrats could delay it if they wanted, most likely, until after the new Congress convenes, but we'll see. Either way, I think it's December 4th, you're going to see it start.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn,
I really hope you're right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Gimmee a break. The Republicans will start filibustering the instant they cease holding the majority.
Yeah, and that REALLY made the Democrats popular when they weren't in power didn't it?
If Republicans fillibuster EVERY reform the Democrats try and put forth, it's going to KILL them in two years. They know that. They know they have to choose their battles.
Besides, Republicans can't fillibuster ANYTHING in the House, House rules don't allow it (I believe).
And if they try it in the Senate too much, Democrats will threaten to do exactly what Republicans threatened to do, eliminate fillibusters entirely, and then they are REALLY in trouble.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Party lines will be crossed, not for any agenda that is left or right, just common sense.
No Christian Morality will be legislated. No Aethistic Secular Assaults on Religion will be legislated.
People will be free to live as Godly and religious a life as they desire. No laws to encourage or discourage.
They will work to fight cronyism as hard as they will work to fight communism. Neither one works. More oversight to fight back room deals, non-bid spending, as well as pork and giveaways.
They won't cut social security, but they won't add benefits to buy votes.
They won't run from Iraq, but they won't blindly "Stay the course".
Why? Because things are too close for one side or the other to bully enough votes through for either a conservative or liberal coup.
Liberals will be upset. Conservatives will be upset. Most of us, however, will be pleased.
Look what Arnie did in Cali--he went from confrontational Conservative with no standing in the polls to benificent bipartisan, to win.
Finally, the Gates confirmation will be over and done with quickly. Dems may want to question all the Presidents men, but the campaigned on getting rid of Rumsfeld. They want him gone, and won't embarrass themselves slowing it down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
When is all this scheduled to take effect? 2020?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, what was bad about the Democrat obstructionism is that they were obstructing the president's court nominations by not allowing them to be voted upon, which many saw as an unconstitutional failure on the part of Democrats to do their duty under the law. They have the right to vote against the president's court noiminees, but they do not have the legal right not to vote on presidential court nominees. Use of the fillibuster is illegal here. The constitution requires them to vote on presidential court nominees. Either they obey the constitution, or they have violated their oaths of office.
Since for the next two years the executive branch is still in Republican hands, this issue will not come up for Republicans in Congress. Democrats would have to try to delay voting on presidential nominees for over two more years yet, which would make them look pretty ridiculous, and expose them to nationwide contempt. Plus guarantee that they can expect the same treatment the next time there is a Democrat in the White House.
At some point cooler heads must prevail, and hot-headed partisanship put aside, and Democrats are going to have to perform their constitutionally required duty.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BQT, I wish you were right about the situation being salvagable. It really isn't, though and the longer we stay there, the more unsalvagble it is. Do not look for "a victory for the American and Iraqi people". The administration has perpetuated this myth that all we have to do to win is wait. That is just not true. The longer we wait, the more armed and trained and deadly the civil war is going to be. The best we can do is to minimize the damage we do from now on.
Well, a guy can't hope can't he?
There are too many political threads, I can't recall which ones I've posted which thoughts in. Basically I don't see a Democrat hasty withdrawl or a Republican wait and see policy as minimizing damage. I think an aggressive benchmark process and an attempt to garner more international involvement would do a lot to improve things. The only problem is that I think such a benchmark process is fundamentally a military operation and releasing it to the general public (which would include insurgents) could be counter-productive.
One problem with achieving such benchmarks is that it would probably take more soldiers over there than we currently have. Democrats would have a hard time pressuring for more troops over there now after riding in on campaign promises to bring the troops home. I believe that such a move would bring more troops home faster in the long run, while allowing us to execute our responsibilities to the Iraqi citizens.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mass evacuation under the cover of nuclear bomb induced blankets of flame, wouldn't that be the quickest way to, "cut and run?"
Seriously speaking though,
I think I agree that we actually probably need more troops, and obviously better methodology if we are going to bring our troops home without to use a faulty analogy, "Sewing up the patient whilst leaving all the surgical tools inside and still having not finished the bypass surgery."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, what was bad about the Democrat obstructionism is that they were obstructing the president's court nominations by not allowing them to be voted upon, which many saw as an unconstitutional failure on the part of Democrats to do their duty under the law. They have the right to vote against the president's court noiminees, but they do not have the legal right not to vote on presidential court nominees. Use of the fillibuster is illegal here. The constitution requires them to vote on presidential court nominees. Either they obey the constitution, or they have violated their oaths of office.
I'm curious. Where exactly does the constitution require the Senate to vote on a court nominee? If it does, why didn't this apply to the Republicans when they held Clinton's court nominee's in committee in order to avoid a floor vote. At one point Orrin Hatch refused to move any of Clinton's nominees through committee unless Clinton nominated Hatch friend for a court position. Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BQT, I don't know. How many lives are going to be lost due to unfounded hope.
Blackblade, the analogy would be more along the lines of a surgeon using a chain saw to do the surgury. It is the wrong tool and will just do more damage the longer we try to use it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, I gotta call foul on the "unconstitutional" nonesense as relates to not voting on judicial nominees.
The Senate sets its own rules. That's right there in the Constitution. Nor is the Senate required to vote on such nominees. In cases where action is required, the Constitution is pretty specific about. For example, it spells out the consequences in full detail if the President does not either veto or sign a law. Had they intended to make such a vote mandatory, the framers were smart enough to have added such a requirment.
Further, the majority always retained the power to override the filibuster by a simple majority if they chose to do so, which makes the Republicans just as culpable in any delay.
quote:Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
For the record, no (of course), and I did complain about it. Not that you asked me, but it means I get to complain about the slow pace here, too, without being inconsistent.
The constitution provides a remedy for a Senate that refuses to confirm appointments: recess appointments. Unless they stay in session permanently, the President has the power to make appointments as needed.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Besides, Republicans can't fillibuster ANYTHING in the House, House rules don't allow it (I believe).
filibusters are only in the Senate, not in the House.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Given his links to the Iran-Contra scandal, I wonder if they will try to push through Gates confirmation during the lame duck session while the Republicans still hold the majority in the Senate.
Doing that would be very sleazy politically, but predictable.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Considering that the main opponent to confirmation as CIA head has already stated his approval, I doubt that such partisan manuevering will be necessary.
Looks like Bush will try to get Gates confirmed in the lame duck session, as well as Bolton. I hope the Bolton nomination fails again.
quote: Bush to Ask Lame Duck Congress to Confirm Gates By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — The White House said today that it would seek Senate confirmation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s successor in the lame duck Congress that is about to reconvene, and that it would seek confirmation of United Nations Ambassador John R. Bolton as well.
Democrats will stifle it, at least until the new Congress convenes, when they'll kill it outright.
I forgot about the Bolton thing. Dems are pretty pissy that Bush is trying to ram it all home before the new Congress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Look I'm sorry my state is uber conservative, and though they mean well MOST people do not really pay attention to what senator Hatch even does.
I am also sorry that like the rest of the state senators there is a 80% chance the incumbent senator will be reelected. I do not know why Utah is not different in this regard, Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the linked Times article:
quote:Senators of both parties may conclude that a confirmation vote should come soon, given the war in Iraq and tensions with Iran and North Korea.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
Well, before the Red Sox won the World Series a couple years ago, I'd have answered that question as:
People in Massachusetts don't have much else to look at for entertainment.
Either that, or MA feels some sort of responsibility to keep a Kennedy in government after America claimed the lives of the two greatest sons of the family.
Who knows?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
(Term limits, anyone?)
--j_k
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Were Hatch and other republican members of the Judiciary committee violating their oaths of office? If so, why didn't you complain about it?
Look I'm sorry my state is uber conservative, and though they mean well MOST people do not really pay attention to what senator Hatch even does.
I am also sorry that like the rest of the state senators there is a 80% chance the incumbent senator will be reelected. I do not know why Utah is not different in this regard, Why does Massachusetts keep reelecting Ted Kennedy?
BB, Utah is also my state but that's not why I brought up Hatch. I wasn't living in Utah under the Clinton administration and Hatch was making national news for blocking Clinton's court nominations. He was at the time the chair of the judiciary committee used that position to stall the and often block the process. Then when democrats tried the same game under Bush, he feined this moral indignation. My point was never to specifically complain about Orrin Hatch, although g-d knows there is plenty to complain about.
My point was that if the democrats were doing something which was unethical in opposing Bush's judicial nominees, they were doing nothing fundamentally different than Republicans like Orrin Hatch had done under Clinton.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Maybe Kerry was right all along?
quote: "Rumsfeld's out," he [Sgt. McKinnon]said to five Marines sprawled with rifles on the cold floor.
Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr. looked up from his cigarette. "Who's Rumsfeld?" he asked.
[snip]
"Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense," McKinnon said, answering Davis' question.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
((JT))
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)