KaskadskyjKozak

Republican In Name Only

I'm a software engineer, and I'm telling you all: don't trust this software. It can be hacked, misused, and abused, and who knows how well it was tested in the first place (there are always bugs that software developers miss anyways - with testing or not).

Hmmm. I'm a liberal progressive, and I value self-reliance and independence. I'm also conservative, in that I believe in conserving resources such as clean air and water --recycling, energy conservation, and all that. I tend to think of political conservatives as very materialistic and resistant to policies that discourage consumption of developable land --and therefore not conservative in an economic sense. There are a lot of RINOs out there (or should I say CINOs in this thread)

with the new congress, at least the parks might get the funding they need to make repairs/maintenance now

Actually I think there's something to that. Being over-simple here, conservatives believe in self-reliance and independence; liberals believe in social, community support (it takes a village). Both traits are useful in an evolutionary sense. Nature has hedged its bets.

How about doing away with the senate too - same principal.

That's the Democratic modus operandi: when you lose, bring in the lawyers.

It's ironic how when the R's win, the left screams that there is widespread voting fraud, disenfranchisement, not to mention a stupid electorate. But when the D's win, nothing of the kind. And note the class shown by R's in close races: they concede rather than drag in lawyers and recounts. Something the D's should take and example from (fat chance).

More levity

I think proportional representation rather than runoffs would be better, but otherwise I agree.

More evidence that lefties are Marxists in (a thinly-veiled) disguise. There should only be only party on the ballot, and one party member in office at every level of government, ne pravda li tovarish?

Wrong. The laws enacted under the "Contract" did not screw the economy. On the contrary, they occurred under Clinton's 1st administration - when we were moving towards balanced budgets (with higher taxes) and very strong economic growth. You need to pull your head out and think for once before you open your foul mouth. And I was not intending to argue the merits of the "Contract with America" in any case, you moron. The point was simply that when the R's took over in 1994, they had an agenda that they pushed hard, and got successes doing so. The D's now have a similar opportunity. I don't hear any concrete "agenda" from them yet, however, except to engage in endless investigations and recriminations.

Contract with America. Welfare Reform. And so on.

Yes, they were visionaries, who were restricted by reality, knowing they couldn't wave a magic wand and fix these problems, but they could establish a framework in which, over time, this could be accomplished.

Wow. Your rapier political insight is incredible. I would have never thought of that, indeed, none of us would have. How do you do it? Your logic is underwhelming. You claimed that Bush and the R's "got the message" of the election, implying that that is why he tossed Rummy. I counter that he wanted to do that all along, election or not. You're such a worthless windbag. Time to add you to the ignore flag. Bugger off, dickhead.

I like that we elect the president - otherwise you'd have the legislature picking your executive. But I'd like to see a third and fourth party at least. The mood in the country is ripe for this right now. Unfortunately, there are huge barriers to entry in setting up viable, competitive alternatives; the D's and R's hold a monopoly right now.

I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. May the clue bird take a dump in your vicinity. (Hint: McCain, campaign-finance reform, etc.)

Beware of Olybomber!

Newsflash: Bush is not running for office in two years. I think they've wanted to ditch Rummy for some time now, but just didn't have the balls - it would look "bad" - you know conceding that you made mistakes and all. Now it is "safe" to toss him. In this case they miscalculated - kind of like trying to shoot the moon in hearts and taking 25 points.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

You are quite correct. Many worthless pieces of crap are reelected term after term just because they have a D or R by their name... and tenure. Once one of these lucky saps gets in, and gets relected once or twice, they are golden.

This is a knee jerk suggestion from someone who obviously has little experience working with any organization with a national footprint. Lobbyists are essential for a non-governmental to know what is happening in the legislature and represent their constituents effectively. They are an important way for the members of any organization to stay in touch with what their legislators are up to, which, in my book, is a very good thing. They help achieve the 'transparency' people like you so loudly call for. If you wanted the environment protected, who would you give money to: Earth First! (no lobbyists, jailed activists, virtually no public support, little money, kno real legislative action network) Ducks Unlimited or the Sierra Club (Lobbyists, broad public support, lots of money, effective legislative action networks). Sure, there are corrupt lobbyists, just like there are corrupt legislators. The solution is not to get rid of lobbyists, which are such an important part of being heard in government, but to implement strict rules against corruption, whether by lobbyists, legislators, or anyone else. what was that about taking things "literal" as a refuge for the simple minded, Trashie? you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government.

1) I'm afraid that they did not get *that* point. There are plenty of representatives that are in "secure" districts who would have to f*** up really bad to even have a chance of losing. Did you see the election results for McDermott? He could rape horses in Enumclaw and still get elected. Ditto for quite a few "safe" Rep districts. The majority of them in fact. 2) nobody said anything about legislative term limits - just voter initiated ones (for a while)

Amen. I think the best thing would be to toss out EVERY incumbent at every election for a few cycles - until they get the point that the electorate grants them power, and they need to get that through their thick skulls. Government reform would be more effective - make the processes transparent and simple enough so there is minimal advantage for the incumbent. Speaking of reform, we need to get rid of lobbyists. All of them. McCain et al made a start, but it seems to have fallen flat (they just found ways around the legislation).

Somebody on NPR was speculating this morning that with such a slim margin, they're probably going to be tempted to make the same partisan plays and attempt similar corruption of the process. I'm afraid I agree with KK here, that we will probably see lots of rhetoric but little change. One can hope, though. I know it is idealistic, but perhaps somebody could look a little longer term and think about rebuilding the Nation or at least the Democratic Party in a better image. Actually I thought the Dems would only have 215-220 seats. They may have as many as 235. Not such a slim margin (compare to the 1994 congress). If the Dems are smart they will push an agenda - like the class of 1994 (well 1995) did. Hard. If they bog us down in impeachment proceedings and investigations, it will backfire. Many people (myself included) are sick of this ridiculous cycle of investigation/politics of personal destruction (to quote a phrase). It all started with the Iran Contra hearings and the Jim Wright ethics investigation counter-punch. It's continued on endlessly and has gotten us nowhere.