A "repudiation" of Republicans and conservativism??? King George knocked off his high horse???
Not so fast!
It's a nice thing (but not for the troglodytes that lost) that Democrats now make up the majority of the nation's state governors and improved their numbers in the state legislatures. Hooray for the Democrats who took control of the House. But so what if we won't have to wrestle with Denny Hastert anymore? The war between the hued political states continues unabated
House Democrats can certainly orate impressively on honorable topics, like that will actually do any good. New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can promise to "work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans", but that sentiment is not shared across the aisle - or in the dank White House darkness where dwells the Rove Monster.
Despite the fact that even the Republicans are pressuring George Allen to concede (demonstrating that the GOP also recognizes Democratic control of the Senate), don't think for one moment that George W. Bush's brain has stopped thinking - or plotting.
What did he come up with to deal with the GOP lack-of-ethics electoral earthquake of 2006? Why, the best defense against Democratic investigations of Bush Administration activities is to go immediately on the attack before their gains can be consolidated.
Rove may have misread the mood of the electorate against the administration, but he was quick to salvage control of the official story line by convincing Donald Rumsfeld to fall on his sword and "resign" for the good of the Party - even though just last week, George claimed that THE Donald was the very life of it.
Sure - George began his first press conference of the day saying the right things a gracious loser says, but after what had to be the worst minute of his life, George returned to that tired platform of lies rejected yesterday even by Republican voters. "Of course we're winning!" he asserted.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
1 - RedTard
Business - The New Enemy of Progress.
I thought most people were gainfully employed at businesses and that's where all the modern complex goods and services came from, silly me.
Business lobbying does have a great effect on government for two reasons. Government spending is completely out of control with every sensible business wanting a piece of the pie and government regulations force them into negotiations, waivers, and special favors in order to operate.
Think about the big, bad lobbying businesses and notice if they're not also the most regulated. Big Pharma, Casin0s, Tobaco. When government has their fingers in an industry it quickly quits serving customers and starts bowing to regulators, paying politicians off, and buying votes to keep from being shut down or harassed.
2 - Nancy
Lobbying is for all intents & purposes almost totally unregulated - otherwise there wouldn't be all the problems with constant congressional violations of ethics rules. Furthermore, those few rules that do exist are not enforced. What is needed is a no-nonsense, comprehensive, even draconian ethics overhaul that utterly forbids all kinds of gifts, loans, favors, or anything else, not only directly to lawmakers, but to their families, staff members, or anyone even vaguely connected with them. Lawmakers, their families, & staff members, and all lobbyists should be required to file extensive & comprehensive reports detailing ALL expenditures connected with congressional business. Is this requiring more of lawmakers than the tax forms the average citizen is required to file? Absolutely it is. Consider it to be the cost of being a congressman: you want it badly enough, then you are willing to ditch your privacy & comply with the onus of the additional disclosures. Like Ceasar's wife, congress should & must be above suspicion; only the most extensive & even intrusive disclosure requirements applied to both congressional personnel & the lobbyists who prey on them (or with them) will bring this continual, ongoing corruption of whichever party is in power to an abrupt halt.
Finally, the revolving door giving lawmakers, their families, & staff entree to extremely, obscenely lucrative careers in lobbying should be destroyed, or at least impeded, by extending the time period during which they are forbidden to work for or consult for lobbying firms to FIVE years - not one, which is a farce. I'd prefer a lifetime ban, actually, but it would never pass. The problem is, setting up laws & rules for members of congress is unfortunately limited to members of congress, which is setting the wolves to watch the sheepfold. At no time in its history has congress EVER shown either the ability or the will to police itself, & I don't see why we should assume they will learn or develop the desire now. IMO rules governing congressional ethics should be the prerogative of public referendum, at least, & included in election issues voted on ballots.
3 - Clavos
Lobbying is for all intents & purposes almost totally unregulated
Um, Nancy, I think Red was talking about the industries being regulated, not the lobbying...
4 - STM
Don't root until you see the colour of their ayes??
Geez, if Americans knew what "root" meant in other English-speaking countries, they'd stop using it.
And they'd stop calling their kids Chuck, as well.
5 - Clavos
Nonetheless, STM, it's the best title in American English I've seen on BC in a very long time.
It's a play on a military order from our Revolutionary War, which is commonly quoted as "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes."
The actual quote, an order given by Colonel William Prescott to his troops at the Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775 was:
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes"
Some historians attribute the quote to his CO, General Israel Putnam.
My source, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, attributes it to Prescott.
6 - STM
Clavos wrote: "It's a play on a military order from our Revolutionary War, which is commonly quoted as "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes."
Thanks Clav. Isn't history an amazing thing ... I have heard of this and similar attributed to English-speaking non-Americans in other other wars, but never to the one that we let you win.
I suspect it might be down to the fact we all speak the same language.
Kind of; you guys have really funny bizarre accents and some weird phonetic spelling (like color, valor, etc) and paradoxically, some very archaic usage (the use of Z in words such as nationalise), but it's almost similar.
As Winston Churchill famously said: "We are one people separated by the barrier of a common language".
7 - Clavos
I have heard of this and similar attributed to English-speaking non-Americans in other other wars, but never to the one that [you won.]
(I took the liberty of correcting your typo)
I think it probably was a common battlefield order in the 18th century, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons of the day.
A question for you, mate:
What the hell is the meaning of fair dinkum? Google has been only marginally helpful in resolving this troubling question for me...
8 - STM
Clavos: It is a very handy little phrase. For instance:
"Are you f.cking fair dinkum?" Are you for real?
"Is that fair dinkum?" Is that true? Is that kosher?
"He's fair dinkum" He's a decent bloke; or he's telling the truth; or he's good for the bet, he's kosher, etc.
It can also mean, in respect to an Australian for instance, that they are the real thing: ie, "He's a fair dinkum Aussie".
Or a fair dinkum Yank, or a fair dinkum Pom, or a fair dinkum wanker, or even a fair dinkum car part (one supplied by the manufacturer).
Like I say, Clav, a very handy little phrase with multiple uses. Nice to be able to speak in code as well, when there are about 20 other words you can throw into a sentence so that the only other English-speaking people who can understand you are New Zealanders.
9 - Dave Nalle
In Rumsfeld's place, Bush named Robert Gates as SecDef. Gates is a long-time Bush family asset who has experience in Southwest Asia: he is reported to have been involved in the original October Surprise and also to have been involved in Iran-Contra [much more information available here].
You know, this whole Gates contoversy mystifies me. He's obviously enormously qualified for the job and demonstrably competent, yet the last time he was up for an appointment he had a terrible time of it. But here's the thing. If we don't want Rumsfeld's 'shock and awe' approach to dealing with terrorism, then a more subtle and covert approach is the viable alternative and that's Gates' forte. So why be squeamish about his involvement in past covert operations? Things like Iran Contra and October Surprise should be qualifications for him, not liabilities.
Dave
10 - jayson
Re: DN's comment...
Gates? Enormously qualified? That says as much about your credibility as about his.
There's a cloud of treason hanging over him, like most of his cronies from the Iran-Contra affair. Iran, you know, that country against whom the administration would not rule out using force because of its nuclear program? He is also not clear of allegations that he passed intelligence to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. He has already been rejected for other major positions, including the current one, and for good reason. I guess some people will choose ideology over our national security and public welfare.
From Wiki's entry for Gates with links to Senate hearings...
Gates was nominated to become the Director of Central Intelligence (head of the CIA) in early 1987. He withdrew his name after it became clear the Senate would reject the nomination due to controversy about his role in the Iran-Contra affair.
Gates was Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from March until August of 1989, and was Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser from August 1989 until November 1991.
Gates was nominated (for the second time) for the position of Director of Central Intelligence by President Bush on May 14, 1991, confirmed by the Senate on November 5, and sworn in on November 6, becoming the only career officer in the CIA's history (as of 2005) to rise from entry-level employee to Director. In addition to questions about Iran-Contra affair, Senate members questioned the nomination because Gates allegedly passed intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.[8]
[...]
The final report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, issued on August 4, 2003, said that Gates "was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment...." [9]
11 - Dave Nalle
Gates? Enormously qualified? That says as much about your credibility as about his.
Or about what I think is going to be required of him for the job he's been given.
There's a cloud of treason hanging over him, like most of his cronies from the Iran-Contra affair.
Iran-Contra was hardly treason. Such a statement is purely political and utterly meaningless.
IMO his involvement in these covert operations is part of what qualifies him for this job.
If we're going to move away from Rumsfeld's direct conflict model for dealing with terrorism, then we're going to have to gear up to make the War on Terror covert. That's what Gates is clearly qualified to do.
He's a spy who served in the military and in various administrative jobs. The fact that he was involved in a lot of shady stuff is largely a plus, not a negative.
Dave
12 - jayson
The fact that he was involved in a lot of shady stuff is largely a plus, not a negative.
Like most of your positions, this one is simply a matter of faith. You don't seem to understand that the Bush administration has no credibility and they badly need it. This man, regardless of what you consider to be "political" and therefore "meaningless," can hardly fulfill that need.
Hard to know what you mean, as always, in your loose use of language, but I'm assuming you meant that it's just someone's partisan opinion that the man can not be seen as free of corruption. Hardly. It's not just Democrats or "liberals" (as you would probably say) who distrust him.
That fighting terrorism requires spy work is stating the obvious, a problem which you like to attribute to everyone but yourself. That Americans need someone with intelligence experience/spy work who can also be trusted not to authorize, lie about, and take part in covert partisan plots should also be obvious, except to the ideologues, which is what you repeatedly show yourself to be.