Regime Change in America (US Elections)

by redjade Tue Nov 07, 2006 22:57

Does this not parallel with the Clinton Years when the Demc controled the White House but the Congress was mostly controlled by the Republicans?

Yes and No.

Yes, Bush could govern if he knew how to work with his opposition like Clinton was a master at doing - 'triangulation' it was called (with much criticism from his own party). But compromise and persuasion are not well known traits of George W Bush.

No, because.... well, just look at the chart.

Remember, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a Republican attempt to make him unpopular - when, in fact, the opposite was the unintended effect.

A Democratic Congressional Majority can, if it chooses to, impeach one of the most unpopular presidents in modern American history - another aspect that is quite different from the Clinton era.

Click on image to see full size version

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 00:55

Let's impeach the President for lying
And misleading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door

Who's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
They bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let's impeach the President for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government's protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Neil Young, 'Let's Impeach The President'
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/letsimpeachthe....html

http://www.neilyoung.com

This 2004 Prez Election Map Assumes Ohio Wasn't Stolen - therefore election was *not* rigged for Bush

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:01

My 2004 US Election Countdown Blog
'Bush or Kerry, the war will continue - one candidate may end it the other will expand it'
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/67236

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:13

Bernie Sanders has been in the House of Representatives for the since 1991 representing the norther state of Vermont - elected as an 'Independent' but self-declared as a Socialist.

He is the 'Joe Higgins' of America - fire brand truth teller and teh kind of socialist capable of convincing your grandmother to sing The Internationale!

CNN just declared him to have won the US Senate seat for Vermont. This is the first Socialist elected to the US Senate in the history of the American Republic

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Campaign Site
http://www.bernie.org/

Official Job site
http://bernie.house.gov/

Bernie is America's 'Joe'

by redjade - what's round on the sides and high in the middle? Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:35

16 precincts in Cleveland Ohio ordered to stay open until 10pm to accommodate voters and because of voting machine problems.

Dems gain a governorship - Ted Strickland, another pretty decent guy. Former preacher, then prison shrink, then politician - won in 92, kicked out by Gingrich's 'revolution' in 94, then re-elected in 96 and stayed in the House of Reps ever since. Now he has been elected governor of Ohio. This defeats the black Republican that rigged the 2004 election for George W Bush. A serious victory against the dark side of the Force

Campaign site: http://www.tedstrickland.com/
Congressional Site: http://www.house.gov/strickland/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland

side note: no Republican prez candidate ever won the presidency without winning Ohio - that's why they rigged the election in 2004

by R. Isible Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:50

this effectively means that no legislation will ever get the chance of being voted for on the floor of Congress without the consent of the Democratic Leadership.

Dude, the Democrats have weighed in behind the Republicans on the war, on the stripping of civil liberties, on the outsourcing of jobs to the third world. Everything bad, the mandarins of the Democrat Party and the Republican Party get together to fuck over the voters.

Party in a Cage
Snake Oil and the Midterm Elections

By JOSHUA FRANK

So we are in the trenches of another election season, and if you peer closely you can see the explosions on the horizon. I'm yet to be convinced the Democrats have the capacity to take back Congress, and to tell you the truth I don't really care if they do. Not only do they not have the ability to lead, they also do not possess the moral impetus to change the direction of this country if they are lucky enough to regain control. Indeed they are just as responsible for the ruin in Iraq and back home as the Bushites.

The Democrats have assisted the Republicans at virtually every turn over the past six years. From the bloody invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the passing of CAFTA, to the confirmations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, to the support of the PATRIOT Act, to the dismantling of Habeas Corpus, to the championing of Bush's ravaging forest plan, to backing Israel's brutal assault on Lebanon-the Democratic Party has long played the role of enabler. And now they want your vote.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank11012006.html

by R. Isible Wed Nov 08, 2006 01:52

Duckworth says of Iraq on her web site: "The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists." Not even a mention of a timetable.

When are anti-Republicans going to understand that Democrats are just as bad?

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 02:10

R. Isible I appreciate the debate - too quiet on these issues, too often. thx.

I dont disagree with what you are writing but there is a sea change underway - I am not say the Dems are going to change the world and all will be happy soon.

But the Dems are going to win big in the hours ahead and its primarily because of the war.

This alone will have dramatic affects in the months and years ahead.

American politics works in weird ways - when the closeted Gay Republican Mark Foley was discovered to have been chatting up boys on the internets, this 'gave permision' for a lot of evengelical types to ditch the Repubs and either vote Dem or not vote at all. Likewise, when Rush Limbaugh made jokes about the 'cripple' Michael J. Fox this too gave people permission to break away.

No one in the US of A will simply say - gee! this Iraq War thing is a bloody immoral mess - and an Imperial Project (to speak some Left-ese) - thats not how it works.

Duckworth will vote for withdrawal when the time comes, mark my words - or I'll owe you a beer, ok?

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 02:50

'...after being sent to 4 different polling places I finally managed to vote. The poor old man workin gthe place had no clue how to operate the e-voting machine (they had regular ballots all the other voters were using) So after showing the poor worker how to use the machine i voted...'

———

'...I spent the first three hours of the morning at a pol in Jefferson County, Missouri.

The good news is that turnout this morning was actually running ahead of the turnout for 2004. Considering this this is a county that's still marginally Democratic, that could be evidence for the "wave."

We did have some problems. The main Republican judge started off right away asking people for photo ID, and when confronted about it she said "it's a new federal law." Fortunately, someone was there from voter one and was shouted down before she had a chance to do harm....'

———

'...I'm down here in Hideaway Lake. My wife and I voted early in Lindale last week using touch screen machines. We both commented after we left that if the polling place had been busier, we could both have voted again and again until we finally got caught. Of course if the election judges were in on it, they would have purposely let us do it. We didn't try, but there was nothing at all to stop us...'

———

'...Using the electronic touch-screen voting, my vote was recorded...but the paper back-up wasn't functioning properly. Basically, the paper was jammed and and it printed many of my votes on one line.

I notified an election worker and apparently this machine was giving them problems earlier. I'm not certain if they were able to remedy the problem after I left or if they took the machine out of service.

This could create a very big problem in my district where the House race between Mary Jo Kilroy and Deborah Pryce is expected to be very close...and a recount is not out of the question. I want my vote to count...'

———

more reports added by the hour at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/7/101143/813

———

Also:

Problem with Newport voting machine
'...There are only two booths at this facility: They are both Direct Response Electronic systems, one being similar to a lever machine but with buttons instead of levers, and the other is a touch-screen machine designed for those with disabilities. The first person to use the touch screen machine at 6 a.m. voted, and the machine immediately began to smoke, emit a foul electrical smell, and the touch screen went blank. Poll workers were already on the phone trying to get it fixed when I arrived, and the gentleman who used the touch screen machine was still there, trying to verify that his votes will be counted. He asked for a provisional ballot in case they could not get the machine repaired but the four poll workers were flustered and no one could agree on whether or not he should have one....'

http://www.cincinnatidatadesk.com/pages/voter.html

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 05:19

The Repubs just lost the House

The Dems are now in control.

Three more seats in the Senate and they will control the Senate too.

Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House in US History.

Denny Hastert (on the left) just lost his job as Speaker of the House

by C Murray Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:16

I am curious about the Impeachment Process in relation to a sitting President. I don't imagine
that it needs a Dem Victory- has anyone run on the issue or is it a prolonged and complex
political issue?

Three leaders have been proven again and again of Corruption/ spying/abuse of Democratic
Mandate and the issue of Impeachment is hovering but not seeing the light of day.

Blair and Bush were found to be using GCHQ to spy on UN delegates during the build up
to the iraq war- Katherine Gun faced trial for whistle blowing.

Blair is currently handing power to Brown, who backed him on the War.

Katsav is refusing to leave the presidency despite the Police and attorney General confirming
allegations of abuse of office and charges of rape and aggravated sexual assault.

It seems that once they get in it is impossible to remove the damage they do and the
media underscore the continuation of the corrupt regimes by refusing to report issues
of controversy, instead highlighting policy and regime change manouevres.

I suppouse that the voter requires change and wants to see that change, but how can
one have confidence in a new regime which refused to oppose at every turn the
corrupt horrors of the previous regime?

Impeach Bush.

by R. Isible Wed Nov 08, 2006 17:20

Duckworth will vote for withdrawal when the time comes, mark my words - or I'll owe you a beer, ok?

You owe me a beer dude!

But, even if she had been elected that bet steps daintily around the central issue, which is that as far as I'm aware there have rarely been politicians that do any "leading" at all. That's why the presentation of "vote for the democrats to end the war" is a lie. By the time that the Tammy Duckworth's feel that it's safe to do anything it's because it's a foregone conclusion and it's unpopular. And as long as US voters accept that situation they're stuck with being goverened by a remote elite whose interests lie in abusing them as much as they'll take.

Seemingly Americans (of the US variety) are gluttons for punishment.

My objection to the whole thing is that the energy diverted by "activists" into supporting one brand of elites should be going instead into creating the trouble, uncertainty and strife that helps drive the amoral fence-sitters like Duckworth.

I think a significant number of Americans have said very clearly "stop the war now". They marched in their millions. They're a minority. They can gain nothing by endorsing a system which is set up to remove their power.

I was interested in your caption on Duckworth, because the article I cited shows that she's very clearly a creature of the very conservative core of the Democrat Party and was run solely to marginalise a much more anti-war candidate. In case anyone is thinking that the choice of Duckworth was because she was more likely to win than a more explicit anti-war candidate, the article (written weeks before election day) argues the reverse and that Duckworth was obviously chosen solely to KEEP OUT anti-war voices. Now, the results are in and the articles predictions are correct:
No one exemplified the antiwar vet more than Tammy Duckworth, in Illinois' 6th District. A former major in the Illinois Army National Guard, she lost both legs and suffered injuries to one arm when a grenade hit her helicopter over Baghdad. She campaigned on issues including Social Security, healthcare and veterans' benefits — but was a living symbol of the war's costs.

"I didn't cut and run, Mr. President," she said in the Sept. 30 Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address. "My helicopter was shot down long after you proclaimed 'Mission accomplished.' "

But even in a year when anger over the Iraq war spurred voters to the polls, she lost to Republican Peter Roskam.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-vets8nov08,0...lines

Don't mean to be too "debaty" and I appreciate the blogging info you're adding and I certainly don't want to descend into useless bulletin board chat. So here's some another perspective from (you guessed it!) Counterpunch

Too many Americans harbor the illusion that we live in a democracy simply because we have the right to vote. But let us be clear about something: voting matters only where real choices are allowed.

by redjade Wed Nov 08, 2006 19:02

I'll get to your comments in a while.

Just wanted to add this now.

Rumsfeld just now resigned.

If one wants to say that the Dems in power makes no difference - this proves this wrong.

With Subpoena power and control of the House Committees poor Rumsfeld was going to face purjury charges or worse in the month ahead.

The Repubs made sure the hard and incriminating questions were never asked of him

by pat c Wed Nov 08, 2006 19:38

Scientists believe the Democrats win makes a difference. Heres what Science Now (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) has to say:

Democrats Take Control of House; Voters Speak on Science
ScienceNOW Daily News
8 November 2006

The control of the Senate is still uncertain, but the takeover of the House of Representatives by Democrats will result in at least two prominent shifts relevant to research. Bart Gordon (D-TN) will become chair of the House Science Committee and the House Resources Committee will come under the direction of Nick Rahall (D-WV). Richard Pombo (R-CA)--who last year leveraged his chairmanship of that committee to pass a major revision of the Endangered Species Act--lost his seat to Jerry McNerney, a wind engineer with a PhD in mathematics.

Elsewhere around the country, an amendment to keep embryonic stem cell research legal in Missouri passed. Pro-evolution candidates won in the Ohio school board election, and moderates now have a 6-4 majority in the Kansas school board.

Its particularly pleasing to see a consevationist like Jerry McNerney take Richard Pombos seat.

The US Business Party has two wings: they are both conservative.
Gore Vidal

True. But on isues of science, the environment, labour legislation, maybe even on womens rights, this victory will make some difference.

by R. Isible Wed Nov 08, 2006 19:54

on isues of science, the environment, labour legislation, maybe even on womens rights, this victory will make some difference

Historically there's little to distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans if one has as a goal some concrete objectives. It would be instructive to see whether anyone that predicts the above could make a reasonably specific, short set of "What I Want the Democrats To Bring Me For Christmas in Exchange for My Vote" [1], say between 5 to 10 points along the lines of:
1. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq (or withdrawal in 2 months, 10 months, never)
2. Repeal of Clinton's workfare schemes (another place the Dems made a difference)
3. etc.

You get the point. If a Democrat victory is supposed to be so great because it will deliver something specific then it ought to be easy to specify in a non-ambiguous way what that advantage is.

It's amusing that anti-war people believe they're seeing an anti-war victory, pro-stemcell research people believe it's a victory for stem-cell research, capitalists think it'll benefit the economy [2] etc. I don't think it's unfair to suspect that people are projecting their wishes and beliefs onto the smooth, white exterior of the Democrat machine. They have no idea what goes on inside of it and what the mechanism is or what it has done in the past.

1. Yes, I know we can't vote being Irish, but humour me.

2. this was probably the best of all outcomes for people concerned about stocks and business. If anything, it could spur the best two years we've seen in the markets for quite some time. I humbly make my case
http://www.smartmoney.com/editorspage/index.cfm?story=2...61108

by pat c Wed Nov 08, 2006 20:09

"Historically there's little to distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans if one has as a goal some concrete objectives."

I'll wait until Easter for the Bunny to deliver. I have no illusions in the Democrats, I just recognise that the Environment is slightly less at risk under their stewardship. They wont be checking to see if scientists go to church etc.

If you check back, you will see that I supported Nader in the 2004 contest (he was very thankful).

Its good to see a socialist elected in Vermont.

(Awaits tirade of abuse pointing out why Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.)

by pat c Thu Nov 09, 2006 16:37

"2. Repeal of Clinton's workfare schemes (another place the Dems made a difference)"

Well "The Economist " magazine comments on that very issue:

Speaker Pelosi will arouse the expectations of a liberal base that is hog-wrestling-mad at the president. She will also bring with her 19 powerful committee chairmen who are itching for the limelight after 12 years in the dark. Thirteen [of them] voted against welfare reform.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?stor...08149

Heres information on some of the new committee chairs in the House of Representatives. Full details at the link below.

Committee: Science
New chairman: Bart Gordon, Tennessee
This committee's purview is "all non-defence federal scientific research and development", although it clearly shares some turf with other committees. Gordon, the new chairman, is interested in science topics such as the toxic mess left by illegal methamphetamine labs, which is a problem in his home district. He has also criticized the failings of NASA, supported the creation of an Advanced Research Projects Agency for energy and spoken out against political meddling at science agencies.

Committee: Resources
New chairman: Nick Rahall, West Virginia
This committee is where a lot of environmental battles shape up, as it regulates extracting anything from the Earth that is worth money, including fish, trees, minerals, oil and gas. The outgoing chair, Richard Pombo of California — who also lost his district — angered many greens with his efforts to change the Endangered Species Act. The new chair, Rahall, comes from a state famous for coal, and so is sympathetic to the mining industry. But the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group active in politics, generally approves of him and vastly prefers him to his predecessor.

Committee: Appropriations
New chairman: David Obey, Wisconsin
This committee may be the most powerful in the House, since it apportions out the money every year. Obey, a senior representative, is keeping mum about his priorities, but education and the environment are among his pet issues.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061106/full/061106-8.html

by R. Isible Thu Nov 09, 2006 18:09

Very wise!

In addition to the above is the interesting likely appointment of John Conyers to the Judiciary Committee chairmanship, which those who hope for an impeachment (despite Nancy Pelosi's opposition) are happy about. Bizarrely anyone that reads what he says (e.g. in this interview) should wonder exactly why they nourish this hope:
John Conyers: I've never sought the impeachment of the president. The fact of the matter is that if these violations have occurred, they could be grounds for high crimes and misdemeanors. But a select committee could be exculpatory as much as it could be incriminating if we really went into something like this. So it isn't like there is a pro-impeachment crowd versus an anti-impeachment crowd. But I don't think that I would leave it to myself to unilaterally go forward without the cooperation of the leadership—but would do so working closely with them.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10316

Barney Frank is probably going to be head of the banking panel. He's a longtime member of the hawkish bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2003/shoup0303.html

Charles Rangel will probably head the tax committe, he's the one that wanted to reinstate the draft so that the occupation of Iraq would be succesful. He also intends to foist free trade agreements on Peru and Vietnam and to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (which is soaking the corporations like General Motors et al who fund Mr.Rangel):
http://www.counterpunch.org/gancarski01102003.html

Again, I'd like a list please of what is going to be accomplished. That way we can determine in the future whether or not electing Democrats is a waste of time according to standards set by you. Let's stop playing augur and making special cases, either politicians are useful for getting certain things done or they're not. If they're not (as I suspect) then they should be completely avoided as a snare and delusion.

I shall at my leisure take a look at the list of people posted above, I have little doubt that they'll have appalling voting records (otherwise they'd be unelectable by the current system).

(whose welfare reforms did the 13 vote against? I'll bet it was G.W.Bush's medicare stuff and not Clintons Workfare which destroyed so many poor families)

by pat c Thu Nov 09, 2006 18:18

"I shall at my leisure take a look at the list of people posted above, I have little doubt that they'll have appalling voting records (otherwise they'd be unelectable by the current system)."

Indeed, ye shall go over their records and scourge them with scorpions. Unelectable? How did a socialist (social democrat) get elected in Vermont then?

"(whose welfare reforms did the 13 vote against? I'll bet it was G.W.Bush's medicare stuff and not Clintons Workfare which destroyed so many poor families)"

again the oracle speaks. i presumed it was clintons but the economist does not elaborate.

lets both try and find out.

by pat c Thu Nov 09, 2006 18:43

The Wall Street Journal confirms that it was Clintons Welfare Reform Bill that they voted against. By their enemies shall ye know them.

While Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi would be a new Speaker of the House, the 19 primary committee chairmen who would dominate hearings, issue subpoenas and write legislation are agents of change only in the sense of going back to the future. They represent the same liberal priorities that bedeviled Bill Clinton's attempt to govern as a New Democrat from 1993-94, and before that Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. To pick one example, 13 of the 19 voted against the welfare reform that Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 and hailed this month as a triumph of "bipartisanship."

by redjade Mon Nov 13, 2006 23:54

'The Democrats, for their part, will use their new House majority to plague the administration with investigations. While the left would be appeased by investigations into why we invaded Iraq in the first place, it is financial scandals that will do the greatest damage to Bush and the Republicans.

Democratic committee chairmen will examine Halliburton contracts in Iraq, royalty deals for offshore oil drilling, defense procurement scandals, and resource leases in national forests and wilderness areas. They will examine the nexus between campaign contributions and favors from the trough of the executive branch.

The last two years of the Bush administration will most closely resemble the Clinton years, where scandal after scandal after scandal battered the president’s image and ratings. But, unlike the GOP assault on Clinton, the Democrats will stay on financial issues rather than stray into the personal. The results will be devastating for the Republicans and their prospects in 2008.'

- Dick Morris
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickM....html

———

Who is Dick Morris?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris

by pat c Wed Nov 15, 2006 18:22

A discussion about possible dope laws reform in the US. Full story at the link.

Guarded Hope for Dope Reform

Democrats control Congress, a socialist is in the Senate and the president's approval ratings are in the tank. So it's no surprise that advocates of drug reform are looking forward to a new day -- sort of.

Consider this: A bill that would allow sick people to use marijuana might actually pass the House. Of course, it's probably dead on arrival in the Senate, and President Bush would almost certainly stamp it with an override-proof veto.

But "at the very least, we'll see some hearings on the issue," predicted Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the pro-reform Drug Policy Alliance.

Hearings? Big whoop. Things are looking up in the wake of Election Day, but anyone who expects a major shift in American drug laws is definitely smoking something illegal.

"For all the worries about 'San Francisco values' coming into the Congress, (drug reform) isn't one that's going to come to the forefront," said Patrick Murphy, a drug-policy expert at the University of San Francisco who worked for the first Bush Administration.