More at noon

[altivo]

So Bush is set to make a big speech midday today. How is he going to manage to claim a "mandate" for his extremist policies this time? Any guesses?

I couldn't believe it when he claimed that after the squeaky win in 2000 (the win that was no win except in the courts) yet he has continued to sail along claiming and believing that he has the "solid" support of Americans. This election shows that he clearly has lost that support if he ever had it.

Comments

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

There certainly has been a resurgance in democratic power. I guess all the hatred for Bush drove more people to the polls to vote anything that they think would thwort his power. Almost every candidate in my state that one was a democrat with the exception of one. The dems have the house now. I don't know what to think about it. I feel like no matter which side is in power, I lose.

Why don't you get on to LJ talk or something and talk to me? :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I was out in the barn. Online now for a bit.

It really just comes down to this: America is not and never has been a "Christian" nation in the sense that laws and public policy are based on religious doctrine. No matter how much both Bush presidencies tried to make it so, it is not so. The basic design of the Constitution was intended to prevent that, and the only way to create a theocracy here is by repealing huge chunks of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bush seemed determined to do just that, which has not helped his popularity at all. He didn't go far enough fast enough for the real religious extremists, yet he went much too far for those who believe in separation of church and state, and the continuation of religious freedom. The tide was bound to turn against him eventually. The question is, will he try to use what power he has to keep his stranglehold even when his public support has eroded? I hope not, that would be blatant grasping for the powers of a dictator or tyrant.

The most immediate issues, though, were the war in Iraq, which has always been dubious in the minds of many Americans and clearly has little or nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the administration's claims; the blatant corruption and coverups in the Republican party itself, typified by the Foley scandal; the economy, which is still not favoring anyone but those who are already very wealthy (surprise!); and, I believe, the final realization of many Americans that laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act are taking away their Bill of Rights freedoms. The courts will eventually speak on that, but it may take years.

It surprises me that you'd make that statement about you "lose" no matter which side is in power. What would you win from the neocons? Surely you don't agree with the idea of enforcing Christian values or belief by law. With checks and balances now restored (I actually much prefer a situation where at least one house of Congress is controlled by the president's opposition) we can expect to regain some of the personal freedom that was being invaded and usurped by the right, and more social and legal tolerance of differences. Those are wins for you as much as for me. I realize you have issues with religious belief and condemnation of yourself, but the answer to that will never be found in law or government.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

It really just comes down to this: America is not and never has been a "Christian" nation in the sense that laws and public policy are based on religious doctrine.

Oh? Then why is it our laws in most states still define legal marriages as between a man and a woman only? Why are incest and polygamy illegal? I see quite a lot of religious influence in our laws, namely the Judeo-Christian notions of justice. I am not making a value judgment here on whether this is a good or bad thing. But I think it is not accurate to say that religious law has had no impact on this country's laws and certainly on the laws of Western Civilization. Justinian, who was responsible for the codification of Roman Law (the Romans were pagan which is a form of religion before becoming a Christian empire) that played a vital role in shaping the legal codes of many modern countries, including ours, was an emperor of Christian Byzantium and firmly dedicated to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Religion and religious people have had a significant influence in modern law. To say that religion hasn't influenced law is like saying the Greeks had no influence on philosophy.


The basic design of the Constitution was intended to prevent that,

The Constitution was intended to prevent any specific religion ruling the state and to prevent the state from violating religious freedom. The first amendment does not say that religion and the state can have absolutely no influence on each other or have any social contact between each other, especially when the government is representative of the people and the majority of people are religious. Even in the constitution itself you will see the words penned by George Washington "In the year of our Lord" unless I'm mistaken.

The most immediate issues, though, were the war in Iraq, which has always been dubious in the minds of many Americans and clearly has little or nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the administration's claims;

I disagree. To say Iraq has -nothing- to do with terrorism is to be oblivious to its role in the Middle East and in the greater context. Iraq is a pivital location. That isn't to say there are other motives or better ways to fight terrorism, but I think you're ignoring some pretty significant accomplishments that the left-wing biased media won't tell you about. Nevermind that the vast majority of the soldiers in the military agree with what they are doing and they know better than anyone else what is going on over there.


the blatant corruption and coverups in the Republican party itself, typified by the Foley scandal

Yes, this most certainly is a factor that drove more people to vote for democrats this time around. However there is a very important distinction to be made here. What happened when Foley was found out? He was kicked out. Everytime there has been a corrupt republican official, they are removed right away. None of the democratic officials when convicted of illegal or scandalous activity have been kicked out. The democrats keep their crooks, the republicans don't (recently speaking).


the economy, which is still not favoring anyone but those who are already very wealthy

No, actually the economy has been improving and the ratio of economic growth to economic debt percentages are higher right now than they were for most of the Clintion admistration, supposedly. I am not an expert on economics and haven't done much reseach myself so I'm not going to dogmatically claim this as fact but that's what I've heard the government's figures are saying.


What would you win from the neocons? Surely you don't agree with the idea of enforcing Christian values or belief by law.

Not generally, although one might consider that outlawing most forms of abortion is enforcing religious values but I see it as enforcing basic morality and ethics like murder which is commonly agreed upon as wrong. That's pretty fundamental to any society. Killing others is not a right. But I don't want the government forcing people to proclaim and follow Christianity or any other religion, no. So as long as I see something as a violation of basic rights, I don't want it enforced.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

continued...

With checks and balances now restored... we can expect to regain some of the personal freedom that was being invaded and usurped by the right, and more social and legal tolerance of differences.

And that is what I am hoping the democrats and liberals in power will accomplish. I am hoping that the respect for tolerance and personal autonomy they preach about, that I believe in, will manifest itself. But you see, liberals are very selective about what they want to tolerate. They want to give gays more rights, which is good, but they want to see Biblical Christianity wiped out of existence. I would not be surprised that if democrats were in power for a decent length of time I would find my religious freedom and expression to be substancially limited. I doubt they would do much to Muslims though. They think Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of fascists. I might have more sexual freedom but I'll have to give up some of my religious freedom. So either way, I'll lose in my opinion.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Wait, Democrats/liberals want to wipe out Biblical Christianity and curtail freedom of religion? That would be majorly serious. When and how did this happen?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The ethical and political principles on which America was founded originate not in any Christian ideal, but in the pagan values of Athens and Rome. Yes, those were religious cultures as well, but their religion was not as demanding and all-encompassing as today's Christian evangelism.

You are entitled, within your own sphere of living, to practice and believe according to whatever faith you may have. But so am I likewise entitled. When the specific ethics of one faith begin to interfere with those of another, it is not appropriate to enforce one over the other by binding law.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, all incumbents won in our state legislative races, so we can't expect any improvement here.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

People resist change. They fear it, in fact, no matter how bad the present situation may be.

That's why it took major scandals to unseat the Republican majority in Illinois. It's also why the current governor was retained here yesterday even though his job performance rating with the public is not good.

The turnover in national politics is a small sign of a very powerful pendulum swing. Let's hope that the Democrats don't blow it now, as they easily could. Even if they end up with a Senate majority of 51-49, two of those votes are really not party members any more, but independents. Unfortunately, US politics is as much a cult of personality and "stars" as it is anything else. Picking another lackluster nominee for president in 2008, or a highly polarizing one (like Hillary Clinton for instance) will put the party back in the doghouse in just two years. I don't see any viable candidate, unfortunately. Illinois' own Senator Obama would suit me very well, but he would be subject to such horrendous attacks from the right as to make it another ugly, polarizing campaign that I think would be better avoided. Democratic veterans like Ted Kennedy have way too many skeletons in their closets now.

And, as I reported yesterday, I voted for Green candidates in most of the local races. I'm disgusted with both major parties. The Green candidate for governor, Whitney, got 11% of the vote, which is remarkable for a third party candidate in Illinois. People are riled up and tired of the "business as usual" politicians, and especially the ones who have been completely ignoring their constituents and doing their own thing instead.

[dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com]

This in fact reminds me of a similar trend in Australian politics (figures, since Australia is the US' little brother in several ways)- since the incumbents seem to be trying to turn Australia into a cross between a dictatorship and a series of private enterprise, and the major opposition really has nothing to go on for several years now, voters appear to be slipping from frustratedly apathetic to irritated...and who would've guessed it, the Greens look to be grabbing the balance of power.

You are most likely more clued in and insightful on the matters of politics and government than I am- would you hazard any predictions as to the direction of the US come 2008 and beyond?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I am not ready to make predictions for 2008 and beyond. A lot hangs in the balance now. What will the Democrats do with their newly returned enfranchisement? Compare Bush's ratings from two years ago with what they are today and you can see how quickly the US public can swing from one side to another.

The Democrats could easily wreck their credibility in two years. For one thing, they'd better stay squeaky clean of scandals. No lobbyist payoffs, no corruption, no sexual misbehaviors. Those are some of the things that really hurt the Republicans this time around. They'd better formulate a reasonable and organized plan for the Iraq situation, even if Bush refuses to follow their direction. (Chances are he will be without a choice before long if they get their act together.) And in what is probably the most difficult requirement, they must find a candidate for president in 2008 who is acceptable to the majority of voters. This is really, really hard to do. US voters have shown time and time again that they vote personalities rather than policy for president. Picking another capable and intelligent guy like Gore or Kerry who cannot get people to warm up to him would be disastrous. Picking Hillary Clinton based on her track record in New York would be even more disastrous because so many male voters absolutely hate her (why, I've never understood, but she just can't win in the current climate.) It's going to take a darkhorse candidate like Barack Obama (who is black and therefore subject to rejection on those grounds) or someone else whose name is relatively unknown to win the 2008 presidential election. The Republicans will almost certainly nominate one of their "good old boys" who can schmooze and press flesh with the best the way Ronald Reagan did, and competing against that is damned hard.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Frist, John McCain, and George Pataki were already loosening the swords in their scabbards. Regardless of who actually runs within the party, I take it the Republicans will try and field a known moderate in 2008 to capture the centre again.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

I've discovered the Reichert Senate declaration is premature here, I don't know why its not included as undecided ... only 1/3 of the votes have been counted, its a very tight race, and within the past few days several towns have been completely stranded due to record severe flooding. Some precincts have not had any votes counted because they can't get the votes to the place where they count them.

Burner (the Democrat) can statistically still win, which would make her the first Democrat ever elected from that district if she does. That would also eliminate one of the supposedly established Republican wins and give it to the Democrats.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

First ever? When did Oregon become a state? There really was no Republican party until 1858.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

Not sure about Oregon, but Washington (where I am) became a state in 1889.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Later than I thought. I did mean Washington. finrod7 is in Oregon and we've been going back and forth about the election too.

Still I'm surprised at no Democrat ever, not even in the Wilson landslide or the FDR era. Of course, the two parties have sort of changed sides of the spectrum over the years. In the days of Lincoln, the Republican party were the radicals and liberals, the supporters of human rights for blacks and native Americans. Once the Civil War was ended, though, things seem to have done quite a flip flop and fairly quickly. There were anomalies, of course, like Teddy Roosevelt (who was never intended by the party leadership to become president.)

[captpackrat.livejournal.com]

Let's count how many times Bush mentions 9/11 during his speech.

Obviously, the Democrats winning the election is the result of terrorists.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Nope. He decided to blame it all on Rumsfeld. Or maybe that means Rumsfeld is a terrorist?

[captpackrat.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think both are guilty of war crimes (at the very least, crimes against peace, which is a violation of the United Nations Charter.)

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
-- Robert H. Jackson, US chief of council at the Nuremberg trials.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I'm more optimistic than pessimistic about all this. Bush's ability to unilaterally pass legislation should be lessened, the US is going to get what to my knowledge is its first woman Speaker, Rick Santorum got voted off his pile of skulls in Pennsylvania, and maybe the Democrats will now have to start thinking about a coherent policy for Iraq. First Muslim congressman, I hear, too, even though he's apparently a populist. All essentially good news. Most of all, this will return a bit of much-needed balance into US politics, even though the Democrats still don't control the judiciary, and the Senate is likely to end up tied in favour of the Republicans.

The Democrats are clearly more protectionistic than the Republicans, though, which could hurt a lot of people, if Bush caves in to special interest groups and goes along with the Dems (as if Bush could not cave in to special interest groups). And I'm very skeptical of the Democrats' ability to balance the budget now that Bush has made such an irresponsible mess of it.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The US hasn't had a balanced budget in decades, so that's nothing new.

Overall, it looks like an improvement to a political landscape that was looking very bleak two years ago, and improves my opinion of American voters by a little. They have to be practically hit in the head with a brick before they can see the corruption and creeping fascism in front of their faces, but they finally caught on. In fact, they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in a few cases, notably the defeat of Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.

Now that Bush has announced that Rumsfeld will be leaving and will be replaced by Gates (who has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy) we can expect some changes in the Middle East situation I'm sure. That is, if the new Senate gets around to confirming Gates in the Secretary of Defense position.

Unfortunately, control of the Senate hangs on that very close election in Virginia, which is bound to end up in bitter litigation, court battles, and recounts reminiscent of Florida in 2000. I predict an ultimate Democratic victory there, but I could be wrong.

There are still some depressing results. Half a dozen states passed very abusive anti-gay legislation by voter proposition, and the courts will have to reverse it (as they probably will do, having done so in the past with similar measures.) Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott, two of the ugliest and most suspect faces on the right-hand side of the House and Senate respectively still won re-election easily.

[songdogmi.livejournal.com]

Hastert just announced that he's not running for the House minority leader job (according to Associated Press), so that's a plus. He'll still be there and still be powerful, but he won't be quite as visible, one assumes.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well that's interesting, though not enough to placate me. I've despised Hastert for too long to relent now. He's a big fat, corrupt, greasy, slimy toad who retains his power by trading kickbacks and dirty favors and because the population of his district are all trained to vote straight republican like a bunch of monkeys on heroin.

[chibiabos.livejournal.com]

http://bagheera.livejournal.com/155920.html

[pioneer11.livejournal.com]

Late to the party here but I think playing the
"Rumsfeld Is Out" card was his gambit.

As for arrogance and politics, to misquote Goldwater;

"Timidity in Power is No Virtue"

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Umm. "Arrogance" and "Timidity" aren't exactly opposites.