What is Digg?140 Comments
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -6/+40Time to pressure the Democrats into serving the people of the United States, instead of the corporations, special interests, and Israeli Lobby. If they have political capital to burn, it will be very telling how they use it.
- lucy22, on 07/22/2008, -4/+27True, November will be a very interesting month for both parties.
- motivatedmama, on 07/22/2008, -8/+28Wooohoo! Bring on the bloodbath!
- Nintendesert, on 07/23/2008, -4/+23With Democrats doing the hard work and passing things like FISA, who needs Republicans?
- alapoet, on 07/23/2008, -2/+15I think the early Democratic Congressional victories in special elections in normally solid Republican states like Mississippi are a bellwether of what's going to happen this fall.
- Troy64, on 07/23/2008, -5/+17If the Democrats don't change there position on drilling, they may end up losing seats.
If nothing changes by November gas prices will be biggest issue in the elections. Even though most Diggers don't believe drilling will help. Most voters are not going to be satisfied with a congress that will not even try to get more oil. - Wargalas, on 07/23/2008, -4/+15Careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
If Obama is elected and Democrats expand their lead in Congress, there will be significantly more pressure to get things done, including reducing the deficit and being tough on terrorism, two traditionally weak Democratic areas.
And if they don't, which they probably won't, they'll be voted out of office in droves.
Let's not forget all the broken promises from the 2006 election. Remember getting rid of the "culture of corruption", ending the war in Iraq, being the "most open and honest Congress in history", and all other sort of promises that were broken?
William Jefferson, Christopher Dodd, closed door sessions, voting for FISA, voting for more and more programs while not cutting spending, the list goes on and on. - Ahnteis, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11Not it's not. Not getting better includes staying the same. Getting worse does not.
- alapoet, on 07/22/2008, -2/+13In the Republicans' case, I'm thinking it will be "interesting" in the Chinese sense. ;-)
- swrostmore, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I wouldn't bet on it, Pat Leahy took care of the GOP's ever-popular "investigate democrats right before elections" tactic when he kicked Attorney General Gonzales' ass out of the Department of Justice.
- Bilabrin, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11I think the big losers here and for the next 8 years at least will be the social conservatives and those with an aggressive foriegn policy stance. I don't think economic conservatives are going to get hammered too badly.
The big winners will be the environmentalists. - SethEllis, on 07/23/2008, -2/+12It's true that this will be a difficult cycle for Republicans simply because more of their incumbents are up for re-election. However, I think Democrats are deluding themselves when they think that all the bad is good for them. The story conveniently forgets that the current Democratic congress has done jack squat. The do nothing congress is just as much if not more to blame for the current state of things.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -5/+14Socialism, here we come!!!
Be ready, the solution to every problem is going to be government programs and higher taxes!! - tman84, on 07/23/2008, -6/+14This is Political Opinion, not Political News, buried.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+11Wrongly, they will use it wrongly.
Politics today is about power over the people, not power for the people. - Surferess, on 07/23/2008, -8/+16It used to be that when you controlled the congress you had a lot of power. Nowadays the whole checks and balances thing has me confused. Either way more Dems couldn't hurt.
- compdude32, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8Look at the approval numbers for Congress, which is controlled by democrats, the future of the democrat party is weak, noone is happy with what they have done.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9Yes, we'll become more socialist. That will definately get done.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -2/+9The big winner is going to be the IRS.
Economic conservatism is dead. The blue dog Democrats will not hold the line. Our government is addicted to big spending programs. - wilywondr, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7We need to undo the ***** of the past 28 years.
- BigW, on 07/23/2008, -3/+10"It won't help for years to start drilling in ANWR," will not be a tolerated excuse by the voters paying $4 a gallon for gas much longer.
The reason for this is that they've been saying this for YEARS and if they'd have gotten off their asses years ago and actually approved drilling in ANWR we'd be getting that oil NOW.
Congress is so damn shortsighted its ridiculous. - kinerry, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7The only party even close to winning a seat are the Libertarians.
Greens are a joke and a fraction of the size. - iduridur07, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12Yes because the price of oil in America has done SO WELL under Democrats that got in last time. The brilliant, absolutely brilliant new plans to make energy cheaper or affordable.
Woohoo - Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -3/+9People need to understand. If we open up drilling, we won't see that for seven years! Oh, BUT, prices will go down immediately. Why? Oil is a commodity people are investing in. They will not want to have their investments there if a big new supply of oil is coming on later. So, we won't see the oil for seven years but we'll see price relief immediately.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -5/+11Bring on the socialism!
I predict '12 will be a terrible year for the democrats.
By the way, the f'n republicans deserve this. They totally f'd the republican ideas. I voted for Ron Paul. I want my god damned party back. - shauncorleone, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7"Please insert your paycheck here, so that we public servants may get things done."
- makenshin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Maybe Republicans should be focusing more on getting congressmen elected than McCain. I know it's nice for them to win the presidential election again, but I doubt the Democrats are going to be so nice to Republicans with the next president. Some have (probably accurately) theorized that the Dems have let Bush do what he wants so can gain a majority in congress and the presidency. Unfortunately, one party having more than a simple majority is bad to have within congress, especially if that party holds the presidency as well. Though I don't like the Republicans and am hoping for third party candidates to get some power this year, I don't want the Dems to get the extreme majority they are likely to get this year (even though i've helped vote some of them into office...)
- joe122370, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6yep bye-bye dems. They've had control and done nothing!
545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.
They and they alone, have the power.
They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! - LeeSoong, on 07/23/2008, -9/+14Hopefully more democrats will come under criminal investigation and removed from office:
http://digg.com/politics/Bonusgate_Corruption_Prob ...
Pennsylvania is a good start, now is the time for the people of all the States to investigate the back room dealings of their leaders... - krAzykrAkr01, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5The real losers here are the American people. ***** rolls downhill and we're always at the bottom.
- Fallout911, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8If the Repugnitants don't change their party towards a more libertarian message they will disappear in a few years.
The people are tired. - evilbob333, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Energy cost is definitely an issue that the Republicans can capitalize on this year. And it may be the one that saves their asses. The problem is that they can't wait till after November to start pushing the issue. What they ought to do is start putting in bill to do things like fast track building nuclear power and refineries, remove the taxes on imported ethanol, allow for recovery of American shale oil, even the importation of Canadian shale oil. Force the Democrats to block these or better vote on these issues. And then they can come back and say the Democrats are blocking affordable energy.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8GP candidates getting thirteen seats? What have you been smoking?
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3tman... I was just making a joke, I didn't digg you down or anything.
- richbleak, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3He is getting dugg down because he isn't saying what should happen, he is giving an analysis of what is possible; this analysis is ridiculous. I agree that we need a viable third, fourth, or fifth party; I would never claim that this is a possibility this election.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Yes, it will be additional supply on the open market, which will drive prices down.
- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Lets try replacing the words with synonyms:
--The problem for Republicans is that, in addition to the fact that it has not improved, it has likely declined.--
Makes sense really. Just an elaborate way of saying things are not getting better and not staying the same - skrowl, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4All Obama is saaaaaying... is give Socialism a chaaaaaance.
- thedarkwolf, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The additional supply from ANWR will likely not drive prices down, at least not in a way visible at the pumps. The supply from ANWR is too small to have a major impact on on the global market.
Additionally, by the federal government's own studies, offshore oil drilling will not be able to induce a noticeable effect on world prices until 2030.
None the less, Screwy, you do have a point with the speculation market. If there is lots of hype about additional supply, regardless of whether or not it will actually have a real effect, it might drive prices down. - drachemorder, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Perhaps, but I'm from Mississippi, and the Democrats running for office here are running as conservatives. Ideologically they're almost identical to the Republican candidates. Even if the Democrats pick up those seats, they won't pick up much in the way of liberal votes. The voters might be annoyed at the party, but they haven't changed their fundamental values, and the candidates know that.
It won't bother me much, as a conservative, if the Mississippi Democrats currently running win their races (even though I'm not going to vote for them). They might even be a counterbalance to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I would love to see the Democrats move away from the left. - inigomntoya, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Word.
- Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Agreed. It's almost like cheering your favorite sports team on. Sad.
- Bilabrin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3The democrats aren't winning. The Republicans are losing and the people don't feel they have many choices to oust them so they turn to democrats.
- wafla, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3You won't find many liberals pushing a socialist agenda. You might find a few socialists doing it, though.
/Words mean things. - Screwy1138, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3LAWL we'd have to bury 3/4 of digg.
- dafragsta, on 07/23/2008, -6/+9Yay for the two party system. I love how the elite has brainwashed the world into thinking everything is a binary choice. ***** Democrats. ***** Repubicans. ***** political parties. Political affiliation should be forbidden. There should be no part of government that recognizes political party. That ***** is what makes people lazy. "Oh, I'm for social progress, so I vote Democrat like all the other sheeple." "Oh, I'm for family values and social conservatism while throwing in 'small government' just to make it sound like my Bible doesn't do all the talking. I'm voting Republican blindly like all the other sheeple."
I know there are people out there who DON'T vote like this, but stupid ***** articles like this only encourage it. The only think good about Democrats extending a stronger hold on either the house or senate is that there is less chance of some ***** religious ***** getting mixed in with legislation that affects people who don't believe in it. They both spend more than we have, they both serve themselves first, their friends second, and if there is enough time, they might support a bill that will make the socialists among the Democratic party happy.
NEITHER OF THESE ***** PARTIES GIVES A ***** ABOUT YOUR CIVIL ***** LIBERTIES. Don't expect Barack Obama to repeal or veto the third round of the Patriot Act. He voted for it the second time. Don't expect those who contribute to illegal wiretapping to be accountable. He voted to protect them too. That's OK though, just call anyone who rails against the erosion of civil liberties and the integration of globalist organizations like the Bilderbergers into the your government without any check on their power, a conspiracy theorist and it'll all be OK. - duckyinc, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3FFS, why are these interviews even done? Just wait till the thing actually happens before starting to predict wins for your *insert whatever* party.
- FlaNative, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I intend to vote out any Democrat who voted for Telecom immunity.
California should "Say No to Nancy" and fire her for not doing her job and impeaching Bush like she promised in 2005. - ancientshoes, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5***** the democratic party, i'm voting republican
- BoneheadFarker, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5You know...if more people thought the way that Fangsinmybeard does, it wouldn't be such a laughable prospect. Try voting for someone other then a Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter who, but if the 2 major parties actually had some competition then they might just clean up their act...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is