digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Democrats take control of Senate!

today.reuters.com — NBC Television and the Associated Press reported that Democrat James Webb defeated Republican Sen. George Allen in the closely contested Virginia Senate race, giving the Democrats control of the House and Senate!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -83/+30Alright! Now get to work and impeach the dubbya.
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -9/+59They already said they're not going to. Both Pelosi and Howard Dean have stated this.

      BTW - can we not have this story over and over again? How about posting it when Allen concedes and not until then?
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -23/+34Just remember, Bush holds the all-important VETO pen.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44They know that they would immediately get voted out of office in 2 years if all they accomplished is trying to impeach Bush and failing. If anything this election shows is that people are sick of partisan politics.
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -24/+9Actually he has something worse, the self imposed line-itew veto pen. Signing statement my ass.
    • hater, on 10/12/2007, -18/+94@ Pabster:

      It's a veto crayon, the president can't be trusted with ink.
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21"BTW - can we not have this story over and over again? How about posting it when Allen concedes and not until then?


      Sources: Allen to concede, giving Senate control to Dems
      http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/index.html
    • adougherty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"The Legislator can overturn a Veto."

      True, but very difficult in this case, so long as there are partisan politics. Assuming Bush veto's a bill because it was supported by democrats, there are not enough democrats in either legislator to get a 2/3 vote and overturn the veto.

      Yet another good check and balance, of course with holes. It only takes a majority to pass a bill to the president, but it takes a 2/3 quorum to overturn a veto.
    • Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Yeah, but we'll also be able to knock down alot of the unconstitutional laws the President plans to impose. The people have considerable power over this arbitrary administration, anybody who values our constitutional rights should be smiling right now.
    • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19LINE UP and start kissing Joe Lieberman's ass. He could change the balance. Remember that he is Independent now. If he changes is mind it is 50-50. And he might just do that. Since he had a good number of Republicans and Independents vote for him.
    • OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3@pabster
      If he uses the vito pen in ways the dem's dont like, there are more than enough grounds to impeach him. He knows it, hence all the ass kissing he has been doing. Im not to worried.
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11but one of the most important issues that goes mostly unpublisized is how many times bush has used a "signing statement" to void portions of legislation he signs even from his very friendly republican congress. this has got to stop since it is in effect a line item veto and undermines our checks and balances
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"LINE UP and start kissing Joe Lieberman's ass. He could change the balance. Remember that he is Independent now. If he changes is mind it is 50-50. And he might just do that. Since he had a good number of Republicans and Independents vote for him."

      thats true but he has gone on to say he will caucus with the Dems which is why he is counted as such
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14You impeachment kooks crack me up.

      Remember that Impeachment requires a 2/3 Senate vote. That is 67 Senators would have to vote to Convict. Even with 52 "Democrats" all voting for it you will never get 12 Republicans to go along. How do you think Clinton survived after he was impeached? There weren't enough votes in the Senate to Convict his ass or he would have been out.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5"Just remember, Bush holds the all-important VETO pen."

      Dems can shutdown Washington.
    • JacobsMirror, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Sadly I think the two party system is hurting this country more than helping. I refuse to agree that 95% of the people can be divided into two oppositional parties. Even though it'll probably never happen, there needs to be a better way to run a "democracy" (if that's what you call this)
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I would really like to see a 3 "strong" party system where each has 20-40% of the vote somewhere. Libertarian would be a good start for a third party imo.
    • JDoggqx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18What do the Democrats get if they impeach Bush? They get Cheney for a president. Face it, impeachment is simply a lose lose situation.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@pabster: which he didn't use once during the reign of the enabling Republican legislature.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Clearly the Dems hacked the voting machines!
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@JacobsMirror:
      "Sadly I think the two party system is hurting this country more than helping. I refuse to agree that 95% of the people can be divided into two oppositional parties. Even though it'll probably never happen, there needs to be a better way to run a "democracy" (if that's what you call this)"

      This reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of our political system. The two US parties are intended to serve a similar purpose to coalitions in parliamentary systems (which almost always coalesce into two factions, the governing one and the opposition). That is, they are supposed to offer broad tents under which an array of diverse interests can organize around common ground and lobby for their narrower interests. The Democratic Party, because of the greater democracy in its internal party organization, tends to be more successful at this than the GOP, which is more hierarchical and bureaucratic in its internal party organization, but this is true of other parties, even today, when radical extremists have hijacked the GOP - even there, you have pro and anti-choice Republicans, you have environmentalists concerned about global warming alongside fundamentalists who deny it, you have libertarian Republicans who support equal rights for same-sex couples along side social conservatives who oppose it, etc. On the Democratic side, you have even greater diversity - and more tolerance for internal diversity - which is why the uninformed talk about the Dems having "no coherent ideas", when, in reality, the Democratic Party tent consists of many groups with very specific ideas.

      What creates a tent, or a coalition, is a preponderance of positions on the most important issues that make it efficient to work together rather than at odds.

      At times, folks at the inner margins of these tents find themselves unable to reconcile some of their deepest convictions with the Party consensus, and they switch parties - some have gone from the GOP to the Dems, some have gone the other way. At the outer fringes, the kooks used to be barely tolerated and usually split off to form quixotic single-issue movements. In the past few decades, kooks on the Far Right took control of much of the GOP, gained inordinate power, and sought to make the Party more uniform and "pure" of thought, which, in turn, alienated many more moderate Republicans.

      The result you see is a sign of the fundamental health of American democracy; the people, having rejected extremism, voted to move the country back toward the center, where we are ALL Americans.

      Multiple parties would not make America more democratic, it would only make America less stable. A view of parliamentary systems shows that A) parties end up in two, often equally-sized opposing groups anyway, and, B) the more parties and the more opinions represented, the less stable the government, the less responsive to the broad will of the people, and the more hostage governments are to small, single-interest parties that represent tiny minorities of public opinion, but who wield disproportionate power as the swing vote in government formation.

      I think it is a fair guess to assume that people representing your particular views are not dominant in the current system. Rather than accept that as the way democracy, particularly representative democracy, is supposed to work, you want to rig the system to increase the voice of your particular minority. I urge you to reconsider.
    • cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Remember that Impeachment requires a 2/3 Senate vote. That is 67 Senators would have to vote to Convict. Even with 52 "Democrats" all voting for it you will never get 12 Republicans to go along."

      You forgot that Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the proceedings in the Senate and he has a history of being deferential to Presidential power.
    • XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5@JDoggqx
      "What do the Democrats get if they impeach Bush? They get Cheney for a president. Face it, impeachment is simply a lose lose situation."

      Wrong, if they ever had enough power and proof to impeach bush then they would also have enough to impeach Cheney, the third person inline for the presidency is the current speaker of the house, the newly elected Nicki Pelosi (sp?)
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Reporting these days is so nebulous that I wouldn't be surprised if they've just reported that democrats just have 50 seats meaning that republicans don't have control, but democraqts don't have control either. That's the only they'd been setting up the past few days.
      Oddly enough The Tribune in India is the first Google News link.
      http://news.google.com/nwshp?q=senate
      However, it at least spells it out that the Democrats have 51 seats and the Republicans 49
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Karmatic.
      You make me laugh. Funny stuff. You have posted "end of the U.S." posts several times before. All with just as strange and twisted logic and all very funny. Thanks.
    • xer1x0s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@rationalist

      I must congratulate you on an eloquent and well written response. Too bad what you've said is totally untrue. Proportional representation - see definition here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

      is not less democratic than our 2 party system. It is inherently more democratic. In brief it means that if a party gets X percent of the vote then it gets X percent of the representation in government. Who the hell could possibly say that was unfair or undemocratic? If we had that in the US then all views would be far better represented in our government, instead of just those of the well financed special interests who control *both* the democrats and republicans.

      Your whole comment is nothing but a long apology for the status quo. Your belief that having too many 'minority' interests represented in government would lead to instability is most disheartening - not to mention at odds with history. There are many examples of countries that use a system of proportional representation that have stable governments that much better represent their people than our government does. Or perhaps you think that most of Europe is in a constant state of anarchy?

      I don't know what you think representative democracy is, but it is supposed to be about giving a voice to EVERYONE. When you advised JacobsMirror to reconsider a system that would give a voice to his views and instead simply to accept that his beliefs should be marginalized and unrepresented because they haven't been considered popular or useful enough to be adopted by the leaders of one of the 2 major parties it became clear to me that you probably didn't really give a damn about representative democracy or any other similar ideas that don't promote enough "stability" for your liking. Please take your oligarchical views somewhere else - I'm not buying them
    • xlocust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bush does hold a veto pen..but he can not get anything done without the help of the Democrats. There will be constant gridlock which is a not such a bad thing considering the terrible laws and policies that have passed over the last six years. Also, don't forget, Democrats now control the purse strings. Bush now must get Iraq under control or congress may close the purse on Iraq.

      As far as impeachment, I don't see it happening unless the almost inevitable upcoming investigations by the Democrats reveal CLEAR abuse of power on part of the administration and the public exerts massive pressure on the congress for impeachment. Even if misconduct is found, I believe (I may be wrong) you need 2/3rds of the senate in order for a article of impeachment to pass.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"You forgot that Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the proceedings in the Senate and he has a history of being deferential to Presidential power."

      Do you have any evidence to support that accusation?
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@earthtoandy
      "but one of the most important issues that goes mostly unpublisized is how many times bush has used a "signing statement" to void portions of legislation he signs even from his very friendly republican congress. this has got to stop since it is in effect a line item veto and undermines our checks and balances"

      earthtoandy, get a clue and try again. Bill Clinton used 247 signing statements - as of now Bush has used 134. Were you whining about checks and balances when Bill Clinton used nearly twice as many signing statements as Bush? Bush-bashers seem to be clueless when it comes to history - as if they were born in the last few years and prohibited from reading about history.


      247 signing statements among them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. [6] As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Araya213 2
      "Yeah, but we'll also be able to knock down alot of the unconstitutional laws the President plans to impose."

      Please explain to us how congress can "knock down" a law - do you even understand how the federal government works?

    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Dems can shutdown Washington"

      Every time congress (Republican or Democrat) has tried that - they lost big time. Even when Bill Clinton shut down the government (the president can do it too) by vetoing an appropriations bill - Congress and Newt were blamed.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@XZanatos
      "Wrong, if they ever had enough power and proof to impeach bush then they would also have enough to impeach Cheney, the third person inline for the presidency is the current speaker of the house, the newly elected Nicki Pelosi"

      That is not how it works - Digg Democrat Child. If the president is impeached - the vice president becomes president and picks the VP. If the vice president is impeached, the president picks a new VP. They cannot impeach two people at the same time - that would be the worst Constitutional crises in our history - basically a coup d'état. The ONLY way Pelosi (the richest Speaker of the House in the history of our nation) becomes president is if the president and vice president die at the same time.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know I'm all for the Democratic victory - and I am fundamentally opposed to the war in Iraq - but somehow all of this still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

      If America pulls out of Iraq the world will certainly not be a safer place. Indeed it is likely that chaos will ensue. However the reality is that it was the US who was responsible for creating the conditions in which this chaos could exist to begin with. The bolstered and supported Saddam and helped him obtain power in Iraq, then they armed him to the teeth, which he subsquetly used to suppress the population and to deepen the divisions between the Sunnis, Sheits and Kurds in the country, then as a supposed political stunt that was intended to bolster America's status in the world after appearing weak after the September 11th attacks (given that according to Rumsfeld Iraq was supposed to be a walkover) they decided they would get rid of Saddam and set up a presence iIn the Middle East that they could use to intimidate their other supposed enemies in the region.

      This isn't just double standards, its triple, quadruple standards and much worse - and now there is no doubt that even when this mess is over - an even bigger mess will be left behind.

      Maybe the Iraqis can sort it out for themselves somehow. Maybe... Then again maybe it will all just turn to *****.

      Either way I for one am not gloating - if only because I know that whatever is still to come can only be at least as unpleasant as anything that has passed before - and miay even be much worse.
    • niczar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1'What do the Democrats get if they impeach Bush? They get Cheney for a president. Face it, impeachment is simply a lose lose situation.'

      What does Cheney get if he becomes the president? A heart attack.

      Next in line is Nancy Pelosi! Bring it on!
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ LastVisibleDog

      You need to get your facts straight.

      "George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court already held the one line item veto bill as an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.[9]

      Wikinews has news related to:
      Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight
      Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.[6] [10] In the words of a New York Times commentary:
      And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.[11]"

      -Wikipedia
    • cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""You forgot that Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over the proceedings in the Senate and he has a history of being deferential to Presidential power."

      Do you have any evidence to support that accusation?"

      1983, Roberts said it was time to “reconsider the existence” of independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and to “take action to bring them back within the Executive Branch.”

      July 15, 2005, while interviewing for the Supreme Court, John Roberts ruled in support of the government appeal of lower court decision regarding military tribunals, enemy combatants, and the Geneva Conventions.

      Acree v. Republic of Iraq
      (Suit of 17 US soldiers, tortured as prisoners of war in Iraq during the golf war, filed against the Republic of Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam Hussein using the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA))
      Roberts asserted that a 2003 law encompassed a terrorism exception to FSIA and thus that, through a presidential order, it deprived federal courts jurisdiction over suits against Iraqi officials.
    • unpopulardude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I tend to agree with the people who think that impeachment would be difficult. You would have to impeach both Bush and Cheney in order to make any real difference. Their terms only last another two years. Assuming there are pretty incriminating things with good evidence, you would have to prove to a number of Republicans that impeachment was warranted.

      I have a different suggestion. Subpoena and investigate. Get enough evidence to be used later in a criminal trial. Even if the President pardons himself and much of his staff, the pardon only applies in the US. There appear to be several other countries in which there is a good chance of felony prosecution. Once he leaves office, extradite.
  • lemorex, on 10/12/2007, -31/+16*insert political bias here*
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29Democrats/Republicans (choose one) are all idiots! This country's going to hell in a hand basket, and it's all their fault!
    • Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Actually its the peoples fault for not giving a damn about politics.
    • Punisher2K, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich. Which is better?
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -20/+11Giant Douche who's responsible for a min: 40,000, max: 600,000 lives being lost in the most horrific way possible, vs giant turd who says mean things about the troops...

      They're both so tewible! I'll have to flip a coin on this one...
  • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3To quote House,

    "Lame duck's done quackin'". Let's hope it's true of Dubya Dubya.
  • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Generally, I prefer when the house/senate are controlled by one party and the presidency controlled by the other... it helps ensure both sides work together for the common good of the country rather than the presidency becoming a rubber stamp for one parties political goals.
    • CAvenger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6That sounds dandy, but I just imagine a rubber veto stamp to be honest.
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It highly depends on the president really, if the president wants to become a lame duck and doom his party in the next election he can just veto everything that hits his desk. However, usually they try to compromise and just veto the things that are extremely counter to their party. Clinton did quite well in a similar situation and if bush is half the president the conservatives make him out to be, I expect he shall do similarly well... when things are split generally the moderates rule not the extremes of liberal and conservative... and in most things most people are moderate.
    • pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3The Legislator can overturn a Veto.

      Checks and Balances.
    • ButtSpasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9word. opposing parties for the legislative and executive branch is a good thing. it help prevent what has happened for the last 6 years where one party steamrolls the other because they have no fear of not getting their legislation passed. it is all about checks and balances. for too long Bush has been able to operate without a check from the legislative branch.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"That sounds dandy, but I just imagine a rubber veto stamp to be honest."

      Better than the rubber congressional stamp we've endured for the last 6 years!
    • rsbrown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@shadus: "Clinton did quite well in a similar situation"

      Remember, though, that Clinton had to worry about re-election two years later when the 1994 flip occurred. Bush has no such motivation to be cooperative.
    • BigMrWiggly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@rsbrown "Bush has no such motivation to be cooperative."
      If he doesn't cooperate the republicans will probably do even worse in the 2008 elections.
  • zachgc, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9Bush: "I welcome our new Democrat overlords."
  • slickriven, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3Burying as inaccurate since most expect that a recount is highly likely in Virginia... with that all up in the air, this is likely the outcome, but currently I believe that it's speculation.
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12A recount isn't very likely actually. Webb is up 7000 votes and historically Virginia recounts have only made differences on the order of a few hundred votes. There are no voting irregularities unlike Florida in 2000, so a recount is unlikely to change anything. Allen has stated that "he doesn't want to drag things out" ,so I think we'll see his concession as soon as Virginia announces the result.
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Actually, Allen has said he wouldn't ask for a recount, and if this story at cnn is to be believed then Allen has conceded.

      http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/index.html
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I like how every news agency wants to be the first to report things, so badly that they're willing to jump to conclusions. I mean, it's looking highly inevitable at this point, but Allen's giving a press conference in 4 minutes, in which he'll either tell us if he conceded or is asking for a recount.
      Until then, why not just refrain from speculation and wait? We've seen what's happened in the past when the news media has declared winners and been wrong.
  • dmurray14, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Good for them. Now maybe they can actually do something instead of bitching and moaning about how the other side is doing it wrong.
  • SemperLuc, on 10/12/2007, -26/+1BUT ... the Democrats have only 2 years to release all the Al-Quida prisoners and replace them with Republicans. On top of that, democrats have a lot of surrendering to do around the world; lots of intifada's to sponsor.

    Hurry along now, the dhimmified europeans are getting anxious.
  • snackdrag, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2repeal the articles of incorporation!!!

    CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW *

    does NOT refer to STATES!!!!
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Supreme Court has ruled that the restrictions listed in the 1st Amendment apply to the Federal and State governments equally.
    • snackdrag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1The SUPREME court had NO RIGHT to decide or make that up. Homogenization of laws is ruining us. what is good for NY is not always good for CALI or the MIDWEST etc...
    • ryansasteroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Last I checked, the Supreme Court does have the right to interpret the constitution.
    • Lakhim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Dearest Snackdrag:
      U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

      Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection


      Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.


      Yes, the bill of rights applies to states. Go back to law school.
  • Calypsoaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Technically the Democrats are even with the Republicans with 49 chairs each, with 2 Independents who said they would vote with the Democrat cacus, though as we all know, someones word can only be taken so far in Washington DC now a day.
    • Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Or as Bruce Campbell said in Army of Darkness, "Where I come from that's called pillow talk baby, it don't mean nothin'." :)
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nonetheless a majority has great ramifications for committees. The chairman of a committee comes from the majority party. It's more than just 51 vs 49.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
      The chairman's powers are extensive; he controls the committee's agenda, and may prevent the committee from approving a bill or presidential nomination.


      That includes the ethics committee too by the way. And Ted Stevens? Sorry, kiss that commerce committee goodbye, no more tubes for you.
    • ryansasteroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6One of those independents is a socialist from Vermont. I don't see him turning Republican.
  • lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Hey look fellas, we have three branches of government again!

    Well, more like 2.5, but whatever.
  • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Now its time to deliver. The Dems have a probation of sorts to show they are the party who can deliver. Deliver better lives for the working class, push for a successful and quicker completion to a useless war, and fight washinton corruption... well relatively.

    They have been mired but the have a huge chance to prove it not like it has been the past 12 years. There are some strong personalities with lots of charisma and more huevos than in the past, its lal in their hands now to make it reality
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The only thing I expect of the democrats is to throw a wrench in the gears of the GOP and PNAC radicals' plans... Deadlock is 100x better than rubber stamping legislation that unravels our democracy.
    • rxbandit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The politics of both parties are responsible for unraveling democracy. They just have to approach it from different ends of the spectrum.
  • Ricemanstm, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0Good luck! You now have 2 years to show us all what you can do. I don't know what y'all think you can do better, but it'll be interesting to watch. You have been given a gift from God (whether you believe in Him or not), try not to squander it like the Republicans did.
  • SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9You're all living in a dream world if you think anything is gonna change.
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10sounds like a much better world than you live in.

      Worst case senario is our government works like it should as stated in the constitution. Our government model fails completely when one party holds all three branches
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah, I know this is unrealistic, but I really do have hopes for a better future. I want Bush to do better. I want the Democrats to work on the big obvious stuff. Maybe between the change of power and Bush's signaling of a new willingness to change his mind things can get better for everybody. I know it won't last through tomorrow, but for the moment I am feeling real hope about the change in direction. God bless America.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Our government model fails completely when one party holds all three branches"

      Let's just try to remember this in 08 and not just give all three branches to Democrats. Personally, I don't see myself voting Republican anytime soon, so I will probably back an independent. 08 would be the perfect time for a 3rd strong party to emerge.
  • HelloNavi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I live in virginia, couldn't be happier.

    Also, how did this turn into a bush-bash?
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7These days everything turns into a bush bash ;o)

      I'm more interested in Bush NOW than I was the last six years of his presidency, these two years ahead are where he has to be a real president instead of a stamp will prove to be telling about his character and his legacy as a president. I'm interested in politics again to see how this will turn out.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Umm, it's digg?
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11With the current political climate in Washington everything is a Bush-bash. The man is the worst thing to happen to America since Nixon.
    • mzwaterski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Dugg down for giving a stupid explanation just to bash Bush. There are plenty of reasons to bash anyone, particularly Bush, but at least give one...
  • solusdotipse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Al Gore won the election too.
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, but as far as I know there's no electoral college when it comes to state elections. All votes are final.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Gore is an idiot. He should have conceded like Allen did, rather than sending his lawyers to Florida to try and steal the election.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Geekee... EXACTLY!
  • drewlander, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0yeah I hate washinton corruption, where the hell is that?
    If you really believe things are going to improve, you are misguided. The economy is doing awesome, unemployment is at an all time low. All you have to do is repeal the tax cuts that give YOU, rich, poor, middle class, MORE MONEY, and down we go again!
    Oh btw, senseless war? what would YOU do instead? "I don't know but I'd do it better!".
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Unemployment isn't at an all time low in Ohio, in fact its still at record levels for the last 20 years. The economy here is getting better but it's in pretty bad shape.
    • earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8oh geez, i dont know, not start the war?

      and there are many reports out showing bush's "tax cuts" have not done much for the economy but further spread the distribution of wealth and that and equal size cut distributed in different ways would of had more profound effects.

      but far be it for me to tell the sheep his shepard is leading him to death
    • mjesuele, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8You can say whatever you want about the awesome economy, but do a little research and you'll find that by and large, the beneficiaries of the current economic climate are hyper-wealthy individuals. Slate ran an article recently on the resurgence of the phenomenon of "Bushenfreude," where "merely-wealthy" people who by all accounts should support President Bush's economic policies are donating money, often money gained from the President's tax cuts, to defeat his initiatives and elect Democrats. Among the reasons cited for this phenomenon was the statistical fact that the hyper-rich are enjoying stratospheric gains in wealth -- more than one half of all monetary gains in the top one percent of American earners went to the top tenth of that one percent.

      *****, even the rich are pissed off at how much money these guys are making. I think we can come up with at least a somewhat more equitable economic climate. What exactly would I do? If I knew that, I'd run for office. My job as a voter is to hold these guys accountable for the solutions they try, not to come up with all the ideas.
    • H3LLSL33T, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sounds like a firm supporter of Reaganomics.
  • cab1030, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Free politics lesson for pabster:

    Veto's can be overridden. Not to mention that in using his veto on some of the bills that will see, it would really expose Bush for the political puppet that he truly is.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7You idiot, have you ever read the Constitution? Do you understand how our Democracy functions?

      Sure the Congress can override a Presidential Veto. But it requires a 2/3 majority vote for it to happen, which means a significant portion of the OPPOSING party in control must vote to override the veto as well.

      Libbies like to dream that Democrats can "shut down Washington" (as one idiot even posted previously) but that just isn't the case.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Pabster, republicans proved in the 90's that congress can shut down the government. Just include some last-minute provisions in the budget which the president disagrees with and give it to Bush. It was dirty then, but you had no problem with it.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Democrats can shut down Washington. Bush can veto every bill they pass and they won't work with him to get bills he wants passed. So either they both compromise on some issues or we can all sit back and do alot of nothing.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yes, but with Bush's record of "signing statements" to even the most broad bill there's got to be enought pissed of Republicans to get 2/3 on something. Even with things like the recent grants of extra powers, the pres has been "clarifiying" the laws congress passes for far too long. There could be enough push even among moderate republicans that the president needs to follow the laws as THEY write them, not as he "clarifies". The prez has been playing "toe the line" and "your not a patriot" with even his own party for 6 years now. Now that the Republians lost, perhaps congresscritters will start thinking of THEIR jobs instead of the party line.

  • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Dems sweep the elections!!! Put the smack down on Emperor Bush!

    This proves that Americans aren't sheeple like the GOP thought. Lets see how both sides react and gear up for '08. Both sides have the chance now to prove themselves.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5The problem facing the Dems though will be that all the terrible policy from the Bush administration will come to a head in the next 2 years.
    • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's not the Dems problem ... that's ALL OF US problem.
  • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9A few of the radio guys out there are suggesting that Bush & Co. pulled some subtle strings to throw the election towards the Dems, with the benefits being a Dem controlled house and senate passing his immigration bill and helping insure another Republican president in 2008.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Rope a Dope
    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10LMAO. Even when something goes against Republicans, it's a big Republican conspiracy. The American people wanted change, and now they have it, I think the change is good even though I don't buy into the Democrat ideology. Despite the bashing, Bush has done some good things for this country along with the bad.
  • hutectro, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5How does it feel to be Lame Duck President Mr. President Brush
    !!!QUACK !!!!QUACK
    Enjoy your last two years then you will be gone.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9It's a lame duck House and Senate as well, don't overlook that. If Bush vetos something the Dems do not have a 2/3 majority to overturn it.

      The one thing they can do though is end the Iraq war by cutting off funding. If they are smart they will make this their number one priority, as long as it doesn't endanger the troops and gets them home.
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm not so sure about that really. A lot of republicans are up for re-election in '08 and if Bush is putting a bad face out they're likely to side with the democrats.
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4and it's one, two, three
    what are we fightin for?
    don't ask me I don't give a damn
    the next stop is socialism (pronounced socialisam)
    and it's five, six, seven
    open up the pearly gates
    Well there aint no time to wonder why
    WHOOPEE we're all gonna die!
  • Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Scary side note: after all the bitching about one party controlling 2 out of 3 branches of government at the federal level, the People's Republic of Massachusetts is now completely controlled by the Democrats in 3 out of 3 branches of government. Yah, this is a lot different than "Bush's empire."
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's a freakin STATE retard not a COUNTRY! The one party in control of all branches of government idea hardly applies. And its a very small very liberal one at that. Their government doesn't represent an entire diverse nation like the US. You are obviously a blind partisan "Bushie" that is a sore loser so you have to throw around cute little sound bites like: "People's Republic of Massachusetts"?

      Who spoon feed you that one mister original? Is Rush Limbaugh your dad or something?
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You can't see a difference between states and national government? Even locally it's far better to have things split up a bit, but nationally it's critically important.
    • Awap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"And its a very small very liberal one at that."
      It may not have much landmass, but it's ranked 13th by population; certainly a relevant state for politics. You're right about the liberal thing though. I would say that I am pretty liberal, but this place really surprises me sometimes.
    • Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Exhaust, you're a frigging tool. You call me a blind partisan "Bushie" and a sore loser, but your comments clearly point out that you are a partisan moonbat and a poor winner. People around here have called Cambridge "The People's Republic of Cambridge" long before that douchebag Rush Limbaugh used it (if he even does, since I don't listen to the ***** he spews); I just expanded the term.

      The fact is that a state is a microcosm of the country, and Massachusetts does influence federal government and national sentiment. We're the only state to legalize gay marraige, we're a laughing stock of the nation thanks to the Big Dig, JOHN KERRY is the retarded senator from Mass that lost to W, and let's not forget one of the most powerful senators in congress, drunkard Ted "I killed a woman and got away with it" Kennedy.

      Before you people go around calling other people partisan, maybe you should look inthe mirror.
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Desslok: WAAAAH!
  • Kdog22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If I could even give a tiny rats ass..

    All Politicians=Crooked=We're all screwed
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4http://www.webster.com/dictionary/cynical
    • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?

      I also tend towards a bit of cynicism... but I like to think when incumbents get ousted that the new guys take a few years before they're completely bought out.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I prefer healthy skepticism, but this fatalist crap is a just a bit oversimplified for my sensibilities. Do people who say that "all power corrupts" have no ideals for our government, or are they simply expressing their affirmation of the status quo? This "If men were meant to fly they'd have wings" mentality tacitly accepts the impossibility for real human progress. Admittedly, our democracy is far from perfect, but haven't we made enormous strides in the last few hundred years, or is it all just *****? Sorry, I can't accept that. Have you no hope for the future, sir?
  • DiscoLando, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11You know, if you think Democrats will do any better than Republicans, I think you're naive. The Dems exist to only serve themselves, same as the GOP. They're equally corrupt in my eyes, they just go about it in different ways.

    Real, significant change will only come with a party that truly represents the people. Maybe the Libertarian party is headed that way, but I'm not holding out on them quite yet.
    • greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You're exactly right. Both major parties are bought and paid for.
  • duerra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Damn.... I would really like to see one party in control of the House, one in the Senate, then it doesn't matter who is president.
  • jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If you guys think politicians have control of our country, you're idiots. Republican or Democrat, they all pander to big business and special interest lobby groups. Neither party is good for our country right now.
  • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11Congratulations terrorists!
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Have y'all ever heard of the Rope a Dope?

    Bush isn't as dumb as he sounds. This is a strategic move that may or may not pay dividends, but it will be interesting to watch. It all depends on what "new direction" the democrats actually pursue.
    • bizchris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1See, but here's the thing about a Rope-A-Dope - it only works on dopes, and otherwise isn't very strategic at all. Whether your conspiracy theory is right or not, it doesn't seem like a very good move when the Internet is watching. We'll see...
    • salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The pressure is on the democrats now. Those plans they said they have, now they have to start using them or admit they don't exist. There's a difference between leadership and gaining control due to the stupidity of their "friends" across the aisle; I hope they know the difference.
  • pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6"NBC Television and the Associated Press reported that..."

    I love how it's the media that gets to decide when and whether politicians have won or lost. Where's the law again that says it's their decision?
    • tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i'm not sure why you people are digging him down. He's correct. Does anyone remember the 2000 election? The media called Florida for Bush..then...Gore...then Bush...

      It led to a mess.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I for one am glad the turd sandwiches are in control. The US couldn't take much more douching.
  • Changa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7
    Yaaaaa! The terrorists won!

    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yaaaaaa! Your mom won!

      (see previous comment from you fellow sore loser above)

      That's total ***** GOP propaganda and you know it. Bush is the terrorist wet dream! How can you say hes not? What has he done to hurt the terrorists?! Put stronger doors on air planes? He has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted. He has created 10x more terrorists than hes killed.

      PhantonBantam you're a total douche bag.
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Nice to see someone else watched the midterm midtacular.
    • Changa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3
      I suppose I should have added /sarcasm tags.

      The idea that the terrorists win if democrats gain power is near parody when the person says is seriously.

    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Well its hard to tell your kidding when you got all these hardcore bush fans on here saying it seriously.

      That statement has got to be the worst thing the republicans said during the election. Just because the Dems aren't blind followers that believe the lies that everything is going as planned in Iraq does not mean the terrorist want them in power.
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2BTW

      Colbert can't carry Jon Stewart's jockey shorts. He won't be around much longer in my opinion his "act" is getting old.
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think Colbert is complementary of Jon Stuart. And are there really any Bush fans on Digg? I can see some playing devil's advocate, but I think any comments that arrogant can be taken as sarcastic.
  • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Ever suspect that no one in the U.S. really follows the issues
    in detail? Just read the above comments and try to glean
    some content. All you collect is generalities. What...?....
    not a word about health care, or the impending baby boomer
    bubble, or an end to the drug war? How about the problem
    at the borders, including illegal immigration, terrorist infiltration,
    and the fact that Seavans are not screened before they dock
    in U.S. ports? What about education: Are there
    any politicians who're calling for compromise, so that we can
    better fund the poorer schools, and re-organize their administrations,
    as well as experiment with more competition in the schools?
    Did we hear any of this addressed in the press? The press
    doesn't call attention to our problems. They push scandal
    and the "horse race" angles to politics. The above comments
    prove my point about the press.
  • quickslvr1287, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2all this dem and republican talk is why I wish Michael Steele and more people like him got voted into congress. I don't agree with him on every issue, but I'd rather have a man of integrity in public office then a dirty politician who I agree with on every issue. When most people realize that no political party cares what we think anymore and people start voting beyond party lines is when this country can begin to become great again
  • dep01, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Without further adieu:
    http://republican.party.justgotowned.com/
  • jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Its time for Bush to be impeached... for the war criminal he is!
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can't see a president being impeached for what congress allowed him to do.
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Quick, quick, someone post another story, Allen just conceded.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I see a lot of the neocon diggers are drinking a big glass of STFU and speaking with the red thumbs down instead.

    Democracy ftw!
  • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1as lucidly illustrated in Noam Chomsky's "Failed States", building on philosopher John Dewey's observation eighty years ago that "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," Chomsky echoes your sentiments about the dangers of unfettered business control of our Democracy, and he concludes that and that won't change as long as power is in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents, and other means of publicity and propaganda." Reform alone won't correct this abusive imbalance, he believes. Numerous GOP lobbying scandals during the last few years further highlight this complete lack of interest in oversight, until very recently, or even plans to curb business and special interest groups. Chomsky suggests that real, meaningful democracy is only possible through "fundamental social change." Perhaps Democrats' "Special Interest Lobbying and Ethics Accountability Act," which has been largely dismissed by the former GOP-held congress, can be an important first move towards that ideal democracy:
    http://www.dccc.org/news/lobbying_reform/
    Let's hope that with their new mandate, they will be able to move on these issues to help restore our faith in governmental self-regulation, and begin our path to a lasting and "fundamental social change."
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2***** Noam Chomsky
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1eloquent response. Just curious though, did you make it past the first six words, or are you just trolling?
  • Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yes!! Take that Apple fanbois! Another victory for the good guys.
  • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Nancy Pelosi as Speaker...stupid ***** liberal...yeah, she is goning to be partisan.
    Liberals sure now how ruin a win...the next mistake will be running Kerry or Clinton...

    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1exactly, kerry is probably a good statesman like Gore and Quail, but he doesn't have the "mojo" to pull of getting elected. I thought the biggest mistake last presidential election was the Democrats completely ignoring Dean as a canidate.. yes, he's out there, but that would have brought in a lot of the third party voters that need somebody to respect. A good match might be Dean with Clinton as VP. She needs a little more time in office before I'd consider her "ready" as a president.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mabhatter
      "exactly, kerry is probably a good statesman like Gore and Quail"

      It's Quayle.
  • quickslvr1287, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@scabbers

    beautiful thing ain't it?
  • GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3QUICK DIG A HOLE AND BURY YOUR MONEY!!!!!!! - because we all know taxes are going up up up up and up!

    its for the better i suppose... At least when the salvation army comes asking for money i can tell them no...

    yeah yeah i am cold heartless greedy bastard.
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You are getting dugg down by people that have no money to bury. Come on...digg me down dumbocrats.
  • nycjap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The worst thing that they could do would be to essentially repeat the Republicans' mistakes and fall into those partisan ways. That's not to say that they should act, vote and legislate like Republicans, but they should concentrate on coming up with legislation and not on using their oversight powers to seek out retribution. Yes, Bush can still use his veto powers to stop them, but at least they could say that they tried and stayed focused on what should be their primary responsibilities to the people who put them in power, which clearly includes at least some people who previously had supported their direct opponents and Bush in prior elections.
  • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Halla effing loola!
  • krakkinem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Bush loves America in the way that OJ loved Nicole.

    I am so glad to see him take a thrashing like this. Just 2 more years...
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yeah, he has had it so easy. And he isn't even honest like Clinton
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bush WILL NOT veto ANYTHING. If he does the war crimes tribunal will kick in.. he knows this. Pelosi has got him by the balls lol.
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Keep dreaming.....the pin is ready to go on that wacked out bitch.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@lopla
    "Bush WILL NOT veto ANYTHING. If he does the war crimes tribunal will kick in.. he knows this"

    Another Digg Democrat Child that does not understand how the government works. What War Crimes Tribunal do you think has jurisdiction over the president?
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2What do you expect from a dumbocrat. They are the useful idiots in the dumbmasses.
    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In libbies sick, twisted little minds Pelosi is now the leader of a War Crimes Tribunal with Chuck Schumer presiding. Let them keep dreaming and scheming. The clock is already ticking on the curtain closing over the San Francisco Liberal kooks elected just a few days ago.
    • Exhaust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn all three of you are whiny swore loser little bitches. HAHA

      WAAAH! The president I blindly follow got smacked down by the WHOLE COUNTRY and now YOU'RE the minority with the lame duck president!

      I hope the Dem's use their new power to get something done and use it as a springboard for '08 so all you blind red state rights sacrificing followers can eat even more crow.
  • meanreal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Around the world expectations are high that the change now will bring peace and constitutional legality.
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Did you learn that on the Daily Show or MTV?
  • cheesehead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Congratulations to all Americans, the light has finally been turned back on at the end of your long dark tunnel.

    It seems to me that Cheney and Haliburton are involved in a long list of crimes against the American people and that an inquiry into the actions of their warmonger's cartel would solve the perceived problem with impeaching Bush, who has undermined your rights and freedoms and lied his way into a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of people, their lives.

    Unfortunately your problem now seems to be that the top dog Democrats aren't going to address that or anything else to upset their Big Money Friends, despite anger from their grassroots members. I may be mistaken but that's my perspective from Canada.

    Now that the enemies of America have been whittled down, perhaps its time to clean up the lobbyists and other carpet baggers that have corrupted all of our western democracies.
    Again congradulations and well done. You have restored my faith
    • Snoopy7176, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3" I may be mistaken but that's my perspective from Canada."

      That is why Canada is weak and we are strong. Just let us worry about the important stuff, that you clearly don't understand, while you build our cars mmmmkay.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.