Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Post-Election Musings

On a night when CNN was claiming that Democrats need to govern as conservatives (because some of their victories were in conservative districts) and FOX was claiming the election showed how *conservative* the country still is (apparently the transition from faith-based reality to reality-based reality is slow and painful), we must once again depend on Jon Stewart for the most incisive comments:

  • “Can Karl Rove’s tactical genius overcome, say … reality?”
  • “Democrats need 15 seats be the controlling party and allow themselves access to corruption and sexual perversity.”
  • And my favorite: “... the Democrats cunning strategy of slowly backing out of the room while their brother gets yelled at for burning down the garage”.
I’m glad my political compass is broken, and the Democrats did win. More specifically, I’m glad there will finally be some oversight and accountability for the Bush administration. I hope Democrats can develop some spine and redeploy troops in Iraq, and maybe even impeach Bush, but I’d settle for making him follow the law from now on.

Finally, I must say that it still drives me nuts to hear CNN refer to pro-war, supply-side, gay-bashing christian conservatives as “value voters”, as if those who support ending the war, increasing the minimum wage, and having simple tolerance towards others are not votes based on values. Ironcially, these conservative values are usually in direct opposition to what Jesus taught, like their triumphalist desire to see a Christian America dominate the world, or their support for policies that increase disparity or turn their backs on poor and the sick.

In the end,Democrats are not going to make everything OK. I'm just hoping they can slow our descent into Armageddon.


snarkbutt said...

One of my favorite things about this election is to see Karl Rove's smug arrogance smacked-down. I guess his obnoxious predictions about keeping control of both houses was as "reality-based" as his perception on how things are going in Iraq.

The Jon Stewart quote on burning down the garage is hilarious. I told it to my boss, who agreed.

I stayed away from all media last night and went to bed early. I wasn't going to be up til 1 AM getting my heart broken like last time. The strategy worked!

Dan S said...

Against all my instincts, I stayed up for both the Colts victory over New England, and election last night. Sad, how elections are now so much like sporting events, but I must say that both were very satisying personal experiences :)

I heard someone remark that Rove just presided over the worst Republican defeat in a generation, but I doubt that he will go away. His vile methods mostly work, until the policies that result from them lead to their inevitable doom. I expect he will be back in 2008, and be as effective as ever, leaving a trail of slime behind him.

Causal said...

Take a moment, and help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach..

The day the nation demands impeachment is upon us. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

Brownie said...

"I’m glad there will finally be some oversight and accountability for the Bush administration."

I agree with "causal". If ever there was a prez who needed impeaching it's Dubya (as much or more than Nixon). But I've already heard the new Dem leadership state that they won't go after him. Great. Just what we need: a herd of campaign accusations about the run-up to the war, illegal NSA spying, etc, and surprise, surprise! NO ACTION.

Aren't you glad the Dems won? Here's what you're going to get: enacting the 9/11 commision recommendations and a hike in the minimum wage (if Dubya doesn't veto them, remember, there's not enough votes to override one if he does).

I hate to say I told you so (as the cliche goes, actually I do enjoy it), but...The Dems DID win, and like I've said many times, there's no *real* difference between them and Repubs. Just more business (read: corruption) as usual.


snarkbutt said...


Your comment reminds me of a joke:

Stephen Colbert said on election night, (paraphrased) "the Democrats have been in power six hours and already they've made a mess out of Iraq."

How can you say, "I told you so" when the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet? You agree that Bush should be impeached, but somehow blame the Democrats for his impeachable offenses? Huh?

Is your post supposed to be some sort of Zen koan? Because the logic is so twisted that I'm playing mental Twister just to figure it out.

NO ACTION! Here's a thought: let's say that instead of sitting at home and saying it makes no difference who I vote for, people like you had VOTED Bush out of the White House two years ago? Do you think that maybe possibly that might have been a more efficient way to get Bush out of office?

Instead you expect Democrats (who you didn't vote for) to go through a lengthy impeachment process. And when they fail to do that (two months before they take office), they're "no different" from the Republicans who have enabled Bush to commit those impeachable offenses for the last six years.

Do you see where I'm a might confused by your comments?

Dan S said...

Apparently, one difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are not willing to drag the country through impeachment in order to be bi-partisan and Republicans are willing to engage in impeachable offenses to enact their extreme policies.

But I don't know why you are so upset. You didn't vote, so don't really have a right to complain, do you? :)

My prediction is that Democrats are going to keep impeachment around as a leash for when Bush starts getting belligerent again. When he steps over the line, they are going to be shocked, just shocked, to find impeachable offenses, and then go forward with it.

KFingtree said...

Brownie; I hate to say I told you so (and I don't enjoy the cliche), I didn't register to vote until the summer of 2000. I never had a reason to vote until George W Bush won the primary to run for President. Yes, he is the most impeachable President we have ever had in our history and I said at the outset, that he would be the worst President in our history. The war in Iraq was the worst decision and was sold like a used car to the loyal and the duped. I, along with many others in protest (who were labeled unpatriotic) called it before it even happened. The point being; It's not business as usual, there are clear differences between the ideology. The main difference; humility, being able to accept being wrong without pointing fingers to justify voting for or arguing for the worst President/Cabinet and their ideals in our history. You can't fool all the people. When it comes to Dubya, I told you so~

Brownie said...


I realize they haven't taken office yet, I'm not quite that blind. But I'm not blaming the Dems for Bush's actions, just holding them accountable for their own stated intentions (not going to impeach). If they do impeach, great, then you can say 'You were wrong.' For now, I'm taking them at their word.

I don't see (much of) a gradient in wrong doing. The gradient is more in the punishment. Wrong is wrong, and should be pointed out. What Bush did was wrong, and he should pay the penalty. And if the dems don't at least push for an impeachment, as is their RESPONSIBILITY, to hold the prez accountable for his actions, because no one else CAN or has the authority TO DO, then they too are wrong. Again, wrong is wrong, and I call 'em like I see 'em.

Can you see the logic in that?

I can't vote for Dems because they support the slaughter of the unborn. I don't want to vote for Repubs because their slimy. Any other vote for any other party is totally irrelevent. Therefore, for me, voting is irrelevant. At least until we start having national referendums or forming coalition governments in this country. So for now, not voting is my form of protest, a form of free speech, guaranteed to me by the 1st amendment, and I'll do what I please with it.

Including making as many confusing points as I can. Just to vex you personally.


Brownie said...


See my comments to snark.

Brownie said...


You're right. You did tell me so.

But I really couldn't figure out who (or what, perhaps?) you're refering to when you write:

"...being able to accept being wrong without pointing fingers to justify voting for or arguing for the worst President/Cabinet and their ideals...etc"

Is this directed at me? If so, it stings. Is so, should I apologize for voting for Bush in 2K? (I do regret it now, but it is my right to vote for who I wish, or not vote if I wish, just as it is yours) Would it change anything Bush did?

I think it is important to realize that criticizing the left is not, as some beleive, supporting the right. My criticisms of the left are designed to point out that no one has the moral high ground in politics, that politics is full of hypocrisy and corruption. And I share my criticisms because I want others to see it too.

If, on the other hand, that statemnt was not directed toward me, Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say: Never mind!

snarkbutt said...

If they do impeach, great, then you can say 'You were wrong.'

I can do better than that: I'll say you are wrong right now. :)

I don't see (much of) a gradient in wrong doing.

Okay, let's take that to its logical conclusion:

1. Wrong is wrong, and should be pointed out.
2. Hypocrisy is wrong.
3. You expect the Democrats to do something (remove Bush) that you, yourself, won't do.
4. You are being a hypocrite.
5. You are wrong. (See #2)
6. Wrong is wrong. There is no gradiant in wrong-doing.
7a. Your hypocrisy is equal to lying, murder, and talking too loudly in a movie theater. You are just as guilty as those responsible for the slaughter of every innocent man, woman, and child in the Iraq war.
7b. There's no real difference between me taking work time to write these missives and Ken Lay screwing thousands of people out of their pensions.
7c. There's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. Since wrong is wrong, all politicians are equally responsible for our nation's problems.
8. Wrong is wrong. (reprise)

By the way, Dan's comment that you have no right to complain was not a legal one, but a moral one. Of course you have a 1st amendment legal right to say whatever you want. But that doesn't make it morally right.

If you don't think George Bush should be president (and feel strongly enough about it to exercise your 1st amendment right over it), then you have a moral obligation to vote him out of office. Otherwise, you are being a hypocrite. (See above.)

KFingtree said...

This bee only stings the obvious. I know your reasonings to be true. I too believe that the state of this bureaucracy does not lend for constructive progress within our chambers of elected.
The impeachment issue, in my opinion does not fall under the Dems responsibilty. The time for that was when the Republicans were in control of every branch of Government. They did nothing and the Dems were bullied and sometimes sheepishly voted along with them, something I believe the Republicans would never do. The difference I see in Ideology's is that the left would never allow an elected leader or Commander in Chief under the Democratic denomination to invade another country with little substance or deception to base it on. What has made this so called "Republican revolution" so dangerous is that their supporters and elected representative's narrow, credulous, sometimes arrogant gullibility has allowed them to be played by the most deceptive and corrupt cabinet in America's history. Unfortunately, the damage has been done and there is nothing anyone could do to repair it. The Neo-Cons have purposely misled the people and will not be held accountable. So, from this bee to you I say......Never mind~ King B

Dan S said...

just holding them accountable for their own stated intentions (not going to impeach)

Democrats did not run on impeachment, so how can you hold them accountable for something they didn't promise to do? As far as I can tell, they ran on not being Republicans, which they have managed to accomplished so far, 2 months prior to taking power.

I think you are believing too many talking points from conservatives. Before the elections it was only the Republicans who were claiming that impeachment would immediately follow a Democratic victory, in an attempt to scare independents.

For the record, I strongly favor impeachment, and hope the Democrats do eventually do it, so the historical record will be accurate. But I'd much rather see lobbying reform and minimum wage raises first.

Brownie said...

There's an error in your logic. When you state "You expect the Democrats to do something (remove Bush) that you, yourself, won't do," you must remember that I am not a member of congress. I cannot remove the prez (legally), only congress can. Also, this election was not for president, but for congress. And my moral objections toward abortion (a plank in the dem platform) and empire-building and corruption (repubs) prevent me from making my voice heard in a meaningful way during elections.

I might also point out that moral obligations have nothing whatsoever to do with voting itself (a civil or legal matter), rather they have do with standing up for what one believes in. And if my beliefs lead me to not cast a vote (because I do not believe as the candidates do), as it does in this case, then so be it.

I hold people in public office, even Dems, accountable for not doing what is right(in this case, impeachment).

I never heard Dems say they would impeach, nor did I claim to have heard them say such a thing, but I DID hear them say they would NOT impeach. And they said it rather loudly.

It's difficult for me to fathom why you would think it's unfair of me to point out this fact: the prez broke the law and the dems, by being unwilling to prosecute him (by their own admission), are avoiding the responsibilities that go with their offices. That is: holding W accountable for his actions.

No one outside of congress has this authority.

Anonymous said...

Have you heard about HR 333? I urge you and your readers to take a few minutes to look at:

It's a list of the 25 most recent comments made by real Americans participating in an online poll/letter-writing campaign concerning the impeachment charges recently filed against Vice President Cheney, which are now being evaluated by the House Judiciary Committee. Comments can be sent to elected representatives and local newspapers at your option. The participation page is at:

Since this campaign began, some members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors, in part due to hearing from their constituents. Has yours? Make your voice heard, and let others know!