From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
will the sky fall?
Published on October 17, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
Alot of panic seems to have set in with the GOP. The balance of power is threatening to actually have some balance, and some are scared. Should they be? Well, if they are folk who are only interested in power and feel the only way to get their ideas across is to basically "fix" the vote, then yes. But I don't think most GOP members, at least the ones I know, feel that need. Most of the republicans I know are real conservatives, and where having a majority has been nice, they understand democracy, and that majorities come and go. They also know that when the political climate isn't being purposefully divisive, and balance exists, people find out they have a lot more in common than the pundits would like them to believe.

Indeed, when we have had some balance in our history, things tend to get done. And most of em tend to be things that don't get rudely "undone" the second the "other guys" take a majority or the presidency. Some of congress's best moments have come when everyone had a piece of the pie.

the last 12 years , for the most part, were not like that. The only time we had some balance was in 1994, when the republicans rightfully put an arrogant democratic party out on their butts. from 1994-2000, It was pretty good. Budgets were balanced, surplusses were gained. taxes were reasonable, and steadily declined in a responsible manner that didn't add to our debt. Each party kept the other in check while getting to present their own ideas for debate. Politicians crossed aisles, frequently, and not symbolically. for sure, the 90's turned out to be a great decade with over 23 million jobs created, a great economy, and an atmosphere where everyone had a stake.

the 2000 election shifted things a bit. When George Bush became President in 2000, everyone still had a piece, as the democrats still controlled 1 house of congress, and had a pretty favorable supreme court line-up. There was a "whatever the clintonites did, we will undo and do the opposite" mentality till that fateful day in september. Much like the democrats poor attitude towards anything that happened during the Reagan /Bush 41 dynasty.

That feeling only increased in 2002, with the most negative and devisive campaign ever launched by the GOP. the neoconservatives and religious right got what they wanted, no one stopping their agenda. Indeed, for the past 4 years, a democrat can't even get a bill to the floor. the only tools the democrats were left with in defending any of their positions was fillibusters and other obstructionist tactics. But they could only use that when things really counted, and each time they did, they just made themselves look worse when spun thru the GOP punditry's machine.

The democrats, next month, may be getting their chance to actually have a meaningful say. Will they be victorious and either get teh 15 seats they need in the house or the 6 they need in the senate? I don't know. Most exprerts would say yes. I am taking a Missouri attitude here and waiting for them to "show me."

But let's assume they do. Let's say they get 1 of the houses. Doesn't really matter which one, but let's say it's the one that more experts claim they will win, the house of representatives.

What will happen? Will America implode? Probably not.

Will taxes be raised? Definitely not. Not withstanding the fact that democrats that have proposed ANY tax increases have stated that the only increase will be to people over the 200,000 dollar a year mark. that's about 2-3% of the population. the other 98% of us would see no change or a decrease under the plans i've looked at. But the democrats will never get any of that legislation thru the other body, let alone past Bush. Their philosophy has been trickle down all the way. The only revenue raising measures would probably be thru either "sin" or "luxury" taxes, which both sides have proposed in the past.

Will we immediately pull out of Iraq, or "cut and run?" No, but after the election, expect the rhetoric to change (that has already started) from the white house. James Baker's commission is expected to reccomend redeployment options, some very similair to proposals offered by Joe Biden, Jack Murtha and others. The rhetoric and the 'plan" will change because it is the right strategy. it will probably happen faster if the democrats do win a house of congress, as Bush won't want to give the new congress any credit for anything, especially getting him to change his course.

Will we get attacked again? Probably,,,someday. But that is inevitable in most people's minds. Terrorists won't attack because of any changes in our party structure, or anything we do politically, period. Tehy see no difference from the most conservative person to the most liberal. We are all Americans, which justifies their actions in their misdirected opinion. They just attack when it suits them. Some contend that the next attack will happen when we are no longer obsessed and afraid of em. Indeed, if I were in Osama Bin laden's shoes, i'd hold off. The fears caused by 9/11 still linger with most americans and continues to drain our recources just as they wanted. An attack now might be nice for em, but hardly necessary. These are some of the most patient people on earth, with that patience lasting generations in some cases. We Americans have a hard time understanding that. We are a "now" society, with little patience for waiting on anything.

Will America be doomed? Most certainly not.

Will the democrats start all kinds of crazy investigations? While some on the fringe may be begging for it, I don't think so. That won't mean that there won't be investigations. There will be. But any investigation launched will have to be clear and legitimate. Witch hunts will be torn up in the political arena and only cause the republicans to gain back full 1 party rule in 2008. The democrats know this. that's why the only people saying that therer will be all these wild and crazy investigations are the neoconservative pundits, who are amongst the minority in the GOP that is more concerned with power than anything else.

I'm not even sure Nancy Pelosi will be speaker. She isn't very powerful as a minority leader, and Jack Murtha has already told people he probably will challenge her for the spot. If he does, with the current "war footing" we are in, he should win that battle. Democrats, especially the freshmen, will be eager to show their toughness, and Jack Murtha is a much better face of that than Nancy Pelosi will ever be.

In the end, the sky won't fall and there will be joy in mudville. That is as long as both parties hear the message that a democratic victory would send to Washington....get your act together and do something. Most Americans are pretty sick of the partisan bickering and polarization. Most Americans just want their representatives in Washington to put their quest for power aside for a couple of years and straighten this mess in Iraq out, the best way we can...together.

And when Americans from all over the spectrum work together, our best days happen.

"

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 17, 2006
One thing is sure. You may be a Libertarian, but you hate Bush. Only the most rabid Bush haters still say he was "selected not Elected". It is unfortunate that the US Constitution gets in your way for your hatred. No one was selected. Bush was constitutionaly elected. It only takes one vote (and in this case, 538) to win. Every Vote does count, but every non-vote should not count.
on Oct 17, 2006
True conservatives don't care much for Bush or at least his policies. Whether or not he was fairly elected is kind of beating a dead horse. What's done is done, although we are in dire need of election reform.
on Oct 17, 2006
Jack Murtha  is a disgrace to the U.S.M.C. period.
on Oct 17, 2006
Only the most rabid Bush haters still say he was "selected not Elected

that's your opinion...i do have a great policy difference with the administration. but i think george is a sincere christian and a decent man. i think the charges of racism that have been charged at him are ridiculous. if there is anyone in the whitehouse i resent at all, it's dick cheney. i can't prove it, but cheney is an unethical man in my view.

as far as how florida was handled, it was a disgrace. not that i voted for al gore either. but this isn't about florida in 2000. if ya think i hate george, fine...i don't , but you are entitled to your opinion. i do think, as the majority of americans felt, that bush was essentially appointed by the supreme court. that by no means implies a hatred of him.

on Oct 17, 2006
Jack Murtha is a disgrace to the U.S.M.C. period.

i know plenty of marines, including both vets and current ones,,,i have yet to meet one who shares your view. but you are entitled to your opinion.
on Oct 17, 2006
What's done is done, although we are in dire need of election reform.

i agree. i am not sure what the solution is there, but a system that eliminates about 98% of the population from running for office inherently because of economics is just not right in my view.

mccain /feingold was a valiant effort, but parts of it were a flop and at least need to be re-examined. it ws a decent 1st effort, but the flawed bill was not the panacea that many thought it would be.

the manipulation (gerrymandering (sp?) of districts over the past 15 years has to be looked into as well.
on Oct 18, 2006
btw fraudman...ya can't call me a stalker then come over to my blog and particiate...but don't worry, i don't censor like you.

on Oct 18, 2006

You're right in that, if Democrats win, it won't be the end of the world.  If the Clinton Administration proved anything it is that no single president, Senate or House of Representatives have the power to destroy the nation permanently.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of House and Senate Democrats who don't seem to have any vision beyong, "vote for us, we'll impeach Bush".  Sounds more like infantile whining than real vision to me.

If the Dems win all the way we know a few things for sure.... There will be nothing real accomplished other than a stupid witch hunt against Prs. Bush; We'll pull out of Iraq, leaving millions of Iraqis at the mercies of those who behead for fun, and worse yet, another generation of vets who will be left to live down the loss... all while the Congress who betrayed them pompously lies about how the pullout was all for them; and we will have a president who swore in his/her campaign that there will be "middle class tax cuts" followed by the most sweeping tax increases in modern history.

I can't say I'm happy with everything the Congressional Republicans have done.  But at least there has been vision and leadership... Like that vision or not, at leat they've had the backbone to have some.

i do think, as the majority of americans felt, that bush was essentially appointed by the supreme court. that by no means implies a hatred of him.

Maybe not a sign of hatred, but a definite sign of blind ignorance.  Especially considering the fact that it was the GORE campaign that brought the courts into it.

Also, answer me this... If Gore and/Kerry had the elections "stolen" out from under them, why is it that the dems give NO support to either of the men they consider the rightful president(s)?

on Oct 18, 2006
ted, ted , ted...i like you, but i really would expect more than a parrot of GOP talk radio talking points and insults.

You're right in that, if Democrats win, it won't be the end of the world. If the Clinton Administration proved anything it is that no single president, Senate or House of Representatives have the power to destroy the nation permanently.

cmon ted...let me remind you that Ronald Reagan said that the worst things in the world were predjudice and bigotry. This is a predjudiced , slanted statement. even bill o'reilly called the clinton presidency a "success."

On the other hand, we have a bunch of House and Senate Democrats who don't seem to have any vision beyong, "vote for us, we'll impeach Bush". Sounds more like infantile whining than real vision to me.

this is NONSENSE. show me where anyone has said "elect me and i'll impeach bush"

If the Dems win all the way we know a few things for sure.... There will be nothing real accomplished other than a stupid witch hunt against Prs. Bush;

again, nonsense. i believe i showed clearly that this won't happen.

We'll pull out of Iraq,

james baker is going to reccomend redeployment regardless of the election results. i expect this redeployment to begin before any new democrat is even sworn in.

another generation of vets who will be left to live down the loss...

if some feel that way, they would be smarter and more accurate to be resentful of the administration who put them in an unwinnable situation.

Maybe not a sign of hatred, but a definite sign of blind ignorance

sheer prejudice shining thru, and insulting. i happen to be extremely familiar with the 2000 election, and not from the outside. but all ya right wingers seem fixated on this in your replies. but ya'll's fixation on this or the insults won't take me off message. tell ya what,,,i'll edit my words in the orig post to a more palatable words for ya'll...ok? this isn't about 2000,,,2000 was only mentioned to give some historical perspective on the current climate.

Also, answer me this... If Gore and/Kerry had the elections "stolen" out from under them, why is it that the dems give NO support to either of the men they consider the rightful president(s)?

this is a really lame argument put forth by the portable punditry,,,but i'll humor ya...

a) concerning gore....al enjoys tremendous support from democrats. his expose on global warming has exceeded all expectations. he speaks to packed houses on the issue he cares most about these days. gore didn't run in 2004, so how were people supposed to "support him?" gore has expressed little to no interest in participating in politics, so again, what support is he supposed to have there? from what i see, gore enjoys great popularity amongst democrats. how much support did republicans give thomas dewey? richard nixon dissapeared for 7 years after losing to kennedy. this argument that you put forth is again just talking points, and it holds no water concerning gore.

concerning kerry...have you been paying attention? john kerry has probably raised more money for congressional candidates than anyone. he will probably run again in 08, how will he do, who knows? again, this "point" you make (or should i say sean hannity makes) holds no water.

cmon ted,,,you can do better...unless you are just one of those mentioned in the 1st paragraph in my article.

you basically ignored everything i said and focused on parroting talking points and insulting me while obsessing over 1 line in a multi paragraph article. and you and others arguing with that line shows just how divided people are in this country.





on Oct 18, 2006
as the majority of americans felt, that bush was essentially appointed by the supreme court. that by no means implies a hatred of him.


Actually, a majority do not think that.
on Oct 18, 2006
Actually, a majority do not think that.

we could argue about that...but it's still not the point of the article. and i changed the wording to something i think both sides can agree on. so the point is moot now.
on Oct 18, 2006
No matter what is said about the 2000 election. One fact is true-- Had each voter's vote been counted as they intended, Bush would not have become president in 2000.
on Oct 18, 2006
Another stupid lie from the bit of Rancid Tallow, Gene!
on Oct 18, 2006
Sean, if you want to deny that Nancy Pelosi has said that plans on making impeaching Bush her priority, you can live in a fantasy all you want.

As for the 2000 election, Gore brought the courts into it. The courts only ruled that you don't change the rules midstream. Face it, Gore lost in EVERY recount. To say anything different is a lie.

I like how you condescendingly discount anything you can't argue as a "talking point".

As for the part about being insulting, if that's all you see in it, consider it done. You don't deserve anything better, if that's all you get out of what I said.
on Oct 18, 2006
if you want to deny that Nancy Pelosi has said that plans on making impeaching Bush her priority,


show me where she said that.

Face it, Gore lost in EVERY recount. To say anything different is a lie.


that's not true, there were times when both candidates were ahead. katherine harris played a political game with the recount. the "states rights" republicans cut and ran to the us supreme court when the state supreme court found for the democrats.

I like how you condescendingly discount anything you can't argue as a "talking point".


ted! cmon,,,look above,,,i took on many of the things you said. the only things i didn't address, i have addressed in other articles. i get tired of repeating myself...tell me what i didn't address that matters to you. not things that you want to have me repeat, cause you disagree, but things i didn't address.

and they are straight out of the punditry playbook...i watch, read and listen to rush, sean, neil and ken et al...if you are gonna deny that "your" points aren't pretty much from their works, then so be it,,,but it's obvious.

most partisans and pundits only listen to the people who feed them one side's arguments. i try to pay attention to writers and journalists from all over the spectrum and are familiar with the points they repeat over and over on both sides.


you, on the other hand want to insult me and talk about nothing but the 2000 election.

your panic is showing....just like my article contended.

keep going on this footing...please!
2 Pages1 2