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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 18, 2006
Para, it should be pretty easy for you to provide a link to Pelosi talking about impeaching Bush and how it is her 'priority.' Please do so, in order to support your contention that those who don't believe this is true are living in a 'fantasy world.'

on Oct 18, 2006
one more thing...

i didn't vote for gore, despite what ya'll assume. and i have said in the past, that both sides in that election did things they should be ashamed of. you want to paint it as 1 sided, i don't see it that way. it's amazing that you can't respect that difference in opinion and use it to call me stupid lil names. cmon ted,,,you can do better.
on Oct 18, 2006
Para, it should be pretty easy for you to provide a link to Pelosi talking about impeaching Bush and how it is her 'priority.' Please do so, in order to support your contention that those who don't believe this is true are living in a 'fantasy world.'


why didn't you do it cyclo? i know why...

SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT. in fact, she said the opposite...read...

A Democrat-controlled House wouldn't impeach, Pelosi says
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Saturday, May 13, 2006




(05-13) 04:00 PDT Washington -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has told her caucus that the idea of impeaching President Bush isn't in the cards if the party takes over the House in November's elections.

Pelosi, who Republicans have charged intends to lead an impeachment effort, dismissed the idea when she spoke Wednesday morning at a closed-door caucus of the House's 201 Democrats. Pelosi also restated her opposition to the idea of censuring Bush over his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.

"We want oversight and checks and balances,'' Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said she told the caucus. "That certainly isn't being done in this Congress (under Republican control). Impeachment was never her interest.''



the only people saying that are republican pundits.
on Oct 18, 2006
Oh, I know that. I just wanted to see if Para could provide any real evidence to back up his claims that I am living in a 'fantasy world.'

on Oct 18, 2006
Oh, I know that. I just wanted to see if Para could provide any real evidence to back up his claims that I am living in a 'fantasy world.'


point taken...well done!

it's getting more obvious who is livin in Oz...
on Oct 18, 2006

Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1Posted: Wednesday, October 18, 2006
BTW Modman...ya can't call me a stalker then come over to my blog and participate...but don't worry, i don't censor like you.

I know this thought is to deep for you to understand but try anyways.

The difference between what you do on my blog and what I do on yours is worlds apart.

You attack and attack, you are disrespectful, you call me things like cunt, while I have done none of this but state a simple opinion about MURTHA, I was in the corps and anyone that states as Murtha did about haditha, "that categorically the marines involved are guilty" before any charges were even pressed is a disgrace.

I tried to make this as simple as possible so there can be no misunderstanding.

on Oct 19, 2006
I tried to make this as simple as possible so there can be no misunderstanding

hey,,,in post #3 i clearly stated that you are entitled to your opinion. no argument on that. i think you are aware that the censor / stalker comment came from other events between us. but that's water under the bridge, isn't it?

take care:)
2 Pages1 2