.
God Help Us All.
i second that.
Awful news.
i was hopeful he would not be able to, but he managed to somehow.
Jeb Bush secures sunshine state, BBC, 6 November 2002
.
.
That is the great thing about his country UTD. Factionalism actually leads to better governance. In two years time....this could all change yet again. You are correct about filibusters and most legislators tend to answer to their constituents rather than the whitehouse.
dang!
On my way home from work today, when I got off at my subway stop, the newly elected State Senator for New York State Assembly was shacking hands with people and he extended his hand to me. I gave him the nastiest look and said: "Ï did not vote for you, and I am sorry that you won”, and I walked away. I wish I could say F Off to him, but I am a nice guy.
By 2008, Democrats will be back in.
Other than the economic policy differences between the two parties, what other differences are their really?
The Gov. race in my state is in a limbo. They were too impressed by FL! But the fools don't have an automatic recount system even if the race is as close as a few hundred votes.
Not everyone will agree with this, and that’s alright, just don’t get mad.
Where America has elected to go, no one will follow, Hugo Young
The Guardian, 7 November 2002
While the rest of America tilted Republican, the great contrarian state of California emphatically backed Democrats - it could complete the first Democratic sweep in California since 1882.
With Tuesday's results, California's leadership is now one of the most thoroughly Democratic of any state. California not only reelected Democrat Gray Davis to a second term but also voted six of his party peers into statewide office.
louisiana is still undesided
I am not sure if this Axis of Evil applies here, even methaphorically. All politics is local, as demostrated by California. Consensus building and deliberation does not stop. The majorities are not overwhelming. So no need to decry the results.
Why you people are so upset?
I like Republicans. They are better than democrates. They did not give PK $bn of debt relif. They did not librated Kuwait or Afghanistan.
I think it is gonna be pretty ok.
Republicans are also those who put forward the pressler amendment. Rep. are also those who put Pakistan under sanctions after they blew Zia Ul Haq up. Republicans are no better than democracts when it comes to issues for Pakistan. We need start depending on ourselves and not on the US and other nations to bail us out.
As for the thread. Bush is gonna get to do all he wants now. CAIR is gonna have its hands full if its not overloaded. Whatever happened to those 1000 muslims arrested after Sept 11th? Sharon is already talking about taking Iran out. I wonder what Jr. thinks about that. First Iraq the Iran and then we see any govt that does not get the US seal of approval go down.
There seem to be more Demos posting here than voted in the election. 
I particularly like the comments and analysis of the leftist leaning Europeans as expressed in the article posted by Nadia.
From day 1, opponents of GW have painted him as an illegitimate, weak and dumb President and vowed that he would be a one termer. The strategy has been to create as much gridlock as possible, prevent him from doing anything meaningful and then defeat him on a platform of incompetence.
Tuesday marked the end of any and all debate regarding the legitimacy of GW’s presidency. Regardless of his own personal IQ, he keeps record high approval ratings and his team designed and implemented an election strategy that produced unprecedented results in off-year elections. His opponents have no agenda except obstruction and no leader recognized as the spokesman of the party.
I do hope Hugo Young is right about the things that GW will be able to accomplish:
- “Dozens of conservative federal judges with lifetime tenure await confirmation they can now expect to get.” :k:
- “The slashing of forests and the drilling of wilderness, by timber and oil interests newly let loose, will be still less reversible.” ( :k: Despite the tree-huggers’ concerns, it will be demonstrated that this can be done in an environmentally friendly way)
- “The rich men’s tax cuts of 2001 will be secured against revision, and other tax cuts added." :k:
- “The 40 million Americans without health insurance can expect to remain that way.” (I think he is wrong about this. We are more likely than ever to see a prescription drug plan for seniors enacted and small incremental moves to expand health coverage. The Dems have refused to pass compromise measures on these issues and have taken an all or nothing approach. Their approach has been to withhold benefits to anyone unless they can get benefits extended to everyone. )
Hugo goes on to say, “None of these preferences has much appeal to many Europeans.” If that is true, it just shows what is wrong with Europe. Most telling is Hugo’s comment regarding Thatcher: “The high priestess herself had difficulty making Britain into a low-tax society, and was eventually frustrated by popular demand.”
Leftist Europeans, liberal Democrats at home, and our enemies abroad have a hope of weakening us by turning America into a “high-tax society.” The liberal Democrats at home are more secretive of their wishes than Hugo because they know they would be run out of town by angry baseball bat wielding voters if they openly confessed that this was part of their agenda. Many of you younger folks probably don’t recall that the top marginal income tax rate in the US was 70% during the Carter years and the corporate tax rate was 48%. 
That’s why President Carter pleaded with Americans to “diminish your expectations.” Instead, we kept our expectations high and showed him the door. :k:
Democrats tried to re-invent themselves after Carter hiding their leftist agenda under the cloak of the “new Democrats.” With their star actor(Clinton) sidelined, they don’t have anyone who can fool the people about their true inclinations anymore. There are already serious rumblings by the leftist of the Liberals that the Demos need to go back to their roots and openly advocate their true agenda. I agree and hope they do so because the GOP lock on power will only strengthen if that happens.
myvoice:
I am interested to know what are your views on how this election will effect the judiciary. Are those judges awaiting confirmation "conservative" in their religious & political views or are they "conservative" to law & constitution?
Also, how you see the trials of those US citizens who are on charges on "intending" to conspire against US in relation to the all Republican government? Do you see a new law coming into being where we will create a justice department revolving around the notion of pre-crime?
Ahmadjee
In answer to your question, you must permit me and forgive me for making a very broad generalization that is based more on my own perception than on any independent investigation of each of the nominees for judgeships. Therefore, take this as my opinion which you can share or dispute if you like. When people talk about judicial nominees as being “conservative” they SHOULD only be considering whether they are "conservative" to law & constitution. I think that more often than not, opponents of those nominees care more about whether they are conservative in their political and religious beliefs. As a practical matter, it really may not make much of a difference. My impression is that those who are considered Conservative to law and constitution are also conservative in their religious and political beliefs. My impression is also that those judges who are most liberal or leftist oriented in their religious and political beliefs are also what are considered the most “activist” when it comes to interpreting law and constitution.
I don’t think the trials of US citizens on any charges will be impacted by this election outcome. I think people who do not have experience with the intricacies of the US Criminal Justice system are quite confused about the supposed notion of “pre-crime” charges. Our judicial system has long recognized that people can violate the law by taking certain actions that one could consider prepatory to the actual commission of the crime. If I form an intent to kill my parents so I can inherit money from them, my mere intent does not constitute a crime. But, if I meet with you and tell you my intent and ask you to help me and you agree, we have formed a conspiracy to commit murder. Let’s say you then go to Walmart to buy a rifle that I plan on using to commit the murders. Buying a weapon at Walmart is perfectly legal, but buying it so that I can use it to kill my parents is an act in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy and is a violation of our criminal law.
The whole prosecution for my example and for the detention of alleged Al Qaeda co-conspirators comes down to what proof can be given to a jury which will convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that you formed a conspiracy, that you had the intent to commit an unlawful act and that you took some steps toward fulfillment of the criminal objective. The more steps that were taken, the easier it is to obtain a conviction. In my example, maybe buying a rifle at Walmart is not enough to convince jurors that you intended to use it to kill my parents. Maybe you followed my parents around for awhile to figure out when and where to shoot them. Maybe you booked a plane flight to some country as part of your escape. Maybe you took a bunch of money from me as payment for your services. Maybe I bought a lot of stuff on credit in anticipation that I would pay for it with my inheritance. All of these things are additional facts that would help convict us even though not a single one of those things constitutes an independent violation of any law.
What I’m saying is that the ultimate disposition of the cases depends on the decision of 12 jurors and not who controls the White House and Congress. What our justice department has done is try to detain, arrest and/or charge people as early in the conspiratorial process as they can. The risk is that they will not have enough evidence or facts to convince 12 people to convict. Based upon what they foresee as the risk from not proceeding quickly and early in the conspiratorial process (i.e. another major terrorist event), they are erring on the side of early intervention. As long as we believe that innocent people will ultimately be let go and/or acquitted at trial, most Americans support this. If we learn that the Justice Department is merely abusing people and that they are taking actions without reasonable evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, support will be withdrawn.
wow! what a change in opinion here! In last presidential elections almost all guppies and muslim organizations in USA were for Republicans! and when I supported here for democrats and Al Gore most here got mad...