Reuters: Bush will hold a press conference today in which he’ll urge the new Democratic majority to work with him. Sorry, bud, you got that backwards: you’ll need to work with us. We tried it your way. The country rejected that yesterday.
Comments are closed.
What a dipshit. We have the mandate – not him.
Bush has 2 real questions facing him. 1st, will he serve out the remainder of his term or will we impeach him for any one of a smorgasboard of criminal acts. 2nd, exactly how miserable will he be for the next 2 years assuming that we let him stay in the White House?
I’m of mixed emotions. Part of me passionately wants to impeach Bush, Cheney, Baker and Rumsfeld (and anyone else we can take down in the process). The other part of my twisty little soul wants to watch Bush and Cheney slow-roast in office while we dismantle their entire administration and their agendas out from under them, forcing them to dance to our tune. Tough choice, isn’t it? Which do you think would cause them the most emotional pain and suffering?
From the article: “The president has got a very active agenda for the next two years and you’re going to need both parties. There has to be a calculated decision by the Democrats.”
Right. We’re going to need both parties to follow the Bush agenda.
Honestly, this is just trying to set the democrats up to look bad when things get gridlocked. Hopefully, it’ll backfire. We’ll see.
Me? I want real ethics reform in the House, including an end to earmarking. I want Bush and a Democratic Congress to pass and sign an immigration bill. I want Bush to sign a minimum wage increase bill. I want incremental progress on health insurance. I want the Baker-Hamilton Commission to give Bush the political cover to extract the U.S. from Iraq and the Congress to help him complete that exit.
I don’t want recriminations. I don’t want revenge. I want Democratic-led progress for the country. That’s what will set the table for the presidency in 2008.
Harry, I wish I could be as noble, but I can’t. I want it all — both the satisfaction of watching the Bush Administration go down painfully hard AND the joy of watching this country come together and restore its electoral process, its priorities, and its dignity.
Ben, gridlock is most often a Good Thing (the current stand-off on the State Budget is excepted). Gridlock forces both sides to rethink their positions and compromise. On the federal level, we haven’t had enough gridlock, especially on the important bills and resolutions, in the past 6 years.
I don’t want revenge, but considering the level of criminality that we’ve found out about even with the tight GOP control on government, I do want everything suspicious investigated. This is not a matter of revenge, this is a matter of good government. If a contractor that bribed a congressman or that has a former CEO as Vice President got a contract instead of the best qualified, then that is weakening our country for personal gain. If well-qualified experts are turned down to work on the reconstruction of Iraq because they voted for the wrong presidential candidate, that puts party above country. If government research results are altered or suppressed because they disagree with the administration’s politics, that harms us all for the sake of political power.
Every bit of malfeasance and corruption should be investigated and prosecuted. That isn’t revenge, that’s doing what’s right. When a new Attorney General is elected in a city or state, we don’t drop all the past cases because they’re “old news.” Same thing here.
(And considering the number of officials already indicted in Congress and the executive branch, referring to it as criminality isn’t hyperbole.)
TLPatten,
You’re largely preaching to the choir here. I’ll say that I’d like Democrats to have less gridlock in some areas (restoring civil liberties) than others (any sort of spending), but in general, I think the less legislation that gets passed with the smallest number of riders, the better.
But that’s all irrelevant. I said that I think this is part of a new strategy to make democrats look bad when things get gridlocked, and I still believe that. Likewise, I still hope it blows up in their faces when it becomes clear that it’s the Republicans that are being unreasonable (just a guess, based on the fact that the democrats cleared out a lot of the moderates in a party used to being in power) and that perhaps what we need right now isn’t more laws.
As a Republican leaning voter, I could suggest that the Democratic party should move forward in the way that almost all of the preceding posts suggest. Revenge and impeachment talk will not hurt the Republican cause.
Now if the Democrats move forward as Harry Landers describes- that would probably solidify their gains. Maybe the Democratic Party will be the party that begins to put an end to revenge and recriminations.
Right now, the political parties have turned our government into a battleground of opposing ideas. Will we finally see people working together to move our country forward or will the politicians continue to base all their decisions on whether or not they can keep their party in power?
You’re taking this very personal. Tom, this is business and this man is taking it very, very personal.
Remember that line from The Godfather? Sonny offered that bit of counsel, but ended up going down in a barrage of bullets at the tollbooth, because he was a hothead and ignored his own advice.
Sometimes you’ve got to let things go, even when it sticks in your craw (exactly where is one’s craw, anyway?) to advance a greater goal. We may “want it all”, but we can’t have it all. We can pick what’s really important, what will advance the nation’s interests in accordance with our own highest principles. And, if we do that, in a responsible way, we will be allowed the privilege of continuing to govern. If not, we’ll go down in a hail of bullets.
:::chuckling::: Yes, I am — for today anyway. As an underdog advocate, I’ve tolerated and worked within policy decisions and agendas that I find reprehensible for 6 years. It’s been a very uphill battle.
If you won the lottery, I wouldn’t stomp on your wish to roll around in the money for a wee bit. Can’t you let me revel in the visual of Bush & Cheney twisting in the wind for a few hours before urging me to moderate my glee?