Thread: Congratulations

I just wanted to congratulate the Democrats on their victories last night. I'm a st6rong believer in good sportsmanship and feel that this was a fair election that reflected the wishes of the electorate. While the Senate outcome still appears to be in question, it's likely that the Senate has switched as well.
I'll be watching to see if there really are some good ideas on the left side of the aisle and will give them a chance to perform.
What do the rest of you real Conservatives think? (No sour grapes, please)

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

I just wanted to congratulate the Democrats on their victories last night. I'm a st6rong believer in good sportsmanship and feel that this was a fair election that reflected the wishes of the electorate. While the Senate outcome still appears to be in question, it's likely that the Senate has switched as well.
I'll be watching to see if there really are some good ideas on the left side of the aisle and will give them a chance to perform.
What do the rest of you real Conservatives think? (No sour grapes, please)

I second that. Unfortunately though, I don't think much will happen in the next two years because Dems and Reps just don't play well together.

Im not all that conservative (rather moderate, in fact), but I would say that this thread speaks highly of your nobility. Kudos.

Historically, on mid-term elections on a Presidents last term spells big change in control - but also spells inactivity and the new controlling power spending most of that time trying to pass good sounding legislation knowing full well it will not pass so they can tout this in the next Pres. election.

Indeed we are already seeing this...Pelosi - Priority #1 Universal Healthcare - which doesn't have the faintest chance of passing in just two years regardless who is in control, or who the Prez is...Howard Dean last night within minutes of hearing that they will control the house - said that a nation-wide minimum wage will be the first thing to "pass" - he also knows full well that will die in grid-lock.

We will see a repeat of the "Republican Revolution" in Clinton's 2nd term - this is when all of the hearings took place, the trials etc. - so they could prepare for a Republican President...we will see the same for the Demo's now

Personally, I very much like the idea of Congress being controlled by one party while the executive is controlled by another.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Personally, I very much like the idea of Congress being controlled by one party while the executive is controlled by another.

I'm not nearly as angry as I thought I'd be, probably because I realized early that this was a "compassionate conservative" admin and legislature that was almost indistinguishable from a liberal gov't.

Republicans had one party control for 6 years and it certainly wasn't a godsend no matter what your politics. The debt is higher than ever, gov't is bigger than ever, we created another gigantic agency, the HSA, and still have 11 million illegal aliens crossing the borders nearly unchecked. Maybe it is time to give the opposition a chance.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Historically, on mid-term elections on a Presidents last term spells big change in control - but also spells inactivity and the new controlling power spending most of that time trying to pass good sounding legislation knowing full well it will not pass so they can tout this in the next Pres. election.

Indeed we are already seeing this...Pelosi - Priority #1 Universal Healthcare - which doesn't have the faintest chance of passing in just two years regardless who is in control, or who the Prez is...Howard Dean last night within minutes of hearing that they will control the house - said that a nation-wide minimum wage will be the first thing to "pass" - he also knows full well that will die in grid-lock.

We will see a repeat of the "Republican Revolution" in Clinton's 2nd term - this is when all of the hearings took place, the trials etc. - so they could prepare for a Republican President...we will see the same for the Demo's now

Actually I thought her priority was minimum wage, stem cell, and I forget the third thing she wanted to do in the first 100 hours. I do not remember universal health care listed though.

Originally Posted by Gort

Actually I thought her priority was minimum wage, stem cell, and I forget the third thing she wanted to do in the first 100 hours. I do not remember universal health care listed though.

Pelosi was on local radio here in Detroit the day before yesterday. She said that there would be NO impeachment hearings under any condition. I wonder how that'll sit with Charlie Rangel.

The first 100 hours according to Nancy Pelosi

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100600056.html

We shall see.......

That was the third item I forgot the pharmacutecal issue, which frankly I agree with anyway. I never understood the provision that the fed could not negotiate prices with the drug companies.

She will have a hard time controlling the more liberal wing of her party which will want to go full steam ahead with investigations ultimately leading to an impeahement vote. I think the public is willing and in fact may be eager for some investigations, but in no way are they ready are willing to go through another impeachment, at least that is my take. The Dems won because of the moderate vote, and in fact quite a few of the new dems are moderate to conservative democrats. I think this was a victory for moderates, not the more extrmem wings of either party. SUre in soe districts the extremists of each party won, but when looking at the national picture this is clearly a moderate victory. The Dems went out and got more moderate candidates because they felt they would have a better chance beating the Repubs, now they have to learn to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Originally Posted by jpsartre12

I just wanted to congratulate the Democrats on their victories last night. I'm a st6rong believer in good sportsmanship and feel that this was a fair election that reflected the wishes of the electorate. While the Senate outcome still appears to be in question, it's likely that the Senate has switched as well.
I'll be watching to see if there really are some good ideas on the left side of the aisle and will give them a chance to perform.
What do the rest of you real Conservatives think? (No sour grapes, please)

Same here buddy. I give my props to all those people who turned out and voted, so congratulations to all the Demmies on their victories. I will certainly not allow partisan bias to get in the way of supporting those who might come up with better ways to guide this country. So I'll certainly be watching from afar without losing hope.

After all, when it all comes down to it, we are all Americans.