Austin Ziegler (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} halostatue) wrote,@ 2006-11-08 23:14:00 |
|
It's too soon to party.
It's far too soon to party over the Democrat "control" of the houses of congress. This may, in fact, be a very bad thing for Democrats two years from now.
-austin
It's far too soon to party over the Democrat "control" of the houses of congress. This may, in fact, be a very bad thing for Democrats two years from now.
- They aren't veto-proof. Just because the Wanker in the White House hasn't found anything to veto yet (or is it one thing?) doesn't mean he won't. When that happens, the Dems won't be able to amass a veto-override. This means that the amount of actual power they can exercise without seeming obstructionist is minimal. If they can't accomplish anything, they will be punished in two years.
- Most of the returning Dems that have been elected are spineless, gutless wonders who went meekly along with the administration when it was on the rise (e.g., before the quagmire of Iraq, when most of our fellow
moronscitizens believed that Saddam Hussein actually had something to do with 9/11). - Speaking of spineless, gutless wonders, as far as I can tell, Hillary is still planning on running in '08. If she runs and is somehow nominated, the Republicans will win the Presidency again. Period. The longer she holds to this fantasy that she's going to be a serious contender, the more damage she does to Democratic chances. It'd be one thing if she weren't as poll-driven (or more poll-driven) than her husband, but she is and she does not understand how much she is hated by a large swath of the country.
-austin
