How the world changes in 24 short hours.
Iraq is coming apart at the seams. We all saw this coming though. Civil war in Iraq was an inevitability. I don't know how the U.S. is going to manage this one with security already being
so weak. As no one has taken responsibility as of late, the most popular theory is that the Iraqi security forces were infiltrated. It's frustrating to be of the opinion that withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later is in our best interest and yet knowing full well that the Iraqis are virtually incapable of pulling together. This is going to be Bush's legacy. A big old messy, unnecessary and fruitless legacy. And lucky him: he's going to be out of the White House in 2 short years leaving someone else in charge of cleaning up the chaos. I know that my plan of attack for all of this is controversial amongst the Democratic Party Hardcores, but I honestly think that the party needs to focus on winning back Congress and govenors seats. Leave the White House to the Republicans. Let them deal with this. If McCain gets the nomination (an unlikely scenario, I know), I'd be more than tempted to vote for him assuming we pull off a win this year in Congress. If anyone else gets it, I'll be tempted to vote 3rd party. Hillary Clinton will be a 1-term president if she gets elected. She's inheriting one of the biggest missteps in international politics in decades. I'd wait this one out. Besides I'm more of an Obama fan anyway.
The port story is hopefully going to lose some steam soon. Here's a pretty good story talking about the actual process. An NPR-listener informed me of a discussion on Talk of the Nation yesterday during which the consensus seemed to be that it's an easy way for Congress to look tough on terrorism. It's obviously much more complicated than that, but they're banking on the American public to not hear anything but "terrorists" "Middle Eastern" and "ports." Congress knows us so well.
South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota. You know, I was one of those people who may have foolishly thought that Roe was relatively safe. I expected the boomers to come out in force with their wallets and their remembrances of backalley abortions. Now, S.D. ain't no national stage, but it's still fairly frightening to think they might pull this off. Wikipedia has a decent overview of the whole legal issue. I've had my misgivings about the solidity of Roe on it's legal merits, but I was kind of hoping we'd come up with a more constitutionally sound way beforehand.
No darts last night, but a few rousing games of Star Wars pinball. I actually managed to get an extra ball, though that pales in comparison to the 54 million points scored by my competitor.
I wanna be a jedi youth so bad I can almost taste it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
South Dakota. They know banning abortion will never stand in their state, but they also know that by banning abortion on their own state level, it will re-ignite debate on the issue - and what better time than when republicans have a majority? (after all, their time may be fleeting) Bringing this to national level would be a disaster; I never agreed with you on that.
Oh, and about voting for a republican for the highest seat in our "democratic" system - look how much damage can be done in four years, the only vote wasted is a vote for a candidate you don't believe in.
66% of the public do not believe that Roe should be overturned. This is a move attempting to do just that. It will most likely not succeed, but the host of possibile restrictions on abortions could have major implications. Griswold vs Connecticut IS constitutionally shaky--6 amendments to justify a decision is why the term "activist judges" came into play in the first place.
Kevin, you are out-idealistic-ing even myself! 6 years without a majority in Congress is one thing and if I had to believe in a CANDIDATE, I wouldn't have voted for the democratic party since Clinton in '96 (but that was really just because I thought he was hot and wanted to sleep with him!)
Erin,
I totally agree we do need to win back the "lower" political positions. I think that we need to go even lower. We need start with the state houses. All politics are local remember and local positions are key. Agree that we have a problem with the idea that we must control the presidency, we don't.
As for believing in your candidate well...(I am cringing when I write this)...not all Republicans are bad. I am sorry but the Clinton's aren't that much different the someone like McCain and Liberman well he is a Republican in Democrats clothing (which makes him worse). I agree with Erin if I had to believe in a candidate my last election would have been in '96 too.
Last thing...the Republicans are just as afraid of the legislation in S.D. because a frontal assalt on Roe is NOT what they need now. They need to slowly restrict abortion that is the only way most American's will go along with it.
Hope that made sense
Mike
Post a Comment