(no subject)

[trinityvixen]

Okay, a bit of realism to my politics now.

I have no idea what's going on, really. I know Rumsfeld is gone, and if nothing else, I will be eternally grateful for that. What a hateful, unashamedly, hubristically proud, smug, patronizing jerk he was. When George W. is an idiot and refuses to his shadow, he's just being an idiot. Rumsfeld isn't stupid, he isn't blind, he's just stubborn and sure that he knows better than anyone. The fact that Colin Powell left and he stayed still irks me and I'm not even sure why at this point except that I hate Rumsfeld that much (and Colin Powell was such a smart, canny, centrist guy for the most part, that he'd earned respect on both sides of the political divide; compare/constrast to Rummy).

Now we have a turnover of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. I'm pleased, sure, because I would love dearly for them to investiage the rampant corruption, lack of oversight, and, again, illegal fits of self-strengthening hubris that we've only seen the tip of so far. I want there to be consequences for taking a mandate that was earned by making the electorate afraid and using it to get tail, finance personal fortunes, et al.

I'm less pleased at the idea that the liberal left had to concede so much, had to take on so many (specifically social) conservative aspects in order to get to this point. Should I just take what I've got? Well, I will, but I'm not entirely happy about it. I think anti-choice has no place in a truly democratic party, for starters, especially as a feminist (it still comes down to "You are not allowed to make the choice because you are an incubator, not a person, and the baby has more right to be than you do"). I dislike the pro-gun aspects to the candidate, now senator, that won the Democrats the majority. For the record? Hate guns. I want to know how to use one because it's a survival skill, and for reasons like that. But I am happy to consign the routine usage of them to the people who need them (law enforcement, military) and restrict access to people who think the right to bear arms necessitates unhindered ability to have automatic and semiautomatic killing machines (what else could they possibly be used for?).

And--here's where I get craaaaaaaazy liberal--I am not pleased at the idea that George W Bush will escape punishment. The Democrats promised no impeachment process. The man has most definitely lied to this nation. He has been grossly incompetant, and the people he hired to cover his ass were too used to coasting on the surge of patriotism that they never put the effort into their motions that might have made them a success (or, at least, less of a HIDEOUS FAILURE). I cannot understand why there is no way to censure him or why it won't be done. I doubt very highly that people voted Republicans out of office as anything less than a referendum on Bush. There are exceptions--the crazy corrupt, the power abusers, the nutjobs (so long, and thanks for all the obsession over anal sex, Santorum!)--but complete unknowns unseated multiple-term incumbents this year. That doesn't happen very often, and not en masse like this, unless there's a deep-seated mistrust of the people in the party. And who's more visible in the GOP than Dubya? Hell, even after the mess with Foley, I bet you nine-tenths of "the base" wouldn't have been able to pick Hastert out of a line up...

I suppose I can trust history will villify this administration. I hope so. It would be truly frightening, worser terror never known, to think that the future might be a place where George W would be looked back upon with any kindness, fondness, or general acclaim.

Comments

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe that Clinton was impeached and Bush never will be. I found a fantastic graffiti the other day. It said, "When Clinton lied, nobody died."

[viridian.livejournal.com]

I saw that one ages ago.

Yeah, I sort of can't believe anyone can fuck up this badly and not be held accountable at all, and yet, Clinton was impeached for TRYING TO KEEP HIS PRIVATE LIFE PRIVATE.

I mean. What?

What the fuck, America.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Sad as it may seem, we have more to gain by not trying for impeachment than if we did (at least in the long term). Better to skip the impeachment and go straight into other investigations of various abuses of power and other goings on by the white house (esp since they might just find things that could be used to bring Bush up on war crimes).

As for both houses taking another step (or two) towards the conservative end of the spectrum....... well yeah it isn't a good thing. However I will point out this: the leadership is still largely liberal. That means they can set the agenda such that the conservative wing never gets a chance to push the conservative agenda (other than a few token things here and there). Just look at how the liberal republicans were handled. So long as the ones controlling the agenda stay liberal then conservative legislation should remain infrequent.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh Lord, don't tantalize me so. If only we could prosecute Bushco for war crimes. It's even less like to happen than getting Bush impeached. But it would be most fitting. We'll see how soon someone steps so far over the line again. I wonder if, in 2008, a Republican were to win the Presidency if they'd issue a pardon for him, a la Ford to Nixon? Then I think we'd have to revolt.

My worry with the Congress shifting conservative in order to win for the Dems is that it won't be really all that different from a Republican Congress. Which means Democratic initiatives might get stalled, which will get them booted just as surely out as they were in...

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Ah ah ah, he was technically impeached because he lied under oath about screwing around. That's perjury, and, you know, TOTALLY WORTH WASTING OUR TIME ON. At least the last time a president was impeached it was for just as stupid a reason (actually, the same reason--I think Andrew Johnson was just impeached because he wouldn't do what the Congress wanted him to). But way to NOT take advantage of that particular check against executive power for a worthwhile reason, GOP. Asshats.

Yeah I'm with you. How the hell do you lie to us about something as important as national security right after the largest terrorist attack on American soil, then tell us you never said that at all, but we should still follow you along in your collassal blunder, and GET AWAY WITH IT? He still thinks history will vindicate him, too. Fucktard.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

We'll just have to wait and see about Bush and war crimes (though I will point out that Bush's opposition to the world court in the past may be because he realizes they will be coming for him at some point).

If Dems get through all their "first 100 hours" agenda then it will be kind of hard to kick them out. In particular the raising of the minimum wage and cheaper meds will go a long way towards keep people happy with the party. Of course if Bush goes on a veto spree now that Dems control things then he will just make them look that much better (ie "who's the obstructionists now....").

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I worry about that, too. They don't have the mandate to push an override of his veto. It does look bad if the GOP is blocking them, but, again, I think it translates worse in election campaigns to be the useless innovators. But we'll have to see.