Cynical Nation

"Oh wait... no it wasn't.

Of course it was not. It was disastrous, but it's over. Like when you wake up from a bad dream.

My predictions for the new, blue congress:

1) The counter-insurgency in Iraq will drag on for at least two more years instead of ending early next year as it would have had the Republicans held both chambers;

2) The economy will now go into decline (maybe even recession) for two to three quarters until the President regains his footing and restores prosperity for all;

3) The Democrats will inflict two more years of deficits on us unless the President finds his veto pen and saves us from free-spending liberals;

4) Unemployment will go up for a couple of quarters, but not by much -- again the President will rescue us once he gets some control over Congress;

5) The comity and good-will that has been the hallmark of congressional relations since 1994 will now dissolve into acrimony and partisanship -- mark my words: There will be bad feelings and harsh words between the two parties;

6) The strain of leadership will ravage the sultry, girlish allure of Speaker Pelosi and leave her looking old, haggard and botoxed.

All this being said, however, I did get my wish: Divided government -- long may it stand!

Hey withoutfeathers,
Dont be so sad for yesterday. The best is yet to come. Wait until we have President Hillary in 2008!

Lol! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day, wf. :-)

To skunks like Rick Santorum and George Allen and John Hostetler, among many others, all I can say, magnanimously, is:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha and good riddance!

The monarchy is over!

Pombo gone. Sweet!

Santorum gone. Sweet!

Frabjous day.

Now we have to ride herd on the Democrats in the House to make sure they don't f*** it up. Republican or Democrat, they all eat from the same trough and they all serve the same masters.

> Pombo gone. Sweet!

Who?

BAD NEWS FOR BARRY: Janice Rogers Brown will most likely NOT be a Supreme Court justice, at least for the next 2 years. Sorry pal!

If the Dems wind up controlling both houses, we may see a lot of gridlock, with the President exercising his veto power quite a bit. In other words, few substantial laws being passed. This should be welcome news to most Libertarians and Republicans, most of whom cherish small government.

> This should be welcome news to most Libertarians and Republicans, most of whom cherish small government.

I *wish* Republicans cherished small government. But your point is well-taken, and the gridlock is welcome news to me. :-)

1) The counter-insurgency in Iraq will drag on for at least two more years instead of ending early next year as it would have had the Republicans held both chambers;

This statement quite honestly made me burst into laughter right in the middle of the office. The idea that the Repugs were "just about" to extract themselves from the quagmire they created in Iraq is the best joke I've heard since "President George W. Bush" ... that one ceased to be so funny after a while. Chimp presidents are cute in the movies, but in real life they cause a lot of trouble.

Richard Pombo. CA-11. Pombo is kind of symbolic for some of us. He is a member of a club where members try to shoot and kill as many endangered species as possible. He is pretty much exactly the sort of "Republican" who made you, Barry, hope for a Democratic victory this year. He also took more money from Abramoff than any other Republican. That doesn't mean necessarily that he is dirty, but it sure as hell puts some nasty stink on him. Anyway, he's been out to end the Endangered Species Act (signed by Nixon, for all you Republicans who think the ESA is some wild-eyed, lefty bill passed during the bad bad FDR years) and he favors drilling off the Jersey coast for oil, something that New Jerseyans generally, if not the folks who visit this blog specifically, oppose.

I think Jersey is the perfect place to drill for oil. It's already full of greaseballs.

"Lol! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day, wf. :-)"

That was the intention. But the funniest thing of all is that now it can really happen. I will be laughing for years with the faces of depressed republicans if somehow Hillary makes it back to the white house in 2008. It would be soooo cool.

"Pombo gone. Sweet!

Santorum gone. Sweet!" (DBK)
their positions?

While I'm glad that gays can't get married as it spares me watching them make a sickening spectacle of themselves yet again, I really don't see how the government has any role in a religious ceremony.

The government has no business in religion, or marriage. It is as silly as passing a law saying that the Catholic church can't allow gay priests, and legally defining a priest as a heterosexual man.

Any true conservative would agree with me. Big Government JMK cheers on Big Brother when Big Brother is on his side.

BH: "The government has no business in religion, or marriage. It is as silly as passing a law saying that the Catholic church can't allow gay priests, and legally defining a priest as a heterosexual man."

Amazing! I'm almost in agreement with BH on this one. But the Catholic Church has every right to say exactly who can or cannot be a Catholic Priest.

BH: "Any true conservative would agree with me."

So...I'm a true conservative after all! And all this time I thought I was an apostate liberal.

OK, seems as though you've gotten the issue a little mixed up. It's NOT government that wants to ban "gay marriage," it's GAYS who want GOVERNMENT to pass laws recognizing same-sex marriage and it's true that the Government HAS NO RIGHT to do THAT, as it would violate the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.

The people however, in referendum form, which all these ballot initiatives were, do indeed have the right to pass such referndums banning same-sex marriages.

The government DOES INDEED have the right, thanks to the general welfare clause, to enshrine heterosexual marriage and reward it with various incentives, tax breaks etc, as that institution is a stabilizing one and as such "promotes the general welfare."

JMK, you are trying to use the "general welfare" clause much the way liberal activist judges abused the "commerce clause" to stick their noses into everything.

The separation of church and state is quite clear in the constitution. It is not trumped by a vague "general welfare" clause.

Marriage is religious, and the government has no business regulating it.

Any law passed for or against anything to do with marriage is unconstitutional. Any use of marital status by the government for benefits, taxes, or anything else is also unconstitutional.

Maybe Roberts and Alito can straighten all this out, but first they have bigger fish to fry.

Not so...and I'll tell you why without relying on either conjecture or personal opinion, as you have.

Those opposed to Gay Marriage aren't demanding that ANY laws be changed, gays ARE, by seeking government to "redefine," or "expand the definition" of Marriage.

In a democracy, the people have the right to use Ballot Initiatives to make their stance known.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have spoken very clearly with those opposing GAY MARRIAGE consistently leading proponents by better than 2 to 1.

There is/was NOTHING at all unconstitutional about the child deduction (even thouugh it obviously "discriminates" against single people and childless couples), likewise there is/was NOTHING at all unconstitutional about the Marriage Penalty (when it existed), nor any tax breaks or incentives favoring heterosexual Marriage now, or in the future.

Your ill-informed opinion notwithstanding.