Bush as abusive husband
I really like the analogy this blogger, Sanford Levinson, at The New Republic makes, although his take on our Constitution is crazy cynical.
"2) Even if the Democrats do indeed get both the House and Senate (and therefore, among other things, will be expected to offer serious and substantive legislation), the egregious Mr. Bush will continue to occupy the White House until January 20, 2009, and, as noted in my prior New Republic article, will continue to be able to countermand both House and Senate with the stroke of his veto pen. (And, of course, Republicans in the Senate, even if in the minority, will still be able to filibuster legislation.) If we had a better Constitution that either deprived the president of a right to veto bills on policy grounds at all (while maintaining a Constitution-based veto) or a system that allowed, say, 2/3 of Congress assembled together to declare a vote of "no confidence" and replace him or her with someone chosen by the congressional caucus of the president's own party (in order to prevent a "coup" by the other party), then we could get rid of what is quite possibly the worst president in the entire history of the republic (not to mention the most frightening vice president and most blitheringly incompetnet secretary of defense). But, thanks to our eighteenth-century Constitution, we can't. We are like a spouse trapped in a marriage with a known abuser. All we can hope for is that he doesn't kill us (because it's a certainty he will continue to batter us).
Democrat control of Congress will mean that Republicans will be unable to propose and pass some truly terrible legislation and that we can look forward to lots of investigations and symbolic votes building up for the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns. That's not nothing. And, who knows, maybe a few good pieces of legislation will actually get through. But anyone who believes that even the best outcome on Tuesday will lead to the kind of sharp reversals in policy that are so desperately needed hasn't read the Constitution recently."
Emphasis on the analogy is mine. Does that make Cheney the annoyingly shrill worrisome mother-in-law? I guess it is unlikely that the Democrats will do more than make the Senate 50-50, although I keep hoping.
My greatest hope is that Rep. Ron Lewis loses in KY-02. Besides being a knee-jerk conservative, he beat my Sunday School teacher in that first election. So it's a little personal, you might say. Even if his opponent, Mike Weaver, is somewhat right of center, he'd be an improvement.
"2) Even if the Democrats do indeed get both the House and Senate (and therefore, among other things, will be expected to offer serious and substantive legislation), the egregious Mr. Bush will continue to occupy the White House until January 20, 2009, and, as noted in my prior New Republic article, will continue to be able to countermand both House and Senate with the stroke of his veto pen. (And, of course, Republicans in the Senate, even if in the minority, will still be able to filibuster legislation.) If we had a better Constitution that either deprived the president of a right to veto bills on policy grounds at all (while maintaining a Constitution-based veto) or a system that allowed, say, 2/3 of Congress assembled together to declare a vote of "no confidence" and replace him or her with someone chosen by the congressional caucus of the president's own party (in order to prevent a "coup" by the other party), then we could get rid of what is quite possibly the worst president in the entire history of the republic (not to mention the most frightening vice president and most blitheringly incompetnet secretary of defense). But, thanks to our eighteenth-century Constitution, we can't. We are like a spouse trapped in a marriage with a known abuser. All we can hope for is that he doesn't kill us (because it's a certainty he will continue to batter us).
Democrat control of Congress will mean that Republicans will be unable to propose and pass some truly terrible legislation and that we can look forward to lots of investigations and symbolic votes building up for the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns. That's not nothing. And, who knows, maybe a few good pieces of legislation will actually get through. But anyone who believes that even the best outcome on Tuesday will lead to the kind of sharp reversals in policy that are so desperately needed hasn't read the Constitution recently."
Emphasis on the analogy is mine. Does that make Cheney the annoyingly shrill worrisome mother-in-law? I guess it is unlikely that the Democrats will do more than make the Senate 50-50, although I keep hoping.
My greatest hope is that Rep. Ron Lewis loses in KY-02. Besides being a knee-jerk conservative, he beat my Sunday School teacher in that first election. So it's a little personal, you might say. Even if his opponent, Mike Weaver, is somewhat right of center, he'd be an improvement.