Comments on: Is that blood I smell? http://blog.sandeberg.org/2006/11/is-that-blood-i-smell/ A miscellany. Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:28:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Wreckferret http://blog.sandeberg.org/2006/11/is-that-blood-i-smell/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Wreckferret Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:40:00 +0000 http://blog.sandeberg.org/?p=270#comment-164 Whoops.<br /><br />And now Donald has quit! Whoops.

And now Donald has quit!

]]> By: San de Berg http://blog.sandeberg.org/2006/11/is-that-blood-i-smell/comment-page-1/#comment-162 San de Berg Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:12:00 +0000 http://blog.sandeberg.org/?p=270#comment-162 It is true that, latest by the mid-terms, it is very very rare to have the same majority in the House, the Senate and the White House. It's not politically correct, but everyone knows it to be true: The GOP has been riding a wave since September 11th and it's just hit the beachhead.<br /><br />The difference is, the Dems had no real message this time around other than "We're not the other lot!". They've got two years to come up with a proper platform for Hillary. It is true that, latest by the mid-terms, it is very very rare to have the same majority in the House, the Senate and the White House. It’s not politically correct, but everyone knows it to be true: The GOP has been riding a wave since September 11th and it’s just hit the beachhead.

The difference is, the Dems had no real message this time around other than “We’re not the other lot!”. They’ve got two years to come up with a proper platform for Hillary.

]]> By: Wreckferret http://blog.sandeberg.org/2006/11/is-that-blood-i-smell/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Wreckferret Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:50:00 +0000 http://blog.sandeberg.org/?p=270#comment-161 Looks like the Democrats have the majority they need in both Houses.<br /><br />Saw Hillary whining her sickening Victory speech "God Bless New York & God Bless America".<br />Yeurgh!<br /><br />But a Republican here in the UK was surprisingly balanced about it (probbly why she has been banished here to the UK)- saying that it has been unusual in the past of a party to have a majority in all houses AND the Presidency, so this result is just swinging the balance back to neutral like it should be.<br /><br />A refreshingly moderate view I thought.<br /><br />But what do I know eh?! Looks like the Democrats have the majority they need in both Houses.

Saw Hillary whining her sickening Victory speech “God Bless New York & God Bless America”.
Yeurgh!

But a Republican here in the UK was surprisingly balanced about it (probbly why she has been banished here to the UK)- saying that it has been unusual in the past of a party to have a majority in all houses AND the Presidency, so this result is just swinging the balance back to neutral like it should be.

A refreshingly moderate view I thought.

But what do I know eh?!

]]> By: DeathOwl http://blog.sandeberg.org/2006/11/is-that-blood-i-smell/comment-page-1/#comment-160 DeathOwl Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:26:00 +0000 http://blog.sandeberg.org/?p=270#comment-160 In the spirit of that classic film Brewster's Millions, I think America should vote for 'none of the above'. <br /><br />From an <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8103528">Economist article</a> this week:<br />"...More troubling, however, is the much larger number of lawmakers—nearly all of them, in fact—with perfectly legal conflicts of interest. A congressman has the power to “earmark” funds for a specific project. He can insert the earmark into a big, fat, unrelated bill, in the hope that it passes without anyone reading it. And he can accept campaign donations from the beneficiaries of his largesse, so long as no favour is explicitly traded. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, the number of porky earmarks has exploded under Republican rule, from 1,439 in 1995 to 13,997 last year. Congress's response to recent bribery scandals has been to impose footling restrictions on lobbyists. But the only effective way to curb corruption would be to trim the pork."<br /><br />Pretty appalling really that they can get away with doing this sort of thing. Congress sounds like it needs to clean its act up. In the spirit of that classic film Brewster’s Millions, I think America should vote for ‘none of the above’.

From an Economist article this week:
“…More troubling, however, is the much larger number of lawmakers—nearly all of them, in fact—with perfectly legal conflicts of interest. A congressman has the power to “earmark” funds for a specific project. He can insert the earmark into a big, fat, unrelated bill, in the hope that it passes without anyone reading it. And he can accept campaign donations from the beneficiaries of his largesse, so long as no favour is explicitly traded. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, the number of porky earmarks has exploded under Republican rule, from 1,439 in 1995 to 13,997 last year. Congress’s response to recent bribery scandals has been to impose footling restrictions on lobbyists. But the only effective way to curb corruption would be to trim the pork.”

Pretty appalling really that they can get away with doing this sort of thing. Congress sounds like it needs to clean its act up.

]]>