Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Craig Y.:
You might have a point - though the sheer genius with which homo Americanus politicius can hold sincerely believe six mutually contradictory positions on any issue before breakfast makes me sceptical.
-
Che:
Well, I'm (slowly) learning the great wisdom of the net-saying, "don't feel the trolls no matter how great the provocation". Food for thought, ay? Of course, there's always the option of turning your eyeballs elsewhere Any blog that has comments but can introduce an 'ignore user' feature would get two thumbs up from me, though har-trigger stabs for the scroll wheel on the mouse does much the same thing.
-
BTW, very interesting piece just posted on the NYTimes website, arguing that the ideological complexion of the new Democratic majority is a wee bit more complex than most Kiwi pundits realise.
Vile as Rick Santorum was, pardon my scepticism as to whether Bob Casey is going to give social libertarians - or even old school 'mind your own business' conservatives - any more joy. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but it's going to fun to watch Perlosi and Reid keep the proverbial bag of kittens in line...
-
Well, I don't know what the LGF crowd are that upset about because there seem to be a lot of socially conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats taking seats on Capitol Hill and a number of state houses come January who will have to be kept sweet to take the White House in '08. (Delicious irony that The next two years might be very confusing for Kiwi observers who don't quite grasp that the Democrats and the GOP don't ideologically split quite as neatly as parties here. Going to be fun seeing how hard Nancy and Harry are going to whip them into line on some really contentious issues like immigration, social security & the presictable hot button 'social' issues like abortion, same-sex marriage etc.
-
And, Russell, I might give the story another go. But I think you know why I zoned out as soon as I hit the analogy of a Democratic staffer "his eyes wide and full of astonished, impotent rage, like a rape victim." WTF? Trying to out-Coulter Coulter doesn't work for me.
You wonder why, if I was an American, I'd probably spend every election season watching Lost re-runs and wondering how the hell I could get on that island...
-
Russell:
I'm not going to argue with you on that score, but I very much doubt the next Congress is going to be substantively as opposed to rhetorically different. Depending on what yardstick you move, between 80-90% of the seats contested yesterday weren't even competitive in any meaningful sense of the word - which shouldn't be any surpise in a political culture where the only certain ground for real bipartisanship is gerrymandering electoral districts to protect incumbents, and dozens of seats each electoral cycle aren't contested at all by one or the other major party.
If Perlosi and whoever the next Senate Majority Leader is put up the 'no peddler' signs on their office doors, derail the Gravy Train (as opposed to tweaking the timetable), broker meaningful compromises on trade, immigration etc., and reassert the separation of federal and state government and other tiresome Constitutional principles even when it's politically inconvenent then I'll give credit wherre credit's due. And believe it or not, I'd love to be proved unduly pessimistic.
-
Alistair Thompson wrote:
Before you start dissing the conspiracy theorists I suspect you may find that this election produces quite a few theories from the republican side of the debate.So the loony left and the rabid right both need wee fistfuls of anti-psychotics washed down with decaf - pardon me if I fail to be shocked by that proposition. :) Sorry, but I still hold to the notion that cock-up trumps conspiracy - or incompetence is a more plausible explanation than malice - 99.99999% of the time. To use a domestic example, I think the Police were at best gutless, or plain incompetent, in their decision not to prosecute both Labour and National over clear prima facie cases they breeched electoral law in the last campaign. I most certainly draw the line at allegations of political interference, unless someone puts some rock solid evidence on the table. Not a conspiracy theory, evidence.
-
Russell Brown wrote:
Pelosi also promised to make her Congress the least corrupt in history. Easier said than done, but it's hard to see how the new Houses could be any less arrogant and dishonest than those that are passing.Every measure of sound, accountable government (and, indeed, traditional conservative values) has gone south in the last five years. This has been a terrible Congress and, as Rolling Stone proposed a couple of weeks ago, quite possibly the worst ever.
Well, let's just wait and see... I don't envy Perlosi (and potentially Harry Reid if the Dems also have a one vote majority in the Senate) the job she'll have hosing down the caucus who want to deliver some payback for the last twelve years, the real tensions between the Kossak base who want a sharp lurch to the left and the 'moderates' who think that would see their seats go back to the GOP in '08 if their get their s**t together and start acting like real conservatives as opposed to theo-cratic nuts. (And I wouldn't say thats a done deal by any measure. The big irony is that for every Rick Santorum who got the flick, so did two moderates like Lincoln Chafee who was anti-war, socially moderate/fiscally conservative, cordially loathed by the theo-con hard right and had approval ratings around the 70% mark.)
The funny thing about Congress, is that while the majority party had enormous influence over committees, the timing and scope of legislation etc., fling around subpoenas like confetti at a wedding, but there are real risks in overplaying your hand - especially if your seat (or presidential aspirations) are in play in two years. Talking about bipartisanship is one thing, making it work is quite another.
And with all due respect to Rolling Stone, 'worse Congress ever'? Perhaps if your sense of history begins with Woodstock. :) I've been reading Robert Caro's biography of LBJ, and during the five decades the Democrats ran Congress there was plenty of scum-baggery, sharp practice and outright fraud going on.
-
My understanmding (and I could be totally wrong American electoral law being what it is) is that the margin in Virginia is so narrow there will be an automatic recount, and I'm sure both sides are goosing the dogs of law and cranking up the conspiracy nuts as we speak. Whoever wins, it's inevitable they 'stole' the election right?
-
James Bremner wrote:
Now the Dems have to govern and we will get to see if they can be constructive and useful and move the country forward, and not just shriek and scream and whine without offering hardly a useful idea or policyWell. indeed. It's one thing for Nany Perlosi to sa the mid-terms were a, "rejection of the President's failed policy on Iraq." The problem for the Democrats is that they actually have to propose - and pass - a policy of their own, and do so with pretty broad bipartisan support. It should be interesting to watch. I think it would be very generous to say the Democrats were *ahem* strategically ambiguous in the campaign about what their vision of a 'new direction in Iraq' actually was and, to be fair,it's not as if anyone was asking. The problem is that with slim control of one, possibly both, houses of Congress they'll have to take a position the minute a bill regarding appropriations for the miltary hit the floor.