Dems win! I am happily surprised
November 8, 2006 Yes, I am surprised. There were many voting problems including:
- Florida. Some Diebold machines showing votes as cast for Republicans when they'd been cast for Dems. The incorrect selections would appear on the confirmation screen; the voter could go back and again select Democrat candidates, and the summary would sometimes continue to show the choices as being for Republican. The official word was to the effect that these were machines in heavy-voting areas, and the machines were buckling under the strain.
- Indiana. Last night I read reports of 75 precincts that could not vote due to problems with the voting machines.
- Ohio. Of course. Some precincts where not a single machine would work.
I don't know if these and other problems were resolved in time for everyone who showed up to vote to actually be able to exercise their right.
And that's why I'm surprised. In spite of the expected issues with this immature technology, in spite of bad weather in some areas (which often bodes poorly for Dems), in spite of the 'October surprise' I feared would appear - but never did ...the Democrats have won control of the House, have won a number of governor-ships, and appear poised to have the majority in the Senate as well.
After George W Bush was awarded the slimmest of victories 2 years ago, he crowed about having 'political capital' and intending to spend it. I have sadly become cynical enough that I half-expected the Democratic leadership to take a similarly partisan stance and begin gloating.
Happily ...at least so far ...what I've been hearing from Nancy Pelosi (soon-to-be Speaker of the House) and from Rahm Emanuel (chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is far more sensible. They have been speaking of the fact that all members of Congress must work together if anything is to be accomplished to truly help better this nation.
Rahm Emanuel has mentioned, among the many issues desperately needing action:
...minimum
wage; direct negotiations for lower prescription drug prices; a vote
on the 9/11 commission recommendations; an energy policy in which we
take the $12.5 billion given to Big Oil and move it towards research
for energy independence and alternative energy and new sources;
slashing the interest rates on college loans in half; and pay as you
go rules on the budget; and also on stem cells and getting a vote on
that; and also on Social Security.
...
The 2006 campaigning is done. I've followed our standard ritual on the day after Election Day and have removed the many candidate bumper stickers from my car. Now the real work starts.
Politics
Reader Comments (15)
Has anyone heard from MadMarine lately? Seems like there's been hardly a peep, for months.
BTW, congratulations to the Democrats on a well-run and executed election. I'm actually looking forward to hearing about the Dem foreign policy rather than their domestic plan. I'm sure they have some fine ideas for dealing with the world's trouble spots.
And for the record, my party deserved everything they got. Don't get me wrong, I believe the conservative agenda is what works, but the current crop of Reps apparently don't believe in it. And sadly, neither does our President. So, we got our asses handed to us. The stupid party once more snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Sigh.....
Mad
Still convinced that Global Climate change has no connection to human activities? There have been INNUMERABLE articles to the contrary lately, but I gave up posting them.
There was an especially damning dismissal of the 'Oregon Petition', that you confidently cited. Wish I had saved the link.
By the way, your 'stupid party' didn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The American public (barely, but decisively) snatched power away from the maniacs and criminals that have been plundering the country and shredding the Constitution.
Glad to see you taking the victory so graciously... as usual.
And innumberable articles to the contrary of your position. For the record, I didn't say that humans don't contribute. I just believe that that contribution is minimal compared with other factors, like the sun. I still don't see extensive farming in Greenland and Iceland or grapes growing in Scotland as there was during the Medieval Warm Period.
Mad
Please cite one.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1963236.ece
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101/
Here's a quote from that page (Pew Center on Global Climate Change):
"The science is clear: climate change is happening, and it is linked directly to human activity."
I eagerly await your post pointing me to a single credible source that says Human activity is NOT a leading factor contributing to climate change.
As George Bush says, "Denial is not just a river in Iraq."
http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm
Meanwhile, in the real world:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061113/ap_on_sc/climate_scientist_1
Mad
Google is your friend. Do a little research on Monte Hieb. He is an uncredentialled advocate of mountain-top-removal coal mining, intimately involved with the West Virginia coal industry. Here's more:
http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/10/stern_review_2.html
"Monte Hieb has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. I hope you understand that the coal mining industry is not a reliable source for debate on climate change. Clearly, Monte Hieb is not a climate scientist..."
I don't mind a divergent opinion. However:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
Let me qualify my original challenge: Show me a single peer-reviewed, mainstream study supporting your view, that has no connections to the Coal or Oil industries.
I just don't understand why you are so committed to denying the possibility that human activities are pushing this planet's systems to the tipping point of ecological catastrophe, and so willing to believe people who have a vested interest in the status quo.
It has nothing to do with Liberal vs. Conservative.
http://www.realclimate.org/
If you don't understand how a basic component of weather, clouds, affects weather, you can't develop models that are worth a crap. And, these models are what all the hysteria is about. Models predicting future behavior are worthless unless you understand all the variables, which we don't.
In the meantime, you want the poor of the world to suffer the financial impact of Kyoto. See, I'm a liberal, I care about the poor!
Mad
I know that Lindzen is just an old wack job from MIT. Please don't bother to point me to RealClimate for a rebuttal.
So, we disagree. Let's move on.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
You continually cite people whose impartiality is significantly compromised.
I'll consider this my last word - let's do this again sometime.