"M.Butzin" <mfbutzin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Additionally, they've been in power for just a year and are involved
>> in an election year in which they are quite likely to take more seats
>> in Congress and the White House. They're doing exactly what I
>> predicted they would do a year ago. They're treading water,
>> clarifying their positions and feeding rope to the GOP. When the Dems
>> have Congress *and* the White House, they'll probably become more
>> active at reversing some of the damage done by this administration.
>> And I shall enjoy watching Republican partisans whine and cry like the
>> little babies they are for at least the next four years.
>
>Finally! someone who has it right! The first year will be tough, The next
>year will need to bring to light all the "sweetheart deals" indentify and
>disban them that the GOP enacted. While working on laws and bills to
remove
>the favors given to the "rich and needy" "W's. Base" and implementing
laws
>and such that will bring this country back. Having too many rich people,
is
>like having too many poor people neither wants to spend money they want
to
>hang on to it.
We wish these things to be so but they are not likely to pass. Even
if the Dems solidify their control of Congress and take the White
House, they are unlkely to undo much of what Bush has done. They're
going to be much too busy trying to keep the economy from imploding
and Iraq from exploding to, for example, stand up to Big Pharma and
modify or repeal Part D. It would be nice if the Dems could undo some
of that damage such as consumer credit legislation and dozens of other
GOP screw ups but I'm not counting on it and will be satisfied if they
can stave off a serious and long recession and get us disentangled
from Iraq and other conflicts with minimal damage and after effects.
>> The difference will be largely one of information. What will ****bama
>> the President find out about world affairs that ****bama the candidate
>> doesn't know and how will that affect the policy intentions of the
>> candidate once elected.
>They are all being updated as their campaigns progress, question is who
will
>be more effective in solving them? Obama has no past dealings with middle
>east leaders, old man Clinton has and you know he HAS to tag along to
them,
>BUT who would be her VP? WHO would be Edwards VP? or Obama's? Sectary
State,
>Sec Defense, Health, Education, etc who would answer those calls and make
a
>difference?
There are many things, particularly with regard to foreign policy that
the Candidate will never know. Will only find out about when he/she
actually sits in the Oval Office.
Swill
|
