Forums | MacLife

Once the hot asian race girls support Bush, there's be no stopping the neo-con movement.

That's our president! He never stops thinking of ways to harm this country.

This won't be as good for republicans in this years elections as the republicans would like it to be.
Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with stopping this attack, good intelligence by the Brittish did - so while it does demonstrate there are still bad guys that want to get us, it also demonstrates it can be effectively fought without putting troops on foreign soil.

user wrote:

It shows that treating terrorism with a police (criminal, not military) action works.

Yes - it does. And police (working with intelligence) is absolutely necessary.

Not every situation calls for the same action, and there are situations that need military action to deal with, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, and (I know you will disagree) Iraq.

Thus - I am of the opinion that military action also is warranted in some cases.

However, I am also of the opinion that this foiled attack won't help the right as much as the pundits on Fox News are predicting - because the people are unhappy with Iraq, and this foiled attack does nothing to justify military action in Iraq.

It's wishful thinking that this foiled attack will somehow shift the country by magic.
The Dems are probably going to take the house, and have a decent shot at taking the Senate.

after-life wrote:

resedit wrote:

The Dems are probably going to take the house, and have a decent shot at taking the Senate.

That's a little surprising.

You'd think the House would be much harder to retake than the Senate, because it isn't possible to gerrymander state borders in your favor.

The house has gone back and forth numerous times despite changing district lines.
In fact, it is rare for both the house and senate majority to be the same party as a second term president.

after-life wrote:

?

The House changes hands much less frequently than the Senate.

The Democrats held the House from Eisenhower to 1994, and the Republicans have held it since then.

The Senate on the other hand, was taken by the Republicans during the 80s, went back to Democrats in the late 80s, went back to Republicans in 1994, back to the Democrats in 2000 (after Jeffords changed party affiliation), then finally back to the Republicans in 2002.

You're right - it is the senate that has changed numerous times.
I still think the house will go to the dems, I've seen enough "right wingers" predicting it that I'm pretty sure they see the writing on the wall with respect to the house.

JakeTheTall wrote:

There's reportedly been more gerrymandering of Congressional districts of late, and often done by Republicans.

I expect Republicans to hang on to the House, and likely the Senate, too.  The pools asking "a generic Democrat vs a generic Republican" or "would you like Congress to be controlled by the Democrats" are absurd, because that option won't be on any ballot, and I think people are kinda thinking "well, for other states, but me, I'm voting for the party/candidate I usally do."

Actually - a lot of people are dis-satisfied with their current representatives.
Joe Lieberman is an example.

He's the democrat nomination for VP in 2000 and he can't win his primary in 2006 - largely because of his position on Iraq. Incumbants who support the Presidents actions in Iraq, largely republicans, are going to have a tougher time in this next election.

I hope for the sake of this country that the republicans keep both the house and senate, but the fact is a lot of other people hope for the sake of this country that they don't.

after-life wrote:

Most Americans still think they're stronger on national security,

Nope, that switched recently.