PDA

View Full Version : JUST IN: AP is declaring Virginia for WEBB, the DEMS HAVE THE SENATE!



sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 04:38 PM
BOOM!

According to MSNBC, George Allen wants to wait for the canvasing of votes to be completed , which may not be till tomorrow, but the AP is saying it's done.

Joe Henderson
11-08-2006, 04:39 PM
Macaca!

Bill!
11-08-2006, 04:39 PM
halle fucking lujah. But I'll wait until the conession to really celebrate.

Stark Raving
11-08-2006, 04:39 PM
Huzzah!!

sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 04:43 PM
NBC piles on and is declaring the win for Webb too. The margin of victory is back up over 7000 again.

BronxRonin
11-08-2006, 04:44 PM
Finally!
I was so upset thinking this jerk would win despite his "macaca" comment.Thank you Virginians for this early Christmas gift .Now this country has a chance to move forward.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 04:44 PM
Sonny, can I talk about Tom Delay in your thread?

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 04:45 PM
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I only wish his fuckups didn't cost the GOP the Senate, but I can't say I'm sorry to be rid of him.

Bill!
11-08-2006, 04:47 PM
Finally we may be able to have a real system of checks and balances back in place.

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 04:47 PM
wow.

my faith in the american voter has been redeemed quite a bit.

now let's hope the democrats only turn out to be half the scumbags the cons were.

that's progress right there!!

;)

Bill!
11-08-2006, 04:47 PM
wow.

my faith in the american voter has been redeemed quite a bit.

now let's hope the democrats only turn out to be half the scumbags the cons were.

that's progress right there!!

;)

Lots and lots of new blood. I think there's definitely a good possibility for change and a big decrease of corruption.

sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 04:49 PM
Sonny, can I talk about Tom Delay in your thread?

sure

Ryan_ZOOM_Turner
11-08-2006, 04:51 PM
Good!

Caley Tibbittz
11-08-2006, 04:54 PM
Finally we may be able to have a real system of checks and balances back in place.
At least for a few years, until the Democrats get bored with voting again...

Taxman
11-08-2006, 05:01 PM
Tom DeLay has been a guest on CNN two different occassions today that I have seen. I must admit that I am just stunned by how despicable of a politician and a person he is. This is all apart from any wrongdoing he may or may not have committed in regards to his current criminal case.

Listening to this guy's rhetoric and vitriol, there is really no way to tell that the man is not still the sitting House Majority Leader. Every word out of his mouth is negative and disparaging in regards to the Democratic Party. The man seem incapable of being cordial or objective when addressing the mere idea that there may be people who honestly hold an opinion counter to his own. If any Democrat had dared show such arrogance after one of their unsuccessful national campaign efforts, he would have become the favorite quaffle of numerous right wing radio guys for months. This man has nothing to contribute to constructive political discourse, and is entirely unworthy of airtime from any broadcaster claiming to be part of the "legitimate" media.

Mister Mets
11-08-2006, 05:03 PM
wow.
I really thought this election would go differently.

Beatle
11-08-2006, 05:05 PM
:rock: LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN!!!



Bye Bye Bushies:wave:

Smokinblues
11-08-2006, 05:19 PM
:rock: LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN!!!



Bye Bye Bushies:wave:

an impeachment attempt would be the biggest mistake the dem's could make barring some sort of smoking gun, which they don't have. the only chance the dem's have in 08 is actually getting something done in the next two years, not wasting the time chasing every little wisp of smoke they can trying to nail bush.

Bill Nolan
11-08-2006, 05:20 PM
51 senators aren't enough to make anybody go "bye-bye." And that's assuming you got Joe-mentum to vote to convict.

- B

Taxman
11-08-2006, 05:26 PM
51 senators aren't enough to make anybody go "bye-bye."
- BActually, if his approval rating gets much lower, were there truely compelling evidence of crimes being committed it actually might be.

The Roman Candle
11-08-2006, 05:27 PM
wow.
I really thought this election would go differently.


Well, I guess that's what happens when Conservatives try to think.




lol j/k let's make hugs!

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 05:27 PM
an impeachment attempt would be the biggest mistake the dem's could make barring some sort of smoking gun, which they don't have. the only chance the dem's have in 08 is actually getting something done in the next two years, not wasting the time chasing every little wisp of smoke they can trying to nail bush.

was it a mistake to impeach clinton?

Caley Tibbittz
11-08-2006, 05:28 PM
Actually, with an approval rating in the low thirties, were there truely compelling evidence of crimes being committed it actually might be.

Downing Street memos? No? Damn.

Lyfeforce
11-08-2006, 05:32 PM
EVERYBO-DAY CONGO!

BA-DA-DA-DADA-DA HEY!

BABA-DA-DA-DADA-DA HEY!

DADA-BA-BA-BADABA HEY!

DA-BADA-DA-DADA-DA

hey!

note: I'm actually equally as happy to hear the results as much as I'm happy to not see the commercials non stop!

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 05:32 PM
was it a mistake to impeach clinton?

The 1998 results would seem to indicate so.

I think Gabe currently has his Commander in Chief DVD's on permanent loop and is busy jacking off to thoughts of President Pelosi. :lol:

Mike
11-08-2006, 05:34 PM
This is the first election in 10 years that hasn't angered or upset me. Great news.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 05:36 PM
This is the first election in 10 years that hasn't angered or upset me. Great news.
There's a gawd damned Socialist in the Senate! :x

How can you not be upset?

The Roman Candle
11-08-2006, 05:38 PM
There's a gawd damned Socialist in the Senate! :x

How can you not be upset?

God damn, I love Bernie Sanders. For serious.

Beatle
11-08-2006, 05:39 PM
The 1998 results would seem to indicate so.

I think Gabe currently has his Commander in Chief DVD's on permanent loop and is busy jacking off to thoughts of President Pelosi. :lol:

You had me at DVDs 8-)

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 05:39 PM
The 1998 results would seem to indicate so.


that doesn't really answer my question.

let me redirect to you.

do you think clinton's impeachment was a mistake?

Randy Hassan
11-08-2006, 05:40 PM
http://www.anchorbrewing.com/images/bw_photos/AAB-4672.jpg

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 05:43 PM
that doesn't really answer my question.

let me redirect to you.

do you think clinton's impeachment was a mistake?

Strategically, yes.

Mike
11-08-2006, 05:44 PM
There's a gawd damned Socialist in the Senate! :x

How can you not be upset?

The more, the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 05:49 PM
Strategically, yes.


are you saying that it was not a mistake other than strategically?


quit dancing and clarify your stance.

Dannñ B
11-08-2006, 05:59 PM
Booyaka.

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 06:03 PM
are you saying that it was not a mistake other than strategically?


quit dancing and clarify your stance.

I think my stance is very clear. Clinton lied under oath, and there were grounds to impeach him. I don't see that kind of clear, easy-to-prove legal mistake on Bush's part.

However, the GOP at the time should have looked at the polls in the country, and also at the makeup of the Senate, and realized that impeaching Clinton with no hope of a conviction was a losing proposition for them.

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 06:05 PM
I think my stance is very clear. Clinton lied under oath, and there were grounds to impeach him. I don't see that kind of clear, easy-to-prove legal mistake on Bush's part.

However, the GOP at the time should have looked at the polls in the country, and also at the makeup of the Senate, and realized that impeaching Clinton with no hope of a conviction was a losing proposition for them.

Oh come on Ray, you know you woulda borked Monica too. :D

I will never forget seeing her on Tom Green and thinking, WOW! She's actually kinda hot.

artimoff
11-08-2006, 06:05 PM
Isn't it Dems 49, Rep 49, Ind 2 ? I know Joe will vote with the Dems & the guy from Vermont is a Socialist & will vote with them too, but isn't it officially a tie?

Sy-Klone
11-08-2006, 06:06 PM
Yay for democracy!

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 06:06 PM
I think my stance is very clear. Clinton lied under oath, and there were grounds to impeach him. I don't see that kind of clear, easy-to-prove legal mistake on Bush's part.



oh please. bush is known for fumbling like an idiot. get him on the stands and there'll be perjury.

i'd say starting an unjustified and costly quagmire in iraq is plenty of grounds for investigations. whatever comes out of that is gravy.

sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Jamie Howdeshell
was it a mistake to impeach clinton?


Originally Posted by Ray Goldfield The 1998 results would seem to indicate so.


The Clinton Impeachment happened AFTER the 1998 election, so what are you talking about?


The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999...
The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12 1999, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against.

sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 06:07 PM
Isn't it Dems 49, Rep 49, Ind 2 ? I know Joe will vote with the Dems & the guy from Vermont is a Socialist & will vote with them too, but isn't it officially a tie?


No it's 50 dems, 48 gop, 2 indies

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 06:08 PM
The Clinton Impeachment happened AFTER the 1998 election, so what are you talking about?

The investigation was already in full swing. Everyone could see what was going on, and the GOP lost seats because of it.

Beatle
11-08-2006, 06:09 PM
Isn't it Dems 49, Rep 49, Ind 2 ? I know Joe will vote with the Dems & the guy from Vermont is a Socialist & will vote with them too, but isn't it officially a tie?

Because the two Independents will caucus with the Dems they get control.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 06:09 PM
Isn't it Dems 49, Rep 49, Ind 2 ? I know Joe will vote with the Dems & the guy from Vermont is a Socialist & will vote with them too, but isn't it officially a tie?
Is it because you failed math?

If those two caucus with the Democrats, that make them the majority party and gives them control of the leadership.49+1=51

There can be no tie in the Senate. The Vice President it the President of the Senate and can break and tie. 50-50 would equal a Republican majority in this particular case.

Gavin
11-08-2006, 06:10 PM
Right on.

Smokinblues
11-08-2006, 06:10 PM
was it a mistake to impeach clinton?

Yes. Not relevent to the topic though. Completely different situation, and doesn't change my point. Do you think I was wrong? Do you really thing if the democrats spend the next two years chasing bush and don't come up with anything that will help their cause?

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 06:13 PM
Yes. Not relevent to the topic though. Completely different situation, and doesn't change my point. Do you think I was wrong? Do you really thing if the democrats spend the next two years chasing bush and don't come up with anything that will help their cause?

nope. I know you asked Jamie man, but I'll intrude. Hearings on war profiteering and other illegalities are one thing and probably will and should take place. impeachment? Not so much and the Dems have already said they won't pursue impeachment so it's a moot point.

Beatle
11-08-2006, 06:15 PM
Yes. Not relevent to the topic though. Completely different situation, and doesn't change my point. Do you think I was wrong? Do you really thing if the democrats spend the next two years chasing bush and don't come up with anything that will help their cause?

No it won't. But there is stuff there and we ALL know it.

Impeach away, my gay-marrige having, stemcell- researching , gun-taking tax-raising, pot smoking, better educated friends! ;-)

Taxman
11-08-2006, 06:15 PM
I think my stance is very clear. Clinton lied under oath, and there were grounds to impeach him. I don't see that kind of clear, easy-to-prove legal mistake on Bush's part.If it was so easy to prove, why did it cost $55 million?

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 06:17 PM
Yes. Not relevent to the topic though. Completely different situation, and doesn't change my point. Do you think I was wrong? Do you really thing if the democrats spend the next two years chasing bush and don't come up with anything that will help their cause?

i just think it is interesting that you dismiss the idea of impeaching bush out of hand while you think the hounding of clinton was a great idea. it probably has nothing to do with your political bias.
:roll:

besides, do you really think with the power of congress behind them, the dems will come up with nothing?

you're dreaming.

hell, all they have to do is set bush up to fail (like clinton) and i'm sure he'll oblige them.
they just need him to lie about one little thing on the stand and boom... there's just as much justification to impeach him as there ever was for clinton.

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 06:18 PM
If it was so easy to prove, why did it cost $55 million?

*shrug*

Oil parties?

I don't know, I could probably get 100 people in a room and vote on stuff for about $300 for snacks. Yet the Senate's operating budget has got to be in the millions. It's pretty much Congress' job to waste our money.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 06:18 PM
No it's 50 dems, 48 gop, 2 indiesNo, he's got his numbers right. I don't think he understands how the Senate works all that well.

Ben
11-08-2006, 06:18 PM
If it was so easy to prove, why did it cost $55 million?And "impeach" doesn't equal "convict." Isn't it sort of the presidential equivalent of charging someone with something? He was charged with perjury or whatever. Right?

Smokinblues
11-08-2006, 06:19 PM
i just think it is interesting that you dismiss the idea of impeaching bush out of hand while you think the hounding of clinton was a great idea. it probably has nothing to do with your political bias.
:roll:

besides, do you really think with the power of congress behind them, the dems will come up with nothing?

you're dreaming.

hell, all they have to do is set bush up to fail (like clinton) and i'm sure he'll oblige them.
they just need him to lie about one little thing on the stand and boom... there's just as much justification to impeach him as there ever was for clinton.


I think there's a good chance they will come up with nothing. I admitted the impeachment of Clinton was a mistake. Didn't say I thought it was a great idea.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 06:20 PM
*shrug*

Oil parties?

I don't know, I could probably get 100 people in a room and vote on stuff for about $300 for snacks. Yet the Senate's operating budget has got to be in the millions. It's pretty much Congress' job to waste our money.That wasn't part of the Congressional budget, the was the check Justice cut to Kenny Starr.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 06:21 PM
And "impeach" doesn't equal "convict." Isn't it sort of the presidential equivalent of charging someone with something? He was charged with perjury or whatever. Right?I guess one could make the arguement that it was "proven" to the House since they passed the articles.

Foolish Mortal
11-08-2006, 06:28 PM
Please, enough with the impeachment talk. They are not going to try to impeach or censure Bush. Not gonna happen.

artimoff
11-08-2006, 06:35 PM
No it's 50 dems, 48 gop, 2 indies


Ahhh. Thanks. :D



Then again...


No, he's got his numbers right. I don't think he understands how the Senate works all that well

So I was right before I was wrong? ;)

Gib Ikswobel
11-08-2006, 06:38 PM
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/9585/macacais8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

xyzzy
11-08-2006, 06:45 PM
I think my stance is very clear. Clinton lied under oath, and there were grounds to impeach him. I don't see that kind of clear, easy-to-prove legal mistake on Bush's part.

However, the GOP at the time should have looked at the polls in the country, and also at the makeup of the Senate, and realized that impeaching Clinton with no hope of a conviction was a losing proposition for them.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that Clinton's impeachment was good or bad for the nation, as a whole? I think that it was bad. I don't dispute the legal validity of it. But I think that, for the good of the country, the Republicans should have just let it go.

Ray G.
11-08-2006, 06:50 PM
Let me ask you a question: Do you think that Clinton's impeachment was good or bad for the nation, as a whole? I think that it was bad. I don't dispute the legal validity of it. But I think that, for the good of the country, the Republicans should have just let it go.

Must agree - especially as it was a pointless exercise, as they had to know no Democrat would vote to convict, no matter what the facts were.

WillieLee
11-08-2006, 07:03 PM
Wait, I thought the Republicans were going to fix the election?

Jamie Howdeshell
11-08-2006, 07:09 PM
I think there's a good chance they will come up with nothing. I admitted the impeachment of Clinton was a mistake. Didn't say I thought it was a great idea.

doh. i misread your original post.

uhmmm... how about dat weather?

:Oops:

Bill?
11-08-2006, 07:10 PM
hooray for a super-slim majority!

WinterRose
11-08-2006, 07:16 PM
hooray for a super-slim majority!

The neo-cons liked it well enough when they had it didn't they?

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 07:35 PM
hooray for a super-slim majority!

Huh? They won a massive majority in the House and enough in the Senate to do what they need to. They'll have no problem getting the things done that need to be done. Well, until Bush vetoes their stuff.

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 07:36 PM
Wait, I thought the Republicans were going to fix the election?

They can't do anything right can they?

Ryan F
11-08-2006, 07:40 PM
hooray for a super-slim majority!

nobody die or quit!

Bill?
11-08-2006, 07:41 PM
Huh? They won a massive majority in the House and enough in the Senate to do what they need to. They'll have no problem getting the things done that need to be done. Well, until Bush vetoes their stuff.

I'm not quite sure you're using the word "massive" correctly.

WillieLee
11-08-2006, 07:42 PM
They can't do anything right can they?

RUMSFELD! *audience laughs*

mlpeters
11-08-2006, 07:43 PM
Wait, I thought the Republicans were going to fix the election?

They probably tried -- I think the Democratic win should have been a little bigger. The Republican "fixing" usually amounts to disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts, shaving off a few thousand votes, which worked for them in super-tight elections, like 2000 and 2004. This time independents voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, which was just too much for the Republicans to "fix".

WillieLee
11-08-2006, 07:49 PM
They probably tried -- I think the Democratic win should have been a little bigger. The Republican "fixing" usually amounts to disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts, shaving off a few thousand votes, which worked for them in super-tight elections, like 2000 and 2004. This time independents voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, which was just too much for the Republicans to "fix".

Or it could be that the pre-election hype about the Diebold machines was fear mongering by the media.

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 07:53 PM
I'm not quite sure you're using the word "massive" correctly.

Having a 30 plus seat majority in the House is huge. We now have the same majority in the House that the GOP (and so called liberal media) has touted for years as a large one. Face it, House majority, Senate majority, and winning a majority of the Governorships not to mention the fact that not a single Democrat lost their seat is pretty huge.

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 07:55 PM
Or it could be that the pre-election hype about the Diebold machines was fear mongering by the media.

It's a chicken and egg argument. It could also be that there was so much attention paid to it that it was tougher to get away with it so they didn't bother. I'm not saying it happened, just that I wouldn't say it was hype.

Ryan F
11-08-2006, 08:02 PM
Voting machines shouldn't be a partisan issue. They're vulnerable; we have to be vigilant. The end.

Jibberwashed
11-08-2006, 08:10 PM
Why shouldn't dems pursue impeachment? Maybe not impeachment, but at least an investigation regarding getting us into Iraq? Is leading a country into a war with negligible intelligence a crime? Is there a crime worth pursuing towards this administration? I for one feel that they need to be held accountable for the mistakes made, and I don't give a flying shit about strategies or political parties.

Brad N.
11-08-2006, 08:14 PM
RUMSFELD! *audience laughs*

Only funny if it's said by Ted Knight.

Taxman
11-08-2006, 08:19 PM
Why shouldn't dems pursue impeachment? Maybe not impeachment, but at least an investigation regarding getting us into Iraq? Is leading a country into a war with negligible intelligence a crime? Is there a crime worth pursuing towards this administration? I for one feel that they need to be held accountable for the mistakes made, and I don't give a flying shit about strategies or political parties.Don't worry, they'll be investigations. Part of Congress' duty is to perform oversight of the executive branch. I would be one who believes that this is the biggest failure of Congress over the past several years. Except, let's not call it "investigations" let's call it oversight like it is supposed to be. This isn't about revenge; it is about accountability and properly governing this country; including the prosecution of the war. If there are serious improprieties, they will be revealed in the course of oversight.

sonnylarue
11-08-2006, 08:36 PM
Ahhh. Thanks. :D



Then again...



So I was right before I was wrong? ;)

according to the ap story...



Jim Webb's victory over Sen. George Allen in Virginia assured Democrats of 51 seats when the Senate convenes in January. That marked a gain of six in midterm elections in which the war in Iraq and President Bush were major issues.

Jamie Howdeshell
11-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Don't worry, they'll be investigations. Part of Congress' duty is to perform oversight of the executive branch. I would be one who believes that this is the biggest failure of Congress over the past several years. Except, let's not call it "investigations" let's call it oversight like it is supposed to be. This isn't about revenge; it is about accountability and properly governing this country; including the prosecution of the war. If there are serious improprieties, they will be revealed in the course of oversight.

Exactly right!