![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gelatinous Wheels
Mar. 9th, 2006 04:34 amSo, amazingly enough, Congress has actually served the interests of the American people instead of indulging in the usual partisan politics. Sometimes it happens. It didn't hurt from a motivational standpoint, of course, that should the GOP have allowed the Democratic Party to get to the right of them on this, they'd more than likely lose most of their House seats come November.
Now it remains to be seen if Bush has the brass balls to try to hold our soldiers and the people of New Orleans hostage to benefit his oil sheik buddies. He would of course cover his administration in permanent shame by so trying, but it would make for a Wagnerian-scale political battle, especially with a midterm election and the impending war with Iran both coming together. As impressive as that might be to watch, I hope he'll do the common-sense thing and admit that he was wrong.
We're coming now to the completion of the cycle of COngress taking back their usual powers from the President that I marked at its beginning back in late summer of 2004. I've got an LJ entry somewhere, although I can't find it now. What I remarked upon at the time was that when Bush first turned his attention from the war to divisive domestic issues for the first time since 9/11, that meant that essentially the emergency was over, and Congress would now become increasingly more critical of his actions. Thus has it been. So long as he treated terror as the primary concern that overrode anything else, no-one would gainsay him, and he would enjoy near-dictatorial powers by popular acclaim. By deciding to "spend his political capital", as he put it, he cut off that unconditional support.
Is the man really so stupid that he couldn't see why his support was at such record levels? Does he not understand why it's fallen to near-record lows?
*****
The idea that men should be able to opt out from child support makes a good deal of sense to me. The current system gives women rights that are denied to men.
Now it remains to be seen if Bush has the brass balls to try to hold our soldiers and the people of New Orleans hostage to benefit his oil sheik buddies. He would of course cover his administration in permanent shame by so trying, but it would make for a Wagnerian-scale political battle, especially with a midterm election and the impending war with Iran both coming together. As impressive as that might be to watch, I hope he'll do the common-sense thing and admit that he was wrong.
We're coming now to the completion of the cycle of COngress taking back their usual powers from the President that I marked at its beginning back in late summer of 2004. I've got an LJ entry somewhere, although I can't find it now. What I remarked upon at the time was that when Bush first turned his attention from the war to divisive domestic issues for the first time since 9/11, that meant that essentially the emergency was over, and Congress would now become increasingly more critical of his actions. Thus has it been. So long as he treated terror as the primary concern that overrode anything else, no-one would gainsay him, and he would enjoy near-dictatorial powers by popular acclaim. By deciding to "spend his political capital", as he put it, he cut off that unconditional support.
Is the man really so stupid that he couldn't see why his support was at such record levels? Does he not understand why it's fallen to near-record lows?
*****
The idea that men should be able to opt out from child support makes a good deal of sense to me. The current system gives women rights that are denied to men.
