We know Democrats hate Bush because he's a Christian Republican, Is that why they can't win house majority?

Question

Might I remind you Ri that Dems do not have a majority. If the all the Dems vote aye and the Repubs vote nay, they do not have a majority vote of 2/3 do they?
In case of a tie, Dick Cheney would break it right? Sound like a majority????

Answer 1

nah, they are just idiots.


Why they hate Bush as much as Republicans once hated FDR.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

To protect democracy, three judges of the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have just canceled elections in California. The last horselaugh, I'd hope, for the Democratic charge that Republicans are subverting democracy. As we saw in this space last week, the charge was already a pretty silly explanation of the patent anger surging through the Democratic primaries.

The anger must have deeper, perhaps subconscious roots. So let me put the Democratic base on the couch and offer my own speculation. The party's most ardent adherents are angry because they feel they've lost their birthright.

That is to say, base Democrats think of themselves as the best people: the most intelligent and informed, the most public spirited, the most morally pure. This self-image has become more than a little shopworn over the years, and now George Bush's conservative Republicans threaten to strip it away. Inevitably such Democrats are angry.

Consider the purely political side: The Democratic Party held the House of Representatives for 40 years and the Senate and White House for most of an era reaching back to World War II. Today the Democrats' last toehold on political power is the ability to muster 40 votes to sustain a filibuster in the Senate--a not-so-democratic tactic it is using in unprecedented ways to sustain the judicial imperialism on display with the Democratic appointees on the Ninth Circuit.

The party's future bids further decline, despite the narrowness of the 2000 presidential election, and despite the Republican president's momentarily fading poll numbers. In the 2004 elections, the Senate races include 19 seats now held by Democrats and 15 held by Republicans. All but maybe two of the Republicans seem safe, while three Democratic incumbents have already announced their resignations. Of the 19 Democratic seats at stake, 10 are in "red" states carried by President Bush in 2000.

The midterm 2002 elections have been largely overlooked, further, but were a historical Republican success. Almost always an incumbent president's party suffers congressional losses in its first midterm elections, but the Republicans regained Senate control and added to their House majority. The nationwide House vote was 51% Republican and 46% Democratic. In state legislatures, Republicans gained 141 seats, winning a nationwide majority for the first time since 1952.

Looking at these results, Michael Barone speculates in the new edition of the Almanac of American Politics, "It may be that history will record the years 1995-2001, when there was parity between the two parties and when Clinton was re-elected and Al Gore came so close to being elected, as a Clinton detour within a longer period of Republican majority, something like the Eisenhower detour in majority-Democratic America." This is no sure thing, as Mr. Barone quickly notes. National security was a big Republican plus in 2002, and conceivably it could become a liability in 2004. But still, the specter of a generation in the wilderness haunts the Democratic primaries.





Beyond mere politics, the fading birthright becomes a matter of self-identity. It's possible, we've witnessed, to assert moral superiority while defending the Clinton perjury, sexual escapades, vanishing billing records and last-minute pardons. But politicians, pundits and intellectuals with this record shouldn't expect much moral deference from the rest of us. Indeed, inner doubts about their own moral position is one obvious path to anger.
Even without the Clinton problems, the Democratic Party has descended into a collection of interest groups not bound together by any ideals. So we see scions of inherited wealth berating the "rich," meaning those successful at earning their own money. We see supposed champions of civil rights standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent vouchers that might give a break to black children in the District of Columbia.

We see a highly qualified potential judge filibustered into withdrawal precisely because he's Hispanic, and therefore a threat in ethnic politics. We see that once a martyred president urged us to "share any burden," his brother now belittles the war that toppled Saddam Hussein throwing around reckless and irresponsible charges of "bribing" foreign leaders--his own personal past, by the way, having produced remarkably little reticence.

Yes, above all the war; the self-identity of the Democratic base is still wrapped up in Vietnam. In fact Vietnam started as a liberal, Democratic war, so turning against it had to be justified by assertions of a higher morality, especially among those with student deferments from the draft. The notion that military force was immoral, even that American power was immoral, was deeply imbedded in the psyche of Democratic activists everywhere.

Now comes George Bush asserting that American power will be used pre-emptively to avert terrorist attacks on America, to establish American values as universal values. This so profoundly challenges the activists' self-image that they can only lash out in anger. Not many of them actively hope the U.S. fails in Iraq, of course, but they are in a constant state of denial that it might succeed.

What's more, this challenge is brought to them by a born-again MBA from Midland, Texas. This is a further challenge to their image of the best people, secular Ivy-league intellectuals. And to twist the knife, President Bush actually comes from an aristocratic family and went to prep school, Yale and Harvard. He has rejected these values for those of Texas.





Current Democratic anger will likely in the fullness of time prove to be the rantings of an establishment in the process of being displaced. Come to think of it, they sound like nothing so much as the onetime ire of staid Republicans at Franklin D. Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class."
Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The

Answer 2

I don't think it was so much the Democrats WON this election than rather the Republicans LOST the election due to their inflated spending and utter lack of legislating with the conservative values and beliefs that they were elected on... As a Republican I was disappointed and very frustrated (still am!) that so many times the House and Senate Republicans would simply roll over and play dead on important issues when there was a disagreement with the Dems. We had the majority in BOTH houses and a Republican in the White House to top it off, why didn't these politicians just lay down the law, and tell the Dems that "hey we have the majority and the majority rules.." We know already this is what the Dems are doing to the Republicans and Congress just started on 1/4! They didn't fight for what was right and I truly think that is what cost them the election... though personally I voted Republican and am sad that in PA we lost Santorum and Hart to Democrats like Casey (what an IDIOT!)... I just pray that Santorum will run again for office or even President or VP, I would support that 100%!

Answer 3

Dems Dont Hate Bush Because They Beleave He
Is A Christian,
The Dems I Know Are Much Closer To Being
True Christians Then Bush Could Ever Dream To Be.
They Dislike Bush Because He Dont Stand For Anything
But Bush And His Cronies. (follow the dollors)
Also He Is The Furthest Thing From A Conservative
We Are "9 Trillion Dollars In Dept"! in the u.s.
Look It Up.
And He Thinks Nothing Of The Blood On His Hands In Iraq.
thats clear.
independent view.

Answer 4

all of the different solutions (ineffective rhetoric) aside, i think the events of the previous seven years and this administrations weird and wonderful handlings of those events has grew to grow to be human beings off the republican social gathering. Bush is a neocon and by no ability a real conservative, so there's a good danger that many will rapidly come lower back if a to blame conservative republican takes place of work. also, some would declare to be democrats, yet that could want to shift extremely lower back if issues do not turn round extremely rapidly (which they received't no be counted who's elected) with a democrat to blame. i imagine maximum individuals are extremely contained in the middle, yet our leaders have grow to be more effective polarized. That leads to rapidly shifting alliances.

Answer 5

#1 Democrats have a majority in the house and senate, by a greater margin then the Republicans did

#2 Christian Republican? is that a new term for lieing weasel??
I know a lot of christians, and I know democrats that are christians
But most of the christians that I know that are republicans would be insulted by your comment---maybe enough to become independents like me!

Answer 6

So if you are a democrat you aren't a Christian? I'd like to know when that happened. They hate Bush because:

1. He misled the country into going to Iraq.
2. He ignored reports of possible terrorists attacks before 9/11.
3. The Patriot Act.
4. He now thinkgs he is above the law and can open other people's mail.
5. He's not just a Republican, he's the rights' version of the far left.
6. And most of all he is who he is.

Answer 7

Firstly their are christians from all walks of life and all across the political spectrum.

Secondly, if GB is a fair dinkum christian then I'm the next King of England.

Answer 8

I hate Bush because he is a liar and a politician...basically two synonymous terms, I will admit. I am a very devout Christian. And I might remind you that the Democrats do have the House Majority.

Answer 9

they hate him because they are foolish