Screenshots

i think a better title would be "Americans admit president is a lame duck"

it's now 204 in house of representatives, and 48 in senate for Democrats

So which one will be more effective? Democrats?

At least the American citizens are not as dumb as George Bush - wonder how a retard like him made it to the Presidency?

Posted by: bnaipal November 8, 2006 02:30 PM

basically the Americans thought he would be like his father.

this is what happens when you get "daddy's" friends to decide whether you get to be president.

Aiseh, just when PM AAB gets to be friendly with Bush now he's on way out.

Will Malaysian or UMNO assembly voters shows their angry in the coming election???

A lot of promises YET TO BE FULFILL!! We are watching...

Whether or not George Bush becomes a lame duck president still remains to be seen . He himself must after all choose to be so .

Expect a lot of subpoenas, investigations and oversight committees with the Democrat's win in this election. Now we will see Bush hot under the collar coz many eagle eyes will be trained against him and.. oh yes, his "veto pen" will be put to use more regularly. Of course, this is just my prediction. Anything can happen with a Prez who will have to admit he's a lame duck of epic proportions -

"Hey Dad! I'm a bigger lame duck prez than you are!"

Pity the poor guy.He failed to read the writings on the wall and now suffers the consequences.

It's all downhill for the Republicans from now on. Will he be in a reconciliatory mood during his first press conference after the election or will he accuse Americans foe being stupid not to vote for his party? Let's see...

Downhill? Probably in the short term.

I doubt Bush or the GOP will start frothing at the mouth and denouncing the voters the way you people, the BBC or the Dems did when they lost in 2000 and 2004. You can already see the gloating on House Leader Pelosi’s face though.

Overall it might actually work out better for the Republicans. The results just goes to show what happens when you get “red-in-name-only” people like Chaffee or Santorum and flip the bird to your conservative base who voted you in.
Also, now the Dems will finally come to the sickening realization that they just can’t make pot-shots about Iraq at Bush anymore, because they’ll actually have to do *something*.

The main reason why the Dems won this time round was that they were smart enough to actually field centrist candidates rather than the likes of Mr. “Yeeeearrrggghhh”.

Mr Yeaaarrrgghh did name his plane Pearl Jam 1 and Pearl Jam 2 during the primaries in 04 so I'll forgive him for that. :P

Personally I feel that the very nature of the 2-party American political system (centrist, small ideological difference) entails that actual difference in policies (especially foreign policies) will be minor.

It's simply the hatred for this one-off stupid donkey Bush, and the overall disgust I have for the more extreme members of the GOP (have u seen some of the election tv ads?) that I'm genuinely happy at the result.

While I am no fan of George Bush, he at least exhibited leadership qualities, ie. he did something. Whether right or wrong, only history will tell. Churchill was never a popular PM but he was the right choice at the time when the UK needed him, even if the general populace disliked him.

Had Al Gore been the sitting President on 9/11, there would probably have been no response by the US in view of the Dems appeasement policies. And if John Kerry had won in 2004, he might still be wondering if he voted for the war or against it.

While Clinton tried to be a popular President, he was distracted by Ms Lewinsky and his lack of resolve is probably what emboldened certain quarters to plan an attack on the US itself.

All this leads to our Malaysian environment. Our PM's elegant silence is akin to the Democrat party stance in the US. Appease, avoid confrontation, bend over backwards, etc.

In the end, the rakyat are getting screwed, but unlike the US we do not have a 2-party system as mentioned by Vedderian, so we only have Hobson's Choice.

I suppose there will be pressure on Bush to start withdrawing from Iraq - this might not be the best result for the Iraqi people. And will this embolden the anti-US types to launch another attack?

And if you are an illegal immigrant in the US, things might look better to get a driving licence (even if you are in the country illegally !!!).

The Republicans are no saints, probably more like gangsters, even. Not much different from the Malaysian political scene.

The Democrats like to appease their base (because they give them lots of money eg. Soros) so look forward to more radical goings on in the coming attractions.

"The Republicans are no saints, probably more like gangsters, even. Not much different from the Malaysian political scene."

I thought this is one of the leadership qualities that you mentioned? :p

For someone who went to war for no reason, turned the country into the world's leading debt nation, don't have a good command of English, trying to occupy another country for no reason lagi sekali, who buat dono to Abu Ghaib (can't pronounce this as well), and so many other leadership qualities that I don't really wanna think of.

But last I checked, leadership qualities does not count "did something" lah. Those things above, maybe.

Trashed,

I would like to correct you on some points if I may.

To imply that Bush has stronger leadership qualities than Clinton or Kerry is ludicrous.

There's a myth propagated by the Republicans that Clinton and the Democrats were responsible for 9/11, and u seem to have bought into that. I suggest you watch CLinton's recent interview on the good old Fox News in full, to watch his explanation of how he did many things to go after Al Qaeda. And while you're at it, watch an example of how to speak properly as a President.

This lie that Clinton is somehow to be held responsible is tied in to the bigger lie that the Republicans have been trying to sell: That the Dems are weak on security; and that surrenduring power to anybody but the Republicans would be putting America and the world at risk. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support this idea. Therefore, your wild assumption that Gore would have done less than reading a book to kindergarten children while the planes hit the towers, falls.

You mention that history will show if the war on Iraq was right. Again, this is a classic Republican rhetoric. Look at FACTS:

1) A war that was not sanctioned by the UN; an unprovoked war that violated the sovereignty of a nation that had not attacked anyone. Refer to UN Charter to find out the agreed principles of international relations/conflict.

2)655 000 Iraqis dead.

3)A very very deadly civil unrest on the verge of a full blown civil war between 3 factions.

4)A hotbed for terrorism when before it was not.

5)Increased anger on the part of Muslims; pushing many moderates towards extremism

6)More propaganda for Al-Qaeda

What history are u speaking of here? No amount of improvement can ever justify losses such as 655 000 lives. Did the evil Saddam kill that many? Yet he is going to the gallows and u are praising Bush for being a hard, tough leader.

Democrats are equally tough with resolve. The difference is theyre more committed to peaceful means of settlement. Look at Clinton and the Camp David talks. Granted, it went nowhere, but the most important thing is that he tried. What has Bush ever done for the Middle East?

This cowboy gangster method promotes only hate and more bloodshed. It's plain arrogance on the Republican's part to think that their way will resolve anything.

Churchill ruled at a different times under totally different circumstances. Dont fall to another of the Republican's tactic of selling fear; that somehow the world is at war and its problems today with terrorism can be dealt with by using old school military muscle.

And how u tie Pak Lah to all of this is of great wonder to me. There's so much prejudice here at times.

Sorry, forgot to post the link for the Clinton interview

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9NjMKFVoVLk