Drudge Headline
 

The headline of the drudgereport right now is "Here Come the Democrats!"

The drudgereport must be a real right-wing republican website to have a headline like that. LOL.

It is.
Let's all welcome our new speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi.

LOL....YAHOOO!!!!!!!!!

where's the puking smiley??

how is speaker decided anyway?

yeah a puking smiley would be nice. she grates on me, i can't stand to listen to her.

there is a vote amongst democrats to decide speaker. in this case since she is the current minority leader she'll probably have no trouble at all getting the necessary support. it's probably a foregone conclusion. if there was some controversy surrounding her or discension in the ranks there could be serious challenges, but that doesn't seem to be the case

There's an outside chance that Repent knocks her off,and then somebody else will get it.

what a night!

i suppose you can only skate by for so many years by making people scared that if you let gays marry, then people will marry their dogs -- that if we don't bomb every country we don't like, that they will bomb us -- and that abortion is the plague of this society.

people woke up and realized that other things matter, like wages and getting by day to day, and being uncorrupt.

hm. what. a. freaking. night.
couldn't have enjoyed it any more!

Regardless of the national races, here's what heartened me most:

South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.

Since the religious fundamentalists in this nation seem to be losing their touch at the ballot box maybe we can actually start focusing on, oh, Iraq, the economy, our energy policy, health care... stuff like that...

Good on ya, SD, AZ and MO! (Okay, Arizona is still pending, but I'm hopeful. And poop on WI, for approving it!) And a special shout out to Texas Congressional District number 22, for putting a Democrat in the seat formerly held be Tom DeLay, that bastion of Congressional ethics. Sorry about Kinky.

Though I'm pretty okay with the elephants hanging onto the New York State legislature. As I've said, I am a fan of divided government.

Pelosi annoys me, too. I think she's a wimp. But I'll take her over Hastert! ;)

Yep,

As I watch my stocks fall. Yep what a night!

But was "Here Come the Democrats" meant as a good thing? Tee hee. Now, if the headline had read, "Here Come the Democrats-- Awesome!" I'd see your point. ;) In all fairness, though, I read the article linked to the headline and it seemed very much just the facts; I didn't see a right-wing bias at all.

Here, C@C, this'll make you feel better. :) Now you just have to hope for Pres. Clinton or Obama in '08!

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/mark...ion_demsvreps/

i agree. i've been following the SD Ban for some time and am thrilled that it got voted down. The AZ bill should pass, the numbers are certainly looking like the last 6% of reporting precincts won't change the outcome.

i was telling a friend earlier today, that i cannot speak for the western portion of middle america -- the dakotas, iowa, colorado, kansas etc -- but i've lived on both coasts and in the midwest. in those places, by and large, we just want you to keep your nose out of our business.

i have no problem with people who are disgusted by abortion and who are anti-abortion, but i DO have a problem when they tell other people how they have to approach the biggest decision of their life.

but the religious right is clinging to what they have in SD -- on another message board I was informed that they approved a marriage ban, they increased cigarette taxes and voted to outlaw marijauna (which if i am not mistaken is not "news" at all!). i guess the religious right now is learning what "little victories" mean :)

i'm religious, but i'm not conservative. i consider myself a very serious Christian, but not a fearmongerer -- and i fancy myself very in touch with reality. arizona is huge news. one state gets the ball rolling.

essentially, this was the iraq/mind your own business election.

****ing great.

And a more in-depth article on the economy and which party is in the White House:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006282.php

I do think there's a lot of middle meeting ground in the abortion debate, but both sides will have to agree to meet, and I think it will take people really willing to have a long look at themselves and asking themselves what it is they're opposed to? Abortion? Or sex? It seems to me, if one is truly opposed to abortion, and wants to see the number of abortions decline, purely on the basis that life is sacred, then one should be pushing like crazy for comprehensive sex ed and availability of contraceptives, in order to cut down on unintended pregnancies. (Europeans have about the same rate of teen sex as America, but far fewer teen pregnancies and I think it's because Europe is more realistic about horny teenagers and makes sex ed and contraceptives available to them). If one is opposed to sex, then abortion is opposed, along with sex ed and contraception, because pregnancy then can be used as a punishment ("Have sex and get pregnant and ruin your life with an unwanted child!"). Which doesn't seem very pro-life to me, but then I don't think pre-marital sex is a mortal sin. And I don't think pregnancy should be a fear tactic; it should always be a cause for celebration. If the anti-abortionists, who are truly against abortion for it's own sake and the pro-choicers (most of whom, let's face it, are very pro-contraception) could agree to work together to push sex-ed and contraception use, the number of unintended pregnancies would fall, as would the number of abortions and then everyone can be happy, (except the fundamentalists who are mad because other people are getting laid).

I did have to give props to South Dakota in that at least their proposed ban was consistent with a true anti-abortion stance-- one can't say a child conceived because an intruder broke into a house, tied up the husband and raped the wife is any less innocent than a child conceived because a 15-year-old didn't know how to put a condom on properly-- though I think it was that consistency that was its undoing with the voters. Life is a big grey area, and while we like to talk in stark terms of black and white, when confronted with the possibility of stark consequences, most people tend to be more reasonable, I think.

I read a really good book, "When Abortion Was a Crime," looking at the roughly 100 years in the country when it was illegal (1867-1970, give or take) and the fact that stuck out the most to me was that even at the height of abortion's illegality, there were estimated to be 500,000 abortions a year-- to put that in perspective, compared to the population then and now, the abortion rate (most of which were illegally done- this is pulling from accounts and police records) was EIGHT times higher then, in the midst of Victorian morality and illegality. Women had, per capita, more abortions then than they do now, when it's legal (somewhat). Outlawing it again won't end it. Preventing pregnancy, however, could reduce it to safe, legal and rare, which would be a very, very good thing for all sides, don't you think? I do, anyway.

that is the single most fascinating piece of information that has been shared with me in months. it really is. thanks.

in what way? if you don't want to have an abortion, then don't get one. simple as that.

sound scientific study generally refutes many of the ideas that the anti-abortion team purports to be true, ie items about fetuses feeling pain etc etc. Their only argument is that life begins at conception -- and since we cannot PROVE that, then keep your hands off it. If they could prove that, then they wouldn't have to lie about things like the pain issue.

So what am I missing?

But we can all agree condoms are a good thing, from a contraceptive and disease prevention standpoint, yes? :) Wrap your meat so it stays fresh! :) :)