I am not bound to any party. I consider myself a true independent and really don't like the current senators or Reps if they are Rebublicans or Democrats. I think that the coruption is in both parties and really feel that the two party system sucks bad. The whole way we do business concerning our elections needs to be revamped.
Having mentioned this, I now must make a stance for what I feel is in this country's best interests. Current control of our government is in this administrations hands. Our system of checks and balances has been thrown out of wack by this control. The addition of Alito may swing control even further out of wack.
In order to take back some control from this administration, it is imperative that the Democratic Party gets control of the Senate. I know there are plenty of hard line republicians out there that know Bush's decisions are wrong.
Please do the right thing and give us our checks and balances back by VOTING, this year, for ALL Democrats in the senate. Save this country from total control by this administration and vote whats in your heart as the right thing, and to hell with political affiliations!!

hahahaha

Sorry, but I laughed uncontrollably.

The American people voted for the Republicans in 2004, which is why the Republicans are in control!! The American people chose and that's what they got. If they are truly sick of the Republican control in Congress, then they will vote Democrat.

I think most people would want moderates instead of leftwing Democrats or rightwing Republicans.

I really don't care at all about who is in there I just was trying to appeal to the republicians that know Bush is wrong. Anything that will restore a balance I am for. Bush needs to be controlled and the next senatoral election is our next chance to stop him. I don't think that all those people that picked Bush and the Republicians feel the same now. Alot has changed and alot of lying has been exposed. If you vote for a senator just because he is a Republician than you are really pretty clueless anyway. Everyone should vote on the issue and in this case the issue is restoring the government to a balanced state, without bush being in control of everything.

I am totally serious about this. I'm glad you got a good laugh though.
None of us will be laughing if Bush is allowed to use our governmnet for his personal gain. Years from now you'll say I was right.

No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11...if he keeps this up, well then years from now we might look back at Bush as being like a Reagan who stood up to power hungry murdering dictators.

The future will tell.

What makes you think that this fact has anything to do with Bush's actions. There is no proof he is responsible for this. We are fighting in Iraq for what reason, why is it now, I forget? To give Bush the credit for this is just stupid. That is like me saying someday we may look back and say that the most Americans ever lost in terrorist attacks were under Bushs' command.
Let me put it another way, How many Al Quada have been caught in America because of Bush's great job? If You believe the hyped up threat then you can believe the protection given. I have seen no solid proof of a threat and have seen nothing in the way of proof that Bush is doing the right thing for this nation in his protecting us from harm. Being in Iraq is a mistake and is causeing more harm than good!!!

don't worry RHS lives in MA........ MA will always send Dems to the Senate

Good point good point.

Well considering when President's don't do anything about terrorism (take example the Clinton years), look at how many attacks we have had by terrorists. Now that Bush stood up to terrorism, we are close to 5 years without any attacks on US soil. See the comparison??

No, Clinton did things. He would order the occasional missile strike if you remember. Not to mention blowing up an asprin factory that as a result allegedly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. And the only significant attack on US soil under the Clinton administration was done by a domestic, far right-wing, Christian terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. Then you have to consider the abortion clinic bombings. The fact is, is that these domestic far right-wing organizations like the "Army of God" were far more dangerous to American security during the Clinton years than overseas Islamic extreamist organizations that Bush is labeling.

Its true that Clinton had little militaristic response to terrorism than Bush has. And now we see that it paid off much more than what Bush is doing. As a result of Bush's offensive doctrine, extreamism against the United States has grew significantly, recuriting unprecedented global terrorists into certain organizations like the al-Qaeda, isolating the United States from countries we're attempting to get along with, and decreasing our domestic security at major ports. The places where a nuclear warhead would enter the United States are virtually undefended, not to mention our Armed Forces are already streched to its limit and is currently unable to respond appropriatly to a domestic disaster like a major terrorist attack, as demonstrated by the Katrina Hurricane incedent.

Countries at the table talking with the United States are now more isolated from the United States, as any remaining trust has been eliminated. North Korea is now more set on keeping its nuclear warhead program in fear of United States invasion. They don't build their nukes to "terrorize" or to be "evil", but rather because they're half scared to death that the United States will attempt to invade and engulf the entire Korean peninsula in merciless war. Whether or not these are the Bush administration's true intentions is redundant to be argued, because that's the point that was taken across the entire world and now many countries are more willing to support enemies of the United States than ever before.

Central and South American countries are moving radically to the left in anti-American alliances. Hugo Chavez mobilizes his country and purchases Russian weaponry for what he believes the upcoming American Imperial conquest into Venezuela.

Many countries and factions are adding to the list of anti-Americanism, and already existing ones are growing significantly due to Bush's aggressive stance on other countries. Even our own federal agencies admit that groups like al-Qaeda have grown significantly due to Bush and his neoconservative doctrines. Failure to recognize this is a grave danger to our security and I think you'll see that second significant terrorist attack pretty soon as a result. The arguement that Bush has done more than Clinton to keep terrorism down is a rediculous statement. You say that there has been no terrorist attacks after 9/11, but you're so quick to forget 9/11. The September 11 attacks, the largest terrorist attack in the history of this country, happened under the Bush administration and not the Clinton administration. According to the government's theory, they were committed by radical Islamist terrorists. However, they were permitted to happen due to the Bush administration's incompetency and failure to heed warnings of the attack seriously. You're so quick to forget this.

The fact is, is that we're more prone to terrorist attack than before 9/11. And I think the reason why you haven't seen another is because of a number of different reasons. One, some would argue is because the whole "war of terror" is a fabrication by the government so that it can be used as justification to wars of colonialism. But I think its because significant terror attacks on the United States takes time a preparation. According to the government's issued conspiracy theory, the 9/11 attacks took well over 5 years of planning and conspiring. So I think some people have their crosshairs on the United States, and are planning their attacks; but as a result of the aggressive Bush doctrine. And thanks to Bush's failure to jump in action right after 9/11, and failure to commit enough troops and enitiative in the hunt, Osama Bin Laden still is presumed to be roaming around and is available for new business in a second attack on the United States.

Bush's strategy against a so-called global terrorist threat is a very bad one. He considers himself a war president, when ironically he has been proven to be one of the worst war presidents in United States history. He sucks at his own game.

I would agree with you that he isn't too good of a war President, but I think Clinton was the one who dropped the ball when he refused to kill Osama Bin Laden and many of his leaders. Dick Morris (D), Clinton's chief advisor, suggested many times Osama Bin Laden should be taken down, with hard evidence of where he is, and every single time Clinton ignored his requests. This is a very interesting book that I would recommend many people read:

Well you have to remember what I said earlier about the true terrorist threats during the Clinton administration. Which were the domestic far right-wing terrorists like Timothy Mcveigh and others like "Army of God". The clear threat of al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden-orchrestrated massive terror attacks didn't really become realistic until the USS Cole bombing in 2000. And then Clinton did start to focus on actually coming up with a plan to covertly take out Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda. In fact he drew up a plan but the election was coming and he didn't want initiate the operation and have it be in the middle of it during the election and when a new president was coming into the office. So instead he handed the plan to Bush and Clinton's people recremended Bush carry out with the elimination of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership. Apparently Bush and his gang didn't see Osama as a clear threat and never followed through with the plan. Essentially it was sitting on his desk along with the warnings of the 9/11 attack until the attacks actually happened. I guess Bush was too busy cutting trees and hunting on his month long vacation to pay attention to any of that 'politics stuff.'

I haven't read the book. And I might look into it after I'm finished with the some 5 or 6 books I'm in the middle of right now .