*******************
Why is it that the media has immediately attached the lame duck" epithet when referring to the new democratic congress? Am I naive to think that maybe now some real changes surrounding Iraq, especially, can take place?
Nov 13, 2006
Quack, quack, quack.
UPDATE 11/14: I totally misinterpreted that. Ignore this post. That's what I get for trying to post when tired.
*******************
Okay, this is starting to bug me.
Why is it that the media has immediately attached the lame duck" epithet when referring to the new democratic congress? Am I naive to think that maybe now some real changes surrounding Iraq, especially, can take place?
*******************
Why is it that the media has immediately attached the lame duck" epithet when referring to the new democratic congress? Am I naive to think that maybe now some real changes surrounding Iraq, especially, can take place?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I don't believe they're referring to the incoming Democratic Congress when they say "lame duck" (unless it's Faux News, they probably ARE referring to them that way).
The current Congress, the one that we'll have until January, is a lame duck one. And Bushie is definately a lame duck now, especially since all the crap he wanted to do the last two years and no shot in hell of getting done.
Oh, is that what they mean? If so, then yeah, whatever. I was starting to think I might have to smack a bitch.
Thanks for clarifying, Polt!
Post a Comment