Republicans have control

[Guest cynicalprofit]

I dont think its a good thing, lets hear your opinions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/....day/index.html

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I'm shocked. With a poor economy, the GOP GAINED seats in both houses. Being a registered Republican, I feel this is great. Now we don't have to be held hostage by Dasch-HOLE when it comes to filling judical vacancies.

 

Being an eternal cynic, these wins mean that the GOP will screw up BIG TIME in the next 2 years and lose everything in '04...

[Guest ant_7000]

Not a good thing.

[Guest Mad Dog]

The Senate was the Democrats to lose and they lost it big time.

 

The Democrats needed this bad to gain some kind of momentum. But it looks like they'll be tossed into further turmoil.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I think this election gives Gore the go-ahead to run again in '04...

[Guest bob_barron]

WOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Who is the Majority Leader now?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Woah... I just heard the SD race has a 166 vote differential with the Rep. in the lead...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

People aren't buying that Dems are the party when the economy is weak.

 

What's going to change? Some judicial appointees(Pickering received approval from the NAACP, and the Democrat Attorney General) will be confirmed, a Homeland Security Bill passed, and the death tax repealed past 10 years. Maybe more widespread tax cuts.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"What's going to change? Some judicial appointees"

 

AGREED. I hope they appoint at least two supreme court justices before Bush is up for re-election.

 

I kinda feel bad that Cleland lost in GA because he seemed to be a Dem. I wouldn't mind representing me, but it had to be done...

[Guest DrTom]

Daschle should just shut up before he puts his foot any farther into his mouth. He whined about the Republicans having control of both houses, saying it would be more "fair" if they only had one. Well, jackass, 1) that was the will of the voters, and who the fuck are you to speak against it?, and 2) he didn't complain when the Democrats were in control. I'm certainly not a fan of the Dems, but I really despise Daschle.

 

The Republicans did a good job when they won Congress in 1994. I was hoping they'd get a few more measures passed... like the "English rule" on frivolous lawsuits (requiring the plaintiff to pay the legal fees for both parties if he loses a suit deemed frivolous), and the 3/5 "super-majority" vote being needed to raise taxes.

[Guest Some Guy]

WOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Who is the Majority Leader now?

Trent Lott I think.

 

I'm happy with how this turned out, it gives the Pres enough votes to get thigns through, but so many that he can get away with murder. This looks like a good balance to me.

[Guest bob_barron]

Trent Lott- cool, I like him.

 

Do you think having control of Congress will help or hurt President Bush's chances of reelection

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Do you think having control of Congress will help or hurt President Bush's chances of reelection"

 

We'll find out in 2 years...

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm going to remain optimistic. At least with a homogenous Congress and White House, we'll get laws passed with little trouble, presidential nominees confirmed in a speedy manner, and no need for bargaining to get things done...

 

(an aide whispers something into his ear as he gets a look of dread on his face)

 

Um, the Republicans now own the country? Aw crap.

 

Here's how to REALLY be optimistic about it. A lot of conservative measures are going to be passed in the next two years, appeals court judges confirmed (I think something like 10 of the 12 will have new members by 2004), and whatever else is on the Republican agenda will go through as smooth as silk. Why is this good? Because it speeds up the country's want for change and a new party in charge. It was almost assured that we'd get a Democratic president in 2008, but with last night's developments, they could have the White House back in 2004 now. No matter how good of a job the Republicans do or don't do, Americans will want something new if they "accomplish" too much in the next two years. If they were smart, they'd find a way to gently nudge some of the Supreme Court Justices into retirement so they could install their own nominees and guarantee a long-term effect for their works.

 

About Daschle, I agree that the losing side shouldn't really whine about losing, but both sides had their armies of lawyers ready to fight any sort of voting hijinks that may have gone down. Fortunately, they weren't needed as far as I know. If I were the DNC, I'd just regroup, address what worked and what didn't work, and come back to kick ass in two years. Then again, you don't expect the team that lost the Super Bowl to be in a good mood the next morning. Still, it's kinda stupid to complain about something the voters did, since they put him in his seat.

 

Kotzenjunge

Vote Democrat in 2004!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, just as long as the Conservatives don't own anything and everything.

 

 

Remember the uptight world of the 50s, anyone? :S

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Hey now, the Conservatism = 1950s America is MY trademark!! Back off!

 

Kotzenjunge

Going Outside to Play Catch With Ward and the Beav

[Guest Brian]

He doesn't have a scapegoat as much now when things do/don't happen. Nedia will be able to blame him and/or the Republican party more, at least the way I see things.

[Guest NoCalMike]

yah now the GOP can move forward on the issues they think are most important........like Roe V. Wade, hehehe just kidding.

 

I think it sucks that the voting turnout was probobaly the lowest in history. I mean Governors were winning races in some states without even one million votes, I mean what the hell!?! Gray Davis won with 3 million + votes, shit there are more people in Los Angeles than 3 million. I think this just shows how just about EVERY group of people has given up that the current government bodies and/or system can reallly accomplish anything.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Big deal -- they would have voted for the Democrat anyway...

[Guest Some Guy]

Actually voter turnout was pretty good nationwide.

California had two horrible candidates thats why S. Dakota had more people vote than them.

[cawthon777 0]

I friggin' love this. It's pretty clear that the Dems just did not have a suitable alternative to Bush or the Republican's policies. They are clearly NOT for backing the "underdog" as Daschle likes to say so often (using Hollywood as a spokesperson and being by far the most financially backed party proves that).

 

I think things are going to be very interesting in the near future. I don't believe the Republicans are going to screw this up; they were successful in 94 and that was with a Democratic President in office.

 

And if Gore even THINKS he has a chance in '04 ... well, good luck but what are you going to do when you get creamed in the primaries? The Clinton / Gore factor in this election only hurt the Dems running for office.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Actually, I think Gore has a better shot at getting the Dem. nomination in '04. After all, the Dems got bitch-slapped by the GOP this year. Gore at least won the popular vote, and if wasn't for a few far-sighted Jews and illiterate immigrants, he probably would have won Florida...

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I friggin' love this. It's pretty clear that the Dems just did not have a suitable alternative to Bush or the Republican's policies. They are clearly NOT for backing the "underdog" as Daschle likes to say so often (using Hollywood as a spokesperson and being by far the most financially backed party proves that).

 

I think things are going to be very interesting in the near future. I don't believe the Republicans are going to screw this up; they were successful in 94 and that was with a Democratic President in office.

 

And if Gore even THINKS he has a chance in '04 ... well, good luck but what are you going to do when you get creamed in the primaries? The Clinton / Gore factor in this election only hurt the Dems running for office.

I'll gladly admit that there was no way the Democrats would win this year. It's hard to campaign AGAINST tax cuts. I would like to know the last time that the Democrats used some sort of celebrity to speak for them, which does not mean some actor going off on his own and doing it.

 

I would consider anything that doesn't result in another government shutdown a success. Of course, success is really a subjective term in the world of politics and usually means something more like "The side I like got to do a lot that it wanted to" than actual success.

 

Gore has a tremendous chance in 2004 now, as he's the only Democrat left who really has any name value, and is known by half of the country as the man that won, by the other half as the man who almost won. I can't think of anyone who could challenge him and be successful for the nomination either. It's his to lose.

 

Kotzenjunge

Here's To A Popular AND Electoral Victory in 2004

[Guest cabbageboy]

This election doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Mark my words, Bush and company will start such a run of terror that by 2004 people will be lined up outside the firehouses waiting to vote them out.

 

I heard on CNN that the Demos are thinking of having HILLARY run in 2004....oh dear god. Bush is the 2nd biggest lame duck in history (John Quincy Adams being the biggest) and if the Democrats run anyone halfway decent they should eat him for lunch in 04. But Hillary? She'd have no chance in hell. Didn't Geraldine Ferraro teach them anything? Add to it the whole Clinton connection and it's a recipe to get about 50 electoral votes total.

 

If Gore runs again, he beats Bush's ass. Christ, even if it's the same exact election he'd win it the next time, provided Jeb doesn't pull any of his tricks again down in FL (and with huge scrutiny I don't see how rigging ballots will happen again).

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

This election doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Mark my words, Bush and company will start such a run of terror that by 2004 people will be lined up outside the firehouses waiting to vote them out.

 

I heard on CNN that the Demos are thinking of having HILLARY run in 2004....oh dear god. Bush is the 2nd biggest lame duck in history (John Quincy Adams being the biggest) and if the Democrats run anyone halfway decent they should eat him for lunch in 04. But Hillary? She'd have no chance in hell. Didn't Geraldine Ferraro teach them anything? Add to it the whole Clinton connection and it's a recipe to get about 50 electoral votes total.

 

If Gore runs again, he beats Bush's ass. Christ, even if it's the same exact election he'd win it the next time, provided Jeb doesn't pull any of his tricks again down in FL (and with huge scrutiny I don't see how rigging ballots will happen again).

Before I say anything else... THE BALLOTS WERE NOT RIGGED. The election was lost for Gore because the nation was not willing to sit through a total recount and because the Supreme Court blocked further recounts in Florida.

 

Now, I agree with the want for change come 2004, but Hillary won't be allowed to run if the DNC wants any modicium of success. Gore is the man to run again, he's learned from his mistakes, is more human now, and I would be willing to bet that he will win in 2004 as long as he can match funds with Bush, who proved this year that he is a big-money draw, to use some wrestling terminology.

 

However, Bush is NOT a lame-duck president. It lacked focus and the support of the electorate initially, but there are now two solid issues that it can focus and gather support on (Homeland Security and Economic Recovery) and it is far from being a lame duck administration. JQA's administration was lame because of the rightful victory of Jackson, but Adams didn't have any sort of issue to run with in order to appear to have some purpose other than cripple Jackson's base of power with the destablilizing Tariff of Abominations.

 

And Ferraro was the vice-presidential candidate, so she can't be blamed for any sort of loss, especially considering that no one short of Jesus could beat Reagan in 1984. He was too likeable.

 

Fo sheez,

Kotzenjunge

[cawthon777 0]

This election doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Mark my words, Bush and company will start such a run of terror that by 2004 people will be lined up outside the firehouses waiting to vote them out.

 

I heard on CNN that the Demos are thinking of having HILLARY run in 2004....oh dear god. Bush is the 2nd biggest lame duck in history (John Quincy Adams being the biggest) and if the Democrats run anyone halfway decent they should eat him for lunch in 04. But Hillary? She'd have no chance in hell. Didn't Geraldine Ferraro teach them anything? Add to it the whole Clinton connection and it's a recipe to get about 50 electoral votes total.

 

If Gore runs again, he beats Bush's ass. Christ, even if it's the same exact election he'd win it the next time, provided Jeb doesn't pull any of his tricks again down in FL (and with huge scrutiny I don't see how rigging ballots will happen again).

I don't see how Bush can be catagorized as a lame-duck president. He's beaten the odds with every obstacle put in front of him thus far. He was visible and strong when the country needed to see him during and following 9/11; I may be the least bit biased but I believe Gore would have acted much differently and much more wishy-washy with what to do following the attack (of course this is all speculation on my part, I just don't see Gore as being militarily-strong especially since Clinton/Gore closed many military bases and limited the overall ability of U.S. forces during their 8 years).

 

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't think Bush was going to be a strong president following the 2000 election. I would rather have seen McCain vs. Gore instead of Bush, however since then he's won me over.

 

The only reason I would not vote for Bush in 2004 was if McCain or Guiliani ran, which I don't see happening right now.

[Guest Some Guy]

How the hell is a President with a sustained 70%+ approval rating a lame duck? Clinton never got over 67% and got a smaller % of the vote both times he ran (and won), was Clinton a lame duck as well? JFK barely won/stole the election in 1960, was he a lame duck?

Jimmy Carter was a lame duck by the end of his term, LBJ was a lame duck by the end of his, George W. Bush is not a lame duck by any stretch of the imagination.

Bush is being credited with the GOP take over of the Senate (which they never rightfully lost in the first place), would a lame duck be able to "get out the vote" for so many candidates? Would a lame duck be able to help GOP members beat long time Dem incumbants?

I highly doubt it.

 

"If Gore runs again, he beats Bush's ass."

How so? Bush is carrying 70% of the people with him, Gore had 50% in 2000 and he is far less popular now.

I think you need to wake, look around, and see what the current political landscape of the country is right now. The people want tax cuts, they want straight talk, they want terrorists killed and those are 3 things that the GOP gives them and the "Clintonized" Democratic Party does not.

It's really that simple, wishy-washy lost, firm and resolute won.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Lame duck?

 

He passed a bloated education plan that had him and Ted Kennedy holding hands (blech). I may not have agreed with it, but it was something he said he would do.

 

He skirted a possibly heated stem-cell research issue.

 

He got his tax cut plan passed.

 

He shined during 9/11.

 

He would have had other initiatives passed (Homeland security, for one) if not for a certain Dasch-HOLE in the Senate. (BTW: What happened to the lack of judges being appointed that was all but a CRISIS years ago during the Clinton era. What happened? Did the Judge Fairy suddenly fill all those vacancies?)

 

He helped the GOP win Congress.

 

Quack Quack...

[Guest Syxx]

Reps win....Another good reason to stay in Canada. Where left is always best.

[Guest Some Guy]

Refrains from taking a cheap shot at Canada's shitty economy and blaiming it on leftist politics. Oh wait I guess I didn't afterall.