Did I imply that the best government is the least government? :D

<font color="#00ccff">So instead they (the Dems) publicize the republicans wanting to hurt old people and scare the voters. They attempt to frighten them away from the republicans...your saying this tactic didn't work?</font> :D </font>[/QUOTE]All politicians try to frighten voters away from the other guy, no? It's just that "I did X, Y, and Z good things" is possibly the absolute best platform. And, stalling some bills took it away. Take note over the coming days and weeks. I bet you'll see some legislation we've been expecting for a while suddenly pop up.

As for much not getting done, I'd be quite happy if the 108th Congress would just hold off for about a year so we can catch or breath and let the economy stabalize. Fat chance that, of course. No, we must have our pork barrels now, mustn't we?

<font color="#00ccff">I don't know, we might see focus on the war first, and the economic stimulas packages that were stonewalled shake loose first. </font>

I wouldn't watch that Aaron Sorkin, what-Clinton-should-have-been liberal dream if you tied me to a chair in front of a blaring TV set. I'd close my eyes and holler "lalalalala' until it was over. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Historical Point.

Only 3 times in the last century have the presidency, House, and Senate been controlled by the same party.

The last time a first term Republican president had his party gain control of both the House and the Senate was exactly 100 years ago, in 1902, under Teddy Roosevelt.

I guess that gets an asterisk though. Roosevelt wasn't elected to the presidency in 1900, William McKinley was and Roosevelt was his VP. McKinley was assasinated in 1901.

How does this pertain to the debate here? It doesn't, I just thought it was interesting. :D

I wouldn't watch that Aaron Sorkin, what-Clinton-should-have-been liberal dream if you tied me to a chair in front of a blaring TV set. I'd close my eyes and holler "lalalalala' until it was over. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Quite funny. There's no doubt it's a "liberal dream", but I think it provides accurate fiction regarding political manuevering, which is what I was referring to. As an aside, what on TV isn't a "liberal dream" these days - last time I checked the majority of the folks in that industry are quite liberal. And it shows obviously in their work.

Not that *I* mind. :D

<font color="#00ccff">I think Buffy or Smallville is on in that timeframe so I don't have to depend on the Left Wing West Wing for entertainment ;) </font>

LOL, my friend Dennis calls it "Left Wing." You and he are birds of a feather, though he thinks I am too liberal, and got into an argument with <font color=lavender>Galadria</font> about assault weapons, calling her a "soccer mom."
She can't stand him. :D

Grrrr.......... some of us haven't gotten around to getting cable since we've moved. Grumble grumble.

<font color="#00ccff">Well I hope Galadria doesnt think ill of me for not agreeing with "assault Weapons" laws. But my argument there is due to the liberal inability to actually determine what is actuallly an assault weapon. IE. A young girl in California could not own her .22 Olympic Match pistol since under California law it is classified as an assault weapon. The states response to her on the issue was "If you want to participate in the Olympics you will have to move to another state." I was really torqued by that.</font>