<font color=orange>OK! I'll start it. Then come back at lunch. The Republicans kicked some serious BUTT last night in the elections! Can this be a thumbs up for George Bush's policies? LET'S KEEP IT NICE PEOPLE!</FONT>

[ 11-06-2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

*Waves small flag*

Yay..............ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... .........

Politics to me is about the same as a fun filled night of fasting.

[ 11-06-2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mellagar ]

It's a huge thumbs up for W. A sitting president's party gaining seats in the Senate during a mid term election really is huge.

An interesting sidenote is that the GOP took the state house, senate, and governor's mansion in SC. That's the first time the Republicans have done that since the post Civil War Reconstruction era.

Yep, I'll be nice. Republicans captured control of Congress last night, regaining power in the Senate and expanded their majority in the House as GOP candidates rode the slipstream of President Bush's popularity and turned a competitive midterm campaign into an election that defied the odds of history.

The last piece in the battle for control of Congress fell into place shortly before 2 a.m. today when Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) telephoned former representative Jim Talent (R) and conceded defeat. Talent's victory secured GOP control in the Senate, an outcome that had appeared almost out of reach to party leaders only a day earlier and that left Democrats dispirited and looking for scapegoats.

In an era in which presidents are not supposed to have coattails, particularly in their first midterm election, Bush provided the energy and message that produced a surge of Republican votes in crucial battlegrounds. The GOP held all but one of their endangered seats and defeated at least two Democratic incumbents.
That's from the Washington Post. Look out, Saddam. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I just hope that there remains enough opposition to the Republicans so that there will be proper debate and discourse. I think there should be. I love this country.

<font color="#00ccff">Wow, I had no Idea they would take the Senate back, I'll be darned. I know that Maryland for the first time in 40 years has a republican Governor and that the Republican Senator lost to the Democrat. None of the Libertarians won the offices that they were running for *sigh*

Well if after the legal challenges (and you know there will have to be some) it turns out that the Republicans do have control of botht he House and senate, then they get the chance to prove or disprove the Anti-Bush leagues fears. Personally I think we will only see modest if any changes.</font>

<font color="#00ccff">Discourse yes, but apparently the US voting populace has voted for change. It seems that the majority didn't like the previous arrangements and have decided to try something new.

Edit: Apparently this gaining of seats in an off election year, is rare and hasn't happened in quite some time.</font>

[ 11-06-2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

In the Senate there are 50 Republicans, 46 Democrates, 1 Independant, and 3 still to be decided(At the last count I saw anyway).

It's not like the Republican wins have ruined the system and leave them supreme. They just took the majority by a slim margin.

In the Senate there are 50 Republicans, 46 Democrates, 1 Independant, and 3 still to be decided(At the last count I saw anyway).

It's not like the Republican wins have ruined the system and leave them supreme. They just took the majority by a slim margin.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">True, but historical trends show that they should have lost seats, not gained, so it is a big win none the less [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh and b the way, thismeans that a LOT of judicial seats will ow be filled since the Democrats were holding them all up. Which means cases can be heard and trials resolved. </font>

Look, I'm of the opinion that one party should not hold such all-around majorities. I'll point out that at this historical moment, all 3 branches of government belong, ever so slightly, to the GOP. That's simply scary. I like the balance of a Congress that is of the party opposite the President.

A lot of you GOP supporters, I might note, don't like the idea of "pass new laws" and instead support "enforce old ones." Well, get ready to see craploads of new legislation getting passed. I, for one, do not like that, no matter what party is in power.

In Illinois, by the way, we had a flip-flop to Democrats, with even Lisa "I never set foot in a trial courtroom" Madagan winning Attorney General. For the first time in 30 yrs, we've got a Democratic Governor. The unfortunate loser in the Governor, Jim Ryan, was very gracious, composed, and reflective, especially after a rather bitter race. Like Mr. Gore, I think he would have stood a better chance had he shown this other side of himself before the night he lost. As one last note I'm sure no one on this board will find very relevant, I must say that political campaigns in Illinois are amazingly dirty. But, I've also seen evidence that races all around the country got pretty muddy.

That is a bit of a half truth Magik, shame on you. More seats have been filled in the last two years then any two year period when the republicans controlled congress under Clinton. It is pretty disingenuous to state that democrats have been blockading Bush's judge picks.

One bright note in the big rep win last night, is that when something goes wrong in the next two years (and something will, it always does). The republicans will not be able to blame the democrats. Also with control of both houses the republicans can, and most likely will, push things too far to the right for the tastes of the big squishy middle in the next two years, making Bush's re-election bid much harder.

That is a bit of a half truth Magik, shame on you. More seats have been filled in the last two years then any two year period when the republicans controlled congress under Clinton. It is pretty disingenuous to state that democrats have been blockading Bush's judge picks.

<font color="#00ccff">Well it sure wasn't the Republicans blocking Bush' nominees [img]smile.gif[/img] According to the reporst I have been reading, in the last two years we have not filled most of the positions that need filling. I did not intentionally try to misrepresent the situation, I just have not read the info that you apparently have. </font>

One bright note in the big rep win last night, is that when something goes wrong in the next two years (and something will, it always does). The republicans will not be able to blame the democrats. Also with control of both houses the republicans can, and most likely will, push things too far to the right for the tastes of the big squishy middle in the next two years, making Bush's re-election bid much harder.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">You are right there, the Republicans have the chance to prove their worth so to speak. On the other hand, you have to be aware of the situation, just as any party or body of electeds does, this one will inherit problems from the previous electeds. Not every thing can be fixed or undone.

The next presidential campaign will be most interesting, unless the Iraq Issue is quickly resolved and the Economy perks up a bit.

My belief is that little real change will happen. </font>

[ 11-06-2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[ 11-06-2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb]Look, I'm of the opinion that one party should not hold such all-around majorities. I'll point out that at this historical moment, all 3 branches of government belong, ever so slightly, to the GOP. That's simply scary. I like the balance of a Congress that is of the party opposite the President. <font color="#00ccff">Did you feel worried whenthe Democrats held the House and Senate for so much of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's? Of course I would have to admit in the 50's and 60's the Democratic party was a much different party than what we see now. </font>

Well, no. In the 80s, a Republican was President, so my theory would ask for a Democrat-controlled congress. In the 70's my concerns were much more GI Joe than Congress, so I wasn't too concerned then, and in the 50's and 60's I was not yet even an itch in my father's pants, so I didn't care too much then either. ;)

[ 11-06-2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I agree, Illinois has some pretty loose fingered politicians, and with a democratic senator in office...Illinois is going to be an "interesting" place to live.

<font color="#00ccff">Oops hehe my age is showing, Actually I was born in 62, I didn't really care about politics then [img]smile.gif[/img] I thought you were older than that [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#00ccff">While we are on the subject, can ANYONE explain to me why oh why is a piddly state like Iowa such a big deal in politics? Why is every one so concerned about Iowa during elections? </font>

Trust me, if you have ever had the unique... ahem... "pleasure" of driving the entirety of Iowa on I-80, you would call it anything but piddly. ;)

{edited for smileys :D }

[ 11-06-2002, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Isn't it because it comes so early in the primary process?

Maybe it's like New Hampshire and it just has an uncanny nack for being an indicator.

Exceerpt From a NY Times Op Ed, if you're interested:

But over all, the Republicans succeeded because of Mr. Bush's personal popularity and his smart strategy. The president's party denied Senate Democrats the chance to pass popular bills on prescription drugs for the elderly and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security by adding political poison pills the Democrats couldn't swallow. Mr. Bush then risked his own personal political standing by campaigning long and hard for Republicans in close races, energizing the Republican base and reminding undecided voters whose side he was on.

Some voters may resent being cut out of the decision-making in a year when control of the Senate depended on such a small number of voters in such a chaotic series of contests. It was true that a very small proportion of the population was in a position to control key races, the outcome of which could decide the Supreme Court's future makeup, tax policy and even the content of the nation's foreign policy. But we have learned the hard way that every vote really does count. We make our largest decisions as a nation in the best way we can, by the equivalent of a show of hands. Our best hope, as this strange and messy year of decisions ends, is that the people who have won will always remember the large number of hands that were waving on the other side.

I could just cry - the balance of power is in the GOP's favor and there will be no balance for the next 2 years. WAAAAH!

For us moderates and the Liberals, this will be hell.

<font color="#00ccff">Actually I have [img]smile.gif[/img] hehe in 1990 I drove from Philly to San Diego, went I-80 out to Iowa, hit nebraska don't remember the exact route (all htose flat state look alike from the highway [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and ended up in Denver and made a sharp right up over the rockies [img]smile.gif[/img] Beautiful drive, but the Midwest was interminable, especially with a lot of head winds. Gas milage sucked. </font>

<font color="#00ccff">Can't argue with the second paragraph. </font>

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Quote:

<font color="#00ccff">Err how does republicans stalling "popular bills" give them a win over the democrats? I would think if the republicans scuttled "popular" bills, that owuld give the Democrats a boost...Im confused</font></font>

Because they had democratic sponsors - meaning the Dems would have used them as evidence of good work and accomplishment in the campaigns. Really - you should watch more West Wing. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>Yeah!
[img]graemlins/survivor.gif[/img]

I saw a poll on CNN, asking what was the major contributer to this win.

The choices were:

• President Bush's role
• Strong GOP candidates
• Poor strategy by Democrats

I say...all of the above.
But if I had to choose one...I would say President Bush's role.</font>

[ 11-06-2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

T_T The green party never wins *waaah*

I'm with Timber Loftis in wanting the President and the control of Congress controlled by different parties. It seems to me that the best overall legislation comes in that situation. When either party controls both then they tend to run off with their "pet" theory of what would make America better forgetting who is going to pay for it or if the majority of people would even approve of it. That's why I was a campaign worker for Republican canidates for govenor in Texas in the late 60's and a McGovern worker in '72 at Texas A&M.
I am afraid that Bush will perceive this as a mandate to invade Iraq and not a reflection on American solidarity in the face of terrorism or people voting based on the candidates merits. (I is statistically possible that all the Republican candidates were the better ones. :D )

<font color="#00ccff">You could also say that it is the best way to ensure that not much gets done [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<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

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>