<font color="#00ccff">This didn't fit in the other threads so here is my take on what it all adds up to, or at least what I think it means.

The Senate is the only place where a real change will take place, the question is, does this give republicans power to run rampant over the nation.

I say no. Basicly the only thing that will change is that the Democrats will not be able to stonewall votes in the Senate now. Issues that the republicans want to address will come up for a vote.

HOWEVER to get legislation actually passed you will still need to get 60% of the senate to vote for it. Which means at least 10 democratic senators and all of the republican senators must vote for the legislation.

What I see is that the moderates and centerists are now more than ever the real swing vote.

Of course there is a down side to this, in that the Republicans can now stonewall democratic issues. </font>

MagiK, you have simply got to quit posting intelligent, evenhanded analyses of politics... you're totally ruining my snappy, smart-ass comebacks. I mean, really, how am I supposed to make anything of dry factuality? You're disappointing me here.
It is funny, though, how when the political hyperbole dies down, it's not all that much different from business as usual. I do prefer a split legislative/executive balance as it promotes more of King Log and less of King Stork.

Is there a 60% vote requirement in the Senate? I thought it only took a simple majority first time around, and then a 2/3 majority to override a veto. Plus, if Senate/House bills aren't exactly alike, it goes to Joint Committee to resolve the text - which still only needs a simple majority in each house to pass. Am I wrong somewhere here?

Any info on quorum rules? I forget how that works out.

As for the effect, don't forget that a lot of the legislative system numbers game gets tied up in the President's power to veto. Dem-sponsored bills will get vetoed more often, and will need a 2/3 vote. Rep-sponsored bills won't.

Which gives me a side note: isn't it sad that even if a Rep. likes a bill, he won't support it as heavily if a Dem. sponsors it (and vice versa)? It's all about taking the credit.

I'll have to agree with your assessment Magik.

The only thing I'll add is that anything and everything that goes wrong over the next two years will be laid at the Republican's feet. Most Democrates now admit their biggest problem in this mid-term election was the lack of a cohesive singularly identifiable "Democratic" position. In 2004, they will all focus on how the Republicans had their chance and got it wrong.

Timber, I agree this is a stupid way of doing things. Both sides do it though, and it certainly doesn't serve their constituants best interests.

[ 11-07-2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color=orange>The Democrats can filibuster a bill; in other words "talk" it to death. It takes 60 votes to overide a filibuster. I think that's what Majik means.

Most major pieces of legislation have bi-partisn sponsers, for example the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Civil Rights Hi-jack Act... oops I mean't the Campaign Finance Reform Act. McCain is a Republican and Feingold was a Democrat. That's usually how serious legistation gets through Congress.</font>

Thanks for the info, Sir T, I did not know that.

As for Campaign Finance, it's more of a civil rights hi-jack to allow big $$$ to control all of government the way it does. Limit their expenditures during campaigns and level the field. Senate race here in IL, the Dem candidate mentioned the Rep candidate simply needed 500K more from the party to make it a real close race (it was a very amicable race between them, in fact). That just doesn't seem right. VT limits individual contrributions to a candidate to less than $1K without offending the constitution.

Sorry to [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[ 11-07-2002, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color="#00ccff">
@ TL I have to agree with you about Campaign Finance reform, and the 60% number I came up with was from the radio, didn't quite catch it all.

@ Absynthe [img]smile.gif[/img] Take heart, Im sure I will manage to be annoying and crumudgeonly again in the near future [img]smile.gif[/img] , I have been told I never change.

@ B-Man It has already been speculated on WMAL that the Dems will spend the next two years franticly working to play up every mistake made by Reps, and to continually run down, poke fun at, and in genreal do whatever is possible to portrey the Reps. in a negative or foolish light. While I think this goes on on both sides of the aisle, I think...and predict that we will see more of it and that it will be nastier than ever....just my guess there.

A related Issue: I just realized after talking to friends in other districts, there was a conspicuous lack of third party candidates. I only had two libertarians running for reletively minor education seats, any one else notice this dearth of diversity? </font>

Darn, I was scrolling down as fast as I could to post on the filibuster thingie but Sir T. beat me to it. IMHO, Mr. Bush will continue to push for bipartisan support of important legislation like the Homeland Security act, in which the Dems appeared to be spineless minions of Big Labor. Also, of course, the Dem's blocking judicial appointments has gone glimmering. Hope Jim Jeffords enjoys the next two years. ;)

Here in Mass we had a Lib, a Green, an Indie as well as Dem and Rep for gov. Quite diverse. The Libertarian sponsored bill to get rid of state income tax failed, yet the cut-taxes Republican Govenor candidate won. Go figure.