Republicans Won BIG!

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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.

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.

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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.

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.

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.

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.[/QUOTE]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.

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

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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. Did you feel worried when the 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. 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. I hope you are wrong about htis, I hope we see more enforcement than new laws. We will see legislation (possibly a lot of it involving undoing certain presidential directives of past administrations) but hopefully it will go farther than just a lot of gum flapping. 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.

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

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

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. 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.

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 ]

[Mellagar]

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.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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. 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. 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.

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]

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?

[Timber Loftis]

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 }

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

[Ronn_Bman]

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

[Timber Loftis]

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