Democrats Win Control of the Senate!

[Darthphere]

Abortions and stem cells for everybody!

 

[lazur]

My sentiments exactly. I don't expect huge changes, but I am incredibly relieved that one party is no longer in control of all the branches on Capitol Hill.

For two years anyway, when Dems win the Presidency also, and also have control of Congress.

 

[maxwell's demon]

well even if they win the presidency,
they aren't assured of House control, are they?

Even the senate, being as tight as it is, isn't assured past the 2008 vote.

 

[Darthphere]

Im pretty sure theyll lose the Senate.

 

[Kritish]

I'd say that the change would do some good, but I doubt anything will actually change in the big picture.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9iby4JnO...o=19&tt=271,811&oid=c46793616d8f07a2&ei=UTF-8http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9iby4JnO...o=19&tt=271,811&oid=c46793616d8f07a2&ei=UTF-8

I AM THE SENATE!!!

 

[maxwell's demon]

I don't perceive Rumsfeld as retiring "scared". The man, probably a huge fault, isn't scared of anything. His arrogance shines through and always has. If anything, Bush took the high ground by having him resign AFTER the election. Had he done so BEFORE the election, I'm guessing that the republicans would not have lost Congress. However, it would have sent the wrong message to the troops - that he's basing his strategy in Iraq on the political climate.

As someone said earlier in this post, let's hope the dems don't screw it up.

Not to belittle Bush, but nothing in politics happens solely for moral reasons.
It was strategically wise to dump Rumsfeld asap after losing control of congress.


1)if he'd done it before the election , yes, it would've seemd like a stunt, becuase that's what it would have been. Bush would've been doing it to garner votes. let's not kid around. Whether it was right or wrong, or a good decision or not, it would have been a move to maintain control.
I'm not even judging the guy. It'd have been a smart move. Personally i still think he would've lost the election because the voters are finally getting wise to such stunts. So in a way I agree. Bush showed more integrity by not dropping Rummy.

2)With all the flack Rumsfelds gotten, It's a foregone conclusion he coudln't stay. By taking the initiative and dropping Rumsfeld, he robs the incoming Democratic majority of an easy victory (in the publics eyes). They won't get to force Bush to drop the guy. Again, not judging,. strategically its a great move.

3)it affords Bush the chance to get Rumsfelds' replacement sworn in before the january inaugurations take place. Right now, he has full control of the choice. If he waited much longer, he'd have to pick a more Dem-friendly person.

 

[chosen1]

They cant do it worse than the Republicans.

.... Right

 

[Matt]

Not to belittle Bush, but nothing in politics happens solely for moral reasons.
It was strategically wise to dump Rumsfeld asap after losing control of congress.


1)if he'd done it before the election , yes, it would've seemd like a stunt, becuase that's what it would have been. Bush would've been doing it to garner votes. let's not kid around. Whether it was right or wrong, or a good decision or not, it would have been a move to maintain control.
I'm not even judging the guy. It'd have been a smart move. Personally i still think he would've lost the election because the voters are finally getting wise to such stunts. So in a way I agree. Bush showed more integrity by not dropping Rummy.

2)With all the flack Rumsfelds gotten, It's a foregone conclusion he coudln't stay. By taking the initiative and dropping Rumsfeld, he robs the incoming Democratic majority of an easy victory (in the publics eyes). They won't get to force Bush to drop the guy. Again, not judging,. strategically its a great move.

3)it affords Bush the chance to get Rumsfelds' replacement sworn in before the january inaugurations take place. Right now, he has full control of the choice. If he waited much longer, he'd have to pick a more Dem-friendly person.

Hmm, I wonder. The democrats could fillibuster his new choice for two months...although Gates is pretty much the polar opposite of Rumsfeld, so I don't see why they would.

 

[maxwell's demon]

right. I'm not saying Bush picked another polarizing figure. I'm just saying that he probably wanted to pick someone who was really 100% "his" choice.
But, like some of his other appt. choices, he also was smart enough to pick someone who wouldn't cause Dem's to react too negatively.

Plus, choosing a more moderate candidate does two things-
makes him look better inthe public's eyes.
makes him look more conciliatory/reasonably with the "about to take power" dems.

 

[lazur]

Hmm, I wonder. The democrats could fillibuster his new choice for two months...although Gates is pretty much the polar opposite of Rumsfeld, so I don't see why they would.

I think it'll be fun to watch republicans fillibuster for a change .

 

[PLAS]

just a thought, what are the chances of Bush getting impeached for crimes against humanity?

 

[maxwell's demon]

1 in 11,652

 

[chosen1]

just a thought, what are the chances of Bush getting impeached for crimes against humanity?

What crimes?

 

[lazur]

just a thought, what are the chances of Bush getting impeached for crimes against humanity?

This has been discussed repeatedly. No one can come up with any "crimes" he's committed. So unless you have new evidence, it's a dead horse.

 

[maxwell's demon]

1 in 11,894

 

[PLAS]

don't have to get so jumpy everyone

just remember that there's a somewhat different view that the rest of the world has of Mr Bush than the american public

but it's nice to know that starting a war without any real justification cannot be seen as a crime in any way

be well y'all

 

[jaguarr]

don't have to get so jumpy everyone

just remember that there's a somewhat different view that the rest of the world has of Mr Bush than the american public

but it's nice to know that starting a war without any real justification cannot be seen as a crime in any way

be well y'all

The Dems have already said that they weren't going to seek impeachment. I think they have other ideas in mind for forcing some change and trying to move things forward. In some ways, I agree with that sentiment. I'm tired of the negativity, infighting and partisan bashing. Get some good things going and focus on the positive.

jag

 

[maxwell's demon]

i think, IF they impeach, they won't (and shouldn't) do so till the end of Bush's tenure. But they have a lot to accomplish before they earn the right to go that route.

 

[hippie_hunter]

just a thought, what are the chances of Bush getting impeached for crimes against humanity?

0%

1. The Democratic leadership made Nancy Pelosi take impeachment off the table.

2. We can't tell if the House has enough Democrats dedicated to impeaching Bush.

3. The Senate definetely does not have enough Democrats to even think about removing Bush from office.

4. Bush technically hasn't been proven of commiting a crime such as election fraud, deception, falsifying a war, etc. Presidents that have been impeached were proven to commit a crime, Andrew Jackson for just simply firing a member of his Cabinet and trying to ruin Reconstruction and Bill Clinton for perjury. Nixon was going to be impeached and removed was proven to be involved in Watergate and tried to screw over the investigation.

 

[tomahawk53]

Congrats Dems on the board.

I knew you'd take the house but I didn't figure the Senate too.

 

[jaguarr]

Congrats Dems on the board.

I knew you'd take the house but I didn't figure the Senate too.

I'm not a full-fledged Dem, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Especially since there seem to be quite a few candidates taking office in January that are on the moderate side of left.

jag

 

[tomahawk53]

I'm not a full-fledged Dem, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Especially since there seem to be quite a few candidates taking office in January that are on the moderate side of left.

jag

I never fear change like this. And I like to think optimistically about it as well.

It could be good. I mean I'll always be a Republican but no matter what change can be good.

 

[lazur]

I never fear change like this. And I like to think optimistically about it as well.

It could be good. I mean I'll always be a Republican but no matter what change can be good.

The dems like Nancy Pelosi are who scare me.

 

[Goddessreicho]

This way, if President Bush usurps power from the Legislative branch, the Senate won't just roll over and take it in the ass.

Unless the Democrats are into that sort of thing.

Apprenty its trendy for elephants to do that...










Go BLUE!