Democrats take House (sorry sam) [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

View Full Version : Democrats take House (sorry sam)

D_Raay

11-08-2006, 12:13 AM

http://www.dccc.org/results/index.html

Congrats to democrats. They are going to have some clout too with a large majority.

QueenAdrock

11-08-2006, 12:29 AM

Schmeltz

11-08-2006, 12:55 AM

Wow. I certainly didn't think the Dems would pick up so many GOP seats. It's also interesting to see so many Democrats being elected as governors. And the other thing that caught my eye was South Dakota's rejection of that unpalatable abortion bill.

All in all, it looks like the Republicans have racked up a fairly substantial deficit in terms of that "political capital" Bush was touting two years ago. It remains to be seen what the Dems will actually do with their gains, of course, and for my part I think it best to harbour relatively low expectations (if only because it might take them some time to get used to the idea of being more than a minority opinion), and of course I don't personally have much at stake in this election... but God damn does it feel good to see the voters sticking it to the GOP. It would be great if this election heralded a complete decline in the malignant neoconservativism that has gripped America (and, through it, the world) for these last few years.

Well done, America. (y)

DroppinScience

11-08-2006, 01:26 AM

Well done, America. (y)

Damn straight. (y)

Hello Speaker Pelosi!!!!!!!!! :D

If abdulmohammed were here (remember him?), I'd tell to go choke on a dick.

laserx54

11-08-2006, 02:33 AM

music to my ears

D_Raay

11-08-2006, 03:14 AM

FUCK YEAH!

Virginia's fuckin' killing me with the senate race. Right now 99% is reporting and Webb is ahead by 2,500 votes. They haven't counted Arlington yet which is NoVa and right next to DC - a breeding ground for liberals. I have faith.

Looks like Montana might go Democrat, too.

It's goddamn killin me right now.
Yeah it's looking like the Democrats will take the Senate too... well beyond my expectations.

The country is waking from it's slumber at last, and I finally feel some pride coming back.

Oh and I was so glad Steele lost. Talk about a flip flopper.

Where are you Valvano?!
Grats on that big Maryland victory last weekend.

Documad

11-08-2006, 03:19 AM

Wow. I certainly didn't think the Dems would pick up so many GOP seats. It's also interesting to see so many Democrats being elected as governors. And the other thing that caught my eye was South Dakota's rejection of that unpalatable abortion bill.
There needs to be more discussion of this. My understanding is that outside groups wrote the legislation outlawing abortion and got it passed by the state legislature even though it was clearly never the will of the people of the state. They just wanted their test case and they knew which legislature they coudld buy off. That's despicable.

So the citizens of the state have rejected it now. Good for them.

And boo for the people who passed anti gay legislation and pro death penalty legislation.

Documad

11-08-2006, 03:35 AM

Fun Fact: We elected the first Muslim to the US House of Representatives. (He's a black muslim.) The man is a superb public speaker.

D_Raay

11-08-2006, 05:12 AM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/07/rick-santorum-concedes/

This made me especially happy.

I feel bad for the true conservatives out there who were bullied,coerced, etc.etc...

Sam, valvano this a good thing. The neocons are out of your lives.

QueenAdrock

11-08-2006, 08:33 AM

Yeah it's looking like the Democrats will take the Senate too... well beyond my expectations.

The country is waking from it's slumber at last, and I finally feel some pride coming back.

Oh and I was so glad Steele lost. Talk about a flip flopper.

Where are you Valvano?!
Grats on that big Maryland victory last weekend.

Seriously. Fuck Steele. Some douche came around a few days ago and plastered my neighborhood with his posters. I want to skip around my development and rip them down and have a nice big victory bonfire.

Funny fact: Ehrlich (R) and Steele (R) want a recount, and for the paper ballots to be counted. I have no problem with that, it's a part of democracy that every vote be counted. HOWEVER, I would like to find one of those Republicans who screamed "Sour Grapes!" at me when I wanted it for Kerry and Gore and yell at them "WHO'S SOUR NOW? EAT A DICK!" Oh how different it is when the shoe is on the opposite foot....

QueenAdrock

11-08-2006, 08:34 AM

And right now, Montana is up by 1,500. Virginia is up by 7,000. It's a slight margin, but if we get those, we have the Senate. I don't think we'll know for a while, but it looks like it's doable. (y)

Ali

11-08-2006, 08:55 AM

Question: Are the Democrats winning because they are popular or is it because the Republicans are unpopular?

Seems to me ANYBODY could beat the Republicans right now... even the Democrats.

Let's hope they haven't forgotten what it's like to actually run a country, as opposed to sit back and criticise those who do.

Do they have a plan for Iraq? I know they didn't necessarily get us into that mess, but they are going to have to get us out.

I think that the Coalition would do well to withdraw immediately and let the UN take over the role of Peacekeeping. There's too much stigma attached to US and UK forces.

Justin

11-08-2006, 08:58 AM

Im truly happy today. I'm so happy to see Bob Casey beat Rick Santorium here in pa, whom was going to be the 2nd highest gop member in the senate, if reelected.

Mr. Casey is the first democrat elected to the senate in PA since 1962!

Now its time to get things done!!!!!!

Justin

11-08-2006, 09:02 AM

Ali

11-08-2006, 09:33 AM

You know what would make this week even better?

If Donald Rumsfeld resigned!!!!!! Oh yes!!!!!!:D

Its pretty bad when our own military is calling for his resignation. Story here (www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/rumsfeld.resign/index.html)
Rumsfeld has tried to resign on numerous occasions (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/) but Bush won't let him.

"If I go down I'm taking you with me!"

QueenAdrock

11-08-2006, 09:56 AM

Question: Are the Democrats winning because they are popular or is it because the Republicans are unpopular?

Seems to me ANYBODY could beat the Republicans right now... even the Democrats.

It's a legitmate question, but people said "ANYBODY could beat Bush in 2004" because his approval ratings were dropping and his war wasn't doing well. There were a LOT of Anybody-But-Bush people out there, and Kerry still didn't win. According to the polls, Bush wasn't very popular but "At least he was better than Kerry" (or so said the moderates). Because of this, I think it's a combination - I think they could have very easily gone Republican if we brought in lame duck candidates because "At least they're better than the Democrat."

One thing that also stands out is Lincoln Chaffee losing to Whitehouse. He was considered to be one of the most liberal senators out of the Republican side. He was a favorable candidate for Democrats since he was against the war and didn't completely follow party lines. This didn't sway the Republican or Democratic vote - they believed that Whitehouse was BETTER than he was. He was a popular Republican senator and STILL lost.

Overall, it's a little of both I'd say.

Loppfessor

11-08-2006, 10:16 AM

Question: Are the Democrats winning because they are popular or is it because the Republicans are unpopular?

Seems to me ANYBODY could beat the Republicans right now... even the Democrats.

I think that is an extremely valid point. Too often in politics people vote for change just for the sake of change. Not that change is a bad thing by any stretch. I just honestly think that the Republicans lost these elections more than the Democrats won them. Regardless of how the power was obtained I sincerely hope that the Dems don't exploit or squander it. They have been given an opportunity to do some really great things for this country and I hope they do.

The Notorious LOL

11-08-2006, 10:24 AM

ya'll are way too fucking excited about this.

QueenAdrock

11-08-2006, 10:47 AM

I sincerely hope that the Dems don't exploit or squander it. They have been given an opportunity to do some really great things for this country and I hope they do.

I said the same thing about the Republicans and well...look what happened.

You can only hope, though.

Qdrop

11-08-2006, 11:13 AM

ya'll are way too fucking excited about this.

oh, go watch some more MTV reality TV and increase your apathy.

go get lost in things that don't matter...go on..have fun.

Loppfessor

11-08-2006, 11:29 AM

I said the same thing about the Republicans and well...look what happened.

You can only hope, though.

I hear ya, and I honestly don’t think anyone person or party goes into office with the intent of seeing how badly they can screw things up. Perhaps I’m naïve but I really hope that at least the majority of them get into office to actually help or benefit the people they represent. Like I said before I tend to vote more Republican but I’ll support anyone who is going to get the job done.

I just hope the Democrats take this for what it is and don’t go overboard. I don’t think the people want extremely drastic change so I hope they are since when they speak of bi-partisan objectives. What happens is that that one power gets a strong majority then goes too far imposing their way of thinking or doing business. Then the people get sick of it so the opposing party gains power by a strong majority then they go too far in the opposite direction and the process begins anew. I’m just hoping for actual progress rather than the whole “okay it’s our turn, lets see how much shit we can do” mentality

The Notorious LOL

11-08-2006, 11:45 AM

oh, go watch some more MTV reality TV and increase your apathy.

go get lost in things that don't matter...go on..have fun.

things that dont matter like the marginal difference between a GOP and Democratic controlled senate? ;)!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nah I primarily vote Democrat but I do question why at times. The differences they will make will be miniscule at best....at worst their bragging right will be that while nothing got better, it didnt get worse.

*watches MTV reality*

Echewta

11-08-2006, 11:47 AM

Let the hearings begin.

I'm much happier when one party has one branch and the other party as the other.

I hope the Dems do something positive. Perhaps the environment might creep back into being something important...

sam i am

11-08-2006, 01:22 PM

Don't be sorry, D_raay.

Congratu;ations to the Democrats on fulfilling their destiny this season.

Historically, they have met expectations for a sixth year incumbent election.

At least here in Nevada, we mostl;y bucked the national trend and stayed GOP.

Maybe Bush should endorse Hillary and Obama...that would be the kiss of death fro them in '08.

Giuliani looks like he's a go for Prez in '08 and will be a formidable opponent.

I'll state it here : my early year predictions were wrong...my prognostication was innacurate on the election.

I did change my tune in the past few weeks, as it became obvious where the trends were headed.

Conservatives will have to regroup, remeasure our committment to our core values, and come out firing in '08. In the interim, I wish our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle the best of luck and good governance over the next few years.

D_Raay

11-08-2006, 02:46 PM

King PSYZ

11-08-2006, 03:00 PM

I'm not suprised we stayed with Gibbons since Deana Titus seems like a dolt

sam i am

11-08-2006, 05:31 PM

I'm not suprised we stayed with Gibbons since Deana Titus seems like a dolt

Big time dolt.

Do you live in Vegas? I'm out near Grand Teton & Jones/Decatur.

Documad

11-08-2006, 06:59 PM

Kerry was one state away from being president. I get confused when people act like Bush had a major mandate two years ago.

The president still runs almost everything that is important in running out country. Don't expect a lot of big changes. The democrats can pass legislation for stem cell research and the president can veto it ago. The democrats can pass environmental legislation and the president can veto it. Or better yet, he can do what he has been doing which is just ignoring all the laws that are already on the books. We have tons of environmental laws on the books, but if the president appoints people to run the federal agencies who have no intention of enforcing them, then companies can pollute with impunity. The same goes for just about everything. We have some amazing civil rights laws, but the president has no interest in enforcing them so it doesn't matter what is on the books. If you look at the employment listings for government attorneys, you will notice that the federal government always has openings in these areas because no one who cares about civil rights or the environment or natural resources, etc., could stomach being a part of ignoring rather than enforcing those laws.

The the congress CAN do is refuse to pass new bad legislation the president wants. And that's a big deal. But 3/4 of the way through his term, and after he's done all the damage he wants to do, it's a little late to put on the brakes.

yeahwho

11-08-2006, 07:37 PM

The democrats can pass environmental legislation and the president can veto it. Or better yet, he can do what he has been doing which is just ignoring all the laws that are already on the books. We have tons of environmental laws on the books, but if the president appoints people to run the federal agencies who have no intention of enforcing them, then companies can pollute with impunity. The same goes for just about everything. We have some amazing civil rights laws, but the president has no interest in enforcing them so it doesn't matter what is on the books. If you look at the employment listings for government attorneys, you will notice that the federal government always has openings in these areas because no one who cares about civil rights or the environment or natural resources, etc., could stomach being a part of ignoring rather than enforcing those laws.

The the congress CAN do is refuse to pass new bad legislation the president wants. And that's a big deal. But 3/4 of the way through his term, and after he's done all the damage he wants to do, it's a little late to put on the brakes.

So in other words Bush has one his own "New Frontier/Great Society" program going. I wonder if this is how Compassionate Conservatism or Traditional Family Values works.

"It is compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results." GWB

Schmeltz

11-08-2006, 07:41 PM

The president still runs almost everything that is important in running out country. Don't expect a lot of big changes.

This is a good point - but at the same time I think one has to take into account the fact that Bush doesn't operate in a vacuum. He might have the ability to veto stem cell research or environmental legislation, but how practical of him would it be to use it? The voters just delivered his party a pretty sound repudiation and the Republicans are going to have to go into damage control mode to protect their chances of winning the 2008 Presidential election. Arbitrarily exercising veto power in the face of a dissenting House (and possibly Senate) doesn't seem like a sound long-term strategy.

Bush is isolated and his party is on the retreat. I don't think he'll be able to run things with quite the same confidence to which he's become accustomed. And something about that just puts a great big smile on my face.

King PSYZ

11-08-2006, 07:46 PM

Big time dolt.

Do you live in Vegas? I'm out near Grand Teton & Jones/Decatur.
yeah man, Eastern and Trop

yeahwho

11-08-2006, 07:50 PM

Bush is isolated and his party is on the retreat. I don't think he'll be able to run things with quite the same confidence to which he's become accustomed. And something about that just puts a great big smile on my face.

not a huge fan of emoticons, but (y) :D

Schmeltz

11-08-2006, 08:19 PM

Yeah, when I saw the news of Rumsfeld's resignation I looked almost exactly like the little green feller. :D

bilbo

11-08-2006, 11:49 PM

add the Senate too.
Can you say...
qwned

DroppinScience

11-09-2006, 01:08 AM

add the Senate too.
Can you say...
qwned

I know! This is the happiest day of my life. I've been dreaming of this since 2000. :)

FunkyHiFi

11-09-2006, 01:47 AM

Anybody else feel like their feet aren't quite as heavy?

Me and another "liberal" buddy went out to celebrate by indulging in a steak dinner and (this seemed fitting :)) ordered Boston cream pie for dessert & later toasted the occasion at our favorite bar.

I'm not expecting miracles, but there is now a little more hope that our planet won't be abused as much, our country & us citizens won't be sold out as much and especially, we will hopefully see fewer and fewer faces on the "Fallen Heroes" segments of the news shows.

D_Raay

11-09-2006, 05:22 AM

Ali

11-09-2006, 08:44 AM

Too often in politics people vote for change just for the sake of change. Not that change is a bad thing by any stretch.Hmmm change is good, up to a point, then it becomes upheaval, disruption and chaos. Take the Labour Government in the UK, they are FOREVER changing everything. No sooner is something started, than it's changed and then that gets changed... ad infinitum. A lot of stuff that the Tories did was ripped out and replaced with other things, just because they were Tory policies and Labour was the party of change! Quite a few of them got quietly replaced when it turned out they worked fine... after millions of pounds were wasted. The education and health systems are a case in point.

Let's hope the Dems have the sense to leave sensible Republican policies alone and focus their attention on the ones which make less sense.

Ali

11-09-2006, 08:53 AM

The president still runs almost everything that is important in running out country. Don't expect a lot of big changes. The democrats can pass legislation for stem cell research and the president can veto it ago. The democrats can pass environmental legislation and the president can veto it. Or better yet, he can do what he has been doing which is just ignoring all the laws that are already on the books. We have tons of environmental laws on the books, but if the president appoints people to run the federal agencies who have no intention of enforcing them, then companies can pollute with impunity. The same goes for just about everything. We have some amazing civil rights laws, but the president has no interest in enforcing them so it doesn't matter what is on the books. If you look at the employment listings for government attorneys, you will notice that the federal government always has openings in these areas because no one who cares about civil rights or the environment or natural resources, etc., could stomach being a part of ignoring rather than enforcing those laws.

The the congress CAN do is refuse to pass new bad legislation the president wants. And that's a big deal. But 3/4 of the way through his term, and after he's done all the damage he wants to do, it's a little late to put on the brakes.So WTF is the point of having a mid-term election, if the president can just veto everything?

So, no change, then? Even if the House and Senate both vote for something, Bush can still kill it?

Bugger. I was having a lovely day until I saw this.

chromium05

11-09-2006, 09:25 AM

^^ Documad, I may be wrong here, but I have been reading a lot recently with regards to all this election business and, from what I had gathered, congress has the power to reign in the presidents powers. They have the power to overturn any of the presidents directives, they have the power to veto the presidents recommendations as to who is given what position in government, who makes it as a judge in the supreme court, etc etc.

I had envisioned some undoing of Bush's recent rewriting/rewording/scrapping of the constitution. I thought maybe they would be able to put a stop to his flagrant abuse of position with regard to being "above the law".

I hoped.....

Am I wrong?

Qdrop

11-09-2006, 09:28 AM

So WTF is the point of having a mid-term election, if the president can just veto everything?

So, no change, then? Even if the House and Senate both vote for something, Bush can still kill it?

Bugger. I was having a lovely day until I saw this.

veto's can be overturned (by a revote in congress)....but it's difficult.

"The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution. Per U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7 all legislation passed by both houses of Congress must be presented to the President. This presentation is in the President's capacity as head of state.

If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it. If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days (excluding Sundays) to the house of Congress in which it originated. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation.

If the Congress passes the bill by a 2/3 majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are less than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

QueenAdrock

11-09-2006, 10:32 AM

Anybody else feel like their feet aren't quite as heavy?

You know, I've had this overbearing weight since Bush got elected. Just felt like I wasn't "connected" with my country anymore, that it was hijacked and stolen from me.

Now that the Democrats have taken Congress, it's not so much joy as much as it is relief that we're returning to normalcy. Everyone says "You must be so happy the Democrats were elected!" and it's not quite that. I just feel at peace again, like things will start working out.

bilbo

11-09-2006, 11:20 AM

The Pretzeldent won't be vetoing anything. His pigheaded ignorance and moral corruption got him and the Republican Party to where they're at now. He's alone and scared shitless as evidenced by his sullen ashen face yesterday at the news conference. I thought Rumsfeld was doing a great job, why the change of heart? Why now is he calling for bipartisanship? The point is, he knows he's in big trouble, and he knows that the American people just made him the lamest of lame ducks. Me thinks he will be awfully careful to not piss off Congress by continuing the arrogance that caused this unprecedented midterm midtacular asskicking.

sam i am

11-09-2006, 11:34 AM

What does Bush care if he pisses off Congress? He's been soooo villified and demonized that he has nowhere to go but to his own little happy place, sucking on the teat of contentment proffered by Uncle Dick, right?

My guess is that Bush will allow the minimum wage to be raised, will come to some sort of grand compromise with the Dems on immigration, and will veto any true energy legislation.

The big fight will be over the tax cuts, which the Dems will "rework" (adding yet more complexity to the already ridiculously complex tax code) to "help the middle class," whatever that means in the modern American economy.

bilbo

11-09-2006, 11:47 AM

sam i am

11-09-2006, 11:57 AM

I hope he continues to act like an arrogant dick. That way the remaining Republican congress-critters who have seen what just happened on Tuesday and who also have political aspirations beyond 2008 will jump off that sinking ship(if they haven't already) faster than you can Dick Trickle.
Time for Tex to face the music, or face 1974 all over again.

The people have spoken.

I hope he endorses Hillary and Obama for 2008...really embraces them and gives them his personal seal of approval.

Talk about the kiss of death.

What has he got to lose? Impeachment? Not bloody likely.

QueenAdrock

11-09-2006, 12:21 PM

I hope he endorses Hillary and Obama for 2008...really embraces them and gives them his personal seal of approval.

That'll be the day hell freezes over and Karl Rove gives out free sleigh rides. :p

QueenAdrock

11-09-2006, 01:23 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15635543?GT1=8717

It's official. Allen has conceded. Now we officially have the Senate.

I mean, we all knew we would but now it's time for champagne. YESSS! No work tomorrow! Gettin' drunk tonight! W00S!

D_Raay

11-09-2006, 02:25 PM

I hope he endorses Hillary and Obama for 2008...really embraces them and gives them his personal seal of approval.

Talk about the kiss of death.

What has he got to lose? Impeachment? Not bloody likely.
Actually the Democrats could do just that if they so choose. One has to wonder, if the roles were reversed, if the republicans would already be moving on that.

Qdrop

11-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Actually the Democrats could do just that if they so choose. i wonder how many Tums bush is popppin now...

One has to wonder, if the roles were reversed, if the republicans would already be moving on that. "If"?
these are the people who wanted to take a president down for getting a blow job.

beastiegirrl101

11-09-2006, 03:18 PM

I'm just posting here to say hi to Q.

hi B-Rad.

FunkyHiFi

11-09-2006, 05:21 PM

Gettin' drunk tonight! W00S!:D

Echewta

11-09-2006, 05:56 PM

Ah! That means Waxman will be one of the leaders in the house to clean up shop. :cool:

Documad

11-09-2006, 08:45 PM

I had gathered, congress has the power to reign in the presidents powers. They have the power to overturn any of the presidents directives, they have the power to veto the presidents recommendations as to who is given what position in government, who makes it as a judge in the supreme court, etc etc.

I had envisioned some undoing of Bush's recent rewriting/rewording/scrapping of the constitution. I thought maybe they would be able to put a stop to his flagrant abuse of position with regard to being "above the law".

I hoped.....

Am I wrong?
Most of what the federal government does to people living inside the US is done by federal agencies. The president picks the people who head the agencies. He's the ultimate boss of most of the federal employees. The congress' power mostly comes from the purse strings. The president needs the congress to pass legislation giving the president's agencies money to spend. Congress can cut off the funds, but it's a risky move because if for instance the federal government shuts down, people can become more mad at congress than the president (that's what happened when congress shut down the government while Clinton was president -- Clinton was unpopular until that happened and it caused his comeback). (State government is similar because the governor appoints all the heads of state agencies who do most of the work of running the government.)

As Qdrop explained, the president can veto legislation. The congress can override his veto with a 2/3rds vote, but the democrats only have 51 out of the 100 votes in the senate so that's not likely unless it's a very popular question with moderate republicans (like minimum wage but the president said he'll sign that one so it won't matter - and its popularity with republican moderates is probably why he says he won't veto it).

The president has loads of authority over war, foreign policiy, etc. Again, the congress controls the purse, but are they really going to say "not one more dime to support our troops who are currently in Iraq"? Unlikely. They'll threaten not to keep funding it, but they're not going to vote no on a bill for veterans benefits, armor for troops, etc.

The president appoints all federal judges. The Senate gets to "advise and consent." That historically meant that the president should get who he wants unless there's a big problem (like proof that the judge is a crook), But in the past the senate would question the candidate for a long time to embarrass the candidate and the president, but the senate ends up approving almost all of the candidates in the end. The republican senate refused to even have hearings on a shitload of proposed Clinton judges though -- leaving loads of unfilled vacancies and creating a crisis because there weren't enough federal judges to hear cases. I knew a few great judges who were recommended by Clinton and never even got considered by the republican senate during that era for purely political reasons. This is the most likely area for payback, in my opinion. Especially because there are only two years to wait and the Senate would hope that the next president would be a democrat who could then fill all the vacancies.

The best thing is that, prior to this election, the president could suggest almost any kind of legislation and be assured that both houses of congress would pass it. He can't do that anymore. Stalemate is better than more corporate welfare for his cronies. There are also a lot of suggestions that because he has a history of being a better leader when he is forced to compromise that we'll see a new Bush that looks more like the guy we thought we sort of elected in 2000.

chromium05

11-10-2006, 03:26 AM

^^ Cheers. I appreciate the time taken to clear a few things up there. I've read so much recently that I've overloaded and confused myself on a few things.

sam i am

11-10-2006, 01:31 PM

The best thing is that, prior to this election, the president could suggest almost any kind of legislation and be assured that both houses of congress would pass it. He can't do that anymore. Stalemate is better than more corporate welfare for his cronies. There are also a lot of suggestions that because he has a history of being a better leader when he is forced to compromise that we'll see a new Bush that looks more like the guy we thought we sort of elected in 2000.

I agree with you that this is the best outcome of the election as well.

Gridlock, and a minimum of new legislation, is always good for us conservatives.

The more the election hysteria fades away, the better I'm feeling about the outcome....if we can rein in spending and earmarks, no matter which party proposes them, maybe we'll have some fiscal responsibility a la the 1990's.