The Democrats had a very good night on Tuesday. They won the House of Representatives. But the Senate, as I write, is still in play. A few thoughts and questions: Iraq, Bush fatigue, corruption, and an abandonment of core principles each played a role in the GOP defeat. But let's face it: good candidate recruitment--Jim Webb, Heath Shuler, Bob Casey--was a major factor in the Democrat victory as well. Wut up wit MSNBC projecting a 30-or-so seat pick-up for the House Dems at a point when they had only called 15 or so pick-ups? Do Bush groupies still fault Charlie Crist, who won his race for governor in Florida, for running from the president in the waning days of the campaign? Should conservatives care that Curt Weldon, Nancy Johnson, and Lincoln Chafee are no longer in Congress? How does the Air America crowd take a Ned Lamont defeat, and victories by mainstream Democrats Heath Shuler and Bob Casey? Could Michael Steele enjoy a Bob Smith moment (a George Bush moment!) at the media's expense by winning after major press organs called the race against him? Notice that Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, elected and reelected to the Senate, aren't Democrats, meaning that even had the Democrats run the table on competitive races, they still, technically, would have been in the minority. If George Allen hangs on to win in Virginia by the coattails of the marriage initiative, will liberals finally admit what a political loser so-called gay marriage is? Winning means governing, which means taking a concrete position, which is something Democrats haven't done for a while (what's Kerry or HRC's current position on Iraq?). The Republicans deserved to lose, but only a glutton for punishment would celebrate the coming of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, or Chairman Conyers. The elections are over. The Democrats did a good job of hiding their freaks in the attic these last months. The attic door is opening. Look out! Here come the droolers, the barkers, the captains of bumpersticker-mobiles.

How was their night "very good" ?

They have the House and it is doubtful that they will take the Senate.

Since they don't have a Two Thirds Majority in the House, they will be unable to pass a thing, and in two years, the GOP will retake it when it is swept into power on the McCain Train.

Election 2006 was a tactical victory for the democrats. Strategically, they haven't made a dent.

P.S: Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House. Mark my words.

Ben-T that comment just proves how ignorant you are about politics.

A 60% majority is needed in the Senate to pass legislation. Not the House.

And Dan, if Allen wins it won't be becuase of the coattails of the gay-hate amendment.

It will be because Virginia is a red state and he's SUPPOSED to win in a red state.

"A 60% majority is needed in the Senate to pass legislation. Not the House." -HeHe

Any major legislation requires a large enough majority to provide major political capital. Which the democrats lack, since the Democrats who won in the House were conservatives. They are extremely wobbly in the house, try again.

The Democrats will have as large a majority in House as the Republicans have had since 1994.

TRY AGAIN.

I think the Honey Drippers said it best, "impeach the president"

Actually really look it up, its a funky song...

r.c.

Time for Nancy Pelosi to step up and govern.

Can't wait for Democrats to prove themselves to be more competent than than the former majority party.

I don't think the Republicans could ask for a better face to the Democratic party than Pelosi.

While the House can pass legislation with a simple majority, the will need 2/3 to pass legislation over a presidential veto.

The Senate appears to be in Democratic hands as well. It will certainly be in doubt for several days (if not weeks) as the lawyers get involved, but at the moment Allen and Talent are slightly behind.

If Clinton wasn't impeached then how can you talk about impeaching....oh wait, Clinton WAS impeached!

It could be argued that Bush and Clinton both were derelict in their duties. But Bush is far less repulsive and scummy than Clinton was (is). The diff is that Bush is hated and Clinton was (is) thought very highly of among those who like people pi$$ing down their backs and telling them it's raining.

The election is over (for the most part), now it's time for the folks who have been elected/re-elected to get to work and get some results. The voters sent a message to both parties, now Dems need to prove thy are not all head and no cattle, as the saying goes in Texas.

I'm shocked at the notion that the Democrats can do worse. What really is worse than congressional page scandals, exaggerating evidence to start an unjustified war, lobbyist scandals, corporate favoritism? Can all those things with the added tinge of socialism really be worse than they already are? Between the lefty Dem's and the Evangelicals, I think I'm as close to 1936 Spain as I'd ever like to be. Is it that the Dem's are going to do worse, or is it that we are again left with the result of the choice between the lesser of two evils? I'll take a pervert as a president any day over a man blinded by idealogy. One effects individuals in a disgusting way. The other causes 600,000 Iraqis to die. I'm ready for some Democratic incompetence and Congressional gridlock, if it means no more sweeping change for the worse.

Missouri has a new Demo.senator.

Tolja.

Guido

"the added tinge of socialism" "1936 Spain". Do you have any examples to back up your assertion? As a matter of fact the entire second half of your comment is a bit fuzzy. Would you care to
clarify?

"The Democrats will have as large a majority in House as the Republicans have had since 1994." -HeHe

And be nowhere near as united. Stop being such an idiot please, if you can.

"Time for Nancy Pelosi to step up and govern.

Can't wait for Democrats to prove themselves to be more competent than than the former majority party" -HeHe

I wish Pelosi would be speaker, since it would ensure a GOP sweep of the house in '08, but she will not be.

1. You have no idea who united they will be! It hasn't happened yet.

2. Right Pelosi is a HUGE issue for the Republicans.
In every district the Republicans ran ads featuring Speaker Pelosi, they lost.

asdf - The obviously qualitative nature of your comment "But Bush is far less repulsive and scummy than Clinton was (is)" aside. I'm wondering why you would think Clinton deserved to be impeached more than Bush. His indescretion hardly resulted in the number of deaths of Bush's. In fact I don't see how lying to the public about a sex act can even begin to compare to lying to the public about motivations for war. Please enlighten me.

r.c.

I don’t believe that Bush was ever in a position where he perjured himself or obstructed justice. Clinton was. And he was rightfully impeached for it. Or was Bush ever caught lying bold faced to the American people during a nationally televised address. Clinton did that too.

Minimizing Clinton’s impeachment by trying to equate what both men have done by juxtaposing men killed with sex is dishonest. You know as well as I that Clinton could have lied in court about stealing pencils and it still could have been grounds for impeachment. The sex thing is just a titillating diversion tactic.

Presidents sometime have to make hard decisions. One of those decisions could be to go to war and men die in war. George Bush made that decision and believed it to be the right one based on the best information he had. I’m sure it wasn’t easy and he didn’t take it lightly. Clinton couldn’t have and wouldn’t have made that decision if he needed to. He was too busy with other endeavors. Although he might have thought it so, it wasn't part of Clinton’s job description as President to troll for sex and then, when caught, lie about it. Maybe if he took his job more seriously and performed his duties as required, this wouldn't have been his legacy.

It has been proven many times over that Clinton is a chronic liar. He lies about everything right down to his golf score. To consider a person with this character flaw holding the most powerful office in the world was pretty scary.

GW might have been misguided, but it has never been demonstrated that he’s a liar and although he may be guilty of dereliction of duty in some phases of his job, I don’t think the war is one that has not got his full attention.

I have my problems with Bush but, no matter what he is, we’re a lot safer with him sitting in Washington than we ever were with a duplicitous weasel like Clinton.

ASDF, first of all you brought the Clinton/Bush into this debate.

Now if you really think that Clinton should have been impeached for lying about stealing pencils (your example), and Bush shouldn't be impeached for what many people view as war crimes (real life, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, lying to get a nation into war...).

The two aren't even comparable, Bush essentially put a death sentence on thousands of innocent American's (not to mention Iraqi civilians) for a pointless war that has only increased anti-American sentiment. Clinton ruined Monica's dress. Yeah, maybe one of them was caught lying point blank, but this is not a dishonest comparison. In fact, I don't even want to compare anymore. Whatever Clinton did Clinton did, he doesn't me, I don't care about his sex acts.

I do care about the soldiers dying, and I do care about Iraqi civilians dying. And I know this war wasn't necessary, and I'm pretty sure the president knows that what he told the American people wasn't the whole truth.

Bush is also a chronic liar, he admitted to lying to the press today about withholding the information about Rumsfeld retiring from the press until the election was over. Bush has no problem telling the American people whatever he thinks they want to hear. He leads straight Machiavelli style disruption is his only enemy.

I hope that anyone that reads this would rather get head from heffer than sacrifice the lives of thousands of good men.

R.c.

There you go again, trying to equate Bush’s war with Clinton’s sex. Easy headline, but apples and bananas.

If all you have is that Bush lied about the war but have no proof that he lied about it or that Bush was somehow personally responsible for Gitmo “atrocities” (having female interrogators rub their t|ts on detainees, horrors!) and Abu Ghraib “atrocities” (underwear on the heads, double horrors!), then you don't have much.

Bush is certainly nowhere near the world class liar Clinton is and never will be. The Rumsfeld thing is pretty weak too as it’s a common political tactic to wait until after elections to make important announcements.

It's easy to criticize and demonize Bush for making the decisions he's made. But, at least he made some. Clinton cruised through eight years without wanting to or having to make any major decisions. And, it could be argued that the reason Bush had to make certain decisions and is in the fix he's in now is that lack of focus by Clinton caused 9/11 and Bush had to react to a mess inherited from the former.

And I suppose I wouldn’t expect any discussion with a lib regarding Clinton to progress without at least one mention of Monica and the bj or the dress. Tedious man.

"1. You have no idea who united they will be! It hasn't happened yet.

2. Right Pelosi is a HUGE issue for the Republicans.
In every district the Republicans ran ads featuring Speaker Pelosi, they lost." -HeHe

These two assertions are so laughable that I will not deign to respond.