anyone realize that if sen. johnson passes away from the brain hemmorage, the republicans re-gain control of the senate......

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[img]http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/09/images/02emperor350.jpg[/img]

[I]Eeeeeeexcellent, we will regain control. Just as I have forseen it[/I]

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=thesightless;422019]anyone realize that if sen. johnson passes away from the brain hemmorage, the republicans re-gain control of the senate......[/QUOTE]

First, let's not forget that this is a guy's life we're talking about here. With that said, I think after everyone got done saying, "I hope he's OK," they started thinking about the political ramifications, so yes, pretty much everyone realizes that.

It would certainly be ironic. In some respects, though, the die has already been cast as it pertains to type of republicanism we've seen over the last 4 years. Those folks were thrown out on their ass, and even if the Senate is 50-50, I wouldn't expect to see the hard-liners in control again -- the public has made its feelings known, and anyone that is interested in keeping his or her job is going to steer clear of the ridiculous BS we've seen lately.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE]Those folks were thrown out on their ass, and even if the Senate is 50-50, I wouldn't expect to see the hard-liners in control again -- the public has made its feelings known, and anyone that is interested in keeping his or her job is going to steer clear of the ridiculous BS we've seen lately.[/QUOTE]

They were not really thrown out, they just showed up to the game and did not play.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

Stalemate is what we need in DC.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=asdf_admin;422054]They were not really thrown out, they just showed up to the game and did not play.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how you could view the prior election as anything other than a wholesale rejection of this current perversion of republicanism. The dems picked up 35 seats, the republicans picked up zero.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

like I said ... it's like Jordan and the Bulls coming to game 7, sitting there and just watching the other team play. I guess they won by default.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=Lorn;422073]Stalemate is what we need in DC.[/QUOTE]

agreed like 95%. I don't like to see Congress do nothing, but the best laws are made, IMO, when the parties are forced to work together because neither can run roughshod over the other.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

my ideal government...

an extremely conservative supreme court. a liberal house and senate balanced engaging exuctive.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

Control of the House is where it's at anyway.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

yeah. i lost mine to my wife.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[quote=asdf_admin;422098]yeah. i lost mine to my wife.[/quote]

zing! :lol:

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

And FWIW, this isn't really my worst nightmare. As long as there's some balance, I'm happy, and the control of the house provides that.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[quote=toasty;422075]I don't know how you could view the prior election as anything other than a wholesale rejection of this current perversion of republicanism. The dems picked up 35 seats, the republicans picked up zero.[/quote]

But the dems who won were, by and large, republicans wearing blue shirts. They were almost all moderate to conservative dems.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[quote=Jenks;422091]Control of the House is where it's at anyway.[/quote]

Having a few seats majority is pretty much worthless. You need a 2/3 majority to be able to force legislation through.

Without a 2/3 majority, you can't override a presidential veto.

But Bush won't need to veto anything. The Senate doesn't have enough of a majority to override a filibuster. So you won't see much legislation reach the president's desk in the first place.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[quote=subterFUSE;422219]Having a few seats majority is pretty much worthless. You need a 2/3 majority to be able to force legislation through.

Without a 2/3 majority, you can't override a presidential veto.

But Bush won't need to veto anything. The Senate doesn't have enough of a majority to override a filibuster. So you won't see much legislation reach the president's desk in the first place.[/quote]

Thanks for the lesson Dad.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;422212]But the dems who won were, by and large, republicans wearing blue shirts. They were almost all moderate to conservative dems.[/QUOTE]

Now we're just dickering about semantics. There is nothing republican about the folks that have run the republican party for the last few years, they are neocons, jackasses, idiots, whatever you want to call them. Hence, my earlier comment:

[QUOTE=toasty;422075]I don't know how you could view the prior election as anything other than a wholesale rejection of this current [B]perversion of republicanism[/B]. [/QUOTE]

I'll agree with you that the election does not reflect that the country has embraced far-left liberalism -- Ned Lamont losing to Leiberman is good evidence of that. It was absolutely a rejection of the incumbents, though, whatever you want to call them.

Re: toasty's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=Jenks;422226]Thanks for the lesson Dad.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://www.postdiluvian.org/~gilly/Schoolhouse_Rock/pix/bill.jpg[/IMG]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: