posted
I'm glad to say that after Tuesday's elections here (large voter turnout!) the Deomcrats have taken the House AND the Senate(well, as long as Virginia's votes don't go the other way). Plus! Rumsfeld resigned! Hurray!
posted
Can someone quickly run through how much of a difference this actually makes?
I know that Bush is obviously still president which must be a fairly big thing. Presumeably on big issues they have a vote in the house or senate and it is meant to then go with that. Is Bush then allowed to veto things or does he not hold any real power any longer?
Posts: 39
| IP: Logged
posted
Amy - yep we were very pleased with this outcome. I cannot begin to express my hatred towards Bush and his cowboy attitude to internal and external politics. The man cares more about cheeseburgers and golf it seems like he does at his actual job.
The American people have made their feelings known that they have had enough, and suddenly the future looks bright again. I'm really happy for you all - hopefully once he is gone and you have someone the world can admire in charge, a lot of this current unnecessary Anti-Amercanism will hopefully stop.
quote:Originally posted by Cactus: Can someone quickly run through how much of a difference this actually makes?
I know that Bush is obviously still president which must be a fairly big thing. Presumeably on big issues they have a vote in the house or senate and it is meant to then go with that. Is Bush then allowed to veto things or does he not hold any real power any longer?
It's mostly a "change of climate" for the time being, in that the neoconservative far right can no longer simply ignore the Democratic opposition, which is more or less what they've been doing for the past six years. (Though the Dems have been doing a fairly good job of being readily ignorable, it must be said.)
The biggest immediate change is likely to be that Bush will be forced to negotiate, very different than the dictator he's essentially been til now. The veto becomes a very real tool, and probably a very effective one.
Some perspective: During the 4 years of the Bush the elder presidency, the first Bush vetoed 44 bills, only one of which was overridden by a 2/3 vote in Congress. But while the Dems have a simple majority (sort of- they're also counting on two independent senators to come along for the ride), they most likely won't have the votes to override a presidential veto. This also means that even if the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate (simple majority is all that's required, which they now have), the Senate most likely won't vote to remove Dubya (two thirds majority vote required).
The upside of the Dems having majority in both houses, I think, comes down to their agenda-setting power - they can now control which bills are brought to the floor and which aren't, and can begin using the power of the subpoena to call Bush administration cronies in front of panels for questioning, investigation, etc.
It's a step in the right direction (though I quarrel with rooster's characterization that I was dancing with joy- OK, sure, I was happy, but let's face it, I don't really dance), but let's see what happens from here. The next two years are mostly posturing for the 2008 presidential race, and what the Dems need to do is keep themselves from being blame fodder for the Republicans, who since 1994 have proven frighteningly effective at creating propaganda that points blame elsewhere.
And let's not forget the slim margin of some of the critical wins - the overall ratio of the popular vote hasn't changed all that much since the 2000 Bush v Gore race, so there are still quite a few Americans, about half the country, who, for reasons I can't honestly understand, still seem to think the Republicans are the better team.
posted
I think the one's who are still looking at Bush as their leader tend to be a lot of the military. This is because their paychecks come from the Republicans.
If the Democrats don't put someone with character, who is tough, up for the 2008 Presidential race, they'll lose. (I should say we'll, considering I'm a registered Democrat). It should be noted that the Democrats have seemed like a bunch of (and excuse the language) pussies for however long now. (i.e.-When Kerry's joke failed, why were so many Dems screaming apologize, when it was Bush who turned the failed joke around onto the troops? Especially seeing as how Kerry was in combat and our oh so lovely president was not. I don't know that I would have apologized.)
If anyone can bit torrent Real Time with Bill Maher...he's on HBO on Friday nights, you should. He's a political comedien and worth watching.
(Hello rooster and froopy...glad you voted!)
Posts: 2918
| IP: Logged
posted
I think things will be verrrry interesting actross the pond now.
Until the Bush regime, I always thought that if I were American and had to choose one of the two main parties I would veer towards the Republicans. Unfortunately, the party has become so riddled with neo-cons that it is probably beyond saving, at least for the remainder of Bush's term. They made a big mistake when they chose Bush over John McCain back in 2000. As for 2004, that was pretty much a shoo-in for Bush, both within his own party and against a lame duck like Kerry.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4130
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic