Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Democrats take the house!

The Chameleon

By The Chameleon
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Chameleon Newbie

The Chameleon

Posted
Posted

Thank fuckin'! GAWD!!!!1

--------------------------

Posted on Wed, Nov. 08, 2006

Democrats take over House, challenge GOP for Senate Congress

Control of the upper chamber hinges on close races in Virginia and Montana.

By SCOTT CANON

The Kansas City Star

The fate of the Congress, and the stretch run of the Bush presidency, appeared to be slipping from all-out Republican control Tuesday.

Early returns showed a political wind propelling Democrats. They won the House, and early in the evening took three Republican-held Senate seats. By early today, they were ahead in key races in Virginia and Montana.

If their leads held up, they would win a majority and control of the Senate.

At stake were issues from Iraq to immigration, foreign policy to domestic direction for a country in which voters told exit pollsters that they were unsatisfied with Washington.

“From sea to shining sea, the American people have voted for change,†said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat now destined to be the first woman speaker of the House.

Democrats had reason for optimism as all their Senate incumbents appeared headed to re-election while challengers also defeated Republican senators in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Having failed to gain Tennessee, they still needed to win the other two nail-biters to wrest control of Capitol Hill. The incumbent Republican in Virginia lost by less than 3,000 votes out of 2.5 million cast, meaning a vote canvass is beginning this morning.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who won re-election as an independent after losing his Democratic primary, has vowed to caucus with the Democrats. So that Connecticut race was a wash.

Early today, Democrats had, by projections made by The Associated Press, picked up a net of 22 seats. Some news organizations were projecting that Democrats would eventually outnumber House Republicans by 10 seats or more. Still, more than 30 races remained undecided around midnight. The Democrats needed a net gain of 15 seats to win control of the House.

A Democratic victory in either chamber would set the stage for a contentious final two years of the Bush presidency.

Even if the midterm election fell short of the Washington revolution some thought would come from disaffection with the Iraq war, it could substantially weaken the president’s hand.

A Democratic capture of the House would break a Republican hold that began a dozen years ago. It would give new investigative powers to the opposition party and mean that the administration would need to bend on budget and policy issues to get anything through Congress.

It would also mean that Democrats — who tried to grow by moving to the center rather than hectoring from the far left — would either compromise among themselves or risk defections to the Republicans.

Yet the House agenda would certainly be the Democrats’ to exploit or fumble.

When Newt Gingrich ended the generations-long Democratic hold on the House in 1994, he and his acolytes promised a “Contract with America.†A dozen years later, Pelosi has tried to grasp the speaker’s gavel with her pledge to tackle a series of issues in the new Congress’ “first 100 hours.â€

She has promised quick votes on implementation of the remainder of the Sept. 11 Commission’s recommendations; raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; demanding government to leverage its buying power to lower Medicare’s prescription drug costs; cutting in half interest on subsidized student loans; and tightening rules on lobbying.

Whether any of those initiatives could become law is quite another thing.

Democrats worked to take control of the House not so much with talk of a world-shaking 100 hours, but by trying to capitalize on the slumping popularity of the administration and its handling of the Iraq war, and by offering more conservative candidates.

As for Iraq, Congress is unlikely to directly steer policy there.

“Congress can just complain,†said Owen Cote, associate director of the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The president still has the initiative. … If anything, Bush won’t be a lame duck so much as he’ll be freed to pursue things without having to worry about the next election.â€

Even with just a narrow edge in the House, Democrats would still gain hold of the steering wheel. Any decisions about what’s debated on the floor and for how long would go to the Democrats — setting the stage for Bush-bashing lectures on C-Span. All the committee chairmanships would go to Democrats.

For instance, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri would take over the Armed Services Committee, and he’s fantasized aloud about reviving a subcommittee on oversight and investigations to sniff out waste and corruption in defense spending. Skelton likely would also push for a larger Army and a more determined handover of security to Iraqi forces.

In that way, argued DePaul University political scientist Michael Mezey, Democrats could begin to alter public opinion to pressure Bush.

“It’s not going to be a U-turn,†said Mezey, the author of Congress, The President and Public Policy. “Congress doesn’t end the war. But it helps create an atmosphere where it becomes more and more likely that could occur.â€

And the president would fall under the eye of a new watchdog — in the form of House panels with the ability to stage headline-grabbing hearings and subpoena power — that would hold the administration to closer scrutiny. It’s Checks and Balances 101, Mezey said.

Senate rules are more flexible, and give individual members more influence. So turnover in that chamber, with a Republican in the White House, would prove less dramatic.

Yet even there, the party in power matters. Most noticeably, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has promised to put any nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court to a vote of the full Senate. Should Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont become chairman, a Bush nominee to the high court could stay bottled up in committee indefinitely.

“The Democrats can’t impose a nominee on Bush,†said Theodore Lowi, a government professor at Cornell University. “But they can make sure his nominee doesn’t make it on to the court.â€

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Birdy Newbie

Birdy

Posted
Posted

i was reading an interesting article in 'the Atlantic' a few minutes ago, which suggested that the Democrats controlling the house and senate might not be the best idea, election strategy wise. It suggested the party may fare better in the coming election if the Republicans were left there, continuing to do the outrageous and appalling stuff the Bush administration has become famous for. That way in two years, the American people won't think 'ahh the Republicans aren't so bad' because the Democrats have been in place to squash their lunacy, and instead will be ready to vote them the hell out of there.

it was a good read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollie Newbie

ollie

Posted
Posted
hmmm, so now that it looks like the Dems have taken the Senate too, you think they will try to impeach Bush?

The Dems have already said they won't be going there. And good for them. The last thing the USA needs is another distraction from dealing with the real problem at hand. i.e. what to do about Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...