Rumsfeld Resigns, Texas A&M President to replace him.

[Sibling Chatty]

Robert Gates, the President of Texas A&M University will replace Donald Rumsfeld, who suddenly learned how to get a clue.

In other news, the House of Reps is now strongly Democratic, the Senate is up for grabs (and Allen is being told by the Repub leadership to keep his mouth shut, since in the last few elections they've been VERY against recounts.)

The lone Socialist in the Senate has said he's definitely caucus with the Dems, and Lieberman has promised to do so as well...but then he's lied before. 9He's also not stupid and he sees which way the wind's blowing.) Whe Allen is definitely out, these 2 independents will put the balance of power in the Senate at 51-49.

George "Macaca" Allen is expected to be a total ass about things, but the Repub leadership is planning to squash him like a bug if he gets too obnoxious.

[Sibling Spoffish]

It's very hard to get up-to-date news here down under... what's the current senate ratio? Last I heard was 50 dems, they didn't say how many repubs. What's the news since then?

[ivor]

Could be 51-49 Dems if what AP is projecting is correct. 

MB

[The Meromorph]

It's still 50 Dems - 49 Repugs. The 'still undecided' Virginia seat (initial figure Dem by about 7,000 votes, will not announce the result of a 're-canvas' until next week, will not be official until 27th, and Allen is expected to ask for a recount then. Maximum difference to enable a recount varies by state. I believe 7,000 is about 0.3% and a recount is allowed up to 0.5% difference in Virginia.

There are always 2 senators per state, giving us 50 these days, and the Vice President has a deciding vote if they split 50 - 50 on any issue.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Even if they are 50-50, the republicans will not have it "their way" anymore.  Even with Cheney deciding the split.

This is because there are more and more moderate republicans who are distancing themselves form bushie's bankrupt policies (say that fast 3 times ... heh).

Thus, even if it's 49-51 repub, or 50-50, the extremists in the part will not have their sway.

I suspect we'll be seeing bushie's veto-pen, though.

Isn't it a GOOD thing we didn't give him the line-item veto?

Hindsight is SUCH a perfect tool, no?

[ivor]

51-49 Dems is good too.  At least we get gridlock.  I like gridlock.  Gridlock like the '90s. 

MB

[Swatopluk]

One problem though. Several republicans considered moderate have lost either to democrats or more radical republicans.

I think I read that in Virginia there has to be a recount, if the difference is less than 1 percent.

The Rummy replacement looks not better than the original (he was one of the book cookers as it seems).

I think, if Bush had given Rummy the boot a week or two ago (and secretly a general presidential pardon, of course), the election results would have looked different. But Bush has shown that he simply does not know, when to endorse and when to fire somebody (see Katrina).

Unfortunately the subliminal racist campaign against Ford worked. Like him or not, it would have been a good sign. That he still came close to winning might be a good sign nonetheless.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Nope.  According   NPR, the republican candidate conceds defeat to the democrat.

It's now 51 dems to 49 repubs.

And the dems have an easy majority in the house.

So. What's next: Impeachment?  (I wish ... )

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Much better would be an investigation for misconduct in the vicepresident office.


(I know, veeeery unlikely, but then again I had no hopes of a Democratic victory...)

[Aphos]

51-49 Dems is good too.  At least we get gridlock.  I like gridlock.  Gridlock like the '90s. 

MB

Personally, I like it when the Dems and Repugs have to talk to each other to get things done.  Taking different viewpoints into account is a GOOD thing in my book.

I had a PoliSci professor as an undergrad that stated he always voted different parties for president and congress for that reason.  He (and I too) felt that we get better government when one party ISN'T in control.

At least we should sees some breaks put on this neocon nonsense, and some balance between liberal and conservative.  Maybe (keeping my fingers crossed) some real fiscal responsibility.  Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I can hope.

[Swatopluk]

For tactical reasons it would probably much better to first investigate the administration to death bottom up (slowly tightening the noose) and go for the kill (impeachment) only after the charges are bombproof.
This would probably be the only way to persuade the necessary Republicans to vote for it (either you endorse this or you will be seen as a defender of large-scale criminals).

As far as I can see, impeachment is the only way to prevent a pardon by the next GOP president (could it make Bush's inevitable pardon for his accomplices non-valid too?)

What about the two-step: Bush pardons everybody (or at least Cheney) and resigns, then Cheney becomes president and pardons Bush? Would that be legal (Bush can't pardon himself legally as fa r as I know).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I was chatting on the phone yesterday about all this stuff.

And I made a statement that made me stop, and say, "what did I just say?"

The statement was this:  "It's good the Democrats are in power - maybe they can get us BACK to a balanced budget."

And then I realized what I'd said, and asked:

"When, did the Democrats become the party of Fiscal Responsibility?"

"Under Clinton, I believe" is the obvious answer.

But it's deeper than that.  The Democrats have traditionally been painted as "tax and spend" party, with some justification, I think.  In that "tax and spend" IS hyperbole, but based on a small modicum of truth.

However, since Ronnie Regan, the Republican party has tended, more and more, to "borrow and spend".

So that now, today, the policies of the Democrats, in contrast to that of the Republicans, seems Responsible.  Even WITH a reputation (deserved or not) of raising taxes ...

Conclusion:  The Republicans have gone SO OVER THE TOP with their rampant spending, that even raising of taxes seems reasonable!

The Republicans:  The poor-middle-class party with TOO MANY CREDIT CARDS.

EVER though you'd see the day?

--former Republican, from before Reagan's "borrow and spend, big-government policies"

[Sibling Chatty]

That's it. Dems tax (try to do it fairly, not give it all away to corporate tax cuts and rich folks tax cuts) and THEN spend. The Repubs have always been about SPEND LESS, often to the detriment of the infrastructure, but the "Reagan Revolution"--aka the institutionalized rape of the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled and the middle classes--ushered in the irreversible (until now) borrow and spend (and give to the corporations, aka the wealthy corporate owners) and don't worry about paying it back policies that they've tried to pass off as fiscal responsibility.

Hell, yes, Democrats are going to spend money on food, shelter and education for the poor.  How the hell can you expect someone to hold a decent job and support themselves if they have literally been on the edge of starvation all their lives?? To a Reagan Republican, that would be a travesty. MUCH better to give huge tax breaks to corporations that already have little tax burden, and then give them "corporate welfare" to advertize and market their products, which are often produced by people that are barely earning a living wage. (Some wages are better that others, but note the disparity figures and the changes in percents in the last 50 years.)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Yep, Sib Chatty.  Astute analysis as usual.

On other forums, there is some discussion as to what the Dems should do first.

One item frequently mentioned, is raise the minimum wage.  California has apparently already proceeded in that direction, under the moderate repub Guvanator (Aaahnald may be a lot of things, but stupid is NOT one of them).

I'd personally like to see a min-wage hike.

xxxx

I was talking with my brother the other day about the democratic-sweep, and we were thinking about the past 6 years, and all those HUGE BILLIONS of dollars WASTED on bushya's war.

Just think what even 10% of that huge war-budget would have accomplished, if spent on DOMESTIC issues ... can anyone say "universal health care"?

How about "reasonable teacher's salaries"?

Or, for the safety-minded, "how many cops could have been hired"?  Or border-patrol types?

How about a tiny percent, say, 0.001%, spent on air-port baggage-screening tech -- wouldn't you like to see airport lines return to pre-9/11 time-frames?  High-tech screening equipment could make this possible ...

*sigh* all that lovely WASTED money ... if an ordinary citizen had stolen even 0.001% of the war budget - we'd all be crying for his skin to be nailed to the nearest wall, 1 inch at a time. Yet bushya and his cronies have stolen 1,000 times that ...

In the words of an old beloved comic, and how it often used to end a story, (Groo, the wanderer for the curious) [slightly paraphrased]:

"Hang'in's too good for 'em.  Stabbin's too good for'em.  Burnin's too good for'em.  I say burn'em, then stab'em, then hang'em.  Then kill'em.  THEN bury'em alive!"

[ivor]

I do like it when they work together.  I don't like it when they do to much though because they screw things up when they work together.  The gridlock of the '90s was great.  I was making good money.  The longest economic expansion in US history occured in the '90s.

MB