Replies

I think at best he will manage an O'Connor and at worst it will be a Souter.

I hope not. I was actually thinking the same thing. I'm hoping that the Senate will go 60+ Republican in '06. It is highly probable IMO that this will happen. With a supermajority it will be over for the Dems.

With a supermajority it will be over for the Dems

I called this congress the "no-excuses congress" because the RP finally got what they have been whining for for about 40 years. WH, HOR, Senate... now they claim they need a filibuster-proof Senate to really get the job done. Funny how the Dems somehow managed to push socialism as far as they have without all the things the RP is asking for. Why not, give them the 60 senators they need and I will look forward to the creative excuses they will come up with for not rolling back govt.

I'm hoping that the Senate will go 60+ Republican in '06. It is highly probable IMO that this will happen.

I think it more likely that one or both houses will return to effective Dim control than that Bush would lose. Even without any leadership from House/Senate Dims comparable to Gingrich's takeover in '94.

Control of both houses and the presidency by one party is an anomaly in modern times. Given the kind of spending we're seeing, I can't see what a GOP supermajority would get us. Lower spending? I can't quite believe it.

The GOP Congress spends like drunken Democrats, knowing Bush won't veto because Bush proposed the high deficit spending. And Bush, once re-elected, won't need them much anyway. Despite all his wailing, Clinton never seemed to miss his Dim-majority Congress. At least, until we impeached his lying ass.

Bush may not actually care much whether the GOP majority in Congress gets re-elected. And true enough, they're the ones to blame for the spending. Bush won't really need them after this year, judging by the priorities of his first term. They might even be a liability to him.