You don't have any control over congress without 60 votes in the senate. And you better have a bigger margin in the house than having the balance of power being chris shays northeastern rinos.
When the dems can filibuster anwr, miguel estrada, estate tax, medical liability reform you have no control.
There is no such thing as a majority without 60 votes in the senate.
Dems filibustered social security by sending a letter to bush with 42 dems saying no to a deal.
Republicans are in the worst position. They need Harry Reid's approval on any bill and yet the public has the perception of them having power.
If you can't have 60 votes in the senate with a big enough margin in the house to take away the chris shays affect then you are better giving up the fake power.
If you don't have 60 votes in the senate the congress is in nuetral mode. There is no majority when the dems can block any judge or legislation with only 41`votes.
Why would this issue need 60 votes in the Senate? Are you saying that Bush is willing to go to the mats on this one?
Majorities in BOTH Houses and the Presidency and that's "perception" of "power"?? And it's Reid who pulls the strings?
Your answer evokes a simple question:
Then what the h#ll is the point?