If everything breaks right for the pubbies, there could be by next year:
– more open Democratic than Republican seats (19 vs 14 IIRC)
– a popular incumbant President vs a weak Dem
– possible a Democratic platform that’s viewed as out of the mainstream
– several key Democratic Senate retirements
– some strong Republican Senate challengers
– the economy clearly out of recession and improving
– Iraq may be pacified and working well
– good progress may be toward Israel peace
– some sort of Medicare prescription drug coverage
Will that combination lead to a veto-proof Senate majority for the Republicans?
This only matters to those who insist on seeing those fellow citizens who do not share their party affiliation not as fellow citizens but as the enemy. We’ve had enough of that crap.
Look for the electorate to continue its habitual ticket-splitting. The current single-party control on both ends of the street is a fluke, for reasons we’ve discussed at great length.
However, if it doesn’t work that way, then Neurotik is speaking too soon: A filibuster-proof Senate, and a continued Bush Administration, lets Rove do whatever the hell he wants.
If Bush is retained as president, why would Republicans want to veto-proof the Senate? Do they want to protect the country from Bush’s judgement? Or are you conceding Bush’s defeat in 2004? Of course, you need 2/3 of both Houses to veto-proof the Congress.
That’s a mighty big string of ifs in your assumptions. Given another year of casualties in Iraq, Bush may not be as popular this time next year. One senses the teflon already starting to flake off. As far as the party platform goes, who ever reads them? Iraq working well? Let’s hope so, but I don’t share your optimism. Progress of peace in the Middle East? Let’s hope so, but we’ve had these hopes dashed many times before.
Sometimes I think it would be better to have a Democratic president and Republican congress. Then the Republicans turn back into the fiscal responsibility party as they oppose Presidential initiatives.
But when it’s Republican-Republican, these clowns don’t seem to have any spending restraint. Bush is a big-spending President, but because he’s a Republican, the Congress lets him get away with it. Shameful.
Just wait till he’s an second-termer big spending President with a Congressional majority! Then everyone will be begging to get their’s while the getting is good.
I think a lot of Americans have already had all they can stand of Dubya. It would take a lot of good news to change things, I think he and a lot of Pubbies will be goners in 2004 if the Dems can manage to look like something resembling an opposition party by then. Right now the Dem leadership look like a bunch of scared fat-cat pols who know they’re on the outs and want to get back in by any means necessary. They’ve completely lost faith in their message and their constituency.
Just like Reagan, who was happy to spend money on everything Congress wanted, as long as he got to run up the national credit card on all his stuff too. Feh.
Puts me in mind of my fearless prediction in this thread:
His approval rating is well over 50%. Don’t confuse your own personal opinion with the opinion of most Americans. Granted you said “a lot” and not “most”, but until it’s “most” then it’s pretty meaningless.
I’ve always been a big fan of gridlock. Since most of what the gov’t does is counterproductive, things are best when it does nothing. But I’m undecided on how to divvy up the power. In times of international crises, I prefer the Pubs in the presidency.
Don’t worry december, as soon as the Republicans pass their anti-filibuster rule with a bare majority, Dubya can pack the judiciary with ultra right wing judges to his heart’s content.
It might not be a bare minority. it would take an awful lot of luck for the Republicans to pick up 9 Senate seats, but a normal result would be for them to pick up 4 or 5, given the advantages noted in the OP.
