Balance of power shifts in U.S. senate

Canaboid

Are we happy or sad ?

Paladin

We is happy.

DadaKopf

It'll definitely make things more interesting. Bush's plans are also dead in the water.

yossarin

It'll force the republicans to acknowledge the democrats anyway

there was an interview on bbc last night with a republican and a democrat next to each other + talking about the defection. It was hilarious - they were both trying to look so composed and together, but ended up bickering like kids confronted by a parent. ehhh, politics eh ?

DadaKopf

I saw Newsnight last night too. In fact, depite their childish bickering, I was impressed by both representatives. They acted compused and weren't at all sensationalist. It was like watching a less funny Peter Cook and Dudley Moore comedy sketch .

Anyway, they made two points: one, if it's about the 'Dairy Compact' in Vermont, you cant look at politics at face value and two, it's going to force Dubya to actually implement his 'bi-partisan' approach instead of pretending he's doing it, when he was in fact excluding the Democrats.

What I found most impressive of all was the agreement on both sides that neither Republican nor Democrat has a real mandate by the people of America to do what they want.

Bush was dumb to lose the upper house - but that's really no surprise.

These certainly are interesting times.

Magwitch

Bush pushed a right wing agenda, appealing to the ultra right wing of the Repubican block (like William Hauge). He has paid the price.

There are many other republican senators for whom the lack of debate about Bushes agenda is anathema to the republican cause (true freedom and democracy in the militia sence). Bush has picked the scab of the republican schism within the party. The "right" wing in america is more about anti-gun control than oil. A lesson Bush jr. is aboout to learn.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

DadaKopf

Excelsior: apart from the fact that the opposition now theoretically controls the law-making, upper house. It was a huge mistake.

You also forget the fact that the Democrats can now capitalise on public opinion and oppose the Republicans so that they will look better and win the next election. That's politics.

---

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Excelsior

If the opposition doesn't oppose very much, it might as well be in power.

That is why I don't think there will be a lot of change as a result of this.

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent

Excelsior

It makes little immeadiate difference and no long term difference in my opinion.
The reason I say this is that the Democrats are just Republicans in better drag. There is no real difference in their attitudes. As such, the whole partizan politics phenomenon is essential. Without their bickering, we would realise they differ very little in real terms.
Now as far as it making a difference to Bush's Presidence, I doubt it.
Bush has had some pretty massive, stunningly stupid victories in the past 4 months, (since his only failure- that of winning the election )
and he achieved it by consolidating his core right wing William Hague-esque supporters (as has been pointed out) and by enlisting (agenda for agenda) the support of lobby groups who USUALLY would side with Democrats. An example of this is how the Teamster Union support was vital in the development of his ludicrous energy bill. He convinced them that the new oil drills, even the ones in Alaskan wildlife preserves, would bring new jobs, and they would all be unionised. The reason that they side now with Bush is that there is little to no difference between him and Gore and Democrats. Both groups are hungry for one thing- power, and power alone.
As such in the world of Sky News, is a shift, or a re-balance of power, but seeing as the two sides stand for the same thing, in reality it makes little difference.

Edited for spelling

---

My Adolescent website:
http://www.iol.net/~mullent


[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 26-05-2001).]