[Nicko]

Is he? Why or why not? Will it depend on what happens in the Senate race in virginia? Or are the die cast for Bush?

I am curious, after listening to Bush's press conference on CNN, he seemed slightly different... perhaps not humbled, but definitely on edge and on the defensive. He cracked a joke about picking out curtains for the new House leader which seemed to elicit no laughs --- except for crickets chirping. Is Bush out of ideas? Has Rove finally been outwitted?

Is the Bush admin now a sinking ship from which there is no escape, or does he have a life line left?

Thoughts?

[davesimondotcom]

Any President in the last 2 years of his term, especially if his party doesn't control the Congress, is a lame-duck.

I'm hopeful, however, that this election will guide Bush towards accepting more input from the opposition and, since the Democrats don't exactly have a "mandate" it will force them to work with the Republicans, too.

Essentially, I'm hoping this is a win for the middle.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

Essentially, I'm hoping this is a win for the middle.

Agreed. I'm really afraid that the Dems will decide that this election was some sort of coup and try to move the needle all the way to the other side. I really think the best thing that could happen now is two years of gridlock giving people some time to cool down and elect more moderate candidates in 2008. Of course during those two years we're undoubtedly going to have what is essentially non-stop scare tactics from the Republicans about how we're letting the country go to hell by electing terrorist-appeasing liberals, but I'm hoping that with neither party getting anything substantial done those tactics will fall mostly on deaf ears.

[Jawbone54]

This was not at all a win for the middle. I'm afraid that no such thing exists in modern politics. Moderates are a means to an end, not legitimate players.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

This was not at all a win for the middle. I'm afraid that no such thing exists in modern politics. Moderates are a means to an end, not legitimate players.

I'm talking about the middle of the electorate, not the moderate politicians.

There is a HUGE difference.

[Tuoder]

George Bush is still the president. He is still the most powerful person politically in the U.S.A. The difference now is that he will have problems pushing the Republican agenda. But then, as he is president, the Democratic agenda will not be doing so great either. This is, as has been said before, a victory for moderates. We will just have to see how things pan out over the next two years, and in '08.

[Chuckit]

I guarantee you Bush will not win the next election, so I guess you could say that.

[Shaddim]

I thought all Presidents were called "lame ducks" in their second terms?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

I thought all Presidents were called "lame ducks" in their second terms?

Yeah, my understanding was that any elected official who would/could not serve another term was considered a 'lame duck'.

[Dakar²]

I'll take the lame duck with the mango salsa.

[:dragonflypro:]

And yet the blame for every ill on Earth will be rest at his feet by the hating mob.

The real question is whether the newly elected democratic legislative branch will do anything that makes a difference… positive difference that is.


T

=====

Def: Lame Duck: an elected official who has lost a re-election or who did not seek re-election, but continues to hold office in between the time of the election and the time of the inauguration of the successor.

[Atomic Rooster]

He can veto everything.

[The Left]

he's always been lame.

[Buckaroo]

He might be a lame duck president, but he ain't as lame as Gore.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'll take the lame duck with the mango salsa.

I've lost my appetite, thanks. o_0

[Millennium]

Certainly he is until the next session of Congress. Expect the outgoing Democrats to filibuster everything until the new Democrats arrive. They ran and won on a platform of obstructionism, and so they'll do what the voters mandated: obstruct. Bonus points if they can goad the Republicans into invoking the nuclear option for them (and don't expect the Democrats to reinstate the filibuster if that happens).

Once the next session opens, then things really start to get interesting.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'll take the lame duck with the mango salsa.

.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

They ran and won on a platform of obstructionism, and so they'll do what the voters mandated: obstruct.

I think this is a healthy fear, but it still takes two to tango. Considering Dems lack of good ideas for Iraq, they didn't have much else to work with.

Lots of people have been bashing the two-party system recently, but I have at least some hope for the future. What makes the two-party system work is the compromise that more or less equally balanced parties come to. We haven't even tried to do this for a loooong time.

At the very least, now that the Republicans must parley with the Democrats, the Democrats will be infused with some new ideas.

Whether the Democrats use this opportunity is anyone's guess, but I think it's an equal guess as to whether the Republican's are willing to help come up with new ideas, or will they just adopt an obstructionist attitude.

[Kr0nos]

Would that be an up- or a downgrade from his usual status as "lame-ass"?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos 

Would that be an up- or a downgrade from his usual status as "lame-ass"?

Downgrade. He got some of the stuff on his agenda passed as a "lame-ass". This is less likely now. Not that I consider the dems all that strong either...

[mac128k-1984]

I think even before the election he was a lame duck president. Unable to push his agenda one inch, now with a democrat controlled congress he's pretty much done.

I remember back when he was first elected president and the newscasters presented a man who was able to hammer our laws in texas and work with the opposing party yet he's only done the opposite in washington. Dig his heals in and state anybody who disagrees is not patriotic or a good american.

[btober]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom 

I'm hopeful, however, that this election will guide Bush towards accepting more input from the opposition and, since the Democrats don't exactly have a "mandate" it will force them to work with the Republicans, too.

It's as much of a "mandate" as the Republicans said they had with Bush's re-election in 2004.

CNN.com - President Bush declares victory 'historic' - Nov 3, 2004

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I think even before the election he was a lame duck president. Unable to push his agenda one inch, now with a democrat controlled congress he's pretty much done.

I remember back when he was first elected president and the newscasters presented a man who was able to hammer our laws in texas and work with the opposing party yet he's only done the opposite in washington. Dig his heals in and state anybody who disagrees is not patriotic or a good american.

I'm hoping that without a Republican congress to back him up, Bush throws out some of the more extreme elements of his agenda and focuses more on navigating common ground with the Democrats. As you've noted, that's what he did in Texas, but not only did he have to work with the opposing party there, but the Texas Governorship is considered very weak compared to other states in terms of the power that the office has relative to other branches. The President's office is much stronger by comparison (especially with Bush/Cheney asserting the Unitary Executive doctrine whenever they can), and I think Bush simply forgot how to work with the other party once he didn't need their support to push his agenda.

Putting Gates in the Defense Secretary job in place of Rumsfeld was a very good start. Who knows? He may be a better President when he actually is forced to work the "reality-based" people across the aisle.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'm hoping that without a Republican congress to back him up, Bush throws out some of the more extreme elements of his agenda and focuses more on navigating common ground with the Democrats. As you've noted, that's what he did in Texas

My concern there is who sitting in congress at the moment (for republicans) the majority of senate seats that were lost were moderate republicans that means percentage wise there are now more conservative republicans then moderate and they may try to push forward more of a conservative approach. Your right his best bet is to work with congress something that has really yet to do - at least these past few years.

[Shaddim]

My hope is that Bush will just get out his Veto rubber stamp and just tag everything that crosses his desk for the next 27 months.

Hell, he can just stay in Crawford and let new bills just rot. I'd love that.

[Dakar²]

Not a big fan of the Federal govt., eh?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Not a big fan of the Federal govt., eh?

Usually, the less they do, the better off we are.

[Dakar²]

Then this last year must have been gold for you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Then this last year must have been gold for you.

Can't say that I enjoyed it very much. But, I saw no tax increases, so it wasn't all bad.

That's likely why Reagan and Clinton seemed to be so productive. They used their veto powers and were constantly fighting the other party, who controlled one or both houses of congress. Very little actually "got done", which meant that the gov't wasn't mettling in business affairs.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

That's likely why Reagan and Clinton seemed to be so productive. They used their veto powers and were constantly fighting the other party, who controlled one or both houses of congress. Very little actually "got done", which meant that the gov't wasn't mettling in business affairs.

Or maybe because anything that got past both parties appealed to the mainstream.

[Dork.]

Practically speaking, though, Congress is still divided pretty much straight down the middle. The only change is that all the committees will be run by Democrats, which means that there will probably be more oversight of the executive in the relevant committees. (Although it's hard to get much less oversight than the current Congress performed...), and more obviously liberal bills coming out of these committees. But anything that gets past both parties will still be middle-of-the-road, especially since most of the new Democrats are much more conservative than the old-school Liberal Democrats who will be running all those committees, and not likely to let them get away with locking up all the guns, banning God, and making us all gay.

[OSX Abuser]

[Kevin]

bartcop is full of idiots. Not surprised that picture came from there.

Talk about foaming at the mouth political zealots.

[ironknee]

the elixir of democracy makes us giddy!