Is this going to be the most lame duck President in history?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/bolton.congress/index.html

He seems to be determined to go on as he had before, and this will essentially create gridlock. I expect more Presidential vetoes in these short two years than in the decade prior.

I wonder if that’s going to be the strategy, to make the Democrats look like they’re fighting Bush on everything by continuing with the extreme.

I got a feeling that the war in Iraq is where they will butt heads on the most (and the most visable).

Domestic issues…not so much.

We’ll see. Politicians are crazy.

This president is such a lame duck that the vice president could shoot him and not hit anybody else.

Actually, I disagree. I think we’ll see some coherent, useful legislation in the next two years- with Bush’s cooperation. I don’t think we’ll see much of a pissing match between the executive and legislative branches. The Republicans have heard the message and are now going to try to present themselves as team players rather than bullies.

I’m not a Republican and I’m hardly pro-Bush, but I think we’ll be surprised at how productive the rest of Bush’s term will be.

Well, he actually is trying to get Gates to be his Secretary. There’s at least one thing I can say he was smart on. Then again, it’s kind of late isn’t it?

Hopefully all this will sink in when they realize that it’s not about the Dems or the Reps, it’s about US wanting THEM to do their fucking jobs. That means compromise, listening, working things out, actually showing up for work, etc.

I mean, if that’s too much for us to ask for, maybe we just need to vote out ALL the incumbents and start fresh…

In the case of the war, isn’t the senate essentially split 50/50 thus giving Republicans the edge, due to Joe?

But this isn’t a War, it was never formally declared.

What. No seriously, what.

The United States never formally declared war against Iraq, just like they never did with Vietnam or Korea. They’re all “police actions.”

I think most people here are aware of that, the question I have is of course: so what?

No, the answer is that there’s no formal declaration of war therefore it changes what the structure of power in regards to military action and who’s in charge of what.

There’s a difference:

Also:

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

In a formal declaration, things are done just a wee bit differently.

Well, I think we’re going to have an interesting situation to say the least. In effect, the Republicans left in Congress are more radical than the moderates who were booted out in favor of Democrats. Their constituents haven’t changed and the worst of them dominate the primary process.

However, Rove’s got an inkling now that pandering exclusively to the base, going for the narrow partisan victory, suppressing the rest of the vote through deceptive rhetoric and negative advertising, and just laughing off reality will (given time - lots of time) sink in with the ignored moderate middle and rational conservatives. They’ll kick back sooner or later.

So what we’ll see is a Democratic party leadership and a Republican leadership (in the White House) that both want to, now, prove to the middle they’re competant and reasonable people in order to realign things for 2008. Many of the newly elected Democrats are also moderates or even slightly conservative. They’ll back this. The Republican right, however, has an even tighter deathgrip on the rank and file of the congress and their own constituents will keep pushing them farther right.

I suspect of enough of the surviving, and pragmatic, Republicans are willing to work with Congressional leadership and the administration. They’ll play along and we’ll see some impressive things get done that need to get done.

But there’s really no telling how Rove will read the new map for certain and if he sees advantage in pushing back, proving the administration’s conservative credentials for the far right base of the fragmenting party, then we will see gridlock. But I promise you, the Democrats will definitely take note of the “obstructionist” Republican administration if it vetos popular bills. And there is a definite element in the Democratic party that wants blood and payback for the way they were treated by the Republican majority and the administration, many more who want investigations and oversight to genuinely fix problems and sort out what’s been going on with corruption and Iraq.

The Democratic left needs to chill out. The bleeding is staunched. Some investigations are inevitable and it’s best to strike now before everything’s been shredded or disappeared. But they cannot take it too far on that account and it’s best they don’t push legislation that’s too ideological themselves.

We have Rove’s failed divide and conquer strategy right before us plain for all to see. The Democrats win now by proving they’re not the devils Bush and Co. have pretended they are. Get things done, find common ground - be reasonable, damn it. This country has some serious problems that need fixing.

Your assuming every other Senator would vote along strict party lines, and that those party lines are democrat-against war, republican- for war. Its a lot more complicated then that. Senators are under no obligation to vote with their party, and going to war is exactly up for vote. There are a ton of different ways to vote on the war, such as a specific time table for withdraw, or different budget requests. Quite frankly, a lot of democrats feel like a sudden withdraw would be highly unstabilizing for the region. On the otherhand, republicans are now seeing the war as an unpopular issue for which they will continue to take heat for as long as America’s involved.

The real importance of having a “majority”, since nearly every controversial vote will have defectors on at least one side of the isle, is the vote for Senate leadership positions, which are almost always straight down party lines. Hence, the journalists/analysts are using the word “caucus” with the democrats, as oppose to “vote” with the democrats. Not even a democrat is expected to always vote with the democrats.

Of course, actually passing legislation is another issue, since Bush still has a veto that he’s used once I think.

EDIT: Oh, and Bush won’t even be close to the most lame duck president in history. That (dis)honor goes to Andrew Johnson, who got the office when Lincoln was shot. Beyond being 1 vote away from getting impeached for political reasons (not just impeached, but found guilty and thrown out of office), 2/3 of congress was against him making his veto powers worthless. Congress effectively ran the government. On the other hand, its not like he had reached his term limits, so I’m not sure he classifies as a lame duck. He was certainly “lame” though.

Read the Iraq Resolution - in it, Congress explicitly waives its rights under the WPA. Spineless bastards.

Also, the WPA is one of those things that nobody has actually ever pushed, because neither Congress nor the Executive Branch really want to find out whether the WPA is constitutional or not.

But but but, then they’d have to be responsible for something!

Yeah, a lot of shit went down that got us in this mess and although bad politics was part of it, the entrie Congress needs to share responsiblity and start fixing it.

I would also note that the Constitution doesn’t spell out what a “declaration of war” must consist of. One can plausibly argue that the authorization to use military force against another nation-state is, in fact, a declaration of war, even if it never uses that phrase. In fact, I thnk that’s a more coherent view of the Congressional resolution, because it looks to the underlying substance of what was approved rather than a mad hunt for magic words.

Also, yay gridlock. I kinda hope the Dems try an impeachment gambit, just to shut down Congress even more than normal. The more time they use to try to fuck up Bush’s presidency, the less time they (and Bush) have to fuck up the rest of the country.

I hope not, this isn’t really the time to be a bunch of assholes. They need to stop gloating and start working immediately. Gridlock is something that should be expected when the houses are about equal so that’s NOT something I expect to go away. What I DO expect these cheesy MF’s (Politicians) is to stop fucking arguing semantics and get down to the hard decisions that we need them to make so we can move on.

Gez, I got a better idea, let’s get some gamers in there so we increase their reaction speed a few notches… If I spent as much time THINKING about what I should be doing in an FPS I would die repeatedly over and over again…

OK, Who’s a good FPS player and we’ll need a few RPG\RTS folks as well? Well, whatever, let’s nominate some people that can actually keep up to what’s going on in the world, I’m tired of “Game Over” so soon.

Hmmm, the world run by a bunch of computer gamers
erds… I mean, how bad could it be? We’d have an international incident and settle it over a game of CS, right?
;)

Actually, I think gamers would be more likely to go for the wholesale immediate escalation into massive full-fledged war thing.

Think about it. We’re used to the concept of war as a game.

Though a gamer Congress would be a heck of a lot better than what we have now, I think the one thing it would annihilate is any international credentials we still have. :P

Are you kidding? In a computer game, where there are hard and fast rules for how things work, we still end up with players complaining about how the game does things rather than learning how to play it. When I think about what a Gamer First congress would look like I’d imagine it’d function more like a tabletop minatures gaming crowd. Constant arguing about Roberts Rules of Order and weasleworded gotcha rhetorical assaults where different congressmen try to out-clever each other. And this is even before the first actual bill comes up for debate.

Nothing, but nothing, would ever get done - ever. Which, evidently, might suit some folks.

Bush crashes to 31%