There's always the "Constitutional Option."

If there were any justice in this world, by 2009 the Republicans in the Senate ought to only slightly outnumber the Whigs . . .

In 2008 the war in Iran will overshadow all this.

Even a net gain of 9 seats might be a little optimistic. Unless, of course, Dumbya insists on "staying the course", then, who knows?

(good - no cats)

Let's see where we are with Iraq in '08. Unless Democrats decide it's their turn to be corrupt, Iraq will be the only issue worth changing seats over.

rea,

But there are still the Know Nothings - Oops, they are the Know Nothings.

Hey, how about after the 2006 election we spend a little while focussed on ideas rather than immediately shifting to 2008 horserace predictions.

The system is created in part to create balance, as we saw last week. I really doubt that even if there were 60 Dem senators that they would all agree on something enough to prevent cloture, especially if Joe is one of the 60.

FILIBUSTER PROOF IN 2008?

Nonsense Kevin. When Democrats were not in power, they could just blame Bush first without offering any plans to fix any problems. But now that they're in power, they must take responsiblity for whatever happens next. Anything bad that happens in Iraq is just as much the Democrats fault as Bush's. If Democrats are saying bad things are happening in Iraq, they must offer a plan to fix it. When the American people see the Democrats are nothing more than empty suits with nothing to offer, the American people are going to vote for Republicans and conservatives in droves because they offer real solutions to real problems. Watch for this to happen in the next elections.

Hey, there's LOSER AL.

Hey, LOSER AL, you repukeliscum are losers.

And in 2008, you will lose even bigger.

Dems will control a MINIMUM of 55 seats in the Senate

Much too soon to be talking about this. It should be right up there with "What if I won the lottery" only not as much fun.

rea: "by 2009 the Republicans in the Senate ought to only slightly outnumber the Whigs..."

Trouble with a Two-Party System (tm) is that it is just as hard to kill one of the two as it is to start a third. That is, practically impossible.

Of course, that's probably what the Whigs thought.

cmdicely: 1:42 PM
"...we spend a little while focussed on ideas..."

Spot on.

I agree with cmdicely and tomeck. Can we please get out of campaign mode and focus on the major policy issues that we face???

Al is a complete turd.

Given the last part about the presidency in 2008, I think it safe to assume that they meant "veto-proof", but just didn't know that the bar is higher than 60 seats.

Al the parody troll wrote: "If Democrats are saying bad things are happening in Iraq, they must offer a plan to fix it."

Senator Russ Feingold and Rep. Dennis Kucinich have both offered plans to "fix" Iraq, by withdrawing all US troops by June of 2007. Republicans, and some other Democrats, may not like those plans, but it is false to imply that no plans have been offered.

I'm sick of the mindless liberalism on this site, and I'm sick of you all saying I'm a fake.

I'm also frustrated that people are forging entries under my name and misrepresenting conservatism.

Goodbye all you democrat nitwits. I'm leaving for other web sites, where I will be appreciated.

Never misunderestimate fake Al.

We should stop referring to any plans for Iraq, good or bad, as a "fix". Cain't be dun.

"Goodbye all you democrat nitwits. I'm leaving for other web sites, where I will be appreciated."

Man, where exactly would that be anyway? What respectable website would appreciate Al? Maybe The Onion?

I think Al just admitted that everything that's gone wrong up to now in Iraq is Bush's fault.

This talk of a veto-proof or filibuster-proof majority sounds vaguely similar to what the Republicans were saying just after the 2004 election. I don't think that worked out too well for them so maybe we should just knock it off.

Hey, LOSER AL, since you are touting the Repukeliscum "solutions".

Provide for us reality-based types 1 problem and 1 solution from the Repukeliscum.

In point of fact, ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS TODAY WERE CAUSED by the Repukeliscum Congress.

9 seats is flipping insane. Not only do we have to hold seats in Louisiana (difficult) and South Dakota (only in trouble if Rounds runs), but to get to 9 gains we have to win in places like Oklahoma and Alabama and Idaho. Ain't gonna happen. I'd be pleased with any gains we get this year.

Remember, we ran the table on close races this election, but there were no seats up in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, or Louisiana. That helps. The next class has a lot more Corker-Ford and Pederson-Kyl races on the docket than Casey-Santorum or even Brown-DeWine.

I gotta agree with your spot on analysis.

These crack smokers probably thought they'd win six seats this time and take control of the Senate.

Well, I suppose they're entitled to their math and you're entitled to THE math.

Ok, looking at the map, to get to 9 we'd have to succeed or replace the following senators in rough order of feasibility:

Norm Coleman (MN)
Wayne Allard (CO)
John Warner (VA, feasible only in retirement)
Gordon Smith (CO)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Sununu (NH)
Liddy Dole (NC)
Pete Domenici (NM)
and God, who could be ninth. Lindsey Graham (SC)? James Inhofe (OK)? Saxby Chambliss (GA)?
It doesn't matter, by now it should be clear that we are not going to be unseating this many senators.

Lamar Alexander, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Hagel, Larry Craig, John Cornyn, these are not people who are going to be fired by their red voters. They need to get deep into Conrad Burns territory and then some and I just don't see it.

Lettuce, the crack-smokers this time around fully expected to have Senator Jim Pederson and Senator Jack Carter taking the oath of office next month, with Senator Harold Ford, Jr. winning by a big margin.

cmdicely wrote: "Hey, how about after the 2006 election we spend a little while focussed on ideas rather than immediately shifting to 2008 horserace predictions."

Very well. Let's focus on ideas. Here's an idea. I propose legislation to ban the Republican Party as an anti-American terrorist organization and make membership therein a capital crime.

After January 2009 when the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president sits in the White House, and Bush, Cheney et al are already on trial for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity, this legislation will pass easily.

All Republicans serving in the Congress at that time will be given a one-time amnesty, an opportunity to renounce their membership in the Republican Party, and join the Democratic Party, or another party, or become independent unaffiliated office holders.

Then the Green Party and the Libertarian Party will compete with the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.

America will be forever freed from the spectre of Republican fascism and anti-Americanism, and the two-party system will be effectively abolished and replaced with a multi-party system.

"I'm sick of the mindless liberalism on this site, and I'm sick of you all saying I'm a fake."

Hey, I said you were a turd.

There are many Als, but no Al is the Al.

I think we have not seen the last of him.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still think a veto-proof Democratic Senate with a Democratic House and a Democratic White House would be a distinctly bad thing.

A better thing than Republican majority, but a bad thing nonetheless.

Agreed, Saam. One party rule most likely would not be centrist (as we have seen).

Hey Brittain33 on November 17, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Gordon Smith is the GOPer from the greatest state in the union which is Oregon. He's a goner.

wishIsuz2 wrote: "One party rule most likely would not be centrist (as we have seen)."

I can think of a lot of reasons why "one party rule" would not be a good thing, but not being "centrist" isn't one of them.

Agreed, Saam. One party rule most likely would not be centrist (as we have seen).

Well, I don't mind not being "centrist" (although most of the Dems in Congress could be categorized as such), but it is a recipe for unchecked corruption, hubris and tyranny.

shortstop:

And also getting through Clinton's first budget without a single Republican vote.

But no arguments there. Lords know I vote Republican and/or Independent for officers of my machine Democratic county.

Bob

Still, always good to aim high, I suppose.

How about aiming just high enough to pass good legislation this term of Congress and letting the next election be about the voters rewarding the Dems for being good stewards of our political heritage.

Please let's not out republican the republicans.

Based on the behaviour of the Bushites over the past few years, it is not hard to see that they are the major policy issue that we face. So, I agree, let's get down to fixing a policy that has been running loose without the benefit of legal, moral, or just about any other kind of oversite you can name. And let's change those policies back to ones of justice, rectitude, and Constitutionality at the earliest opportunity...which seems to be approaching come January...

The "nuclear option" reduces the requirement a bit.

Which is why I always wanted the Dems to go ahead and filibuster. To have the Republicans do away with the rule.

I've always been pro-filibuster. There have been misuses, certainly (some pretty awful ones -- that whole civil rights unpleasantness, for instance /snark), but it's a good mechanism for forcing compromise of one sort or another.

The filibuster ensures that things will not happen too quickly. In the scope of history, that's a good thing. The country needs time to catch up with ideas, and ideas are best implemented when they have devloped support (or when "their time has come.") So I don't think the Senate should consider ditching the filibuster just because the Democrats are in the majority.

(In any event, the nuclear option was always unconstitutional. If we had not taken the Senate, and Cheyney had threatened to nuke the filibuster by calling outside the Constitution, I had hoped Nancy Pelosi would state publicly that if the VP were to deliberately rule against the Constitution that she might consider impeachment -- but I digress....)

Anyway, nice to dream. Saxby Chambliss is up in 2008? What's Max Cleland up to these days? Think he might want a rematch?

Yes. Why don't we do the Republicans a favor and choose the "Constitutional Option" that they're so fond of?

It all depends on who retires. The Democrats are not going to unseat Warner, Domenici, etc, which means that their seats only become potential pickups if they retire.

Democrats should be able to pick up Minnesota and Colorado, as both trended Democratic this year, and they'll have a shot at Gordon Smith in Oregon if they come up with a good candidate. However, they will also have to hold Landrieu's seat in Louisiana, which will be difficult given the migration of African-American voters out of Louisiana after hurricane Katrina and Landrieu's generally uninspring performance.

The interesting seats to watch will be New Hampshire and Maine. Olympia Snowe got handily reelected this year in Maine, and both Collins and Sununu are just as popular despite the fact that their states are trending Democratic. On the other hand, Lincoln Chafee was also a popular moderate but got his hat handed to him by Whitehouse.

If I was a betting man right now, I'd say a one seat Democratic pickup (pick up MN and CO, lose LA), since the three vulnerable moderate Republicans (Collins, Sununu, Smith) will now all be able to oppose Bush with impunity. However, if Warner or Domenici retire, I think the Democrats will pick up one of those two seats.

Al is a complete turd.
Posted by: Ace Franze on November 17, 2006 at 1:53 PM

Well met, Ace! I am increasingly suspicious that "Al" is a little piece of fiction created by Kevin to keep the pot stirred around here. I mean, who could really be that clueless? Be that as it may, "Al" has forgotten the new principle firmly established over the last 12 years: For the party in power, every bad thing is the fault of the last president of the other party. So long as Democrats maintain dominance, everything is W's fault.

Gahh ... remember after '04 and the Ohio bitterness, when Bush said he had "political capital" and he was going to "use it?" And all the Rove-is-invincible palaver, with that analysis on "value voters" that turned out to be based on a badly-worded question? And all the social conservatives who came out to Save Marriage(tm)?

Democrats were so whupped we didn't think we'd *ever* win another national majority. JFK had an election handed to him on a silver platter because he was Not Howard Dean(tm), and he *completely* blew it. We didn't have our act together on war and social issues. And we were bickering like mad -- the netroots screaming for the heads of the DLCers who concocted yet another idiotically cautious, losing Republican Lite strategy. We were a fucking basket case of a national party. We were practically begining to evidence Stockholm Syndrome.

And so we definitively sweep a midterm and all of a sudden Kevin puts up a thread about a *veto-proof* Senate? What ... the thrill of a simple majority is gone already?

Let's freakin' chill on this until the time is just a tad more ripe and see what this damn Congress can do in its first months before we start provoking 9-11 calls to the Hubris Police(tm).

Bob

Apparently there was a real Al a year or two ago. He died of prostate cancer. All Als since then have been either parodies or immitators. How many? Who nows.

--->Let's freakin' chill on this until the time is just a tad more ripe and see what this damn Congress can do in its first months before we start provoking 9-11 calls to the Hubris Police(tm).

Word, on that.

Come on! They're not even SWORN IN yet!

Always been hard to imagine the uber-Al (the one who's always near the top of the thread with his RSS feed) being a parody, only because he links to so many wingnut sites nearly every post. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK.

You don't really need to go to all that trouble to mock the talking points -- but lords know I've been wrong before about this sort of stuff.

Bob

Come on! They're not even SWORN IN yet!

Yes, this twittering and nattering is really getting insane.

Come on guys go out on a date or something.

We got a long way yet to go.

Keith G,

Word.

mm242

The most effective way to approach elections is to have a short list of targets with activists pushing to add targets to the list.

Dems may have another solid year. GOP is outa steam in many ways.

Here's the dream scenario for Dems.

Lots of Republicans retire:

Wayne Allard (CO)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Liddy Dole (NC)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Chuck Hagel (NE)
Jim Inhofe (OK)
Pat Roberts (KS)
John Warner (VA)

Picture 6-8 of the previous retiring. Dems could win 5-6 of these seats.

Ted Stevens (AK) could very well die campaigning since he's refusing to retire at 85.

Norm Coleman (MN)
Gordon Smith (OR)
John Sununu (NH)

All three of these could get beaten in a strong year for Dems.

And I wouldn't rule out something happening that puts one of the four into play: Saxby Chambliss (GA), John Cornyn (TX), Mitch McConnell (KY) and Jeff Sessions (AL).

So winning nine seats is possible. Obviously 3-5 is more probable.

But you can see why jumping the fence is not a good option for Lieberman. He'll lose his invites to the Sunday morning shows and he'll be a hated member of the minority.

Scratch Domenici as a retirement possibility. He's running. He'd be hard to beat.

rmck1 wrote: ... but lords know I've been wrong before about this sort of stuff.

Fracking A.

An aggressive strategy to maximize democratic gains in 2008 would be to throw as much popular legislation at bush as possible that democrats know he will veto – just make shit up, like making private accounts illegal for social security, like passing tax increases for the very wealthiest, like passing windfall profit taxes on oil companies… But of course if democrats were to do that wouldn’t be like democrats – playing politics with the people’s business they’d be republicans.
.

"Goodbye all you democrat nitwits. I'm leaving for other web sites, where I will be appreciated."

God DOES answer prayers!

(It must be that he misses his mommy. Al's Mommy hasn't posted in a couple of days. . .)

actually, the "real" Al continues to comment over at matthew yglesias' place. while a conservative, he's neither an idiot nor a troll....

Actually, Brittain33, when I walked past them smoking their crack they were discussing how difficult taking the House was going to be.

This was in South Carolina, during one of Felix Macaca's early campaign stops on the road to 2008.

--->actually, the "real" Al continues to comment over at matthew yglesias' place. while a conservative, he's neither an idiot nor a troll....

Here you go, Melvins. Here's a free one.

KDrum does Al when he goes and reads MYglesias. MYglesias does Al when he goes and reads KDrum. That's been going on for years, Melvins, and if you looked at how often they link to each other, you'd know that.

Not a bright group here, is it? Huh?

mm242

mm242:

I thought you just asked what constituted "troll behavior" on another thread?

You know ... like some innocent young coder fresh from MoveOn election work.

Looks like you don't need too much help sussing things out after all, huh.

Bob

生态餐厅
日光温室
西装
西服
职业装
进口轴承
消音
海参
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
北京婚庆 北京婚庆公司
紫外线消毒器|塘瓷水箱
玻璃钢水箱|无负压
不锈钢水箱
助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网

中国助听器大全
助听器
助听器
助听器
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器大全
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗

浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
噪音
冬虫夏草
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作

网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网站设计 北京
网站推广
网站推广 北京
网站制作 北京

网页设计 北京
网站建设 北京
婚纱摄影
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
数码摄象机|索尼数码相机|三星数码相机|佳能数码相机|索尼数码摄象机|
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
六合彩
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
北京婚庆 北京婚庆公司

性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房