EschewObfuscat ion 04/30/2009
Whoa, not so fast. A stolen election in Minnesota, aided and abetted by the Minnesota Appeals Court, and the outing of Arlen Specter and voila! The democrat super majority opens the floodgates for all of the things the democrat party truly stands for: rampant spending, a radical and incompetent adminstration, weak military, abortions galore, forced community service, huge government interference in business and individuals' lives, unrestriced gun-grabbing, taxes through what used to be the roof and deficit-spending two generations hence. It's certainly a new day, baby. Hang on, we've made some improvements to the roller-coaster! We haven't tested it or anything but it promises to be quite a hair-raising ride. You fastened in nice and tight, are you? You'd better be . . .
Helpful
Funny
Agree
Disagree
abichara 11/19/2008
I suspect that they won't get 60 seats, but it is a possibility--the election is not over yet. Yesterday the Associated Press called the Alaska Senate race for the Democrats after all the absentee ballots were counted. That race was surprisingly tight, especially considering that the Republican incumbent, Ted Stevens was convicted on charges of corruption 2 weeks before the election. Talk about a "culture of corruption" up there! Minnesota remains undecided, as Republican Sen. Norm Coleman continues to hold a precarious 200 vote lead as the 2nd largest recount effort ever mounted in the US continues. This one could go either way. The Democrats cannot get to 60 seats without winning the Georgia runoff between Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. Those types of elections are usually won on the basis of turnout, who can energize their core the best. In that respect, the Republicans I believe hold the advantage. Chambliss will win and prevent the Democrats from securing a 60 seat majority.
Victor83 11/07/2008
Proves the old adage that every cloud has a silver lining. Although...if you count John McCain and Lindsey Graham...
Donovan 11/06/2008
It is best not to have the Democrats (or Republicans) control the senate and the house and the presidency. There needs to be some checks and balances.
RedManFan 11/05/2008
Democrats or Republicans in Congress are all worthless. Every last one of them should have been tossed out on their butts!
MariusQelDroma 11/05/2008
Matters not who controls what. It's still the same old garbage. The only thing that has changed is which group of monkeys has the gavel.
numbah16tdhaha 11/05/2008
At least its not a total blank check.
James76255 11/05/2008
Obama had history, the mainstream media, momentum, money, and hype on his side. I don't think anyone is shocked that he won and for myself the fact that Democrats do not have a filibuster proof congress is the best thing to come out of this.
Chalky 11/05/2008
Isnt't this the same as the Republicans winning 60 majority seats :)
lmorovan 11/05/2008
It's still a majority, and it is troubling. I believe the elections for the Senate and House should not coincide with the general election for President. Congress members should be elected in the mid term and for four years.
irishgit 11/05/2008
I think this is a good thing. I don't share the panic some have about one party controlling both houses and the White House. It's happened before, for both parties, and it hasn't invariably been a disaster. That being said, a majority is adequate, a super majority might well lead to an excess of hubris, which I have no doubt will infest the Chamber anyway.
11 reviews! « Previous | Page of 1 | Next »
Sort by Newest Oldest Most helpful Least helpful Highest rated Lowest rated