AP: Loss of Congress Could Mean Nightmare for Bush, Allies

[Rose Siding]

As Mehlman clings to the practice of encouraging his candidates not to separate themselves from Brand W, and with Dems hoping that the elections are a referendum on Preznit Pissypants, this is an excellent frame for the mid-terms.

Bush's Fortune May Rest With GOP Congress
Loss of GOP Control of House or Senate Could Mean Nightmare for Bush, Allies
....
If his party loses control of one, or both chambers of Congress, the next two years could be a political nightmare for Bush and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill.

With poll numbers at the lowest of his presidency, Bush has had trouble enough winning support for his priorities in his second term even with a Republican-led Congress....

Democratic control of either chamber could rearrange priorities. Bush's programs and spending requests would come under increased scrutiny. Congress could even take tentative steps toward bringing troops home from Iraq or reducing funds.

Democratic control of committees in either chamber could lead to investigative hearings on Iraq, awarding of government contracts, the role of lobbyists, fraud and abuse, Pentagon divisions, any number of activities.

"You name the issue. There would be a lot of oversight hearings," said James Thurber, director of the American University Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. "He will be a true lame duck."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1891641

[kentuck]

1. "Well, I'm here to work with Congress...."

"We're here to do the job of the people...whether it's Democrats or Republicans...I'm a decider...uh..uh...I'm here to work for the people...We're not here for partisan advantage...I want to work with the Democrat leaders just like I worked with the Republican leaders...We've got a lot of work to do and we don't have time for partisan games..."

George W Bush on the first Wednesday of this November

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Comment

After two years of Democratic control, Clinton saw both chambers go Republican in 1994 and remain there for the remaining six years of his term.

Energized by their 1994 victories, Republican congressional leaders blocked an array of presidential spending proposals, leading to impasse and the actual shutdown of many government services.

Both Reagan and Clinton found ways to cope. Reagan shook up his staff, reached out to Congress and left office with his legacy mostly repaired.

Clinton successfully managed to blame the government shutdown on Republicans, survived impeachment by the House in a Senate trial, co-opted once-GOP issues like welfare overhaul and saw his approval ratings surge.

Bush starts further back in terms of popularity. And the Iraq war has become a drag on all Republican candidates. Bush seems less able to correct his listing presidency or rebound from a loss of the House or Senate as either Reagan or Clinton, analysts in both parties suggest.

Bush is not capable of co-opting Democratic initiatives. What is he going to do? Say the way was a mistake and he deliberately lied? Support his own impeachment? He is too locked into his own prison. He began his tenure by running to the far right, in spite of having lost the popular vote (and, to be fair, the election); he does not triangulate. Even Reagan was better at that when he needed to be.

No, Bush is Nixon. All he can do is come up with a new explanation for his criminal behavior and expect everyone to accept the new "operative" statement and forget the discarded "inoperative" ones. That didn't work for Nixon and it won't work for Bush.

[Rose Siding]

3. Bush has already co-opted dem initiatives

then ruined them in their implemetation- no child, the 9/11 commission, homeland security. The public is gullible. He stole those ideas while he was riding high.

He could pull dirty tricks on a number of dem priorties in the same way- claim support for something wild like hiking min wage, for instance, or claim a troop drawdown which ends up being only a few thousand. His talk about a hydrogen transition is a similar boondoggle.

He steals ideas that sound good, then republicanizes them to a point where they are unrecognizable.

[Zorra]

4. The pressure from the impeachment nightmare will make him snap. n/t

[zbdent]

5. First thing I'd do (with a Dem Senate and House)

when I got the power is to have the IRS seize all the financial records and assets of the oil companies . . .

[Mountainman]

6. There would be a lot of oversight hearings

That's because this administration is so corrupt and the repukes will do nothing about it.

[gratuitous]

7. Odd how that sentiment didn't make it into the story, innit?

I wonder why the GOP-controlled House and Senate are so uninterested in the apparent corruption of the White House. No investigations, no hearings, nobody testifying under oath, no curiosity at all about any blunder, error, mistake, or deliberate crime committed by the Bushistas.

Almost makes you wonder if the Republicans in Congress have something they're hiding, doesn't it?

[KeepItReal]

8. When exactly has the loss of Congress been a "nightmare" for a President?

It's supposed to be how our Constitution works.

Sometimes your party controls the House and/or the Senate, sometimes it don't.

[KeepItReal]

9. ABCNEWS: Bush & Co. running wild good. Congressional oversight bad.

IMHO

[Contrary1]

10. "Could Mean Nightmare" ???

What the hell would they call the last 6 years?

[KansDem]

11. They brought this on themselves...

Democratic control of committees in either chamber could lead to investigative hearings on Iraq, awarding of government contracts, the role of lobbyists, fraud and abuse, Pentagon divisions, any number of activities.

I say arrest the GOP on RICO charges...

[Doctor_J]

12. But a new dawn for the US

it must just be in time to save the Republic. He'd be out of office by the time the snow melts next year, and the applause and good will from around the world would lift the spirits of every human being except for this country's 15,000,000 or so Limbeciles.