Bush faces a Democratic Congress
It's back to normal.
Of the last six presidents, going back nearly 40 years, only one has not faced a Congress where at least one house was held by the opposite party. (The exception was Carter, who found one-party government wasn't all its cracked up to be.)
Of the 43 presidents of the United States, 33 came in with majorities in both houses of Congress. 18 (including Bush II) lost at least one branch during their term in office.
So what has happened this year is hardly anomalous.
That said, the election is a watershed moment. Few presidents have been as soundly rebuked by the people as Bush has in this election, which, judging from the polls, turned on Iraq more than any other issue.
Bush bet his presidency on Iraq. As Tim Russert said this morning on NBC News, he lost it last night.
Well, that may be an overstatement.
It will be years before we can say for sure if he won or lost his bet. But the odds are Russert's right.
comments powered by Disqus
DeWayne Edward Benson - 11/12/2006
I believe what Carter discovered during his term in Office, is just how powerful the US-Shadow Gov really is. One step forward for Carter, while the Shadow-Gov made ALL the important decisions.
Look at the FIX already begun in 2006 elections, Bush-Admin replaces Rumsfeld with Richard Gates as Pentagon Chief, needed while they still had the (old) GOP rubber stamp.
So why was the Bush-Admin in a hurry, because it would look bad for the New DEM Congress to pass on this extemely POOR choice. US-Shadow gov choices if looked thoroughly into, smell of death and destruction... aka money.
It must be remembered, that as far as the UPPER-LEVELS of Congress, the SHADOW-Gov of America RULES, and with tempers the way they are, there must remain the APPEARANCE of Citizens BEING HEARD... at least.
DeWayne Edward Benson - 11/12/2006
Avedon Carol - 11/10/2006
"Iraq" no longer just means the invasion, does it? It's also how it was done, and how it represents the whole way Bush/GOP government has worked - corrupt, incompetent, and unwilling to serve the people. And devastating to the economy, as well.
I think the election was about all of those things. But what people told the exit pollsters was that corruption was their biggest issue. It certainly was a significant factor for that one-third of Christian evangelicals who voted for Democrats.
HNN - 11/9/2006
Only in the modern world has the presidency come to assume the position it now occupies in the American political firmament.
Thus it is sheer presentism to think that the loss of Congress in the 19th century reflected on the president in the same way it does today.
People voted much more along party lines in the 19th century than they do today when "the man" is more important than the party.
Col Steve J - 11/9/2006
Well, in the last 130 years, you had
1874 - GOP loses 96 seats (rebuke of Grant?)
1890 - GOP loses 93 seats (rebuke of Harrison?)
1894 - GOP gains 130 seats (rebuke of Cleveland)
1920 - 62 seat gain by GOP in the House (rebuke of Wilson presidency for WW1 and League of Nations?)
1932 - 100 seat loss by GOP in the House (rebuke of Hoover?)
1952 - 22 seat gain by GOP (rebuke of Truman over Korea?)
1980 - 35 seat gain by GOP and 12 seat gain in Senate (rebuke of Carter?)
1994 - 54 seat gain by GOP to take majority, 8 seat gain in Senate, and 12 governorship gain (rebuke of Clinton?)
So what has happened this year is hardly anomalous -- think that statement is more accurate than few presidents have been as soundly rebuked..
- The JFK Document Dump Could Be a Fiasco Say These Two Scholars
- The book Mattis reads to be prepared for war with North Korea
- Civil War’s legacy hangs over a plaque honoring Confederate soldiers
- Confederate statues still stand in rural Virginia
- Advocates are starting to push for LGBTQ history to be taught in public schools
- Historian Keri Leigh Merritt defends activist scholars
- Historian digs into the hidden world of Mormon finances
- A historian who became a business professor?
- Allan Lichtman's response to critics of his book that makes the case for Trump’s impeachment
- "Do We Have To Fight Nazis Again?” asks historian Paul Ortiz