Now, for the latest chapter of "Republicans Eating Their Own."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John Bolton's prospects for staying on as U.N. ambassador essentially died Thursday as Democrats and a pivotal Republican said they would continue to oppose his nomination.

It was another blow to President Bush, two days after Democrats triumphed in elections that will give them control of Congress next year. On Wednesday, Bush had announced that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a polarizing figure and face of the Iraq war, would step down.

On Thursday, the White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination to the Senate, where the appointment has languished for more than a year. Bush appointed him to the job temporarily in August 2005 while Congress was in recess, an appointment that will expire when the Congress adjourns, no later than January.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island that he would continue opposing Bolton. That would likely deny Republicans the votes needed to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate.

Bye-bye, Bolton?

Apparently, Old Walrus Mustache isn't the only guy needing to update his resume.

Mehlman likely to leave RNC

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several Republican sources tell CNN that Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is all but certain to step down at the end of the year, and the White House already is searching for a replacement or replacements to lead the party into the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.

Mehlman out?

Gee, they sure are rough on a fella just because he was running things when both houses of Congress were lost. Hardly seems fair.

With all these Republicans about to hit the unemployment line, they had better hope the economy is doing as well as Amlord suggests it is.

You bring up some very good points, but too far right is:
- Tax cuts that benefit only the top .1% of the population (the so called 'death tax' for example)
- Tax cuts while trying to wage a war
- Propogation of the concept that greed is somehow virtuous.
- Attempts to stall/prevent minimum wage increases, and overtures to eliminate minimum wage laws altogether.
- Attempts to privatize Social Security instead of doing something about borrowing against social security.
- Pandering to the Drug companies so they can continue to charge exorbitant prices
- Stripping down environmental laws, and actually selling the concept that corporations will 'do the right thing'.
- Making zero effort (beyond lip service) in getting us off of oil, which would eliminate the need for a war on terror. No foreign oil, no need for a mid-east presence
- Pandering to religious extremist.
- Cancellation of the separation of church and state. i.e. expanding the concept that, while we have freedom of religion, we do not have freedom FROM religion.
- No movement/effort to do something about the high cost of medical care
- The use of fear as a means of remaining in power (to be honest, give the democrats 6 years, and they'll be doing the same thing).
- Abortion, while not made illegal (yet) is on the chopping block.
- zero real activity (except maybe building a fence) to stem the tide of illegal immigrants.
- you can't say embryonic stem cell research restrictions were already in place because it is a new development (November 1998). Bush and crew put the restrictions in place. I guess what bothers me about it is, the embryos that would be used would be destroyed anyway. If they really wanted to show their 'christian' ideals, they would outlaw fertility clinics (or at least the destruction of the embryos in the first place). One interesting note though.. and this is important for all... there is no ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. There is a ban on this research using government funds. But, for there to be any quick results, those funds are necessary. Corporate america is not going to invest in something that will not provide a profit in the next quarter.

Those are all I can think of in this short time.. but I think it enough to make the point.

I guess what is interesting is, in 12 years, if trends continue, I'll be citing the list of things the Dems are doing that are too far left.

I do agree on your point regarding conservative dems took out moderate repubs. This shows the centrist view of the voting population. Also, the turnout was, as you said, high for a mid-term. But, the 60% that turned out for the 04 election was a result of fear and/or homophobia.

I do believe (getting back on topic) that the country will be better off in the long run now that the one party stranglehold has been neutralized.
All we can do now is hope something positive gets done in the next two years.

2. Nancy pelosi has already stated openly she will not be 'going after' Bush Jr as the new House majority leader, but that is all. Some on the right have speculated a wave of investigations into Iraq and the Bush Jr government, Rumsfeld in particular.
I think that she will have to throw some red meat to placate the angry left of her party. Especially since she's cooing such moderate, centrist tones in public right now.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?
That's a long list. Bush, Rummy, Cheney, you name it. I would imagine we'd see resurrected concerns about privacy, FISA, secret energy committee meetings, ethics, Halliburton...


I think that your concerns are admirable. How do you reconcile this with the fact that Nancy Pelosi is going to kowtow to the Congressional Black Caucus and pass over Jane Harman to appoint Alcee Hastings as chair of the Intelligence Committee? Apparently losing "cold cash" Jefferson means that they have to fill a, well, quota I guess for black committee chairs and this will be the one. Impeached, bribe-taking judge as chairman of the intel committee in a time of war. Fantastic.

Or Alan Mollohan retaining his seat on the ethics committee? I mean, that is rich. Ethics? Mollohan?

Or, over in the senate, Robert Byrd's ascendancy to chair of the appropriations committee? The same Robert Byrd who put a secret hold on the anti-pork legislation? He's going to appropriate until everything in West Virginia is named the Robert Byrd such-and-such.

So much for "draining the swamp" of the culture of corruption.

christopher, here is a book that you may find interesting, regarding how times are bad and life is horrible.

The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse

The swamp isn't drained, CW, we just started draining at the deepest end of the pool If the Democrats succeed in reform, and I'm an admitted skeptic on this, then they will be culling their own from the herd at some point as well. Throwing all the bums out didn't seem realistic, in spite of my desire to do so, so we started at the top. Whether we follow thru in 2008 and beyond...we'll see.


You beat me to the punch on this one. That is an excellent book, and it certainly has some application here. However, I tend to agree with Christopher that the current economic state is deceptive. There are unquestionably good indicators (Stock, unemployement, etc) as Amlord and others have pointed out. But there is an underbelly to this beast that was shown during Katrina. While jobs are in fact up (arguably we are at full employment), real wages (when adjusted for inflation) are down (while CEO salaries and bonuses skyrocket), and have been for some time. Every quarter, more people slip below the poverty line. Health care continues to evade a significant number in this country. Most Americans in debt are one health crisis away from bankruptcy. Well, thanks to our last Congress, now even that is troublesome to recover from.

So yes, for some (including myself), the economy is doing fine. For the vast majority of this country, I suspect the story doesn't reflect that.

Pork-barrel politics didn't end with Democrats replacing Republicans. The K-street lobbyists aren't going out of business just because all their favorite bought-and-paid for GOP Congressmen have been booted off their pet committees.

Same trough. Different pigs. That should be obvious, carlitoswhey. Influence peddling, earmarks for pet projects, and all expenses-paid trips for fact finding in Fiji or the Bahamas isn't going to stop just because Pelosi is replacing Hastert.

Democrats are still politicians. That means while they may not be bought, they can be rented.

Name the Republican who heads up the House Intelligence Committee. You can't without looking it up because nobody cares who heads up the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings will be watched like a hawk and not just by the Republicans waiting for him to screw up, but by Democrats who hope he won't.

So Robert Byrd will be sending as much moolah back home as Trent Lott was for Mississippi. Big surprise. This is what these old farts do. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their agenda and so do all these other Democrats. They've been waiting 12 years in the House for a shot at the cash register and they've only got two years to empty it out. You think I don't know that already?

People aren't expecting the Democrats not to have their scandals, screw-ups and political hacks licking their chops to get their greasy mitts on the federal treasury. They just had enough of the way the Republicans hung a "open for business" sign on the Capitol dome for crooks like Abramoff.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

Haven't read it but am familiar with the paradox and even believe it to be true, but disagree it holds for what I am saying.
It probably just the realization that the only thing that saved me from a course set by the far right was to elect a party run by the far left. and while it may have been done by electing people from the Center/Moderate, I am not sure of how much that will effect the path of the Dems.

Carlitoswhey may not be able to name that Republican, but I sure can, since he is my and Curmudgeon's U.S. Representative, unfortunately. Peter Hoekstra was opposed only nominally by our candidate, Kimon Kotos, because the Democratic party in Michigan didn't pony up the money for Kimon to run a decent campaign against him. Hoekstra's the one who acted more insulted that he wasn't consulted by Bush, Jr. than worried about this selfsame president violating the Constitution and infringing on the rights of Americans. Hoekstra is also one of the guys who thought it all right to publish on the Internet a recipe for making a nuclear bomb in order to show what Americans had found in the possession of people in Iraq. (The site was later erased when it was pointed out to the people responsible for it that they might not want that information accessible to anybody who might want to make one and use it.)

But your point isn't lost on me, nighttimer. Any group that is in place for too long tends to lose sight of the reason it got to Washington. The GOP was there too long and had things too cushy. The same thing happens to Democrats. It is incumbent on us to remind the Congress from time to time what they are really there to do, that it's not exclusively for their benefit or that of their cronies.

It is altogether possible that Nancy Pelosi, in her new role, will be good at negotiating and compromise to try to achieve what ultimately becomes more of a centrist agenda. Let's not make up our minds that she is going to fail at achieving bipartisanship when she hasn't been given a chance.

I totally concur with you Paladin Elspeth on Nancy Pelosi being given a chance in her new role, as I would also say with the Democrats new role in majority before making up our mind. I would also say I am one that knows alot of the members on several of the committees especially the chairs and ranking members from watching the hearings alot where I can just listening to the hearings now and know who is talking alot of the time.

Given what could be seen as a clear mandate against the Iraq war, will this and the Democratic control of one (or both) houses significantly alter how Bush Jr conducts the war in Iraq?

He's going to have to adjust (and is adjusting) to a softer rhetoric about the war and admit to some mistakes. He's going to have to actually consider an exit strategy.

Who, if anyone, will the Democrats target for investigation?

This is one thing I hope the Democrats do not back down on. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Gonzales should all be targets for investigation.


What does this election mean for the future of the Republican party?

It means that they are going to have to go back to the drawing board and take a serious look at what the Republican party has become and how it has moved away from the values it used to represent.


Bonus: Did this election set anyone up or knock anyone down for 2008 Presidential ambitions?

I'm not really sure it set anyone up for Presidential ambitions, but it certainly knocked a couple out of the running: Santorum, Allen... good bye and good riddance.