DO u think President Bush will have to much power now since the Republican have control over Congree now. please tell me your opinion ?

yes i believe that the republican party has too much power now since that they won the house of rep as well as the congress. if anything goes wrong with the economy or doesnt work out as planned while our troops are over in iraq, there is no body we can blame but our president and the republican party. im a republican, but i still think that having the majority in all the house, congress, and the president that they may get over confident and lead the country too conservatively. hopefully things go well with this way of politics now since we havent had the majority like this since way back when.

I think they have a lot of power. However, I would like to know the definition of "too much". I believe this will be one the most interesting sessions in a long time. It wil be representative of the current Republican party. Now we'll really see what there all about...

Bush will have too much power, but most importantly the republicans run the country. I mean this isn't important to me but I feel as though that fact is important. Should all the conservatives and democrats all panic now? Of course Bush has too much power and especially the republicans... Bush is only a puppet, now the puppet becomes: Puppet master...

I voted libertarian for Senate. I did this partly because I truely believe in the libertarian philosophy but also because I did not want the Republicans to control the Senate and the House.

BUT- does this mean I think Bush has too much control now? Heck no. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

It seems some people think this new arrangement will last forever. It will not. Sure Bush & Co may be more powerful than they were before the election, but "too" powerful? What does that even mean, really?

And to Jason Ashley (welcome to the board, by the way) could you please explain these "puppet master" comments? That makes no sense to me.

Bush is the Puppet master of the United Nations and his party....He plays to a tune know one will agree to, but they have to agree to it sooner or later because he runs the most powerful and influential country in the world...I dunno, I'm just a college kid Jaime, I'm not as informed as you.

Jason - I'm not all that much older than you

You are the first person I've debated so far that seems to think that Bush is subject to anything the UN does. Most people seem to think Bush is against the UN and would do anything to see it go. I'd be interested in hearing more of your opinion on this.

I agree that our nation is powerful and Bush is now one of the most influential people in the entire world. The beauty of America is that Bush is not president for life. Like him or hate him, Bush has no chance of being president any longer than 6 more years.

[QUOTE]

This seems like the solution to me, not the problem. Since Republicans dominate both congress and the presidency, THEY have no one to blame if something goes wrong. I would think that would make them more cautious in a way rather than bolder.

I agree with you iwcmpech. Republicans are sure to be cautious of what they do now that they have more control over government. They must handle the economy first. There is no one the republicans can blame the economy on anymore. If they do not bring the economy up it will be detremental to the republican cause.

naaa, they aren't going to take care of the economy first....war is first on their agenda.

MT

President Bush II should be cngratulated for achieving his goal of siezing the senate from the Democrats. He now has the oppurtunity to get his economic program through congress and start Gulf War II. Some may think he now has too much power, but the American electorate gave him that power; however, the slim Republican majorities in both houses of congress are definitely not a mandate. In less than 2 years there will be another election, and Bush needs to, by accident or design, revive the moribund economy. He also has to have success against Al Qaida and Iraq. It will now be seen whether his economic and foreign policy initiatives will sink or swim, and for his sake they had better swim. He can no longer blame the Democrats if he does not deliver, and voters will not be forgiving in 2004.
There is one troublesome developement on the horizon-- the soon- to-be Department of Homeland security. It is amazing that the Republican Party of small government should try to saddle the American taxpayer with another bloated buraucracy when there are other bloated bureaucracies in existance that are available to protect Americans. It makes more sense and would cost much less money to reform the CIA and FBI. There also seems to be an attempt to make George Orwell's fictional 'Big Brother' alive and well in 21st century America. CNN reports that the new agency will have a database that will include information on every American citizen that will include all e-mails sent. This is not the proper function of any government body.

candun@iwc

Ouch! We most certainly did not. Don't make the mistake that a vote for a congress person is a vote for GWB.

The balance of power is all askew right now. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government are all under one set of agendas. This is very rare in US politics because the general desire is to have several viewpoints pushed on any given topic.

I'm ROTFLMAO over the back-pedalling going on about the economy. It's Clinton's fault. No, government can't control it, it is a natural business cycle. But Reagan did something. No, not really, he just kept out of it. The arguments go on and on, but the basic fact of the matter is that GWB will be blamed for a bad economy, right or wrong.

The GOP has a particularly hard election season coming up because it is so accustomed to attacking rather than defending. The DNC realizes this and will probably be a lot more aggressive--no wimps.

Some long-lived fallacies are breaking down too: Republican=Good Economy, Democrat=Bad Economy; Republican=Less Governemnt, Democrat=More Government; Republican=Lower Tax, Democrat=Higher Tax; Republican=National Security, Democrat=National Insecurity.

So here we are facing national insecurity, huge budget deficits that will likely lead to higher taxes (wars are not cheap), bigger federal government, and a feeble economic recovery (or stagnation). Concern is mounting that we are headed toward a police state that does not resemble what the US once stood for.

Are these the Republican causes? Absolutely not, we continue to hear. Perhaps so, but these are the Republican results, at least that's the perception.

Will it do this country any good to just vote against an administration and Congress without some compelling alternative proposals? Nope.

And the DNC's midnight oil burns on.

I glad that for a short time at least, hopefully, the senate can bring Judicial nominees to the floor for a vote. It doesn't hurt that I'm conservative, and the nominees will definetly be in that camp, but it's appalling that so many judicial vacancies exist because of partisan bickering...and the wheels of justice grind slower and slower.