|
Drudge has this titled "SHOCK PREDICTION," but if you're surprised, you haven't been paying attention, and still don't know. To answer your unasked question:
| “
|
If the voters were ever to elect 50 Republicans and 50
Democrats to the U.S. Senate, the party of the Vice President would be
considered the majority party. The Vice President is named by the
Constitution to be the President of the Senate [the presiding officer].
The Vice President would cast the tie-breaking votes on all the
resolutions organizing the new Senate, including electing its officers
and assigning committee seats.
In 1881, the Senate stood at 37-37, with 2 Independents: one tended to
vote with the Democrats and the other with the Republicans. When Vice
President Chester Arthur became president after the assassination of
President Garfield, the Vice Presidency was left vacant, leaving no one
to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The two parties came to an
agreement where the Republicans controlled the committees and the
Democrats managed the patronage. |
” |
A better analogy, I think, is 1980. Reagan's sweep brought
with him a Republican Senate, but the House remained Democrat
controlled. Didn't matter. Houses Dems were so fearful of
Reagan's popularity that House Republicans were able to steamroll them -
for two years. I see the same thing happening in a split
Senate. Plus, if Reid manages to be one of those
50 Democrats, it will be an easy task to get him indicted, something
that's way-way overdue.
|
I have been analogizing the current electoral climate to 1980 much more than 1994.
ReplyDeleteIn 1980 there was a feeling that a huge tidal wave was forming which crested on election day, led, of course, by the greatest leader of my lifetime, President Reagan.
We need to keep pouring it on.
Barack is certainly doing his part for us.
Allah akhbar!!!
The differences are this is a mid-term, not presidential, and we have no one like Reagan.
ReplyDeleteThe good guys will probably gain enough control to put the brakes on this disaster, that's good. We can't take another 2 years. How ever, the cries in 2012 will still be "it's all the Republican's fault, it would have been worse without us, you didn't give us enough power to fix it right!" Maybe the public will not forget the lesson of the last 2 years by then. Maybe. It's a toss-up.
What need and don't have for 2012 is another Reagan. Palin ain't it. I'd like to see her as RNC chair instead of Steele.
Maybe Bobby Jindal. Christie- I would pound the pavement for him but he says no. Who can we run in 2012? I think we can do better than Palin.
AWM
3600 percent more than when you're totally out!
ReplyDeletePrediction: Palin will run with no intent of winning. She will say "build the fence, secure the borders". Along with no more anchor babies etc. Anyone that does not sound like her is going to look like a mugwump and they are done. So in effect the Cuddah will move the party to the right, throwing her hot milf body over the wire screaming "over me men". Whether any of them are actually me, the jury is just forming.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right about Sara, but what good comes from moving guys like Romney towards the light when you know his core values aren't moving with him? That's Bush 41; we need Reagan.
ReplyDeleteDon't you get the feeling that Romney is supposed to be the guy by default? I don't get that. Listen to me folks, bible belters are insulted by the Mormon religion. They will run a third candidate even more so now that Glenn Beck has us back with God. Tell Romney to go away and give Jackson Brown his hair back.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck's a Mormon, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, it doesn't bother me that Romney wears the garment. He's a capable administrator, a straight-up guy, and appeals to voters other than right-wing ones, helping his chances in the general election. His policies are not the same as mine, but he's still far better than any democrat.
Theodora, that'd be a lot more comforting except for his anti-gun record and his socialized medicine record; last I heard he's still saying that the SM plan he signed is a great idea even as it sinks(just like predicted).
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteMy short list is, in order of preference *
1.John Bolton
2.Chris Christie**
3.Haley Barbour
4.Bobby Jindal
* Assuming Sarah Palin doesn't run
** Christie endorsing RINO Mike Castle in Delaware over Christine O'Donnell annoys me, and smacks of legacy GOP crap.
.
I would love to see Sarah Palin run as Haley Barbour's VP. One term and bring Haley back home to Mississippi.
ReplyDeleteThere's no need to rush her education, she's got a long political life ahead of her.
Any chance Duncan Hunter might run again?
ReplyDeleteI like Hunter also. John Bolton, Sarah and a few others impress me as conservative enough. My favorite though is Liz Cheney.
ReplyDeleteNo to Romney and Huckabee.