posted November 08, 2006 09:46 PM              

WASHINGTON -- The Democrats clinched the final victory needed for a 51-seat majority in the U.S. Senate Wednesday night, according to the Associated Press, effectively handing both houses of Congress to the party for the first time since 1994.

Jim Webb was declared the winner by the AP reporters who contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred. About half had completed canvassing and nearly all absentee ballots had been counted, according to the AP.

As of Wednesday, the Senate stood at 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats (including two independents who caucus with the party), with Virginia still up in the air. Because Vice President Dick Cheney holds the tie-breaker in the chamber, the Democrats needed a full 51 seats in their caucus to win majority control.

The new AP count Wednesday showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and incumbent Sen. George Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236. The only two statewide recounts in modern history in Virginia have resulted in vote changes of only a few hundred votes.

Citing an adviser to Allen who spoke on condition of anonymity, the AP reported that Allen has not formally decided to campaign, but intended to wait until most of the canvassing was reported, which could come as early as Thursday night. The adviser said Allen was reluctant to request a recount if vote tallies held the same margins they did on election night.

posted November 08, 2006 09:54 PM              

You all know that this is just a lead up to the 2008 presidential race and what we have seen the past two days reminds me of what Robert Byrd said on the floor of the Senate on the eve of the Iraq invasion.

" Truth will win out in the end. Truth always wins out. And when it does this house of cards ( speaking of the Bush administration ) built on lies and deceit will fall." And though it took 6 long disasterous years it has fallen.

posted November 08, 2006 09:59 PM              

shall I compare this to a double header and watch pidaua's ensuing hissy fit?

LOL

posted November 08, 2006 10:05 PM              

------------------
"WHATEVER the soul longs for, WILL be attained by the spirit"-Khalil Gibran

posted November 08, 2006 11:47 PM              

Greg Crosby began his article regarding the recall of the democratic governor in Calif. and the replacement with Arnold Schwarzenegger with this:

It's not polite to laugh at someone when you win and they lose, my mother always told me. Always try to be a gracious winner, she'd say. Well, sorry, mom, but I'm not feeling gracious nor polite today. So, pardon me if I laugh out loud in the loudest most ungracious, ill polite way I can - HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA, HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA! HAR-DE-HAR HAR! HO-DE-HO HO! TEE HEE! GUFFAW! CHORTLE! SNICKER! GIGGLE! CHUCKLE!

We, the people, won on Tuesday and it felt terrific.

That is how I feel and others here feel at this present time. We can be gracious winners tomorrow or the next day or whenever the glow wears off. But for now we are basking in the glow of victory.

It is like a dark cloud has lifted and the sun has finally broken through. Let us enjoy it even if we snicker and giggle and are a little ungracious in our win. It's much better than feigning phoney graciousness just for the sake of appearance or worry over what others may think of us.

posted November 09, 2006 09:26 AM              

There is a lovely feeling here at GU (for a change)....lets hope the change will bring positive and fresh energy into the country!!!

posted November 09, 2006 11:21 AM            

quote:

---

gas prices will go through the roof

---

So you're saying that the Republican congress intentionally lowered gas prices as an election ploy? Is that what I'm hearing?

quote:

---

if we pull out of Iraq you can bet we'll see more terrorist attacks

---

We may see more terrorist attacks regardless of what happens in Iraq. That's reality.

quote:

---

it will just be blamed on Bush in the long run

---

posted November 09, 2006 12:08 PM            

For terrorism to NOT grow under Bush's term would have been abnormal. I say this because the terrorism is directly linked to our Country not sitting back and taking 9-11 as a joke, as we have done in the past under heavily democratic rule. The M.E terrorists have been around for hundreds of years and one only needs to see the deplorable conditions set forth under Saddam's rule and the continued warfare in Israel to know that terrorism ain't going away.

Comparing an increase in terrorism to Bush the President is like saying "Mob crime grew under Mayor Guilini" of course it did, in retaliation to him cracking down on crime- including organized crime. In California when there was a huge emphasis on cracking down on gang violence, the violence first escalated before it decreased. Most of it was a result of gangs retaliating with Law Enforcement and purchasing high powered weapons on the black market. Does that mean the cops should have just left the gangs alone and NOT "encroach" on their terrority? Maybe if we leave them alone, no one will get hurt?

posted November 09, 2006 12:55 PM              

quote:

---

• The Iraq conflict has become the —cause celebre“ for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement.--Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate —Trends in Global Terrorism:

---

posted November 09, 2006 01:22 PM            

I think it's a testament to the "lemming" like quality of republicans that they buy this, because its rhetoric that the president repeats over and over.

Why dont' republicans notice that the worst attack on American soil happened under his presidency? Now this doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad protector, as this could have happened under anyone's presidency.

The bottom line is that no matter how good security is, terrorist attacks will always manage to sneak through, that is the nature of them.

posted November 09, 2006 01:52 PM            

So I suppose based on your proclamation the overall reduction in crime caused by gangs in LA was NOT a result of Gang Enforcement tasks forces huh? And the results decrease in crime in NYC was NOT as a result of Guilani cracking down in that city as well?

posted November 09, 2006 03:45 PM            

Terrorism and gang violence are most certaintly similar. Both are not affliated with a state but instead employ an idealogy based on religion, ethnicity or location. Both employ violence in the form of threats, beatings and rape to intimidate those they hate. Both groups retaliate by attacking sensitive targets (families, institutions - buses with kids- Ever hear of MS-13?)

Both groups single out another entity with either the same ethnicity but different principles (see various warring hispanic and black gangs as well as various Muslim groups out to kill each other) OR they choose to declare war on a principle - way of life "Gangs on Law Enforcement: Muslim Terrorists and Western Philosophy"

posted November 09, 2006 04:07 PM            

Unfortunately though the topic was whether one can CONCLUDE beyond a reasonable DOUBT that laws and efforts to minimize terrorism are effective. This has nothing to DO with the nature of gang violence and terrorist attacks, only with their FREQUENCY.

Since you seem unable to grasp this concept, let me spell it out for you. Gang violence is frequent, incidents can happen multiple times a day. Terrorist acts are infrequent, often spanning year between attacks in this country. Since attacks are so few and far between, how do we know that efforts are even working? We'd have to view over a span of decades to make any sort of deduction.

posted November 09, 2006 04:31 PM            

All I see is ad hominem, you didn't address the point being made at all, most likely because you know it's correct.

posted November 09, 2006 04:57 PM              

if there is a more accurate statistic, I would be most curious to investigate it.

posted November 10, 2006 03:20 AM              

Bush didn't do too good of a job saving the lives of the people of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. If that was an example I wouldn't entrust my life in his hands for anything.

Now give us the stats on how many of those Republican senators served in the military themselves as compared to the Democrats, Pidaua. Bet you wouldn't dare.

posted November 10, 2006 12:11 PM            

It's really not worth all the trouble. Best policy is to just accept the fact that whatever Mirandee says is loaded up with lies to further her far left radical agenda.

Military Service in the Congress by Party
(Combined House of Representatives and Senate)

Republicans with military service: 15.6%
Democrats with military service: 9.6%
Independents with military service: 0.2%
http://www.whoserved.com/congress.asp

***edit