Read a book, moron.

Why did Gerald Ford not send troops back to South Vietnam when the North re-invaded in 1975, violating the Paris agreement?

A Democratic Congress, with a veto-proof majority in the Senate, had earlier passed legislation prohibiting the US from ever sending troops, materiel or money anywhere in Southeast Asia without express consent from Congress.

Yeah, no influence there.

If the Senate had ever gotten 60 votes to overrule Bush’s veto, it would have essentially done the same in Iraq.

Congress controls the pursestrings and write legislation. Aside from actually commanding the military, congress decides, vis-a-vis funding, if it goes anywhere.

Our legislature’s hands are almost everywhere else as well. To think otherwise is pure ignorance of the political system.

There’s been plenty of speculation since self-described Democratic-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman started stumping for Sen. John McCain in December that Al Gore’s 2000 runningmate might reprise that role for his Republican friend, the WSJ reported …

The point is that McCain, as President, will not govern from the right; he will govern from the left because that’s where consensus is

This is entirely correct. Centrism in a political environment where the center is set substantially to the left, is a governing leftism by another name.

The fault in the arguments for McCain lies with the assumption that the Democrats will be able to do everything they want. They won’t. Republicans will oppose a Democratic President; they won’t oppose a “Republican” President. That’s the danger: McCain will be Clinton-lite, enabling laws to pass that no conservative can support but which will advance the progressive agenda on global warming, illegal immigration, McCain/Feingold, rolling back the tax cuts, etc., more than they will advance a conservative agenda. I feel that’s what McCain apologists are missing in this discussion. They presume the best of a McCain presidency and the worst of a Democratic presidency.

immigration – The border issue is going to be decided more by Congress then by the President.

free speech – I fear what the Democrats want to do more then what McCain did. With a Democratic President I can imagine the re-instituting of the “Fairness Doctrine,” for talk radio, cable talk shows, and blogs. Not for broadcast tv or newspapers of course, just whatever is hurting the Democrats.

appointing judges – So you trust that a Democratic President will appoint better judges, or that the Republicans will not compromise or be able to block nominations? Good luck with that.

tax cuts – Well, I know a Democratic President is going to play around with the tax code to make it more “fair.” I could see this leading to a depression with increased protectionism, and soaking the rich, ie anyone making over 100K ruining the economy.

“Screw America, screw the West, long live pure as the driven snow conservatism”. Yeah, that’s the ticket….idiots!!

McCain demonizes his opposition, too, as in calling people who wanted to enforce the border “racists.” The point is that McCain, as President, will not govern from the right; he will govern from the left because that’s where consensus is, that’s where the limelight is, that’s where his positions, excepting a few, lie.

So any conservative who is willing to hand control of those two issues to a “we need to restore America’s image in the world”-”we’re creating more terrorists”-”the war in Iraq has made America less safe”, United Nations worshipping, liberal Democrat, in a post 9/11 world, because McCain is an egomaniac who likes to stick it to conservatives, is about as patriotic as Susan Sarandon.

“Screw America, screw the West, long live pure as the driven snow conservatism”. Yeah, that’s the ticket….idiots!!

Of course, turn out for the House and Senate are even more important if one’s hope is a Republican leaning congress putting the brakes on a Democratic President.

My vote is for Thompson/Duncan.

Hope is not a business plan though.

We don’t currently have a Republican House or Senate. The way the system is setup, incumbents have the advantage.

Some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_2008#Races_with_no_incumbents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_elections%2C_2008

Interesting to note, there are 5 Republican Senators who are retiring, Allard – CO, Craig – Idaho, Hagel – Nebraska, Domenici – NM, Warner – VI In the House, it looks like the majority of races without incumbents are also Republicans.

It’s an awfully large bet to placing that the Senate will become more Republican. And don’t forget, with a Democrat for VP, guess who’s breaking the ties.

A left/liberal/progressive Democrat with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House…”

I think most conservatives that oppose a McCain presidency hope that with control of the Presidency going to the Democrats, that makes retaking the house and Senate much more likely.

After all, a lot of middle-of-the-road middle American voters will vote for one party as their President, and attempt to counter-balance that vote with a vote for the other party’s canddiate(s) in the Congress.

A liberal Demcratic Senator and a Republican House and/or Senate, like we had from ‘94 to ‘00, might not be undesirable.

A lot of Republicans bellied up to the trough and passed objectionable bills unto the President.

Who’s better for the country is what the question is? Not who’s going to be best for the Republican Party. There are a lot of factions in the RP, and they have to step up and stand for the principles of the party, not just the President.

Who is going to be better for the country?

A left/liberal/progressive Democrat with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House.

Or a center/right Republican with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House, and elected Republicans who are not always supportive of the Presidents policies?

It’s that he’s an egomaniac whose own agenda becomes bedrock “principle.”

It’s that on the crucial issues of the day –immigration, free speech, appointing judges, tax cuts– he stonewalled his party. No retrospective look at his voting “record” can ameliorate the fact that he was serving himself and not his party when his party needed him.

It’s that he is an opportunist whose administration will enable the rise of opportunists and “moderates” throughout all the stratum of the Republican organization and drive it leftward for years to come.

Ain’t gonna happen.

That makes voting for the Democratic ticket a whole lot easier for disgruntled Republicans.

After all, Hillary is widely regarded as liberal. Selecting an even MORE liberal VP does not sound like something the Queen of Triangulation would do.

Hillary/Lieberman vs. McCain/Huckabee or McCain/Giuliani.

Or, God forbid, Hillary/Harold Ford vs. [doesn't matter]? She gets the benefit of a black VP, but without Obama’s liberal baggage.

Just as McCain will tack left after the primaries, so too will Hillary tack right.

This is a nightmare scenario for Republicans.