I would like to know why we voted in democrats at the midterms. G.W. does what ever he wants anyway.?

id say because there is no difference between the Democrats and the republicans neither have any spine, the Dem's wont stand up to the voters and the republicans wont stand up to the contributors

The quick answer is that we didn't vote in enough Democrats. It takes 60 votes to close debate in the Senate on anything, and 67 votes to override a veto, so a minority can still block most actions. Republicans are not ready to desert the President, especially since most issues get oversimplified down to divisive "principles" for the public.

The choices are: try to get something done, by compromising enough to obtain some Republican support; or abandon any attempt at useful activity and just go for confrontation. Confrontation may be emotionally cathartic, but it's not productive.

The President can veto any bill, and as long as a third of the Senate supports the veto, nothing can be done--except trying to work out a variation that would get less Republican support than that, without losing the Democrats. The partisan divisions are so strong that there's a very limited range to work with on most issues.

The extreme case of confrontation would be attempting impeachment. During Watergate, it became clear that any legitimate impeachment inquiry would take a very long time--much longer that the President's remaining term in office, especially since any serious attempt would include recruiting enough Republican Senators for a conviction. (That takes just as many as getting a single bill past a veto, and is a much harder sell.)

A quick impeachment would be nothing but a tantrum, staged as a show of political power rather than as a serious set of charges. So far, the Republicans have done that twice in their history--in fact, they have very rarely ever failed to do it when they had majorities in both houses and the President wasn't from their party. But all it did was demonstrate to the whole country that they were more interested in political flackery than in serious government.

I am therefore glad to see that the Democrats are not taking that route, however much I would prefer to see GWB ousted. I concur with the general frustration with the administration, but the only way to redress it is to see that the next one, starting Jan. 20, 2009, is in a position to change things.

Dems find themselves in an interesting position. There have been some successes (increased funding for college scholarships, making paying back college easier, minimum wage increase) and some others that Bush has vetoed (children's health care). I do not think it is fair to say the Dems are "scared of him". They have sent plenty of legislation to him - including a demand to timeline a withdrawl of Iraq. Bush has vetoed much of it. To tie Iraq to funding would be very dangerous. Bush has made it clear he will syphon funding from elsewhere and keep our troops in Iraq no matter what. When faced with this sort of childish irresponsibility, the Dem leadership have done the right thing - make sure our troops are well equipped and properly funded, and keep the pressure on Bush to find a solution as well as start preparing for one from 2009.

Regarding your 8 points - most of them are fair criticism but the 1st is a little unreasonable. Rarely would a two term president maintain his entire cabinet throughout.

Reagan only had one member (other than VP Bush) serve all 8 years (Sam Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development).

Clinton had 4 (other than VP Gore) ; Attny Gen Janet Reno, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and Secretary of Education Richard Riley. So Bush's record of three members (Condi Rice in two positions, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy John Walters) is not too bad.

Linder - rapidly rising? Not by any of these polls that show him well and truly bogged between 30 and 35 for the past year or so

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

And the Republican's favorite cry "The Democratic Congress is lower". Pity none of them ever take the time to actually analyze polls on congress. Yes congress numbers are low (and indeed historically they usually are lower than the President's) but to blame this solely on the Democrats is either ignorant or dishonest (I will let you choose).

Recent polls also find that

43% approve of the Democratic Leadership's perfomance (not great but better than 35%)

51% blame Bush and congressional Republicans for the inactivity of congress, only 25% blame congressional democrats

50% believe that Dem leaders are moving the country in the right direction

http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm

29% rate Dems in Congress excellent or pretty good compared to only 19% for the Republicans in congress.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

However you and your fellow right wingers should feel free to remain in denial and believe again that 7 years of abject failure will not be punished by the American people (just as you did before the 2006 pantskicking they gave you).

In the hope that they would implement the positions of the voters. The Republicans pushed Nixon out of office I wish they would do the same with Dubya.

You are 100% right, he is a disaster and too bad we don't have a veto proof majority in the House and Senate. Let's make a BIG change in 2008.

The Democrats are not trying to get anything done. Can you name one time since they took control of Congress they have tried to work _with_ the president on anything?