Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColtonGang who wrote (64085)	11/8/2000 1:44:38 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

¶In the final stages of the race, Mr. Bush faded. Among those who made up their minds in the last week, the surveys showed, slightly more than half went to Mr. Gore; among those who decided earlier, a bare majority ended up favoring Mr. Bush. I refuse to believe that the drunk driving incident did not turn the tide against Bush for a number of the undecided voters. I also refuse to believe that the Demos were innocent bystanders when this bit of skullduggery took place.

To: ColtonGang who wrote (64085)	11/8/2000 1:50:31 PM
From: ColtonGang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

CSM>>>>>Gridlock ahead Veterans of Washington's partisan trenches are skeptical that the next leaders will rise above the ugly scenarios that lay before them. "There's no question whoever is elected not only will have a small margin of victory and little mandate from the people, but will be arriving in a capital that is largely dysfunctional," says Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff under President Clinton. If Gore wins the presidency, facing a Republican House and Senate, Mr. Panetta says his first reaction is that the result will be four more years of "gridlock and war." But he doesn't rule out the potential for the partisans to work out a modus operandi. "Any president in the end has to ask the question, 'What am I here in the Oval Office for, and what am I going to accomplish that will benefit the American people?' " says Panetta, who also represented California in the House. "You don't suddenly occupy the Oval Office and say, 'Now how can I screw up the democratic system for four years?' " The Republicans may feel they have more to prove, as they are still trying to show they can run Congress effectively. By keeping control of both the House and Senate, the GOP has held power in both chambers for four straight two-year sessions, the first time since the 1920s. If Bush wins the presidency, it will be the first time since 1953 that the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the White House. Analysts disagree on the importance of a presidential "mandate." Already, both Bush and Gore have won a greater percentage of the popular vote than President Clinton did in either of his elections, but he still managed to enact major legislation, such as deficit reduction and welfare reform. Still, the last two years saw no major policy changes. And now Congress will be even more closely divided. "It means no huge policy changes," says former Minnesota Rep. Bill Frenzel (R). "Certainly we're not going to solve the nagging problem of Social Security." Regarding the budget, Mr. Frenzel sees evenly divided government as "the most dangerous kind of environment." Each party is trying to please constituents, and is doing so through budget spending. "I see real danger in protecting whatever surpluses may have otherwise been available to us," he says. Bob Strauss, an old-time Democrat from Texas who has always prided himself on his ability to work with Republicans, doesn't see a solution to the sour climate in Washington. "It's very sad," he says. Then he corrects himself: "It's very troublesome, instead of sad. There's enough blame to go around, for all of us to have our share." Staff writers Francine Kiefer and Abraham McLaughlin contributed to this report.