Liberals to hold top leadership posts in Democrat-run US Congress (AFP)

[Ron Burgundy]

AFP - The US Congress, run for years with an iron fist by hardliners in President George W. Bush's Republican party, will get a radical makeover if opposition Democrats win November's midterm election.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress, run for years with an iron fist by hardliners in
President George W. Bush's Republican party, is likely to get a radical makeover if opposition Democrats win November's midterm election.
ADVERTISEMENT

The November 7 balloting could see several of the US legislatures most liberal members assume top leadership posts, after 12 years of Republican rule in the House of Representatives and four years of control of the Senate.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 33 Senate seats, 36 governorships as well as numerous mayoral and local positions will be in play.

Democratic leaders are increasingly confident that the vote will result in big gains, with voters increasingly disaffected by the war in
Iraq and other administration policies.

"Frankly, the Republicans are out of the mainstream in terms of what they're doing to the country. Most people ... want a different direction,"
Democratic National Committee chairman
Howard Dean said in a television interview on CNN Wednesday.

Dean conceded that his party's program is a recipe for frequent and spectacular clashes with Bush if it takes over one or both houses of Congress.

"There's not a lot of common ground with the president," he said in the interview. "It's our hope that after this election the president will begin to move back toward the moderation that we need in this country."

The House of Representatives -- the chamber where handicappers predict change likely to take place -- is currently led by a staunch Bush ally, conservative
Dennis Hastert.

But if Democrats win, it likely will be liberal Democratic lawmaker Nancy Pelosi, representing the "left coast" city of San Francisco, who will set the agenda.

If tradition holds Pelosi, currently House Minority Leader, would likely become House Speaker although others in her party are believed to be angling for the top job, including conservative Democrat John Murtha, a key critic of the Iraq War.

Left-leaning Democrats could also take charge of numerous other key House posts if current leadership patterns hold.

The Energy and Commerce Committee could be led by John Dingell, a New Deal-style liberal Democrat who believes in strong government regulation.

Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, likely would be its new chairman. Frank is a liberal activist on social policy issues and one of only a handful of openly gay lawmakers in Congress.

The
House Government Reform Committee gavel next year could be wielded by Henry Waxman, a progressive gadfly who has launched investigations of Big Tobacco, the Iraq war, and Enron, among other targets.

Meanwhile the
House Judiciary Committee, where Draconian proposals crafted by conservatives stalled immigration reform, could be led by John Conyers, an African-American civil rights activist who last year held a mock hearing on impeaching Bush.

While stopping short of calling for Bush's impeachment, if appointed chairman, Conyers has promised, "comprehensive oversight" on Iraq, the "war on terror," privacy concerns, voter rights protections and other judicial matters.

The chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which controls congressional purse strings, would likely be headed by Charles Rangel, an African-American and unapologetic leftie who backs progressive social policy like rent control and urban renewal projects that are abhorred by many conservatives.

Democrats would have to win six seats to reclaim control of the Senate, a number seen as unlikely, though not impossible. The new majority leader likely would be Harry Reid of Nevada, a Mormon lawyer, one-time amateur boxer, and sharp Bush critic.

The Armed Services Committee likely would be led by Carl Levin of Michigan, who has criticized defense spending and has called for a phased pullback of US troops for Iraq.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would be run by the Senate's liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who has long called for raising the minimum wage, bolstering affirmative action, and urging more proactive social policy.

"We'll put a check on the president's crazy economic policies where we've expanded the deficits enormously," Dean said, also promising legislation to help the least fortunate Americans.

He also vowed that there would be ethics reform in a Congress whose term has been marked by corruption scandals.

"We want honesty and openness back in our government," he said.

[ballz2wallz]

geez, could you get any more dramatic?

run for years with an iron fist by hardliners in President George W. Bush's Republican party

[beez]

It's not inaccurate.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by beez

It's not inaccurate.

rule with an iron fist

(idiomatic) To rule with absolute authority or to the detriment of the people. To rule tyrannically.
He considered himself king of his castle, and he rules with an iron fist.

you really think bush and the republicans are leading the country like this?!

cause i don't. our government and country is kinda set up so that this is impossible

[Thorgrim]

by his party not his person, read the sentence

[beez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you really think bush and the republicans are leading the country like this?!

cause i don't. our government and country is kinda set up so that this is impossible

Re-read the quote and see that it is about the ruling of the Congress with an iron fist by the GOP. Your interpretation of the quoted definition needs to be adjusted for this. The GOP has ruled over the Congress with an iron fist with a few notable exceptions of bipartsianship. They've got a double majority so they can do whatever they like regardless of consequences to the organization. It's their way or the highway. The stature of the Congress as well as its individual members has been tarnished because of this. This is detrimental to the individuals who make up the organization as well as the organization itself. It fits into the definition you posted nicely.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by beez

Re-read the quote and see that it is about the ruling of the Congress with an iron fist by the GOP. Your interpretation of the quoted definition needs to be adjusted for this. The GOP has ruled over the Congress with an iron fist with a few notable exceptions of bipartsianship. They've got a double majority so they can do whatever they like regardless of consequences to the organization. It's their way or the highway. The stature of the Congress as well as its individual members has been tarnished because of this. This is detrimental to the individuals who make up the organization as well as the organization itself. It fits into the definition you posted nicely.

any party in control of both congress and the white house is going to do what they want, with few exceptions of bitpartisanship. that's the fun of controlling both parts. to say they run it 'tyrannically' is preposterous. what is considered detrimental to the people is subjective. i, for one, don't think the way they have run the government is detrimental to us or them. sure, there have been some mistakes made, but i hardly feel like i'm worse off because of it.

[beez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

any party in control of both congress and the white house is going to do what they want, with few exceptions of bitpartisanship. that's the fun of controlling both parts. to say they run it 'tyrannically' is preposterous. what is considered detrimental to the people is subjective. i, for one, don't think the way they have run the government is detrimental to us or them. sure, there have been some mistakes made, but i hardly feel like i'm worse off because of it.

It doesn't have to be detrimental to you for it to be ruled with an iron fist. Given the current opinion of Congress as a whole based on polling, I think Congress has suffered under its current rulers. To be ruled tyrannically is simply to be ruled in an unjustly harsh manner. Depends on how you view the GOP's tactics for controlling the vote, really. I still don't think it's an inaccurate description.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by beez

It doesn't have to be detrimental to you for it to be ruled with an iron fist. Given the current opinion of Congress as a whole based on polling, I think Congress has suffered under its current rulers. To be ruled tyrannically is simply to be ruled in an unjustly harsh manner. Depends on how you view the GOP's tactics for controlling the vote, really. I still don't think it's an inaccurate description.

To rule with absolute authority or to the detriment of the people. To rule tyrannically.

their rule is neither absolute nor to the detriment of us. but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Thorgrim]

Iron Fist is not a word, its a phrase like "Hard Wall"

It doesn't mean EXACTLY what dictionary.com tells you, its how some people use it, its a phrase you have a lot of liberty to use it

example: "The judge cut off attorneys, gave harsh instructions to the jurors and otherwise ran the court with an Iron Fist"

that doesn't mean the judge is a tyrant and anyone who killed up would be hailed for tyranicide

jesus

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

that doesn't mean the judge is a tyrant and anyone who killed up would be hailed for tyranicide

you don't have to be a tyrant to rule tyrannically

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

you don't have to be a tyrant to rule tyrannically

i don't know why you quoted me, because you sure as shit didn't respond to anything i said

[beez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

their rule is neither absolute nor to the detriment of us. but you're entitled to your opinion.

The rule doesn't have to be absolute so long as the intention and actions are to rule absolutely. Stalin ruled with an iron fist yet people were able to circumvent his will. Again, you seem to be unable to grasping (or unwilling to for the sake of your point) the scope of reference of 'iron fist' as it stands in the sentence you quoted. It's to the detriment of the people involved in the Congress. If I rule my home with an iron fist it may or may not be to the detriment of the rest of the country but even if it's not, I'm still ruling my own sphere with an iron fist.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by beez

The rule doesn't have to be absolute so long as the intention and actions are to rule absolutely. Stalin ruled with an iron fist yet people were able to circumvent his will. Again, you seem to be unable to grasping (or unwilling to for the sake of your point) the scope of reference of 'iron fist' as it stands in the sentence you quoted. It's to the detriment of the people involved in the Congress. If I rule my home with an iron fist it may or may not be to the detriment of the rest of the country but even if it's not, I'm still ruling my own sphere with an iron fist.

but congress is included in the OP as 'bush's republican party' who is doing the ruling. how can someone rule themselves with an iron fist to the detriment of themselves?

[JaJae]

We can all argue the definition of "Iron Fist", but I have to agree... it was written pretty dramatically. We should expect nothing less from our mainstream media though.

[thomez]

thanks Ron aka Captain Obvious

that's how Congress works bud

[beez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

but congress is included in the OP as 'bush's republican party' who is doing the ruling. how can someone rule themselves with an iron fist to the detriment of themselves?

No, it mentions that Congress is run by Bush's GOP party. Not that it is his party. The party rules the Congress.

[motivez]

Oh, it's his party alright. The "W" brand is something members of Congress have been all too happy to embrace / label themselves as... until recently.

[beez]

That "it is his party" above was ambiguous. The Congress is not his party but it is run by his party.