One note. I don't mean to sound like I'm not glad that we won. I'm happy to see Tom Daschle on the way out as Majority Leader, but I'm also not putting much stock in our new leadership.

Adam, I think you miss the point here. I don't think the Republicans, though they now have a mandate to govern, suddenly
have a mandate to massively restructure the liberal social arrangement of the last 40 years. I think the reality is twofold. First
off, I think we won the election because of the war, which I told you last year would happen and you dismissed the idea.
Secondly, Republican appointment of not only Supreme Court justices but lower federal court judges will be significant. The
class of judges about to be (re) voted on by the next Senate is one of the most conservative since Reagan. Also, I think we're
going to see that partial-birth abortion ban we've been working for finally pass. I'd say in political terms, that's pretty significant.

Yes, you were right about the war. I'm too much into "conventional wisdom". I was expecting there to be a recession during the 2000 presidential election as well, it happened a little later than expected. I don't think we have "a mandate" because we refuse to build a mandate. Can you show any of our Republican leaders who made the size and scope of the federal government a focal point of their campaign? Or the special interest playground known as the income tax? We have not because we ask not, because we refuse to put forward a real agenda and make the effort to putsuade people.

Indeed, our leadership is more interested in playing it safe rather than leading our nation back to constitutional limited government. We look at the President and we look at the big-spending Congress and we both have to know that this isn't even in the back of their minds.

As for abortion, I'll be pleased with the legislation that's passed, however Partial Birth Abortion is doomed in the courts thanks to the Stenberg decision. Again, my concern with the Judges is that in Texas, Bush has had a record of appointing both pro-life and pro-choice Justices and that one of Mr. Bush's favored candidates for the court is White House Counsel Al Gonzalez who voted to overturn Texas' Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. While these may be the most conservative court appointments since Reagan, Reagan's appointments included pro-abortion stalwart Sandra Day O'Connor and the weak-minded William Kennedy who got pursuaded to switch his vote and keep abortion legal. While I'm pleased in general with Bush's appointments to the federal bench thus far (Pickering, Owens, and others), my stomach will be in knots when he actually gets a chance to pick a Supreme Court.

Large cities are not the Democratic vote factories they once were, voter turnout within cities is generally lower by percentage than turnout in the (more conservative) suburbs or in (really conservative) rural America. I think the Democrats failed to learn the lesson from 2000 that rural and suburban America DO matter politically, they elected George W. Bush and will sustain this Congressional majority, I believe, for many years to come. Sure, the large cities may have Democrat mayors, commissions, and councils, but for the national Party, that is going to mean less and less if it doesn't translate into control at the state and federal level.

In terms of the House, it's important to remember that the voter turnout in a district is irrelevant. If only 15 people show up to vote in a 600,000 person congressional distrct, it's still a Congressional District. In some areas in New York and Chicago, it really is absurd that 90,000 people get to elect Congresspeople. You also add to that the Majority minority districts that are created by legislatures. This base of hundreds of Congressional Districts in cities that Republicans can't win as things stand now is the key to Democratic survival. When at the beginning of a race, you are guaranteed 140 seats in Congress, and your opponents may have perhaps 40 locked up that tight, you have a huge advanted with the remaining 255 seats. The Democrats are losing touch with the Heartland and when Ralph Hall and Charlie Stenholm retire, you'll bet they'll lose seats. Until Republicans find a way to break the Democratic Stranglehold on the big cities, Democrats will never be totally beat down like the Republicans were in the New Deal era for example.

I don't agree with Adam that long term effect of GOP control will be nill. He forgets that the Republicans have only been in control of Congress since 1994 and all three branches tentatively since January 2001. This is not enough time to accumulate the political capital needed to abolish the income tax or have major domestic policy overhauls (even if we both know they are needed). This President's mandate was confirmed in this election, and it is a foreign policy, not a domestic mandate, we all know that. The domestic mandate will come in 2004, when he is re-elected, but again by a very narrow margin. Republicans will maintain control of Congress. We'll see the biggest long term effect in issues like educational choice, tax relief, and judicial appointments. I don't expect this Presidency to be a Conservative's dream...but we haven't had that since Ronald Reagan, and likely won't have that until the Second Coming.

What I meant was that the long-term effects would be nill, I was referring to what this Congress does. Obviously, if the Republicans held control of Congress for 40 years that'd be quite different. I disagree that the President will be re-elected narrowly. I expect him to win in the greatest landslide since Nixon in '72 or perhaps even Johnson in '64. I could be wrong but this president will win re-election and have plenty of political capital but I don't think he'll spend it on moving through important changes in terms of the income tax (he's never been on the record of favoring that type of tax reform) or the size of government (I don't think he has a real problem with it).

Well, the first thing I'd do is get the kind of judicial appointments through that have thus far been stalled by the previous Senate. Then I'd pass a partial-birth abortion ban. Then I'd ask for a massive increase in needed defence spending for the war effort, I'd scale back all the "Homeland Security" rhetoric, and then deal will the educational choice issue.

I agree on Homeland Security. We don't need these monstrous anti-privacy provisions or TIPS networks. At times, I've been embarassed by administration proposals like the TIPS program. I think School Choice is a good issue. It should most likely be done from the local rather than federal level. The Federal Government has no business in education. However, if we're going to spend money, we should spend it on things that work. I have mixed feeling on the issue myself.

Additional thought. Why is it wrong to use ideology and fidelity to the Constitution as a basis for choosing judges and perfectly okay to use race?

The following was sent out through Renew America, Alan Keyes organization. Below are my answers to their questions.

What can we expect of Republican control of both Congress and the White
House? Are we in for real improvement in the Federal government--or will
the GOP leadership somehow blow its new-found opportunities in Washington?

--I expect the Republican Leadership in Washington to make some relatively substantial minor changes (oxymoronic I know) but not to deal with the big issues. We will still have an Income Tax, Abortion-on-Demand, and a government that is as big and probably bigger than it is now.

We'll see the end of some taxes, passage of some landmark abortion legislation in the process. I don't really expect President Bush to appoint strong pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. In fact I'm very concerned that President Bush is more concerned about appointing a Hispanic Justice and may put his friend Al Gonzalez who is pro-abortion on the court.

How do you expect the Democrats to respond to their considerable
disadvantage?

By moving further left. With Nancy Pelosi replacing Dick Gephardt and Hillary Clinton replacing John Kerry, it's truly apparent that the inmates are running the asylum.

What do you make of predictions that the Democratic Party--as
we now know it--has been irreparably weakened, while the GOP will continue
to rise in influence in the foreseeable future?

Nonsense! There is a big limit to how high the GOP can "rise". Everywhere that has an Urban population is so Democratic it's ridiculous. From Chicago to New York to Boston and Los Angeles, it's ridiculous but as long as the Democrats control those strongholds and are unable to win enough other seats, they'll be a force to be reckoned with even if they are a joke.

Be creative--predict the
next two years at the national level in America, and then suggest the
long-term effects of those predictions.

The long-term effect of the GOP control will be nill. Lets face it, Trent Lott, George W. Bush, and Dennis Hastert are good people who will have no impact on the nation's domestic policy. We'll have lower taxes, but we'll have the same type of taxes. We'll look back at George W. Bush and his administration and remember a man who led the nation through one of its darkest hours and we'll laud him for that. But we're not going to look to the Bush adminstration for great domestic policy, it is for the most part Status Quo.

Finally, if you were a Republican
leader in the House, Senate, or White House, what agenda would you
personally focus on in the upcoming months?"

I would push for real changes and use the "bully pulpit" to address the American people. I fear that our current leadership is set to squander it's mandate. Having the superior advantage, Republicans are set to violate Clausewitz's rules of war by playing small ball, rather than challenging "all to win all".