Thompson - you are obviously very worried and somewhat pathetically desperate to use the sort of intemperate and pejorative language above. It is clear that it hurts you very badly to see anyone in office who has given your side a sound thrashing for the past six years, no matter what goals have been kicked.

VJC,
It's Iraq Iraq Iraq.

Over and above that issue is Rove's political strategy. This focuses on mobilizing their hard-core supporters with an aggressively conservative agenda, even at the price of straining relations with moderate and independent swing voters. It is not working this time.

True, the polarizing strategy in which so many Americans have hardened in their loyalty to one of the two major parties, did work for the Republicans from 1994.

The centre is coming back into play as the swing voter returns. The Rovian political strategy has finally reached -- or exceeded -- it's limits.

The Republicans may be great at winning elections but they at poor at governing the country. The polls suggest a repudiation of the status quo.

Okay, according to the early exit polls, 40% of electors said corruption was the big issue for the voters. Only 36% said Iraq.

These numbers are interesting and point to the old truism about all politics being local.

Simon,

CNN disagree--they are continually saying, that for all the local issues in play, its mostly a referendum on Bush and so about Iraq. The New York Times says:

The Democrats won a negative victory, riding on the wave of public anger about Republicans. The new House majority will certainly call the administration to account on any number of issues, but it will have to do far more than run investigations if it is to build on its victory.

Republican dominance in Washington has resulted in expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption. So many Republicans wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance of Washington.

For what its worth, the Washington post noted my point as well. But the wider point is that the Republicans just lost the plot after 2002, and corruption is the home problem just as Iraq is the away problem.

Simon,
It would seem that the Americans cannot agree about what the American voters were voting for when they rejected the status quo. We sholdl expect conflict given the partisan nature of US politics.

I'm sticking with the interpretation that the American midterm elections were a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration. What the Republicans are denying is the electorates blunt rejection of the president, his party, and their conduct of the last few years. Their talking points are all about the Democrats in the house turning the place into a circus of hearings, subpoenas, etc. and the prospective difficulties of working with ultraliberal wackadoo Nancy Pelosi.

In a parliamentary system, these election results would lead to a change in government; in the US presidential system it should lead to a change in policy.So how will George Bush respond to the American voters' verdict in the 2006 midterms?

Will it be a president who says he has heard the popular verdict in 2006 and would act on it la the Texas model of yesteryear? Or will it be a defiant president, who opts to spend his final two years in office in conflict with the new legislature that Americans have chosen to represent them?

That means for many Americans changing course in Iraq---opting for a different strategy to staying the course, going full speed ahead, or getting the job done , achieving victory etc etc. That means minimizing the damage of defeat by disengaging the troops.

i've had a brilliant idea!

let's stop voting for corrupt/incompetent/crazy politicians!

instead, let's vote for individual policies, initiated by citizen committees, for approval by the whole electorate on an annual 'referendum day'.

brilliant, eh?

we'll call the process 'democracy', like aristotle did, and refer to the old (current) system as 'oligarchy'- as aristotle did.