We Are All Spaniards

"Newps" wrote in message
news:4cF5c.21773$Cb.469313@attbi_s51...

The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.


The Republicans have held the House of Representatives since 1995.

The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left
the Republican party two months later, giving the Democrats the majority.
The Republicans regained the majority with the 2002 election.

The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.

Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.


Constitutional? Better check again.



Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:16:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.

If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority. The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.

Beware people who say things like "true majority". The adjective is
trying to write a new definition.

Do you also peddle "real facts"?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.


That is essentially what I did say and I was right.



If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority.


And when you have the same number as the opposition you do not have a
majority.



The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.


No, it assures the presidential party will have control. To have a majority
requires holding at least one more seat than half of the total.