So does this make Bush a lame duck?

[Alleygater]

His party no longer has control of the House or Senate. He can talk
about bipartisanship all he wants but after he crapped all over the
Democrats for the last 6 years I would say that any good will has LONG
past. Could the President actually accomplish anything significant at
this point?

[Seguine]

Well, there's this Baker Commission report that's soon to be released.
We'll see what that brings.

The Dems are going after John Bolton, and Nancy Pelosi is backing John
Murtha's call for an Iraq pullout. I don't think Bush will go along,
lame duck or not.

A Fred Barnes Weekly Standard editorial
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/opinion/main2175440.shtml)
opines:

"True, he'll have to make concessions, probably painful ones, on
legislative initiatives. And his prospects for getting conservative
judicial nominees through the Senate are slim. But as we learned from
the Gingrich years, you can't govern from Capitol Hill. The president,
even weakened as Bush is, remains the central figure in Washington.

"Bush has an unmatched set of political tools. With strong Republican
minorities in both houses, he has veto power. He never used it to
cancel Republican bills, but he'll be less reluctant to kill Democratic
bills. Bush is in charge of foreign policy, as we'll be visibly
reminded next week when he travels to Vietnam and the following week
when he goes to Latvia for the NATO summit. And he is the man with the
megaphone. He can always command a national audience. Pelosi and Reid
can't."

A bit of whistling in the dark there, but I'm sure Barnes is right that
Bush will use his veto power. Especially on matters of foreign policy.