Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was hospitalized after becoming disoriented Wednesday, weeks before his party is to take control of the Senate by a one-vote margin. 

Johnson, who turns 60 on Dec. 28, was admitted to George Washington University Hospital with an undiagnosed illness, said a spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher. 

She said, however, the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack. His office had said earlier it was a possible stroke. 

Fisher said Johnson would undergo further tests at the hospital Wednesday night. She said his office did not plan any more updates on his condition until Thursday.

The outcome will determine whether the Republican Party will get a little holiday cheer at the end of their worst election campaign in many years, or get one last bitter taste of unexpected defeat.

Clinton gave a great speech, emphasizing the need to turn out the vote.  It is all up to us, he said.  Do we want to join the 29 districts that voted out the GOP and sent Democrats to Congress, or will we join the dozen or so districts that came up just short?  

Prior to Clinton's arrival, former San Antonio mayor Henry Cisneros brought down the house.  "I do not understand a man like Henry Bonilla, who grew up in this area, and yet has voted time and again and again against the interests of the people of this area.  It's time to tell him, Ya basta!  Ya acabo'!  Ya vete!" 

President Bush, weakened by an unpopular war and the loss of Republican control in Congress, is now confronting disaffection within his own party that could complicate his attempt to set an agenda for his final two years in office.  

As Republicans departed Capitol Hill over the weekend, some who used to dismiss Democratic attempts to investigate the administration as political posturing are now lining up behind calls for greater oversight of the executive branch.  

They are advertising attacks on Bush's foreign policy that they once kept largely private. Last week, Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith not only made a speech calling the current war strategy "absurd" but sent out a news release publicizing his remarks.  

Some longtime Bush allies, such as Texas Sen. John Cornyn, are adopting rhetoric used by Democrats to criticize the Iraq war.  

And on other issues that will confront the new Congress in January -- including trade and judicial appointments -- Republican lawmakers are signaling their unwillingness to follow the White House.  

"Frankly, I think there is a greater recognition and awareness of the necessity for us to exercise checks and balances," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, noting how much the Nov. 7 elections changed the climate on Capitol Hill.

"If there was a reluctance to express that in the past, there isn't anymore," Snowe said.  

To be sure, no one is expecting a Republican abandonment of the president. But the disaffection marks a remarkable turnabout for a president whose command of his own party was once so supreme he virtually appointed the Senate majority leader, and GOP lawmakers openly acknowledged taking orders from the White House.

And it suggests that the Bush administration may have as much work repairing ties with Republicans as it does building new ones with the Democrats who will assume control of the House and Senate in January.  . . .  

The Bush administration's ability to win approval from a compliant legislative branch for tax cuts, foreign invasions and other initiatives was a source of awe.

In 2002, the president was widely seen as responsible for making Tennessee Republican Bill Frist Senate majority leader. . . .  

House Republicans abandoned Bush over immigration. And in the Senate, some of the chamber's most respected GOP members stood up to the White House on Iraq and the prosecution of terrorist suspects. . . .   

But since the elections, dissent has mushroomed.  

And as the House and Senate prepare for what many expect to be heated debates next year over the course of U.S. policy in the Middle East, Republican lawmakers have stepped up their critiques of the war, directly challenging the White House in ways that used to be the province of Democrats.

Top Democrats in Congress are ignoring calls from within their caucus to eliminate funding for troops in Iraq, a strategy some say is necessary to end U.S. involvement in the war.

"There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq prior to the end of President Bush's term," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat. "Congress must vote to cut off funds."  

Democratic leaders flatly rejected the idea yesterday, insisting they will move to "change the course" of the war but will continue to appropriate money to support the troops fighting in Iraq. The Democrats won back the House and Senate leadership in large part with staunch opposition to the Iraq war, but many worry that cutting off funding would seem unpatriotic.  

"My only real comment is you have to support the troops," incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton said about the Kucinich proposal. The Missouri Democrat initially supported the war but now wants gradual troop withdrawal.

I think this is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction in Iraq. It goes without saying that they expect greater transparency and oversight, but they also expect us to do something to bring the troops home. Now, if Congress goes ahead under Democratic leadership and votes to approve what some are now estimating as an additional $160 billion for the war in Iraq, bringing the total for the fiscal year to $230 billion, the Democratic Congress will have bought George Bush’s war. Now, who would buy a used war from this administration?

The trouble is that the Iraq Study Group is ultimately providing false hope for an extended war. Its assessment is appropriately bleak. For example, "Key Shia and Kurdish leaders," the commission finds, "have little commitment to national reconciliation." . . .

The most robust recommendation contained within "responsible transition" is to deemphasize U.S. combat missions and increasingly emphasize the training of Iraqi security forces. . . .  Indeed, the most significant recommendation in the report is the idea that by the "first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." At first blush, it's a dramatic statement: In little more than a year, Iraq won't be our war anymore.

But take a closer look. First, the commission isn't actually calling for withdrawal; it's calling for a reorientation of military effort — troops won't conduct combat missions, they'll just be helping Iraqi forces conduct them. This is new lipstick on a very old pig. Despite what the commissioners said at today's press conference, it's just a marginal tinkering with the years-old strategy of "putting an Iraqi face" on security operations.

Second, the commissioners say that we "must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq." But that's exactly what the commission's recommendation entails. . . .

Finally, it's unrealistic to suggest that with such a U.S. force in Iraq for such an indefinite timeframe, forces won't respond to insurgent or death-squad attacks if either directly fired upon or if their Iraqi counterparts aren't up to the challenge. Indeed, if U.S. troops are in a combat situation but are not positioned to respond as such, the Iraq Study Group's wishful thinking -- and the Pentagon's — will put them in the worst of all possible situations.  . . .

The bottom line, the commission says rather aptly, is "there are many armed groups within Iraq, and very little will to lay down arms." Put differently, each side believes it has more to gain through war than through negotiation. . . .

Where it goes wrong is in its recommendation that we should be actively supporting an Iraqi political process that is hostage to such dysfunction and sectarian chaos. After all, if none of the relevant actors within the Iraqi government or in the political structure at large is interested in peace, pressuring them to just make nice with one another isn't going to work.  . . .

Worse still, it's not even clear that the commission knows what it means by "national reconciliation." The proposals go from vague to vaguer: a constitutional "review"; a rollback of de-Baathification; the sharing of oil wealth. . . .  

Bush will have a very hard time recommitting the country to a chimerical "victory" in Iraq. But in the name of "responsibility," thousands more will die, for years and years, as the situation deteriorates further. Someone, at sometime, will finally have to say "enough," and get the United States out. . . .

TPJ'S BUSH WATCH
		Approve	Trail Mo	Disapprove	No Opinion	Spread
CNN	12/5-7/06	37		57	6	-20
FOX/Opinion Dyn	12/5-6/06	38		54	9	-16
AP-Ipsos	12/4-6/06	33		64	3	-31
WNBC/Marist RV	11/27 - 12/3/06	37		56	7	-19
		36.25	-0.18	57.75	6.25	-21.50
	2006
	November Average	36.43	-1.07	58.00	5.50	-21.57
	October Average	37.50	-3.42	57.11	5.36	-19.61
	September Average	40.92	2.64	54.23	4.77	-13.31
	August Average	38.29	0.59	57.14	4.64	-18.86
	July Average	37.70	0.49	56.40	5.90	-18.70
	June Average	37.21	3.05	56.79	5.93	-19.57
	May Average	34.17	-1.58	60.33	5.91	-26.17
	April Average	35.75	-1.35	57.75	6.82	-22.00
	March Average	37.10	-2.54	57.30	5.80	-20.20
	February Average	39.64	-2.42	55.21	5.23	-15.57
	January Average	42.07	1.32	53.27	5.07	-11.20
	2005
	December Average	40.75	2.83	54.25	6.33	-13.50
	November Average	37.92	-1.93	56.46	6.09	-18.54
	October Average	39.86	-1.46	55.07	5.58	-15.21
	September Average	41.31	-1.91	53.75	4.81	-12.44
	August Average	43.22	-2.38	52.33	4.33	-9.11
	July Average	45.60	0.60	49.00	5.30	-3.40
	June Average	45.00	-1.50	49.83	5.33	-4.83
	May Average	46.50	-1.10	48.33	5.17	-1.83
	April Average	47.60	-1.28	49.00	3.20	-1.40
	March Average