Wait a minute... I know this one...

The National Republican Congressional Committee issued a statement saying that "House Democrats have failed to deliver on their campaign promises to change Washington" since taking majority control of Congress in January. The statement accompanied a video highlighting what was supposedly the poor record of Democrats since taking over.

Well, let's see here. The Democrats don't actually have a majority in the Senate - it's 49-49 and there are two independents, who happen to caucus with the Democrats (usually; Lieberman can be up for grabs sometimes). 51-49 is still the slimmest majority you can have, and it isn't enough to override a presidential veto. And guess what Bush likes doing to aggressive Democratic legislation?

The House is 232-201, but since acts of Congress have to pass both houses, it's kind of irrelevant (and 232 out of 435 is only 53% anyway, hardly overwhelming). In either event, Republicans have about as much to do with not getting things passed as Democrats do, if not more.

Here's a logic exercise. Let's say you are someone who wanted the Democrats to gain power and pass the laws they promised to. If those laws don't pass because when the Democrats try to get them through Congress, they're voted down due to Republican opposition, do you think the solution is to elect more Republicans?

In other words, if you agree with the NRCC's video that the Democrats haven't been able to live up to their promises, the choice next election is clear: vote for even more Democrats! (Particularly for president, thus taking that pesky veto out of the equation.)