Actually, if things get to that point you won't be *able* to say "I told you so". It will be prohibited. :-)

It's my vague understanding that every time one party has completely controlled the government, vast, unwise, and sweeping changes were made. That's really what the much ballyhoo'd "checks and balances" system is supposed to prevent, but I can't see how it could work very well if one party controls everything. It's not about Republicans vs. Democrats. I just don't want a king.

Tob, to answer your question:

Full Democratic Control (1903-2002): 32
Full Republican Control (1903-2002): 20

(Source, along with my own figures for 2001 and 2002)

Juju, the checks and balances can still work. The Supreme Court at this point can go either way in determining the constitutionality of laws (depending on the mood of the moderates). And the Republicans do not have enough Senators to override a veto, unless Democrats join them.

But the bottom line is quite simple: The Republicans have two years to make their case. The Democrats had the same opportunity in 1992...and blew it. My own personal opinion is that the Dems will take back one thing in 2004...most likely the Senate. In the last 30 years, only Carter has had the party trifecta for a full term.