far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amo

Weeks before the congressional midterm elections, much was said and written on the possibilities and consequences of the 2006 elections outcome. There was considerable outrage inside US among both democrats and republicans; campaign tracts, meetings and TV shows got everybody in the US exited about what is going to happen on the 7th of November. However, compared with previous US elections it was no new thing. The polity was going its usual way, the only difference with the past Congressional elections after the cold war, was the emergence of foreign policy as the most important concern in US elections. The issue of foreign policy, though worthy in terms of acting as a turning point for congressional tendency, is not the concern of this article. Instead the global reactions to the elections and especially the role of congress in global affairs are discussed. Among branches which are active inside the United States government, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary, it is the executive and the president that are responsible for foreign affairs. The constitution also gives power to congress and judiciary to curb the executive's adventurous decisions through legislations and budget appropriations. A very notable case in which Congress stood against the president was the War Power Act (1973), after the Vietnam fiasco, which reduced the capability of presidents to enter into a war without congressional approval.

9/11 and the emergency status in the US allowed Bush to get a green light from Congress to declare war on terror (specifically at that time on Afghanistan). The next war, as then became clear, was not for defending United States security and dealing with the Iraqi threat. War of a global emperor attracted so much criticism inside and outside the United States. This led many countries to feel threatened by hegemonic power in its both hard and soft power kind of dealing with the so-called global insurgent "axis of evil". The 2006 elections was an end to people's support of the "war" and many people outside US got happy to see republicans loose.

Now among many implications of this tough "no" to republican belligerence, one can look at the election and global reactions from another point of view which is globalization. Opponents of neoliberal globalization attack the way in which globalization is giving more advantages to hegemonic powers (especially the US) and call for restructure or abolition of international organizations in the name of a more globally just parliament and organization. Regardless of their criticisms towards present organizations, the solutions which are proposed are far from real and there is no roadmap proposed by the anti-globalization movement. Of course some scholars like Walden Bello have proposed "deglobalization" which is again far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amou

al tendency, is not the concern of this article. Instead the global reactions to the elections and especially the role of congress in global affairs are discussed. Among branches which are active inside the United States government, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary, it is the executive and the president that are responsible for foreign affairs. The constitution also gives power to congress and judiciary to curb the executive's adventurous decisions through legislations and budget appropriations. A very notable case in which Congress stood against the president was the War Power Act (1973), after the Vietnam fiasco, which reduced the capability of presidents to enter into a war without congressional approval.

9/11 and the emergency status in the US allowed Bush to get a green light from Congress to declare war on terror (specifically at that time on Afghanistan). The next war, as then became clear, was not for defending United States security and dealing with the Iraqi threat. War of a global emperor attracted so much criticism inside and outside the United States. This led many countries to feel threatened by hegemonic power in its both hard and soft power kind of dealing with the so-called global insurgent "axis of evil". The 2006 elections was an end to people's support of the "war" and many people outside US got happy to see republicans loose.

Now among many implications of this tough "no" to republican belligerence, one can look at the election and global reactions from another point of view which is globalization. Opponents of neoliberal globalization attack the way in which globalization is giving more advantages to hegemonic powers (especially the US) and call for restructure or abolition of international organizations in the name of a more globally just parliament and organization. Regardless of their criticisms towards present organizations, the solutions which are proposed are far from real and there is no roadmap proposed by the anti-globalization movement. Of course some scholars like Walden Bello have proposed "deglobalization" which is again far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amo

ut congressional approval.

9/11 and the emergency status in the US allowed Bush to get a green light from Congress to declare war on terror (specifically at that time on Afghanistan). The next war, as then became clear, was not for defending United States security and dealing with the Iraqi threat. War of a global emperor attracted so much criticism inside and outside the United States. This led many countries to feel threatened by hegemonic power in its both hard and soft power kind of dealing with the so-called global insurgent "axis of evil". The 2006 elections was an end to people's support of the "war" and many people outside US got happy to see republicans loose.

Now among many implications of this tough "no" to republican belligerence, one can look at the election and global reactions from another point of view which is globalization. Opponents of neoliberal globalization attack the way in which globalization is giving more advantages to hegemonic powers (especially the US) and call for restructure or abolition of international organizations in the name of a more globally just parliament and organization. Regardless of their criticisms towards present organizations, the solutions which are proposed are far from real and there is no roadmap proposed by the anti-globalization movement. Of course some scholars like Walden Bello have proposed "deglobalization" which is again far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amo

mplications of this tough "no" to republican belligerence, one can look at the election and global reactions from another point of view which is globalization. Opponents of neoliberal globalization attack the way in which globalization is giving more advantages to hegemonic powers (especially the US) and call for restructure or abolition of international organizations in the name of a more globally just parliament and organization. Regardless of their criticisms towards present organizations, the solutions which are proposed are far from real and there is no roadmap proposed by the anti-globalization movement. Of course some scholars like Walden Bello have proposed "deglobalization" which is again far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amo

far from what would be the actual process.

In reality, the writer believes that, US congress has replaced the international organizations like United Nations. For example, comparing the war on Iraq, if congress would not allow the president to enter the war, Bush would have been in real trouble, but United Nations' disapproval did not cause so much problems. The result of this replacement showed itself in two areas regarding Congressional election, one the global attention to the 2006 election, and the lobbyists' effort to gain any point available in the election.

If one considers the anxiety existing in the pre-election period and reaction to the results, there is certainly a high amount of global concern. Some places like Middle East or Latin America reacted as though the election was theirs. To look it another way, there was so much talk of biracials and so-called non-Americans entering into Congress. One could refer to Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans or even Muslim-American to indicate how Globalized (or some would say multicultural) USA Congress is tending to be.

There are some ambiguities in terms of this global congress like the amount of global justice present in it, or the question of how congress would react to its past which has always left congress concerning with internal rather than external problems of United states? And many other questions that would even deny such a globality. But what is obvious is the global status that congress has got and probably the 2008 presidency would get.