US media assess Republican losses

"Lame duck Bush is left crippled by a crushing vote of no confidence," shouts a headline in the New York Post newspaper - and the echo of the seismic shift is hard to ignore across the US.

"An angry shout", a "loud message", a "sharp rebuke", or a "loss of patience" - are all variations on a the same theme: that the vote was against President George W Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq.

Mr Bush soldiers on, regardless of criticism

"The Democratic victory last night did not mark the end of the war in Iraq, but it seemed to mark the end of America's patience with the war," writes Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe.

And many analysts sense change coming in Mr Bush's policy on Iraq - even though it may not be dramatic, or come with a big bang, such as the withdrawal of US troops.

Mr Bush lost the election for his party also because he "ceded the center", argues Ronald Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times.

"Bush and [his main strategist Karl] Rove placed their main emphasis on unifying and energising Republicans and right-leaning independents with an agenda that focused squarely on the goals of conservatives," Brownstein says.

And the vote "underscored the risks of that approach".

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, told the New York Times: "An important feature of this election, with implications for 2008, is that the center of the electorate clearly doesn't like to be ignored in an era of base politics."

No 'hapless giant'

The main newspapers take early stock of what is in store in the remaining two years of the Bush presidency - and all is not black.

"The collapse of one-party rule in Washington will transform Bush's final two years in office and challenge Democrats to make the leap from angry opposition to partners in power," write Peter Baker and Jim VandelHei in the Washington Post newspaper.

Since World War II, some form of divided government has been the norm Robin Toner New York Times

"The loss provoked the start of what could be a painful period of self-examination among Republicans eager to find answers, or place blame," the newspaper says.

Mr Bush went into this election with a lower approval rating than any other US president in a mid-term since Harry Truman in 1946, the writers note. And his aides have taken some consolation that the Republican losses were approximately the same as the average for the sixth year of a two-term presidency.

Bush aides have said he will return to his style of governance in Texas "when he forged a strong working relationship with a legislature led by conservative Democrats", according to Peter Baker and Jim VandelHei.

There is now overwhelming pressure for the president to take a more conciliatory approach to the Democrats, argues Robin Toner in the New York Times.

At the end of the day, Mr Bush is not the first president to have to deal with a House of Representatives that is controlled by the opposition, the newspaper says.

"Since World War II, some form of divided government has been the norm."

The president is not going to be a hapless giant Stephen Hess Brookings Institution

"Two years ago, Bush claimed to have gained political capital from elections that returned him to office and increased Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate," writes Ron Hutchenson in The Miami Herald newspaper.

"The question now is whether he has enough left in his account to function effectively."

The article says it is too early to count him out.

"The president is not going to be a hapless giant. The powers of the presidency are tremendous, and they remain tremendous," the paper quotes Stephen Hess, of the Brookings Institution, a centre-left think tank.

"President Bush must now determine how best to spend his remaining political capital in the final two years of a lame-duck presidency," says John Hughes in The Christian Science Monitor.

Democrats challenged

But the onus is on the Democrats, too, many analysts agree.

"The House Democrats will have to shift from the role of tactical opposition to shadow government," argues an editorial in the New York Times - echoing a point made in several papers about the lack of clear policies in the Democrats' camp.

"Going for that anti-Iraq alliance without offering an escape plan of their own was a brilliant political tactic," says John Podhoretz in his "lame duck" article in the New York Post.

Nancy Pelosi will have to preside over compromise or gridlock

"Where do they go with the new alliance in forcing the president's hand on Iraq? Well, they go - nowhere," Podhoretz argues.

"They [Democrats] can't change anything, but they can investigate everything. It isn't going to get any more pleasant for him [Bush]," Stephen Hess tells Ron Hutchinson of The Miami Herald.

"All the elements of gridlock are in place."

All eyes are on the forthcoming recommendations that the panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker will come up with, analysts say.

"Expect neither abrupt US withdrawal nor dogged insistence that current policies are working," cautions Howard LaFranchi of The Christian Science Monitor.

"Our elections have artificially polarised the debate and left us with a false choice between 'stay the course' and 'cut and run'," LaFranchi quotes James Dobbins, a Rand Corporation national-security expert with conflict-resolution experience in the past three administrations.

"But there are a number of options between keeping 160,000 troops on the ground and just pulling out," Mr Robbins says.

"With the elections over, we [can] not only consider those options in between," Mr Robbins said, "but no doubt [should] move forward on at least some of them."

With Democrats holding some sway on Capitol Hill, Bush will no longer get his way. He will, instead, become a caretaker John Podhoretz The Christian Science Monitor

"There are still some issues that could provide common ground" between Mr Bush and the House Democrats in domestic politics, says Ron Hutchinson of The Miami Herald.

These include immigration - "Democrats are generally more receptive than Republicans to Bush's proposed guest-worker program", says Hutchinson - as well as modest tax reforms.

On an upbeat note, John Podhoretz of the New York Post sees the loss of the House as an opportunity for Mr Bush.

"With Democrats holding some sway on Capitol Hill, Bush will no longer get his way. He will, instead, become a caretaker. And maybe, in the end, that's a good thing - because he can spend the final 25 months of his presidency focusing exclusively on securing a victory in Iraq.

"And thereby turn this mid-term defeat into a victory recorded by history."