PDA

View Full Version : If the Democrats take Congress



Ocotillo
10-18-2006, 03:01 PM
I think this post from a blog puts it pretty well:

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_10/009821.php)

IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN....

So what happens if Democrats win control of Congress in November? Conservative Bruce Bartlett says, nothing much:

Democrats are unlikely to get more than a very thin majority in the House. If they get the Senate as well, it will not be with more than a one-vote margin. Consequently, effective control will be in the hands of moderates who often work with Republicans on specific issues. In a delicious bit of irony, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, lately excoriated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, may end up holding the balance of power in the Senate.

As for impeachment and cutting money for Iraq, such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it. They will make the White House pay a price for Iraq, but will ensure that they don’t get blamed for any debacle resulting from failure to provide adequate money for our troops.
At the Washington Post, liberal Harold Meyerson mostly agrees. He says the Democratic agenda will be pretty much what you'd expect:

It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

....Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats....Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they're confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation?

If Democrats win, they'll be able to propose legislation for the first time in a long while, and this gives them considerable agenda-setting power. And while impeachment is little more than a bogey man that Republicans use to scare their troops into forking over campaign contributions, Democrats will have considerably more oversight power, even if Republicans did gut the oversight staff when they took over a decade ago. And not a moment too soon.

Bottom line: If you support Bush and what he is doing, vote Republican. If you disagree with the Bush agenda, vote Democratic.

Don't listen to all the scare tactics of "Speaker Pelosi" or "cut and run" or "impeachment".

What will happen is a more bipartisan agenda will be forced because one party will control the executive branch while another controls the legislative branch. Neither will be able to get to carried away with their agendas because the other will be there to offset it.

So, in a nutshell: If Republicans win you will get more of the same. If Democrats win, you will get a more moderate agenda, not a far left agenda.

Trainwreck2100
10-18-2006, 03:03 PM
And while impeachment is little more than a bogey man that Republicans use to scare their troops into forking over campaign contributions

A fucking men

xrayzebra
10-18-2006, 03:04 PM
^^You really believe this crap? Hellllllloooooo, supreme
court and what Nancy, Harry and what's his face from
New York said. You know how it is going to affect things.

Spurminator
10-18-2006, 03:05 PM
While it may not be a serious platform of the Democrats to impeach, let's not pretend it's a rallying cry for only Republican voters.

101A
10-18-2006, 03:06 PM
I think this post from a blog puts it pretty well:

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_10/009821.php)

IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN....

So what happens if Democrats win control of Congress in November? Conservative Bruce Bartlett says, nothing much:

Democrats are unlikely to get more than a very thin majority in the House. If they get the Senate as well, it will not be with more than a one-vote margin. Consequently, effective control will be in the hands of moderates who often work with Republicans on specific issues. In a delicious bit of irony, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, lately excoriated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, may end up holding the balance of power in the Senate.

As for impeachment and cutting money for Iraq, such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it. They will make the White House pay a price for Iraq, but will ensure that they don’t get blamed for any debacle resulting from failure to provide adequate money for our troops.
At the Washington Post, liberal Harold Meyerson mostly agrees. He says the Democratic agenda will be pretty much what you'd expect:

It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

....Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats....Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they're confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation?

If Democrats win, they'll be able to propose legislation for the first time in a long while, and this gives them considerable agenda-setting power. And while impeachment is little more than a bogey man that Republicans use to scare their troops into forking over campaign contributions, Democrats will have considerably more oversight power, even if Republicans did gut the oversight staff when they took over a decade ago. And not a moment too soon.

Bottom line: If you support Bush and what he is doing, vote Republican. If you disagree with the Bush agenda, vote Democratic.

Don't listen to all the scare tactics of "Speaker Pelosi" or "cut and run" or "impeachment".

What will happen is a more bipartisan agenda will be forced because one party will control the executive branch while another controls the legislative branch. Neither will be able to get to carried away with their agendas because the other will be there to offset it.

So, in a nutshell: If Republicans win you will get more of the same. If Democrats win, you will get a more moderate agenda, not a far left agenda.

Another point:

If the Republicans hold on to both houses, they are toast in '08; with a likely Democratic landslide into all houses - just too much policy to defend. If however, the Dems control some of Congress, the Republican will have SOMETHING to run against in '08.

Ocotillo
10-18-2006, 03:25 PM
You really believe this crap? Hellllllloooooo

Yeah, I do. Take impeachment for example. There will be some yahoos who will call for impeachment but it will go nowhere. Pelosi has other fish to fry. Recall during the Reagan years, Henry B. Gonzalez frequently called for articles of impeachment against Reagan and other than C-SPAN, it got nowhere.

Minimum wage? A Democratic Congress will likely pass a bill but it can't become law unless Bush signs it. Likely he won't. The Dems won't have a 2/3rds majority to override the veto.

Supreme Court? The House has no say. The Senate will likely still be in GOP hands or if the Dems really have a big day, they may get a tie or a one vote majority. Result: Somewhat more mainstream jurists will be approved by the Senate rather than Federalist Society benchwarmers.

It will compel the President to govern by the way he was elected, by a very slim margin and not a mandate. This country is divided 50/50 or 51/49 and needs leadership that recognizes that bipartisan compromise needs to take place.

xrayzebra
10-18-2006, 03:36 PM
Henry B was not the leader of the House. He was an
absolute waste in my opinion as is his son. In his younger
years he was a fairly good congressman, but as he got
older, well he lost it. His son, the Congressman, well he
is a good dimm-o-crap and does as he is told by the
party.

Ocotillo
10-18-2006, 03:38 PM
Have Pelosi or Steny Hoyer called for impeachment? Has Pelosi said she is not interested in pursuing impeachment? (BTW, she has said that)

xrayzebra
10-18-2006, 03:39 PM
Have Pelosi or Steny Hoyer called for impeachment? Has Pelosi said she is not interested in pursuing impeachment? (BTW, she has said that)

I guess you haven't heard about her first
100 hours. But that doesn't surprise me.

Ocotillo
10-18-2006, 03:43 PM
I guess you haven't heard about her first
100 hours. But that doesn't surprise me.

I have read it, I don't see anything about pursuing impeachment. She has a lot of legislation she wants to push through, 9/11 commission implementation of their recommendations, minimum wage hike, anti-corruption/lobbying legislation.....

xrayzebra
10-18-2006, 03:45 PM
^^And investigations....investigations....investigations .

jman3000
10-18-2006, 03:45 PM
same thing that will happen as it's always happened: absofuckinglutely nothing. vote on the unimportant stuff and skirt around the important stuff. status quo.

SA210
10-18-2006, 04:55 PM
Henry B was not the leader of the House. He was an
absolute waste in my opinion as is his son. In his younger
years he was a fairly good congressman, but as he got
older, well he lost it. His son, the Congressman, well he
is a good dimm-o-crap and does as he is told by the
party.
Maybe you don't like Henry B. Sr. for the simple fact that he fought for the poor.

Ocotillo
10-18-2006, 05:28 PM
^^And investigations....investigations....investigations .

Oh. Well, we will have to agree to disagree about that. I think the accountability will be a good thing.

01Snake
10-18-2006, 05:40 PM
Maybe you don't like Henry B. Sr. for the simple fact that he fought for the poor.


Maybe he doesn't like him because the guy was an idiot. :drunk