home

Dems Poised To Gain 15 House Seats; Then What?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jerome Armstrong reports on the political landscape for the Fall congressional elections:

A 15 seat gain would be tremendous for Democrats in the House in 2008. Going into the 2006 election, there were 202 Democrats and 232 Republicans and 1 Independent. Democrats won 31 seats in '06, and then have won seats in 3 special elections, to now hold a 236-199 advantage heading into the 2008 election.

And my question is this, in terms of policy what will change because of this 15 seat gain? What do we expect from the current Democratic Party in terms of policy? Some things I suppose - federal funding of stem cell research, the renewal of S-Chip, the eventual wind down of the Iraq Debacle. These things matter. But will there be a renewal of progressivism in Washington with Obama as President and a padded Democratic majority? I doubt it. This election has been run by the Dem Party with a "We Are Not Bush Republicans On Everything, Just Some Things" platform. And that is what we will get.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Advisor: McCain Can Announce VP Pick On "Short Notice" | 4/08 - McCain Said "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Poised To Gain 15 House Seats; Then What? | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    15 seems a little low, frankly. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    My feeling is that Dems should pick up 20-40. To be perfectly honest, they have don't next to nothing to collectively earn those votes.

    The Democrats need to pick-up 10-11 (none / 0) (#53)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    Parent

    No such thing as filibuster proof ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    for the Dems, because the Republicans seem to always be able to find Democrats to join them when they want to block something.

    Parent
    yup the dems never met a bill they could (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    take to committee then out and onto the president. i am reminded of the keystone cops.

    Parent
    93-95 they did nothing (none / 0) (#57)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    Maybe it will be different this time. 15 is low. Minimum 20 seat pick-up.

    UHC also was a campaign promise back then...

    Parent

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    They did one thing.  One BIG thing.  They raised taxes on the wealthy and enabled Clinton to pay the bills and balance the budgets.

    Parent
    a growing economy, not tax increases (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    More people working, and earnings were greater. U.S. tax revenue increased, which resulted in a surplus. Still not a single penny of debt was paid.

    The 93 tax increase didn't balance the budget.

    Parent

    I'll take it anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:22:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Higher tax rates plus tech boom (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:14:52 PM EST
    That is what led to surpluses...

    The 93 tax increase did disprove the
    Supply Sider view that a tax increase would kill the economy--the opposite happened.

    Parent

    Blue Dogs and Dinos (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    My worry is that there are still enough non-progressive Dems who will vote for republican initiatives and blockages that it won't change much.
    The republicans are hoping to stay at least 41 in the Senate but does it matter w/ Lieberman and many other Blue Dogs and Dinos who will block progressive legislation?

    Only if we can vote in enough progressives to change the leadership.

    Yup. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    I've stopped getting excited about sheer numbers of Dems in the House. We've already got a solid majority and the Leadership. More Blue Dogs will not help that much.

    Parent
    That may be true but (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BernieO on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    I am hoping that my senator, the odious Elizabeth Dole goes down in flames. I am hoping Hillary comes here to campaign and raise money for her opponent, Kay Hagan. The Republicans have put Dole on their endangered list, so I thing the chances are good. She is such a phoney and she rarely bothers to show her face here. It's not just the House where we need more people.

    While I don't expect a big change, having a veto-proof majority would make Democrats less willing to cave if McCain does manage to get elected. This is even more likely if the rank and file start paying closer attention and applying pressure.

    Parent

    maybe Rahm can get rid of Plotzie (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    not sure he would be much better but he could be no worse.

    Parent
    Rahm (none / 0) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    Living in Illinois, I hear that Rahm is the leading candidate to replace Obama in the Senate!

    Parent
    and the so called progressives haven't (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    done much either. of course, there are some that will always be there for us like finegold. but the number of those who will fight? the disappointment i have with democrats on major votes says it all.

    Parent
    The voters will reward Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jim J on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    with an even bigger majority for doing absolutely nothing with their new majority.

    That's democracy, folks. We have to face facts that evidently Republican Lite is what most Americans actually want.

    I don't want it that way and I doubt any of us here do either, but them's the breaks.

    This is exactly right (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    This country is not for real progressive change, sadly, and not-real-progressive-change is what we will get.

    This country has also become more and more religious and socially conservative, and we will get more of that.

    Like you say, we will get Republican Lite. But it's slightly better than Republican full strength.

    Parent

    I totally disagree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    The high water mark for social conservatives was in 2005 when they got the Schiavo legislation passed.  Most of the country was opposed.  Schiavo really hurt social consevatives...

    The make-up of Congress has changed since then.

    And, your definition of "religious" is off.

    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    I wasn't aware that I defined religious in my comment. But you know better about that I'm sure anyway...


    Parent
    The truth is I don't (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    think anyone has a clear notion of exactly how far the American people might be pushed into progressive change by a politicians and a Party that had any strong interest in doing so.

    What I do know is that the current Democratic Party and the current presumptive Democratic nominee have no such strong interest.

    And what I know too is that now is the time like no other in recent times when the American people could be pushed in a progressive direction most effectively.

    In short, we have a window of opportunity that will certainly be wasted.

    Contrast this with the situation of the Republicans. At every available opportunity, however meager on its own merits, however little related to the positions they wanted to promote, the Republicans pushed some important item on their agenda. They would back off only when it was clearly backfiring (see Terry Schiavo).

    The Republicans had an agenda, and acted as if they had a mandate to make it come into existence almost regardless of what the politics of it might be. As maddening as it was, it showed some conviction and purpose.

    Yet where lie the gonads of the Democratic Party?

    Parent

    Well, you're right (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    If we had a once-in-a-lifetime, strong leader that could courageously lead the country in a progressive direction... maybe. But I think we're still slowly coming down from a period of reactionary conservatism too.


    Parent
    I guess I just don't accept that (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    we need something extraordinary out of our Democratic leaders.

    The basic point is that Democrats never push the envelope on what they think the American public will get behind in terms of progressive policy. Republicans have done that routinely for their own radical agenda.

    The Democrats capitulate before they get a whisper of real push back. Essentially, they pre-emptively capitulate.

    How can they possibly know the limits of what they might achieve if they refuse ever to push those limits?

    Parent

    Well, (4.66 / 6) (#73)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST
    Democrats Bill and Hillary pushed the envelope in '93-'94 on several fronts.  They were not only not supported by their fellow Dems in Congress, they were opposed, undermined...in short, shafted.

    Parent
    the democrats fall all over themselves (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    falling into line going the wrong way. when it comes time to stand up for citizens, there's always an excuse.

    Parent
    I disagree also (none / 0) (#100)
    by wmr on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:40:45 PM EST
    This country is ready for real progressive change, but the big media corporations aren't.  

    The country hasn't become more conservative; that's just what the big media corporations want you to believe.

    Parent

    Actually, Repug Lite isn't what they want (4.20 / 5) (#39)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    Most people desperately want change, say the country is on a wrong track, want the Dems to stand up to the policies, tactics and methods of the Bush Regime.

    But there's something they apparently want more, and that's validation that someone elseother than them has enabled this horrendous state of affairs.

    These would be the much touted Stoopids, who are not only low information voters but bigots as well.

    This allows fauxgressives to laugh along with their friends and foes alike in the media at Female Lawn Jockeys which is okay, because supporting a sexist black candidate for President absolves them of bigotry.

    The only change they're prepared to accept is a black version of say-anything Bush.

    Sadly, that's what we'll all be saddled with.

    Parent

    social conservatism is over (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    demographics won't sweep them in to office the way it used to

    Parent
    No, it's all about what's on the website. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    Sheesh--I thought you were an Obama guy, but you didn't know that?

    What the Democrats will actually do (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    once they gain power is start pumping K-Street for the big money. After terms are established with the corporations, Congress will get down to business>

    Subpoena Power! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST


    Um, Democrats have subpoena power now. (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Not viable enforcement power (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    No muscle to arrest people who don't show up....The Sergeant at Arms really is not set up to do that kind of thing--go out and arrest people...but they theoretically could in the Capital.

    Parent
    And you expect the Sergeant at (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    Arms to arrest Rove after Obama is elected?
    Please, put down the KoolAid.
    Congress has complete, ENFORCEABLE supboena power now, by law. That they choose not to use it now indicates they will not use it if Obama is elected.

    Parent
    No, Congress would refer the matter (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    to the DOJ which would enforce it--that is the usual way.

    Parent
    It bothers me (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    that I am surrounded by Democrats so gullible that they envision an Obama DOJ dragging high-profile Republicans off to jail right and left.

    What would possibly make you expect this?

    Parent

    I am merely describing the process (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    As you should know, witnesses are rarely hauled off to jail--the knowledge they can be is enough.  That threat does not exist with a Bush DOJ.  That would change under an Obama adminstration.

    And no need for the ad hominem to make your point.

    Parent

    Hopefully, the DOJ (none / 0) (#86)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    in the next administration will not be as partisan.  (Remember how the repubs screamed about Janet Reno and everything she did?  The plan must have been in place.)

    But don't expect it to do anything about what has happened in the Bush administration.

    Even if you had inside information, which you do not, no one is going to do a thing about the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Bush administration.

    I would LOVE to be wrong, however.

    Parent

    I was responding to the comment (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    presented.  The enforcement mechanism ALREADY exists, in several forms. The Democrats will not be investigating anyone, if Obama is elected.

    Parent
    Ah yes (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:25:43 PM EST
    Karl Rove and his ilk will surely be quaking in fear of a power that any intelligent person knows these Democrats will never have the guts to use.  How could I have ever failed to understand that scintillating point.

    Parent
    And the DOJ wouldn't put anyone (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    into jail.  They would prosecute the witness for Contempt of Congress in District Court.


    Parent
    Na ga hapen. (none / 0) (#88)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    Doesn't matter who's elected.

    Just let the country slide futher in disrepair.  That's what I see as a result of the 2008 election.

    Parent

    further, (none / 0) (#89)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    that is.

    Pretty bad when neither candidate inspires.  

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    Maybe they'll find a drugged out baseball or football player who they can get to actually show up.

    Parent
    Kool... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Richard in Jax on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    That is great news for the GOP...really. Now they will have a bunch more Dems to assist them in their functional  majority!!! They can pass winger crap and pass the blame on the new Dems. I am so excited
    Richard

    Don't expect too much (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by dianem on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Many of the Dems currently in Congress are not all that progressive. They were elected in conservative areas because they took conservative positions. They are more like old fashioned Republicans than modern Democrats.

    Exactly. Childers (D-MS) (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    already proposed an anti-immigrant amendment for a bill just days ago.

    Parent
    If all of those 3000 Dems (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    appointed and elected think they got their jobs because of Obama's appeal to the center, that is where their ideas will be.

    I'd love to be proven wrong and see Obama slew the whole scene to the left.  I hope you are right and he will do that.

    Don't forget health care. My biggest (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    disappointment so far in this campaign is how little talk of UHC there has been since Hillary left the race. This is the best chance we have ever had to do something about this issue...we will have the numbers and the people are behind it.

    I really hope they don't blow this chance.

    There is zero chance of health care (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    reform under Obama. Krugman noticed a while back that Obama's budget provides no money at all for any major health care program.
    Expect Obama to work with the insurance companies, just as he did in Illinois.

    Parent
    which is odd (none / 0) (#34)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    because Michelle worked for a hospital and you think she'd be aware of just how desperately health care needs to be changed.

    Then again, she did get that shockingly high salary raise, so ... who knows?

    Parent

    there are people who work in health care (none / 0) (#64)
    by sancho on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    who appreciate how warped the system is and how it disenfranchises the poor (and even middle class) and there are people who work in health care who see that it works as a system to make money and power against and over the sick and look for a way to get in on the scam. i know which side hillary was on and i'd say much of the venom unleashed on her these many years is a result of this stance. universal health care is the most radical (and potentially society-changing) plan proposed in american govt (excluding war) since fdr. of course the obamas are not working for it--not in their class or power interest. they are not alone--see pelosi and i guess reid.

    Parent
    No real Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    can support McCain. He has extreme right wing policies. If you want such a president you are not a Democrat.

    blah, blah, blah...the majority of posters here (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    are NOT supporting McCain.  And what he might or might not do has to be taken into consideration...you know it is all about checking out all possible scenarios, and like it or not posters like MarkL have a point.  

    The real question is:  Are you voting for the good of the country, or just along party lines?

    Parent

    and tell me again what is so freaking great (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    about being a "democrat"?
    I keep forgetting.

    Parent
    It's a little better than being a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    A little.  And that, right now, is what we have to deal with.  Reality sucks, but that's what it is.  We can piss and moan or piss and moan and ACT.

    Parent
    It seems to me (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    that if the Democrats believe they can keep getting reelected by being politically cautious, then we'd be stupid to expect that we're going to get anything from them other than political caution.

    Combine a politically cautious President with a politically cautious Congress and what we can expect will be, well, at least a little better than what we've been getting.  I've found that the secret to happiness as a Democrat is low expectations.

    LOL (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    That's the secret to happiness in most areas of life, no?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    It's the trait I always looked for in a woman, certainly.

    Parent
    Too funny (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    But somehow from reading your comments I think your wife probably had high expectations that were met.

    Anyhow, Democrats never fail to disappoint, that's for sure. At least during my adult lifetime.

    Parent

    Health care and progress on (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    energy issues....Nothing earth-shattering, but sustainable progress comes incrementally.

    A health care bill that will help but that may be less than perfect--that should be do-able.

    We've got to get off the dime on energy....I think with Gore, and the public mood changing (even T. Boone Pickens says "we can't drill our way out of this crisis"), there is the opportunity for change here too.

    doesn't matter (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    if the Dems' actions over the past two years is any indication, a larger Dem Majority won't make a lick of difference to the average American.

    My decision to not vote a straight (D) ticket anymore -- I now vote for the candidate I feel is best, not based on the letter behind their name -- was not only because of the DNC's shameful actions and inappropriately overt support of The One during the Primaries, but also the stinging disappointment I felt when I finally realized that a Speaker Pelosi in the Majority was no more effectual than a Congresswoman Pelosi in the Minority and the now empowered Dems had no intention of holding anyone to account in this Administration.

    I mean, a strongly worded letter was the best they could do?  A stern warning?  Yeah, I could feel Bush, et al. shaking in their boots ... with laughter.

    I need a new Party.

    Well, the Dems may be poised to (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    gain seats, but I am poised to remain indifferent until (1) it happens AND (2) it results in actual progress in areas where it is desperately needed.

    Should the majority of those additional seats go to honest-to-God Dems, and not the Blue Dog variety which have sided with the GOP over and over again, it could get interesting - but I don't think we are looking at movement to the left, we are looking at center-to-right, and that doesn't excite me at all.

    My take (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    A larger majority of Dems in Congress will be a rubber stamp for anything a President Obama will do  - including not holding him responsible for anything.

    If McCain is elected, the Dem Congress will be so spitting mad because they expected to sweep into power and will be shocked, that they may actually throw off the mantle of being the Republicans' / Bush's whipping boys and actually stand for something.

    Honestly, I don't see a big broad sweeping changes coming either way.

    the democrats don't get mad. (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    they also don't get even. they show up and get their paychecks.

    Parent
    So, tben.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    you think Obama's FISA vote is 'a minor adjustment to his rhetoric?'  And no one should object because that won't "have any effect on the policy dynamic of the next eight years..."?

    Can you make it a little vaguer please? (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    "ideas will arise and find favor" is just a bit too concrete. Forget the nuts and bolts that your comment offers---how about some airy, unsupported theorizing?

    You obviously did not understand my point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    As I've said many times, I won't vote for McCain myself, and disagree with virtually all his policies.

    But McCain is just the unfortunate side-effect of the fact that Democratic Party playing the Capitulation Game makes a divided government the better bet in the long term.

    Maybe it's just too 'nuanced' a point, for some.

    Democrats must stand for something, or (4.87 / 8) (#15)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    they are worthless. Obama stands for nothing, nor do any of the current Democrat leaders in Congress. Why should I expect change from an Obama administration?
    On the contrary, the anger and bitterness of losing the White House in THIS of all years could truly motivate the Democrats to fight and stand for some principles.

    P.S.: the real question is what kind of (4.00 / 4) (#17)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    Democrat could actually support Obama, let alone believe he represents change. That is an unfathomable mystery.

    The simple fact... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    ...that Obama is making a strong and respectful pitch to work with allies again, to not go it alone, to not do the McCain-chest-thumping-bully-on-the-block b.s. routine is certainly a change.  The rhetoric is Clinton-like in that manner, and that is a very good thing and more than fathomable.  That said, I have many concerns about Obama.  None of them, however, approach the concerns I have over a potential McCain presidency.  Hold Obama to the progressive fire.  That's the key.

    Parent
    That key was thrown away months ago. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    I see ZERO evidence that Obama is experiencing pressure from Progressives.

    Parent
    Rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    true, but isn't it ironic that Obama went to Europe to ask them to provide troops to Nato to help us in Afghanistan when, at the same time, to my knowledge he has yet to convene a meeting of the Senate subcommittee he chairs on Afghanistan and Nato??

    Parent
    A big win in Congress and a McCain (3.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    victory are more likely to lead to change, IMO.
    I would be quite happy with that result.


    Not going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Gabriel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    We'll get a big Dem win in Congress and Obama as president.

    Parent
    McCain's record of working with dems (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    isn't half bad and will probably continue unless he becomes drunk with power as prez.  If the dems win a ton more seats, there will be a few days of posturing and then nada...Since Pelosi and the gang have gotten into power, it has been all sizzle, no steak.

    Parent
    We have seen this show before (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    with Bush I--that is what you get with a moderate Republican President and a Democratic Congress.....Mainly gridlock.  Nothing happens...Status Quo to the zillionth degree.  

    Bush I, btw, appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court--with a Democratic Senate.

    Parent

    Just more of the same MKS. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    I just want this nightmare to end.

    Parent
    RE Clarence Thomas (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    and the Democratic Senate....ah, yes...I remember it well.

    Some of us believed Anita Hill and we also believed Hillary.

    'Democrats' running both shows knew better so, in both cases, we got the unqualified black guy, neither of whom made a lick of sense to me, rather than listen to the women who did.

    Has common sense gone the way of the dodo bird?

    Parent

    Hillary was in Arkansas (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:03:54 PM EST
    when Thomas was confirmed....She had nothing to do with it....

    Parent
    that wasn't what the Poster said (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by ccpup on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    The Poster was comparing two separate instances decades apart when the Dems were faced with intelligent women who held their feet to the fire and sided with (presumably) inexperienced, possibly misogynistic black men instead.

    Parent
    Hillary is off topic to this thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:22:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary is a member of the very Congress (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    we are discussing.  She is not OT, although I'm sure you'd prefer that she  be OT on every thread.  She actually gave quite a good speech on energy policy.  We need more dems to step up to the plate and provide viable alternatives to the problems we face, not try to ignore those who do.

    Parent
    Okay--her Presidential campaign is off-topic (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    Although that tends to always be the topic.

    Parent
    There's a reason for that. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by pie on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    That reason is not going to go away.  

    Parent
    FYI... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    it will probably always be a subtopic, perhaps an unstated one, for those who do not support the presumptive (nominee).  Maybe even for some who do!

    Parent
    No matter what is said, McCain is NOT (none / 0) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    bush, but is the best argument dems seem to be able to come up with....with Brezinzski, Sunstein and the likes as obama advisors, what type of abhorrent SCOTUS appointments do you think obama might come up with?  

    Parent
    Bush the Elder (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:11:15 PM EST
    --the last moderate Republican....

    And, yes, McCain is very like Bush II in many ways--McCain will try to out-Republican Bush II on spending and being militarily aggresive on foreign policy--McCain says Bush didn't press the gas hard enough on the military front...

    Obama would most likely appoint a female version of Breyer--or he could go more to the Left.

    Parent

    MKS....I KNOW who you were talking about, (none / 0) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    and you hold onto that thought about whom you think obama might appoint, if it helps you sleep at night.  You already know my thoughts, so we don't have to beat this dead horse :)

    Parent
    You are talking about (none / 0) (#103)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:55:28 PM EST
    the McCain of 2000 which I have argued again and again is not the McCain of today. The McCain of today as far more right wing. Furthermore, he doesn't even seem to remember the McCain of 2000 from discussions I have heard. Back then he was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Back then he was against torture. And on and on. You know the list as well as I do. I don't know why. I have my suspicions but they're just suspicions. The fact of the matter is he has changed and changed dramatically.

    Parent
    Or an Obama victory together with a (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    take charge Congress which rams progressive legislation down Obama's throat.

    Parent
    Bush swept in with an arsenal of think tank (none / 0) (#31)
    by Nettle on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    employees to take up the Cabinet and administrative appointee positions.  Just replacing Lucretia McEvil herself, Elaine Chao, at Labor and undoing her damage would be progress.  

    I'm not looking forward to an Obama admin full of Wilson and Kennedy School appointees, either, or Brookings, etc.  They've all gone where the money is so aren't going to be coming in with the best of ideas, IMM.  Still, better than Heritage and AEI and Federalist Society, Hoover, Hudson, Heartland.... .  And they were all perfectly placed by Bush's pick for OPM Kay Cole James, on loan from Heritage and Family Research Council.  You get my drift.  Of course, with the rightwing think tankers out of office they'll have even more time to screw with media placement again.  sigh.

    I've seen change with this Dem Congress (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lil on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    As a Progressive, not as much as I like. But I would say that the hemmoraging stopped when Dems got control. If the Republicans still had all the power, we'd probably still have Gonzo as AG just as an example. There are other examples too. Still I'd like to see more. I hope we never have a Republican contolled ccountry again. They dominated all 3 branches of gov't and it got pretty scary.

    Dems still piece-meal platform (none / 0) (#55)
    by catfish on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    Hillary articulated policy ideas in a way that did not seem so piece-meal.

    But now that she's out, I still ask - what do the Democrats stand for? What is their philosophy?

    Here's what I'll be expecting (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    LINK

    He clearly said (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    he's a divided government supporter.  If the Democrats control congress, he thinks right now that the Republican should have the presidency.

    And I suspect the opposite would hold true if the Republicans were clearly going to take over Congress.

    Maybe I'm applying my own feelings on the matter given that I'm NOT a McCain supporter, but this time, I'm definitely a divided government supporter.

    Divided government (none / 0) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 06:43:48 PM EST
    seems the best we can hope for now, to take a new shot at a real progressive leader in 4 years.

    McCain's just unfortunate side effect of the capitulation disease the DNC and Congressional Dems have.  He's the beneficiary, not the goal.  

    No Dem in Congress will stand up to an Obama administration as our constitutional rights erode further.  The numbers don't matter, just the Blue Dog numbers. I think BTD is being a bit optimistic even about stem cell research and a wind down to Iraq (unless just moving the troops and the life & money drain to Afghanistan counts).

    Parent

    Precisely! n/t (none / 0) (#97)
    by makana44 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:19:06 PM EST


    Parent
    But if we actually did (none / 0) (#101)
    by weltec2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    get a full majority and we could get rid of the Nancy & Harry show... George and Dick better move to Abu Dhabi in a hurry.

    Dems Poised To Gain 15 House Seats; Then What? | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment