Full Version: Democratic takeover of both houses forecast
While I certainly HOPE we get a Ken Star style carte blanche to investigate every thing GW has done for the last 40+ years, I find it intriguing that the Republicans are the ones worrying outloud, in fact, using it as a compaign issue, that the democrat takeover will hamstring the current regime with endless investigations and impeachment (I don't think that is a bad thing, unless you are a republican 
)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060904/wl_af...cs_060904072514
Senate Republican Majority Whip Mitch McConnell did not deny Sunday his party was facing difficult times, but urged voters to think what will be in store for the country in case of a Democratic victory.
"They'll wave the white flag in the war on terror," he warned. "And they'll try to impeach the president."
So, I really, really want to steer the debate away from actual REASONS of impeachment for other debates-
but my real quesiton is
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060904/wl_af...cs_060904072514
Senate Republican Majority Whip Mitch McConnell did not deny Sunday his party was facing difficult times, but urged voters to think what will be in store for the country in case of a Democratic victory.
"They'll wave the white flag in the war on terror," he warned. "And they'll try to impeach the president."
So, I really, really want to steer the debate away from actual REASONS of impeachment for other debates-
but my real quesiton is
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
That's what Republicans want us to believe. However, no such thing occurred in Colorado when the legislature went to the Democrats a couple years ago. Governor Owens is out by the count, but nothing was wasted in accelerating his departure.
No, this is a scare tactic of the Republicans this election season, nothing more.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
He's already getting that from the courts and moderate Republicans. I can see business as usual coming down the pike, but not business as usual compared to the first term.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
I don't think anyone wants to spend more money. Maybe make what's already being spent more efficient, as in reduce the corruption. I don't see big opporunities to fix what's been done without entitlement reduction and higher taxation, other than a significant economic boom. Personally, I think the Demos will be more inclined to put money into tech development, and thus boosting the economy, rather than waging wars.
But then I'm biased, aren't I.
That's what Republicans want us to believe. However, no such thing occurred in Colorado when the legislature went to the Democrats a couple years ago. Governor Owens is out by the count, but nothing was wasted in accelerating his departure.
No, this is a scare tactic of the Republicans this election season, nothing more.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
He's already getting that from the courts and moderate Republicans. I can see business as usual coming down the pike, but not business as usual compared to the first term.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
I don't think anyone wants to spend more money. Maybe make what's already being spent more efficient, as in reduce the corruption. I don't see big opporunities to fix what's been done without entitlement reduction and higher taxation, other than a significant economic boom. Personally, I think the Demos will be more inclined to put money into tech development, and thus boosting the economy, rather than waging wars.
But then I'm biased, aren't I.
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
Let's see now. Over 40 million Americans have no health coverage. The minimum wage has not been raised for almost a decade. The nation has no real plan to develop alternative energy sources and lessen our addiction to foreign oil. Global warming is real and not taken seriously by the present Administration. Almost 3000 of our soliders have died in Iraq, with thousands more wounded and there is no strategy to get them out of there. A year after Hurricane Katrina thousands of citizens remain displaced with no way to return to New Orleans and little in the way of housing, necessary services or employment awaiting them. There are international threats from Iran, Syria, North Korea and other troublemakers. The war on terror is not focused and the threat of another 9/11 still looms large. The problem of unchecked illegal immigration has not been solved. There are at least a dozen or so other critical issues that the Republican dominated Congress has ignored or refused to address.
And the first thing dingbat Democrats out of power want to do is impeach George W. Bush?
If that is the priority of the Democrats then they can just STAY out of power because the politics of payback will do nothing but further polarize and divide this country and who the hell needs that? Who WANTS that?
A few months ago Senator Joe Biden was in town speaking at a dinner for Ohio Democrats and I asked him directly during a press conference would the Democrats make going after George Bush a priority if they retook one, of both houses of Congress.
Senator Biden, speaking to reporters said it would be a mistake if Democrats regain control of the Senate or House of Representatives and immediately launch investigations into the Bush Administration.
“I hope Democrats learned a lesson from Republicans,” Biden said. “When they did that with Clinton, we gained. The American public wants results.”
I'm going to take Biden on his word (always a dangerous thing to do with any politician) and hope like hell he's telling the truth. It would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to waste their small window of opportunity to do something good for the American people and squander time and resources on trying to "get" Bush.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
Nope. Not at all because Congress shouldn't act as a rubber stamp to this, or any other President. But for far too long, the boys and girls on the Hill have made carrying the water for the Adminstration (this one and most previous ones) their mission in life. Clinton had to find ways to work with a Republican Congress and it might not be a bad thing if Bush had to do the same.
But opposing ALL of Dubya's programs and decisions would open the Dems to accusations of being obstructionists and seeking revenge against Bush instead of working with him to get things done.
With the elections little more than 60 days away, the polls, pundits and tea leaves are all tracking as bad for the GOP and good for the Democrats. I wouldn't tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to start picking out curtains and change-of-address labels for their new offices just yet though. There are always possibilities for an unforseen event to occur that would be beneficial to the Republicans. Don't rule it out.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
Heck no. The only thing politicians love more than spending money is coming up with new ways to spend it. Bush bloated the federal bureaucracy and has blown through cash like a edited to remove overly colorful metaphor. I don't believe the Democrats are going to become the new paragons of fiscal responsibility and restraint. It's not in their nature.
Let's see now. Over 40 million Americans have no health coverage. The minimum wage has not been raised for almost a decade. The nation has no real plan to develop alternative energy sources and lessen our addiction to foreign oil. Global warming is real and not taken seriously by the present Administration. Almost 3000 of our soliders have died in Iraq, with thousands more wounded and there is no strategy to get them out of there. A year after Hurricane Katrina thousands of citizens remain displaced with no way to return to New Orleans and little in the way of housing, necessary services or employment awaiting them. There are international threats from Iran, Syria, North Korea and other troublemakers. The war on terror is not focused and the threat of another 9/11 still looms large. The problem of unchecked illegal immigration has not been solved. There are at least a dozen or so other critical issues that the Republican dominated Congress has ignored or refused to address.
And the first thing dingbat Democrats out of power want to do is impeach George W. Bush?
If that is the priority of the Democrats then they can just STAY out of power because the politics of payback will do nothing but further polarize and divide this country and who the hell needs that? Who WANTS that?
A few months ago Senator Joe Biden was in town speaking at a dinner for Ohio Democrats and I asked him directly during a press conference would the Democrats make going after George Bush a priority if they retook one, of both houses of Congress.
Senator Biden, speaking to reporters said it would be a mistake if Democrats regain control of the Senate or House of Representatives and immediately launch investigations into the Bush Administration.
“I hope Democrats learned a lesson from Republicans,” Biden said. “When they did that with Clinton, we gained. The American public wants results.”
I'm going to take Biden on his word (always a dangerous thing to do with any politician) and hope like hell he's telling the truth. It would be a huge mistake for the Democrats to waste their small window of opportunity to do something good for the American people and squander time and resources on trying to "get" Bush.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
Nope. Not at all because Congress shouldn't act as a rubber stamp to this, or any other President. But for far too long, the boys and girls on the Hill have made carrying the water for the Adminstration (this one and most previous ones) their mission in life. Clinton had to find ways to work with a Republican Congress and it might not be a bad thing if Bush had to do the same.
But opposing ALL of Dubya's programs and decisions would open the Dems to accusations of being obstructionists and seeking revenge against Bush instead of working with him to get things done.
With the elections little more than 60 days away, the polls, pundits and tea leaves are all tracking as bad for the GOP and good for the Democrats. I wouldn't tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to start picking out curtains and change-of-address labels for their new offices just yet though. There are always possibilities for an unforseen event to occur that would be beneficial to the Republicans. Don't rule it out.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
Heck no. The only thing politicians love more than spending money is coming up with new ways to spend it. Bush bloated the federal bureaucracy and has blown through cash like a edited to remove overly colorful metaphor. I don't believe the Democrats are going to become the new paragons of fiscal responsibility and restraint. It's not in their nature.
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
No way. Not only would it be political suicide there really is no valid reason for impeachment. At least in Clinton's case he committed perjury. I think this whole impeachment thing carried more weight before the Plame scandal went up in smoke.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
I have always been a big fan of gridlock. However, much of Bush's agenda (especially since 04') has died in the Congress. Neither party is brave enough to do anything Social Security. I watched Santorum debate Casey last night and it was hilarious. Santorum has a plan but it's all rhetoric because everyone knows the republicans won't pursue it, and Casey tried to argue that repealing the tax cut and fostering growth (fostering growth by raising taxes, new economic theory) would solve the problem. So it's basically "I have a plan to do nothing" vs "I have no plan to do anything" match up.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
There are many economists that believe this fascination with the debt is unjustified. I fall into that category. As a percentage of GDP it's hardly hemorrhaging. If you look at a pie chart of Government spending most of our tax dollars go to Social Security and Medicare, two programs that will not be able to sustain themselves in the future. If people are serious about the debt those two programs need to be fixed. The deficit has fallen the last two years. I would really love to hear the argument that today's debt levels are more of a risk to the economy's future than the social programs I listed above.
Lastly, historically the minority party picks up seats during mid-term elections. It's my feeling the Democrats will pick up seats, but it's not going to be a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen a plethora of political ads here in Florida and the Democrats aren't running against Bush. I also find it fascinating that the gas prices are falling right now. I'm not saying they're being manipulated, but it is a strange development, especially considering this graph.
No way. Not only would it be political suicide there really is no valid reason for impeachment. At least in Clinton's case he committed perjury. I think this whole impeachment thing carried more weight before the Plame scandal went up in smoke.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
I have always been a big fan of gridlock. However, much of Bush's agenda (especially since 04') has died in the Congress. Neither party is brave enough to do anything Social Security. I watched Santorum debate Casey last night and it was hilarious. Santorum has a plan but it's all rhetoric because everyone knows the republicans won't pursue it, and Casey tried to argue that repealing the tax cut and fostering growth (fostering growth by raising taxes, new economic theory) would solve the problem. So it's basically "I have a plan to do nothing" vs "I have no plan to do anything" match up.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
There are many economists that believe this fascination with the debt is unjustified. I fall into that category. As a percentage of GDP it's hardly hemorrhaging. If you look at a pie chart of Government spending most of our tax dollars go to Social Security and Medicare, two programs that will not be able to sustain themselves in the future. If people are serious about the debt those two programs need to be fixed. The deficit has fallen the last two years. I would really love to hear the argument that today's debt levels are more of a risk to the economy's future than the social programs I listed above.
Lastly, historically the minority party picks up seats during mid-term elections. It's my feeling the Democrats will pick up seats, but it's not going to be a landslide by any stretch of the imagination. I have seen a plethora of political ads here in Florida and the Democrats aren't running against Bush. I also find it fascinating that the gas prices are falling right now. I'm not saying they're being manipulated, but it is a strange development, especially considering this graph.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 4 2006, 03:37 AM) 
While I certainly HOPE we get a Ken Star style carte blanche to investigate every thing GW has done for the last 40+ years, I find it intriguing that the Republicans are the ones worrying outloud, in fact, using it as a compaign issue, that the democrat takeover will hamstring the current regime with endless investigations and impeachment (I don't think that is a bad thing, unless you are a republican
) Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
I don't know about a foregone conclusion, but unless he's willing to bring troops home from Iraq, then I would strongly support impeachment. Of course, that leaves us Cheney, but we can impeach him, too. His approval ratings are even worse than Bush's, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
I think whether the Dems take back the House or not, Bush's "policies" are dead. Congress has been a rubber stamp for him for too long. Maybe the parties can learn to work together again.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
If we can get a handle on gasoline prices, the economy wants to grow and that will help our deficit. Bringing our troops home from Iraq should help with the growth of the Federal deficit. In refusing to make the President's tax cuts permanent, Congress has signaled they may be realizing something has to be done about our deficit and allowing those tax cuts to expire might be the way to go.
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
Not a foregone conclusion, even Democrats aren't stupid enough to replay the Clinton impeachment proceedings..........I think........
That of course doesn't stop rank and file Democrats and assorted moonbats from calling for impeachment, regardless of the lack of evidence required to do so. I am counting down the days until Bush is out of office, but I have been continually unconvinced that there is evidence that warrants impeachment. The saner minds in the Democratic party surely realize that gains made in the 2006 election would disappear in 2008.
This sums up the logic in my mind of the people who call for Bush's impeachment......long on rhetoric, short on truth.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be necessarily a bad thing
Not at all, many of the items on Bush's agenda aren't necessarily good for the country, and the sovereignty of it's citizens. However, it is clear that Democrats also lack the spine to tackle the tough issues in any meaningful way, so a congress that does the least is probably doing the most, in my opinion.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
I've never seen a pig fly, but I guess it could happen.........but not bloody likely.
Not a foregone conclusion, even Democrats aren't stupid enough to replay the Clinton impeachment proceedings..........I think........
That of course doesn't stop rank and file Democrats and assorted moonbats from calling for impeachment, regardless of the lack of evidence required to do so. I am counting down the days until Bush is out of office, but I have been continually unconvinced that there is evidence that warrants impeachment. The saner minds in the Democratic party surely realize that gains made in the 2006 election would disappear in 2008.
QUOTE(cac Today @ 09:06 AM)
Of course, that leaves us Cheney, but we can impeach him, too. His approval ratings are even worse than Bush's, so it shouldn't be a problem.
This sums up the logic in my mind of the people who call for Bush's impeachment......long on rhetoric, short on truth.
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be necessarily a bad thing
Not at all, many of the items on Bush's agenda aren't necessarily good for the country, and the sovereignty of it's citizens. However, it is clear that Democrats also lack the spine to tackle the tough issues in any meaningful way, so a congress that does the least is probably doing the most, in my opinion.
Will this also slow the hemorrhaging of debt, casting the dems into a new fiscal conservative party in comparison to the runaway spending of the republican majority since takeover?
I've never seen a pig fly, but I guess it could happen.........but not bloody likely.
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
No. It might be possible to impeach Bush in the House, but getting two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him would be virtually impossible. It would be Bill Clinton redux.
I don't favor impeachment for a number of reasons. It would be too close to the end of Bush's term to mean much. Cheney would not be much of an improvement, if not a step backwards and getting a conviction vote in the Senate would be next to impossible. Do I think Bush deserves to be removed from office? Yes! Do I think it possible? No!
The only circumstance under which I would support impeachment is if there was a substantial Republican backlash, hence votes in both chambers to actually remove Bush.
The other "I" word - investigation is more practical. The Democrats need, if they capture Congress, to provide oversight - a concept seemingly lost on the current Republican controlled Congress.
No. It might be possible to impeach Bush in the House, but getting two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him would be virtually impossible. It would be Bill Clinton redux.
I don't favor impeachment for a number of reasons. It would be too close to the end of Bush's term to mean much. Cheney would not be much of an improvement, if not a step backwards and getting a conviction vote in the Senate would be next to impossible. Do I think Bush deserves to be removed from office? Yes! Do I think it possible? No!
The only circumstance under which I would support impeachment is if there was a substantial Republican backlash, hence votes in both chambers to actually remove Bush.
The other "I" word - investigation is more practical. The Democrats need, if they capture Congress, to provide oversight - a concept seemingly lost on the current Republican controlled Congress.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 4 2006, 08:33 AM)
QUOTE
His approval ratings are even worse than Bush's, so it shouldn't be a problem.
This sums up the logic in my mind of the people who call for Bush's impeachment......long on rhetoric, short on truth.
Are you claiming that Cheney's approval rating is not worse than Bush's? Last I checked, 19 was still less than 38.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Sep 4 2006, 01:16 PM)
Are you claiming that Cheney's approval rating is not worse than Bush's? Last I checked, 19 was still less than 38.
I'm claiming nothing of the sort, approval ratings simply have nothing to do with the ability nor the success of an impeachment attempt.
Cac's statement is indicative of what I read daily by many on the left, vague implications of wrongdoing, throwing Rove's name about and general unpopularity......and let's impeach!
Bof has it right however, investigations are certainly warranted in some of the administrations shenanigans, but impeachment, for now is a lunatic pipe dream.
I, for one, would be very, very , very happy to see a very open ended investigation, with no real parameters for what they are allowed to investigate (similar to Clinton/Starr on this one) with the power to really bully GWs friends, threaten thier families with jail time (Lewinsky) for not testifying against GW, and lots and lots and lots of money being thrown at the investigation- open with a cool billion- after all, it is not that much money compared to the daily expenditure in Iraq- in fact, wouldn't even notice it. Advertise a 50million dollar reward for anyone that comes up with some fact that leads to a felony arrest and conviction against ANY cabinet level member of the GW administration.
Seriously- it would be good for the nation to out this guy, to make the entire admin pay for thier behavior, in a big big way.
But investigation first, wait for his term to be done, then throw them in jail, I am hoping Abu Gharib. And, oh yeah, sicne it is NOT torture- let's use our powers of "persuasion" on the GW regime members- get them to talk and spill the beans. I suggest the CIA kidnap his family after he is out of office, and hint that if he wants to see them again, he will start talking and turn himself in- after all, turn about is fair play, right?
Seriously- it would be good for the nation to out this guy, to make the entire admin pay for thier behavior, in a big big way.
But investigation first, wait for his term to be done, then throw them in jail, I am hoping Abu Gharib. And, oh yeah, sicne it is NOT torture- let's use our powers of "persuasion" on the GW regime members- get them to talk and spill the beans. I suggest the CIA kidnap his family after he is out of office, and hint that if he wants to see them again, he will start talking and turn himself in- after all, turn about is fair play, right?
QUOTE
Should the dems control both houses in 06, would impeachment be a foregone conclusion?
I think it would depend upon public opinion. If democrats are elected based on such things, then I could see a groundswell for such a thing to be carried out. At the same time, I think more people would ascribe it to incompetence as opposed to dubious planning and outright lying. There are already some interesting groups pushing impeachment, but I'd wager that they are more of the die-hard fringe of the democratic party. Impeachment would be a rancorous affair and I'm not certain that a lot of people, no matter what their political affiliations, necessarily desire to go there.
QUOTE
Will a strong opposition to all of GW's programs and decisions be neccesarily a bad thing
I don't believe it would be, but then again, he hasn't necessarily gotten everything he's wanted with this group. I would imagine that there is a dartboard in the white house with John McCain's photo on it after McCain and other republicans passed a security bill that the president didn't want.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.