Though not a registered Democrat, I have often voted for Democratic candidates and have more of an affinity with most of their policies than with the other major party, so I feel partially justified in starting a thread here.

An op ed piece in the Albuquerque Tribune today suggested that the Senate Democrats best option might be to essentially filibuster for the next two years. The column can be found here.

Do any of the Democrats in this forum (are there any registered Democrats here?) feel that this is a viable option? If so, are there any Democratic senators with the cojones to actually do such a thing? If not, what options does the party have?

One man couldnt maintain a fillibuster that long... Theyd pass stuff when he passed out. hehe. The party itself would be painted as obstructionist and it would probably stick. The trick is to pick your battles, as always.

And the slim majority of the GOP isnt enough to pass things... They still need democrats to come along. This gives more power to the conservative democrats, whatever good that does.

But in the end the GOP has nowhere to go but down. It should be entertaining to see how they do themselves in. Im guessing arrogance and the religous right, as usual.

Yup Remember Gingrich and his early victories?

MT

All the federal employees will be affected by Bush's decision to limit pay raises. It's funny when you think of it....most of those people voted Republican and they'll be the ones hurting. Bush did a snow job on them, causing them to think the Republicans would be good for their pocket book.

MT

This is one thing that I've never got about all those "red states". The Republican Party's grassroots supporters are always the ones who suffer the most from Republican policies - particularly their fiscal policies. If the Democrats could soften their positions on a couple of key social issues (like their stance on abortion and, maybe, gun legislation) and highlight a few more economic issues, they could probably do much better.

Being a federal employee, I could care less that Bush is giving 1% less to some federal workers. I mean the man is trying to save money. Paying less to employees is always the first step in saving money, it is done that way in private companies as well. What I would like to see is much less money spent on Medicaid, Medicare. That is where the waste is. I get free medical care and I use it rarely, if the rest of America were like minded, imagine how much money would be saved. But I guess people have to be hypochondriacs, and people like getting sympathy as well. Being in the military it is very neccesary to be in great health all the time. If you are unable to do your job, you are kicked out of the military. If more people, especially those on the public dole were forced to perform and given incentive not to make extraneous, unneeded trips to the doc I guarantee billions would be saved, then that could be used to pay off our national debt.

Good Lord, Heather, I would never have taken you for a Democrat. Apologies to the other Demos here for intruding yet again.

If the man is trying to save money, why has he made thousands of political appointees eligible for annual bonuses of as much as $25,000

Bush made the decision in March, and has apparently been doling out the dough ever since. To do so, Bush lifted a ban on civil service bonuses imposed by President Clinton in 1994 amid questions about bonuses given to advisers by Bush's father, President Bush.

MT

Those Repubs just can't get past Bill Clinton. No matter what goes on, they bring up his name. Trent Lott makes racist remarks and Darcine blames the Dems and brings up Bill Clinton.

Madtown