Dem President + Rep Congress = UGLY First Term

So when an unnamed Democrat gets elected next year, here will be the reality of (at least the first half) of his/her term:

The republicans will most likely hold the majority, and the same cast of characters will be up to their old tricks. There will be no working with this congress...only stopping it. Dems won't be able to pass anything...the partisan block voting will be worse than ever. The best we can hope for is Gridlock through presidental VETO. The worst we could expect is more independent councils and other subversions of democracy a-la the Clinton years.

It'll take one tough MF to handle that. Clinton did not/could not attack back, though there was alot in his executive power he could have done to investigate members of congress. He didn't because he was attacked first in a vicious manner that we've never seen before, but one that's since become the new Republican winning strategy. You can bet on seeing more of it.

My Point & Question: Getting key house republicans on the defensive EARLY will be key - and you know there's plenty of dirt worth investigating. So should our soon-to-be elected Democratic leader adopt this strategy? If so, who are the best targets? What do we have on them that needs a good ol' White House investigation - and not one of the Ashcroft variety, either?

Presidential orders are powerful things. Look at all that Shrub has fucked up with them. Certain candidates coughKucinichcough could do things like cancel NAFTA and WTO with presidential orders.

That is why we also need to focus
on the congress and the senate votes
and help our party as much as possible

what i was saying in another thread. we need to be organizing on the congressional level to give the next president a democratic majority in both houses in order to control the business of both chambers, as reverse the destruction this pretender has been accomplishing.

although the presidential race is far from in the bag, i feel good enough about it to alert people that we really need to start concentrating more effort to regain majority status in both houses of Congress.

In spite of everything they did to him. Clinton had reason & the American people behind him. After the past four years we have had to endure, I doubt the American people will let any Congress hold back the next President for anything if he is right.

It was 1994, an election year, and the pukes were up in arms over her having the audacity to propose a viable solution to a problem. She was the best thing to happen in a long time, but her progressiveness got her fired.

1995's welfare 'reform' and NAFTA still provide two big mysteries...

Alaska, Illinois, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Oklahoma will be ours. We will hold in South Carolina (With Inez Tennenbaum) and we will hold in Georgia (With whoever the hell we run). We will also have a VERY close race in NC.

Bring it on repugs!

I think it's winnable, but you can't win an election without a candidate.

kicked out on their ass in 2004. Guaranteed.

The people ARE NOT liking the direction America is heading to, and they need someone to move it back to the way it was during the Clinton years.

Hawkeye-X

But I just wish I could be that optimistic.

could try being realistic.

Best case scenario we win the presidency and the Senate. The House is going nowhere.

Worst case Bush wins and adds majorities in both Houses.

I think that this election is going to be as close if not closer than 2000, so winning the popular may be irrelevant once again.

than a repuke lame duck president + a repuke Congress. If that happens, we can kiss what remains of our democracy goodbye.

In any case, we all better work as hard as we can to ensure that there is some kind of verified voting system in place or we're doomed. This is another reason to keep working towards impeachment, because they may well steal the election again. Surely there are few R's with some ethics still around???