Best sure-fire strategy for the Dems in 08 IMHO

[nageov3t]

meh. wake me up when the parties have elected their candidates... I can't even vote in the NJ primaries.

it's way too early to speculate on the specifics of the '08 race, though if we're still bogged down in Iraq, that'd be a major boon for the democrats, assuming they can get the American public to understand that, despite having control of the house and senate, there's really jack shit they can do with their majority of 1 (and not even that if you factor out the I's). completely withdrawing funding would be a disastrous move, and maybe I'm a little idealistic, but I'd like to think that the average American understands that as well.

on the subject of impeachment... no way, no how. not only would it be a stretch to prove, the D's would get blasted for it, just like the R's got blasted after the Clinton impeachment hearings. impeachment shouldn't be a tool used for political gain any time there's an unpopular president. and as low as GW's approval ratings are, I can't imagine the American people would rather have President Cheney or Madame President Pelosi.

in fairness to the democrats in 2004, that should have been the most easily won election since Mondale... it shows great credit to the party that they managed to find someone who could so completely blow it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
on the subject of impeachment... no way, no how. not only would it be a stretch to prove, the D's would get blasted for it, just like the R's got blasted after the Clinton impeachment hearings. impeachment shouldn't be a tool used for political gain any time there's an unpopular president. and as low as GW's approval ratings are, I can't imagine the American people would rather have President Cheney or Madame President Pelosi.

Impeachment isn't about whether the American people would rather have President Cheney, it's about protecting the rule of law.

The politics should not dominate the issue; Nixon deserved to be impeached. It's the republicans who politicized impeachment with 'revenge' for Nixon on Clinton.

As for how it affected them politically - the American people were a lot more opposed to the impeachment of Clinton than they are of the impeachment of Bush, and yet the republicans won the next election (well, sort of) that should have been a shoo-in for the democrats following 8 years of lowered deficits, prosperity, mostly peace, and the republicans were able to force Gore to not use Clinton much as an asset.

So why wouldn't the democrats get even more of a boost when Bush and Cheny deserve it?

in fairness to the democrats in 2004, that should have been the most easily won election since Mondale... it shows great credit to the party that they managed to find someone who could so completely blow it.

I don't think that's fair at all to Kerry. Things like propagandists who neutralize Kerry's war service advantage because their guy was a Viet-Nam war supporting draft dodger don't make Kerry a bad candidate, any more than Gore leading the effort to fund the development of the internet made him a bad candidate just because the same propagandists turned his effort into an attack ('invented the internet'). Rather, it suggests you are letting the propagadists fool you too much.

Kerry would have been a much better president than Bush - though ironically, it seems Bush has been held accountable this way. Had Kerry been president, we'd have no end to the posts of how Bush's great war in the middle east was lost by the democrats and how peace in the middle east would have flourished had Bush won, because his policies were going to send 'democracy on the march throughout the region'.

Isn't it sad when the propagandists are so persuasive that you have to elect the bad guy to prove they're wrong?

This why history repeats itself - we forget how bad Viet nam was, how bad Nixon was, and so on, and fall for the next war and the next bad president.

 

[nageov3t]

The politics should not dominate the issue

well that's just silly... nothing's ever been done in washington unless there was political gain to be had.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Just a little head's up for the newer members in here. The Democratic supporters in here got a litle cocky in '04 too, right up to election night. (where's conjur, btw? ) They ended up with a bad hangover the following day. Or maybe it was just a nasty blow to the head?

Don't imagine the Dems are just going to steamroll the GOP in the next election. imo, it's going to be another cliffhanger, just like '06 was.

IIRC, the dems didn't lose a single race, and re-took both houses - that's a historic landslide, not a "cliffhanger", if you weren't wearing the partisan glasses.

While the type of landslide may have been more in the net race outcomes than the margin of the elections, so what?

Didn't lose a single race? Did you mean "Didn't lose a single race they were suppose to win anyway?"

And some of the races were decided by hundreds of votes, the narrowest of margins, the kind of finishes where if the GOP had won those races accusations of vote rigging, disenfranchisement, and who knows what else would have been flying. At least the GOP accepted their defeat with class. Having class in defeat is something the Dems should learn.

And weren't we waiting for a day or two before the results were final and it was decided that the Dems took both the house and the Senate? The Webb/Allen race in Virginia had eveyone on edge.

But it's nice to know you guys can take something so close and consider it a landslide victory. I was wondering at the time how the Democrats define victory since it seemed like such a foreign concept to them. Now I know.

2008 might be somewhat close, not because the republicans deserve it, but because of factors such as their access to large amounts of money, and because of their 'voter challenge' plans where they'll make efforts through voiding registrations and challenging voters to reduce the minority turnout that favors democrats, just as Florida was 'close' at 527 votes because they're removed tens of thousans of black voters from the rolls, among other factors. 2004 was 'close' because of suppressing the black vote there, too.

It may also have something to do with the absolute ineffectiveness of the Democrats in the current Congress. Voters gave them the chance to do something and they've practically spent the entire time launching investigations and using their advantage in Congress as a partisan club to try to benefit the Democrats instead of the American people. That obviously hasn't gone unnoticed since Congress' approval rating is in the gutter.

To make it very clear, I do not support the GOP. I'd rather see all the scumbags in Washington scrubbed clean and given the boot (They need a good scrubbing before going back into the general population) so we can start over anew. I'd like to see another political party make headway and boot the rusty old Dems and GOP out of power and do away with the SOP in D.C.

So why does it appear that I support the GOP? I don't. I just despise them less than the Democrats. They are so full of empty promises and BS that they actually make the GOP look honest in comparison on rare occassions.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But it's nice to know you guys can take something so close and consider it a landslide victory. I was wondering at the time how the Democrats define victory since it seemed like such a foreign concept to them. Now I know.

seems comparable to Bush's sweeping mandate after winning by 1% of the vote. /shrug

It may also have something to do with the absolute ineffectiveness of the Democrats in the current Congress. Voters gave them the chance to do something and they've practically spent the entire time launching investigations and using their advantage in Congress as a partisan club to try to benefit the Democrats instead of the American people. That obviously hasn't gone unnoticed since Congress' approval rating is in the gutter.

funny how one man's "partisan club" is another man's "enforcing accountability after 6 years without it." I'll never really understand what people expect the democrats to actually be able to accomplish with their non-majority majority, but enforcing accountability is something that's actually within their power that isn't subject to having to override a presidential veto.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But it's nice to know you guys can take something so close and consider it a landslide victory. I was wondering at the time how the Democrats define victory since it seemed like such a foreign concept to them. Now I know.

seems comparable to Bush's sweeping mandate after winning by 1% of the vote. /shrug

You're right. It does. Now we know Bush's win was actually a "landslide."

It may also have something to do with the absolute ineffectiveness of the Democrats in the current Congress. Voters gave them the chance to do something and they've practically spent the entire time launching investigations and using their advantage in Congress as a partisan club to try to benefit the Democrats instead of the American people. That obviously hasn't gone unnoticed since Congress' approval rating is in the gutter.

funny how one man's "partisan club" is another man's "enforcing accountability after 6 years without it." I'll never really understand what people expect the democrats to actually be able to accomplish with their non-majority majority, but enforcing accountability is something that's actually within their power that isn't subject to having to override a presidential veto.

I don't understand it either. Maybe it had something to do with all the bravado coming from the Democrats after the election? I'd post some '06 post-election quotes from Pelosi and crew, but no doubt you and others in here are familiar with them already.

 

[theeedude]

Didn't Republicans lose most seats that were seriously in play? Hell, they even lost Virginia. That's about as close to a landslide as you'll get with all the gerrymandering and safe districts nowadays.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Just a little head's up for the newer members in here. The Democratic supporters in here got a litle cocky in '04 too, right up to election night. (where's conjur, btw? ) They ended up with a bad hangover the following day. Or maybe it was just a nasty blow to the head?

Don't imagine the Dems are just going to steamroll the GOP in the next election. imo, it's going to be another cliffhanger, just like '06 was.

IIRC, the dems didn't lose a single race, and re-took both houses - that's a historic landslide, not a "cliffhanger", if you weren't wearing the partisan glasses.

While the type of landslide may have been more in the net race outcomes than the margin of the elections, so what?

Didn't lose a single race? Did you mean "Didn't lose a single race they were suppose to win anyway?"

No, I meant that democratic incumbents did not lose a single race to a republican challenger. It's been a long time since either party can say that IIRC.

And some of the races were decided by hundreds of votes, the narrowest of margins, the kind of finishes where if the GOP had won those races accusations of vote rigging, disenfranchisement, and who knows what else would have been flying. At least the GOP accepted their defeat with class. Having class in defeat is something the Dems should learn.

To repeat myself for the hard of hearing, the landslide is in the breadth of the races won, not the vote amounts of the wins.

You are trying to dig for something to salvage - republicans who say nothing when there's no fraud are classy, and dems who say something when there is fraud are wrong?

It may also have something to do with the absolute ineffectiveness of the Democrats in the current Congress. Voters gave them the chance to do something and they've practically spent the entire time launching investigations and using their advantage in Congress as a partisan club to try to benefit the Democrats instead of the American people. That obviously hasn't gone unnoticed since Congress' approval rating is in the gutter.

Everyone can interpret the low rating how they like - it's because they haven't gone after Bush enough, it's because they have gone after Bush too much, etc.

Those investigations are very important and proper; they've done more than you say; there's value to their simply blocking Bush more than republicans would.

But there is some truth to your point as well IMO.

To make it very clear, I do not support the GOP. I'd rather see all the scumbags in Washington scrubbed clean and given the boot (They need a good scrubbing before going back into the general population) so we can start over anew. I'd like to see another political party make headway and boot the rusty old Dems and GOP out of power and do away with the SOP in D.C.

So why does it appear that I support the GOP? I don't. I just despise them less than the Democrats. They are so full of empty promises and BS that they actually make the GOP look honest in comparison on rare occassions.

If you want to be practical, and not just the next guy who wants to rant about the scumbags in Washington, you need to do more than just rant about the scumbags.

Look at how they're doing it, and take more action. Fix campsign financing for a start. Issue makes your eyes glaze over, but they count on that.

Push for 'ranked voting' systems if you want third parties to have much of a chance at all.

if that suggestion leaves you saying it's too much trouble and ignoring it, than you can be another guy who rants against the scumbags.

 

[umbrella39]

This thread is priceless. Bush fan makes a post questioning why the dems aren't following the GOPs footsteps of Clinton's last term and go for impeachment. Other fanbois show up to bump knuckles and give high fives over a hypothetical. It's no wonder the majority of this country has grown tired of brain dead sheep. The only question is will the Dems be able to undo the harm done to America when they are completely running the show when 09 rolls around.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This thread is priceless. Bush fan makes a post questioning why the dems aren't following the GOPs footsteps of Clinton's last term and go for impeachment. Other fanbois show up to bump knuckles and give high fives over a hypothetical. It's no wonder the majority of this country has grown tired of brain dead sheep. The only question is will the Dems be able to undo the harm done to America when they are completely running the show when 09 rolls around.

Well, as you aptly demonstrate, fanbois will be fanbois.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
To repeat myself for the hard of hearing, the landslide is in the breadth of the races won, not the vote amounts of the wins.

From what I receall, they were supposed to win those races. With all their F-ups the GOP was at a severe disadvantage. So it's kind of like saying "I went to work every day this week, a landslide of attendance."

Just seems to be a silly word to use considering the context.

You are trying to dig for something to salvage - republicans who say nothing when there's no fraud are classy, and dems who say something when there is fraud are wrong?

The Dems were right. There was fraud uncovered...primarily by Democrats and their operatives.

If you want to be practical, and not just the next guy who wants to rant about the scumbags in Washington, you need to do more than just rant about the scumbags.

Look at how they're doing it, and take more action. Fix campsign financing for a start. Issue makes your eyes glaze over, but they count on that.

Push for 'ranked voting' systems if you want third parties to have much of a chance at all.

if that suggestion leaves you saying it's too much trouble and ignoring it, than you can be another guy who rants against the scumbags.

I don't want the system to be re-rigged to make change happen. The change should come from the currently apathetic American public and how they cast their votes. Changing the system would be meaningless if the public doesn't awake from their political stupor.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets get a life and get back on topic. My prediction is---if and when the democrats move to impeach GWB and Cheney, they will make sure they have to Senate votes to convict before they start. Sorry Blackainst1, I very much doubt the democrats will take your suggestion of going for a failed from the start impeachment.

Meanwhile we all have more immediate fish to fry. The election of 11/08 is also too far off to call, but the way things look right now, its hard to be optimistic on GOP chances. But I sure can see the possibility of subsequent events radically changing things, but those events are also impossible to call right now. And anyone who relies on completely hypothetical events happening in a given sequence is likely to find themselves without a chair to park in, in what amounts a giant game of political musical chairs. While various people, myself perhaps included try to spin past events, its the future events we don't yet know that will rule the roost in 11/08.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Researching the republican operatives' plans for robbing votes in the 2008 election isn't 'making excuses', it's exposing the problem, if any are found.

Right. I don't seem to recall you chirping about any voting problems after the 2006 Elections...

Good to see you've got your escape clause drafted, though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
This thread is priceless. Bush fan makes a post questioning why the dems aren't following the GOPs footsteps of Clinton's last term and go for impeachment. Other fanbois show up to bump knuckles and give high fives over a hypothetical. It's no wonder the majority of this country has grown tired of brain dead sheep. The only question is will the Dems be able to undo the harm done to America when they are completely running the show when 09 rolls around.

Bush fan? I know its hard to believe, but some of us have the ability to be non-partisan. Quit whining.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Well, as you aptly demonstrate, fanbois will be fanbois.

Wow, quite the zinger there! I understand the truth hurts and you are just lashing out. The SS Fanboi is taking on water and its days in the sun are numbered. I wonder if the dinosaurs knew they were becoming extinct? :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Well, as you aptly demonstrate, fanbois will be fanbois.

Wow, quite the zinger there! I understand the truth hurts and you are just lashing out. The SS Fanboi is taking on water and its days in the sun are numbered. I wonder if the dinosaurs knew they were becoming extinct? :laugh:

I have no idea what the dinosuars knew, but history is a pretty good teacher so you might want to keep your water-wings nearby, attach your sunglassses to a tether, and maintain a vigil on the sky, just in case.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But youre assuming the public wouldnt support it. Or do you think they wouldnt? You think most Americans DONT think GWB is impeachable?

I don't think most Americans would support impeaching GWB at the moment.

obviously you are delusional.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: blackangst1


Thoughts?

When you start I will join in the debate.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But youre assuming the public wouldnt support it. Or do you think they wouldnt? You think most Americans DONT think GWB is impeachable?

I don't think most Americans would support impeaching GWB at the moment.

obviously you are delusional.

Congress is supposed to represent the people.

I do not see any momentum toward impeachment wihtin the House.

Therefore, you must be the one that is delusional or your Democrat loaded House does not represent you opinions - In that case, maybe you should vote them out come next November..

 

[BeauJangles]

I don't think the Democrats should attempt to impeachment Bush if they cannot rally bi-partisan support. How, you ask? Easy, by making Republicans in the Senate realize that there is more than one power struggle going on right now. It isn't simply Democracts versus Republicans, but Congress versus the Presidency, the Supreme Court versus Congress, etc. The executive office has been given way too much leeway by Congress over the past twenty years and it's time to take back some of that power. That starts with removing the man from office who has stomped all over the constitution and the balance of power within our government.

I don't see why this has to be a partisan issue. Republicans win by distancing themselves from a guy who is really, really unpopular, Democracts win by removing said person from power, and the Senate wins by placing its foot firmly down and demonstrating that the President can't simply do what he pleases.

 

[Thump553]

In the history of this country there have been two Presidental impeachments, and both have been naked attempts at power grabbing. I've been an active and unaffiliated voterfor decades (until last year's primary contest against Joseph Lieberman) and nearly always split my ticket. After the Clinton impeachment however, I vowed not to vote for another GOP for national office unless the person was a truely exceptional candidate, until the GOP purges and reforms itself.

An impeachment of Bush would be absolutely the wrong action, and the wrong message to send. The Dems have to concentrate on fielding good candidates and working hard to minimize further damage to be done by Bush in the remainder of his term, and to rectify his many blunders once he is out of office.

History (and his maker) will be the ulitmate judge of GWB.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But youre assuming the public wouldnt support it. Or do you think they wouldnt? You think most Americans DONT think GWB is impeachable?

I don't think most Americans would support impeaching GWB at the moment.

obviously you are delusional.

Congress is supposed to represent the people.

I do not see any momentum toward impeachment wihtin the House.

Therefore, you must be the one that is delusional or your Democrat loaded House does not represent you opinions - In that case, maybe you should vote them out come next November..

I think you might have missed the whole "representative democracy" thing. No rep. ever represents 100% of what you want them to, so you pick the person who most closely does. Considering the only two viable options are Democrats who support probably 75% of what I like on contentious issues, and Republicans who support almost literally zero... why would any rational person vote out the former to gain the latter?

Lots of misinformation going out here in this thread. First of all, '06 was in no way a cliffhanger, unless you think that the uncertainty of whether it was going to be a moderate GOP defeat or a crushing one a 'cliffhanger'. I do seem to remember lots of prognostication here about how the GOP would hold onto both houses of Congress though. How did that turn out anyway?

People also misunderstand the nature of Congress' low approval ratings. There are high levels of support for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and a large contributor to the low approval ratings of Congress is exactly that they haven't done enough to censure/restrict/impeach the executive. Impeachment might actually improve their standing, as America elected this congress in large part to show Bush how much they hate him.

That being said, I would do the same thing as they are doing. When all the trends are in your favor you don't try and make large movements to accomplish small objectives when you can wait a year and take over all 3 parts of the legislative process and then do the things you actually want to do. That's just being smart... and it's the best service to their constituents.

 

[Lemon law]

I have just have come up with a brilliant proof that Hillary is the only politician who can bridge the bi-partisan divide in 2008.

Its starts with the already posted truism------The difference between Democratic and Republican politicians is that Democrats get caught with girls.

But if Hillary get caught with a girl it kinda makes her like a Republican still acceptable to Democrats. Nirvana shortly follows.

 

[Lemon law]

Getting back to the more serious, I think eskimospy made an excellent post with the thesis being----When all the trends are in your favor you don't try and make large movements to accomplish small objectives when you can wait a year and take over all 3 parts of the legislative process and then do the things you actually want to do. That's just being smart... and it's the best service to their constituents.

And I agree, the ball is on the Republican side of the net and its the repubs who are on probation. To some extent the republicans put the democratic congress on probation by calling them the party of lawyers and lobbyists finally taking back congress in 1994. The point being, Congress and Clinton were able to work fairly well together despite having quite a few rather public ugly fights, and better yet they were together able to actually come up with a few Federal surpluses. Then came the election of 11/2000. Clinton could not run and a deeply divided nation narrowly picked the President but on good job incumbency still went GOP for in congress by a far wider margins. Even in 2004 the Country
still had good vibes on the GOP congress while the doubts were building on GWB. By 2006, the failures built and the American people very clearly put both GWB&co. and the
GOP congress on probation. And the congressional probation clearly didn't result because the democrats were being world beaters, the democrats basically could only be the loyal opposition, the GOP congress put themselves on probation because they were pushing bad policy and that policy was flopping faster than the speed of light.

And now the GOP congress is on probation just as the democrats had been on probation for 12 years. And the practical problem for the GOP congress is how to get off probation because my thesis is once on probation, you stay on probation until (a) You do something amazingly brilliant---hard for the congressional minority. (b) The majority party does
something amazingly dumb. Which, with mucho help from GWB is exactly how the GOP congress got on probation this time.

And if we are talking short term thinking and looking forward to the election of 11/2008, the GOP is playing the game in the most stupid manner possible given they are still saddled with a huge handicap called GWB who was the main factor placing the GOP on probation.

1. The GOP congress can't get off probation by preventing the democrats from doing stupid things.

2. Betting on the slow progress of a surge working in Iraq is a two headed sledge hammer bound to dope slap the GOP regardless which side of the hammer hits them. Even if best case scenario, GWB can show some signs of continuing progress in Iraq until 11/08, there is very unlikely to be much progress to show because such insurgencies typically last a decade or more and at best Iraq is just starting to turn around. Which means it is likely to still look like a quagmire to a very pissed off American public that was lied into and over sold a war by---guess what the GOP. Now worse case scenario, the surge becomes seen as a charade because events on the ground prove it----guess what the GOP still catches the blame because they started it and now have bungled their last last chance they bet their life on.

3. Hoping Iraq will even succeed to even the point where its not a net liability is a pretty slim hope. But it could get the GOP off probation. Just don't go betting on it either.

4. The impeachment and CONVICTION of GWB might or might not get the GOP congress off probation. But the removal of GWB would certainly get the GOP congress off the double probation its on now. But then we come to this little catch 22. The GOP has 49 Senators, that number may change slightly by 11/2008, but even 34 GOP senators is enough for the GOP to veto the conviction of GWB. So face the facts, the GOP has to sign onto and start impeachments and conviction because the dems can't.

5. The GOP is the party in trouble in congress. Now how do they get what in the wrestling world would be called a reversal?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I dont have any news article to link, but wanted to open up for opinions. Given the following statements are true:
*The majority of Americans think GWB should be impeached
*The majority of Americans believe the Iraq war is based on lies and is a losing proposition

Why dont them Dems start proceedings? Sure, it'll get squashed. But...can you imagine the support they would get for 08? Every candidate could run on the "We thought GWB was wrong and tried to do something about it...and our record proves it". So whats the risk? Isnt the general consensus that GWB IS in fact impeachable? What do the Dems have to lose?

IMO? Two things. One, they are as corrupt as GWB is perceived to be, and two, they have ZERO intention of ending the war anytime soon.

Thoughts?

Your post has what seems to me an odd premise; combining the *war* in Iraq and an impeachment. It's as if you'd use an impeachment as a Congressional referendum on Iraq.

I find that odd for several reasons. Firstly, it's almost as you're proposing that Congress can impeach merely because they don't like the job the President is doing. That they can *fire* him for underperformance etc. I don't believe that's how impeachment works.

If they wanted to pursue the angle that GWB lied to them, well that's gonna be problematic. We'd see all kinds of *forgotten* things coming back to light. E.g., Hillary back then saying she DIDN'T need to see any evidence from GWB about Saddam's WMD because she knew all about it due to her stint in the White House. Then you've got the powerful Dems who were on the Intellegance committees. One of them has already indicated, unwisely IMO, that he knew GWB was lying because of the classified undoctored intel reports that they are privy to. They would likely appear to be complicit.

To think that the Dems could somehow get control and end the *war* by impeaching GWB fails to acknowledge that Cheney would become Pres., and he could pick a new VP (IIRC). Would that new person have an edge in the '08 elections?

Given the public's disapproval of the curent political bickering, an impeachment at this point would be risky. Could backfire badly. It would also be a huge distraction from the upcoming primary elections. Would that be desirable or wise?

Surely it seems that the Repubs are now rather demoralized, would an impeachment attempt have an effect to galvanize them?

Worse still, if according to your premise, the Dems somehow gained control of the Iraq situation what would they do with it? Why the heck they would want control of that now is beyond me. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Why would they want that powderkeg in their laps in the period leading up to the '08 elections?

IMO, trying to impeach now is one bonehead way that they can screw up the '08 elections.

Fern