I'm Okay With Not Winning A Majority In Either House

[cali]

until 2008. Anyone who thinks that winning a majority will result in impeachment, is delusional. Not going to happen. I'd like to see the dems pick up 10 seats in the House, and 4 in the Senate. Should that happen, the repuke control will be in name only, and they'll still get all the blame for the crap that's going to come down in the next 2 years. Should we win both houses, that crap is still going to come down and and dems will be wrestling with it, and will have to fight the perception of failure in 2008. Yes, 2006 is important, but in my book 2008 trumps it. We need the Presidency and the House of Reps then more than we need the Congress now. And I want Repukes to get the blame for the crap that's gonna come down.

[BlueJac]

1. Sorry you feel that way.....

[SaveElmer]

2. To me it is actually more important...

To take Governorships and State Legislatures. Republican reapportionment has helped entrench their majority. It needs to be broken there in order for us to gain a long term majority

[Warren Stupidity]

3. So you are in favor of not winning the 06 elections?

I find it ever amazing how we talk ourselves into defeat.

[cali]

16. No, I'm not in favor of it.

I'm okay with making substantial gains even if we don't take back either House.

[Bandit]

44. They will consider it a Mandate if they don't lose the house

Two years is more than enough time to completely destroy America. Remember if you have the majority you control the agenda.

[ck4829]

4. We need to have something while Bush is still in power

The Speaker of the House position gives the Party a LOT of power along with having a majority in either the Congress or the Senate gives us the right to issue subpoenas.

[bigtree]

5. This is the weakling defense

roll up in a fetal position and refuse to take charge. Letting ourselves get dragged along behind the republicans instead of grabbing the reins.

If we adopt the roll over position we'll find that no one will take our opposition seriously.

[cali]

18. Yeah, I've really

tucked myself into a fetal position. That's why I'm out delivering campaign lit every weekend.

[bigtree]

26. this is not helpful at all

It's completely antithetical to your stated efforts and concerns

[samsingh]

58. sorry, but we don't know if you're handing out literature

why waste your time on this type of thinking?

it has no value and is totally wrong.

[madinmaryland]

6. Huh?

:wtf:

I'm afraid that if we do not take control of at least one of the houses, then we are in for more trouble. We need some control over the lunatic in charge. The ONLY was is by controlling at least one of the houses, if not both.

[MrModerate]

7. Vitiating the Republican majorities might be enough . . .

But I'm not sure. Bush is too dangerous. He gets crazier day by day, and what he might do post-election can't be predicted. He needs to be made legislatively irrelevant. It'll be bad enough that he can still direct the military and the quasimilitary police forces in DHS without Congressional restraint.

If Dems do take the Senate and/or House, we can begin repairing some of the legislative damage caused by Bush and his 'Lican allies -- and we can run on repair in 2008, as in "We've only just begun rebuilding from the disaster of the Bush years, now we need the executive power to keep restoration of American honor and competence going . . ."

[NNN0LHI]

8. Yea lets keep the pedophiles in charge. Thats just the ticket n/t

[cali]

10. Yeah, like I really said that.

Not. And the sex scandal thing is about the least threatening thing the repukes have done. I'm far more concerned with torture and the abbrogation of civil liberties. And I'm concerned about it not just for the short run. BTW, I'm working my ass off for my dem Congressional candidate, so I'm hardly sitting back and just carping.

[Skittles]

9. I care more about our troops than who is getting blamed

I care more about AMERICA than this f***ing partisan SHIT.....and the best thing for the troops and America is to DILUTE THE F***ING POWER OF THIS ONE PARTY SYSTEM

[GiveUsHope]

11. "Delusional," huh?

Conyers, who openly supports impeachment, will become head of judiciary if the Dems take over. How delusional is that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. What Conyers thinks is irrelevant.

There numbers aren't there to support it. The numbers won't be there in any reasonable projection of the likely makeup of the chamber after the election. And the Democrats are not going want to be held responsible for putting a man with an 18% approval rating in the Oval Office.

[Ravenseye]

25. I agree. It's not delusional.

If the Democrats retake congress it's very possible that they could impeach the President, since all it takes is a majority vote to impeach him.

I do, however, think it's delusional to think that there is anything but a remote chance he'll be removed from office, even if we retake the Senate, because it takes a 2/3rds vote to convict. Since it's impossible in 2006 to even gain back that many seats, we'd have to have 15 or so Republicans cross the aisle and vote to convict. That just won't happen.

Impeachment? Quite possible.
Conviction? Quite delusional.

[LSK]

34. John Conyers holds hearings, puts Colin Powell under oath

And spills more beans on wiretapping, Iraq, 9/11, voter fraud, torture.

[bowens43]

12. I think you need to visit the nearest mental health clinic.

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever seen here on DU. Control of Congress is FAR more important then the presidency. Why would you think impeachment is the only reason to control congress?

[tjwash]

13. Perhaps they need to pass another torture bill to convince you...

...that unchecked power is not the way to go here? Maybe they could also extend the war in Iraq and invade Iran in the next two years and restart the draft for you to see that this goes way beyond "blaming dems for all the failures."

[H2O Man]

14. pathetic n/t

[grizmaster]

15. For the safety of our country and the rest of the world

we must take at least one House

[LeftishBrit]

38. That is my concern...

As a citizen of the 'rest of the world', I fear an out-of-control war-mongering right-wing having unfettered power. With more Democrats in Congress, Bush and Cheney may still not be impeached (I gather that you'd need over 60 Democrats in the Senate for that, and that this is most unlikely). But it could save the lives of lots of people in the world, who would otherwise be killed by war and increased terrorism; and at the extreme, possibly make a difference between having or not having World War III! And that seems like a pretty good reason on its own for getting more Democrats to dilute Bush's power.

[bigtree]

17. this is utter bullshit. This kind of cynicism is floated every election

It's a tactic for some, to discourage and tamp down the vote. I don't know what your motive is cali, but I do know this type of nonsense is not helpful at all; not here where folks have been working so hard to unseat these bastards who are destroying lives with their obstruction and enabling of the dismantling of our democracy.

I hope this idea gets roundly booed. It doesn't deserve a moment of consideration for anyone actually concerned with using our political system to effect any kind of change at all.

[cali]

23. Oh, for heaven's sake

Intimating that I have some sort of subversive motive is absurd. I've been working to get dems elected in this election and others for a long time. I want everyone to get out there and vote for dems. And I want to see substantial gains made. But as long as we pick up seats, I'm going to be satisfied. My goals are modest.

[bigtree]

33. I don't know what your motive is. I have NO way of knowing.

I DO know what the effect of your suggestion will be if it becomes a prevailing one. My concern is not merely about defeatist propaganda from you (although it harbors its own perniciousness), it's also with the effect that a failure to achieve a chamber will have on millions of lives and livelihoods. I'm not at all sanguine about such a prospect, and I'm appalled that you seem to be.

[cali]

61. Well then

you're easily appalled. This isn't defeatist. I'm not encouraging people not to vote, or to vote for some marginal party. I'm simply saying it's not the end of the world that we don't gain control, as long as gain a substantial number of seats, and I stated the reason as to my thinking that. The horror over this statement and the accusations stemming from my expressing it, is simply ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned.

[jdlh8894]

24. IMHO

I think that the OP is trying to say that we may win the battle in'06 but lose the war in '08.

[bigtree]

27. Our government works if we work it. Period.

There is nothing to be gained by having the dogs running free, tearing our country down. Do you expect that voters are going to reward us for being so impotent?

[Swede]

19. In the mean time,let's invade Iran.

That will be a hoot.

[WI_DEM]

20. and what makes you think that we will win the '08 election?

Right now the two GOP front runners McCain and Guiliani beat every democrat (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, ect) in the polls and this is after 6.5 years of GW Bush!! No, I'll take a House or Senate or both takeover in '06.

[Onlooker]

21. If we don't win now, we won't win in 2008

They have been framing Democrats for years and if they retain control of Congress will continue to have the ability to do that. Plus, they'll be able to pass even more laws designed to disenfranchise voters (ID cards, Diebold funding, etc.). In addition, it will give them another two years to pass laws and policies that result in more deaths, more suffering, and more discrimination. I hope you're not okay with that.

[cali]

29. If the Senate and

the House are close to tied- even if the repukes maintain nominal control, they won't be able to pass jackshit.

[magnolia]

36. Bush "won" in 2004....

....because he convinced too many people that Republicans keep you safe and Democrats won't. Bush and Cheney are both out there now telling people that if they elect Democrats this November they won't be safe.

If we win both houses it will give us two years of Democratic control. Two years of "being safe" under Democrats. Bush/Cheney will be proven wrong and seen as the fearmongering liars that they are. It will be a huge advantage for us going into the 2008 elections if they can't use fear and terror threats against us. Without that...they have nothing.

[Subdivisions]

28. I'm sorry, but you're wrong and you are a defeatist. You'll

find more sympathy for your postition on FR.

I'm playing to win '06 and I don't need defeatists bringing me down.

Edited to add: I firmly believe that if we don't win this year's election (if it actually happens) then there probably won't be an '08 election.

[magnolia]

30. So you have a crystal ball?

We don't know if impeachment will happen with a democratic majority or not. But we DO KNOW it WON'T happen with a republican majority. I don't care if Bush gets impeached, resigns or goes to prison. What we can't tolerate as a country is to allow this man who has committed so many crimes to go to the end of his presidency without accountability and forever be given the respect of a former president. That is unexceptable!

The Republicans are blaming Clinton for Foley! They will ALWAYS blame us for everything, regardless of what happens - THAT'S THEIR GAME. We are their puppets if we react to it! Accepting a loss this November because "they'll still get all the blame for the crap that's going to come down in the next 2 years" is just plain irresponsible, IMO.

[LSK]

31. what is with these posts popping up on DU lately???

Are you SCARED of winning???

[global1]

32. Cali - You Beat Me To This......

I was thinking the same thing just yesterday. If the Dems win control of both the house and senate they will have to shoulder some of the blame of whats to come between Nov '06 and Nov '08 even if what is to come between now and then was a direct result of what * and the Repug controlled congress brought down on us over the last 6 years.

Come the run-up to the elections of '08 the Repugs will then be in a position to say - "see the Dems are in control of congress and they didn't do anything. If fact - they were so intent on * hating and investigations that's why we're in the trouble we're in. If we were (the Repugs) in control - things would have been different. That's why you have to elect a Repug president in '08."

I do want to see the Dems win control in Nov '06 - but - they have to know full well that they will be put in this position if they don't turn things around a bit both domestically and internationally.

It won't be an easy 2 years if they win back control. And if they win back control - they HAVE to do a lot of positive things - and fast. Two years is a short time to undo all the wrongs *Co has had 6 years to do.

As much as I'd like to see this criminal *Co regime be ousted and jailed - if we spend the next 2 years focused on them and not the domestic and international issues - we might be in the position you described.

I can almost see Rove feeling somewhat relieved if the Dems do win back control. He knows full well the consequences of the Repugs decisions over the last 6 years. I think it is getting harder and harder for him to juggle all the balls - to continue the lying - to maintain the facade they've had over the last 6 years. Actually - having the Dems win back Congress might give him some relief and a way out in the positioning of the Repugs for Nov '08.

On the other hand if we don't wrestle control of at least the house or the senate - the Repugs will run rampant over the next two years. * will again feel that he has a 'mandate' (and I don't mean Foley) - and who knows what additional bad he will foist on us. If we don't win back control of the house and/or the senate - I foresee *Co attacking Iran; gas prices going off the charts; the economy going in the dumper, etc. etc. etc.

It is a dilemma.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. "It is a dilemma" No it isn't.

There is no dilemma. First you kick the other party out of power, then you worry about how to rule. No dilemma about that at all.

Here is an example of the lack of dilemma: should we investigate criminal behavior by the cabal as outlined by John Conyers or not?

Now of course ruling won't be easy, and we won't even be ruling. At best we will be sharing power with the current administration. Most likely a coalition of creeps will form to try to keep the PNAC crap going, and the tax fraud, and to obstruct meaningful investigations into major crimes. Yes it will be ugly and dangerous. However first you kick the other party out of power, then you worry about how to rule. No dilemma about that at all.

[Red Right and BLUE]

35. Oh FFS.

...

[WilliamPitt]

39. Gotta get worse before it gets better

Where have I heard that line of unutterably astonishing horseshit before?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. If We Can't Win In This Environment We Need To Find Another Country.

Not to take control of the House in this environment would be embarrassing.

[SmokingJacket]

41. I'm not. I want to kick as much ass as possible.

It's true that if the Dems get a majority in either or both the House and Senate, *every* damn piece of bad news will be blamed on them. Another terrorist attack? It's because the terrorists got confident because the Dems are weak on terr. You can see it coming A MILE off.

However, that's just talk, and we can at the very least slow down the awful damage Bush is doing if we get a majority somewhere. We can set the agenda.

I will be PISSED and SICKENED if we fail to win at least the House.

[Bridget Burke]

42. I want it ALL!

Of course, I won't go to pieces if we don't get both houses. I can adjust.

If we get more control, perhaps LESS crap will go down in those two years. Crap like more dead people, more raping of the Constitution & the Environment & the Economy. Republicans will blame us anyway. So what.

[Irreverend IX]

43. There comes a time...

When we need to make the transition from damage control to domination of the government. That time is now. If you want to wait until everything's peachy to take power so we can't be blamed for anything bad that happens... you're going to wait for a long time. The philosophy of "I want them to stay in power so they can take the blame" is political poison. After all, bullies never accept blame; even though Dems are out of power, they still try to pin every problem they can on us. As long as the Repubs are in control Iraq will continue to get worse, social problems will mushrooms and things are going to be generally shitty. Will they attempt to blame things on us when we take over? Of course. Did great leaders in the past worry about stuff like that? No. Taking power means redefining America's reality on our terms. If we can put forward a charismatic and proactive team of Democratic leaders in the next four years and build a solid base of grassroots support, we'll be able to shout down the Rovian lies. FDR transformed the American mindset with his fireside chats; why can't we? All it takes is to stop being afraid of Rove and start hitting back twice as hard.

[Ganja Ninja]

45. I sort of feel that way too.

I just have this feeling that we are headed for a disaster in Iraq not unlike Custer's Last Stand. If there's a Democratic controlled congress in 2007 they won't have the will or the power to prevent it and I don't want the Dem's to be associated with it in any way. I've felt this way from the beginning. Bush is the master of disaster and Iraq is going to be one for the history books.

[One_Life_To_Give]

46. Taking one chamber is necessary

The only sure way to derail the neocons is Democratic control of at least one chamber. ANything less is unacceptable.

[brentspeak]

47. And the point of your ridiculous post is what???

There's an election coming up in a month, and here you are advocating that maybe it's better that the Democrats *not* win back Congress until 2008? Who cares about "wanting the Repukes to get the blame"? If you actually care about the nation, the only thing you should be concerned about is passing decent legislation, repealing bad legislation (ie. most of the GOP's legislation), and moving ahead -- not, "who gets the blame".

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[dr.strangelove]

48. I'M NOT!

I think the Senate, though more difficult, if more important. With the possibility of another SCOTUS seat turning up, we MUST win.

[brentspeak]

49. Is this what's called a "concern troll" post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1382185&mesg_id=1382185

[FastHorizon]

50. I think that's ridiculous

Lose the election and sit back for two years and allow things to get worse? Just for the sake of placing blame on Republicans in 2008? Change could start this November.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. NERTZ!

[johnaries]

52. Impeachment or not, we've got to SLOW DOWN the damage

that Bush and his rubber-stamp Congress is doing.

We can only do that with control of at least one house.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

53. You do not know what the public mood will be towards impeachment

If the Democrats have investigative power and start "looking into" things and that information comes out - there could be a big backlash by the public.

The media and other organizations flock to power and the Dems will have more power.

[mmonk]

54. 2008 is too late for any power to slow down this

trainwreck.

[Matariki]

55. Sure, two more years for them to chip away at the constitution

that will help us how?

[ComerPerro]

56. They don't get the blame for it now

so if we gain more seats (but not a majority) why would you expect them to suddenly start getting blamed?

[samsingh]

57. r u nuts? in name only means nothing

compromise means nothing.

we better get some power and checks and balances otherwise things will keep getting worse.

...and nobody cares whether we can say its their fault because they were in power.

[Pacifist Patriot]

59. But what if a Democratic majority actually did make a dent in...

the crap going on right now?

[Beacho]

60. I see the strategy of it

In other words make them lie in their own shit for the next two years.
Unfortunately, we have to lie in it as well and the Republic has already taken too much of a beating over the last few years.
It's time to lead and repair the damage