~ This is how we win in 2008 ~

[rpgamerd00d]

1) Pass bill after bill that are good for the people.
2) Let Bush veto them.
3) Campaign on the obstructionist White House, and how we need a (D) in there to get the real work done.

[thereismore]

1. even better, let's actually try to get some of the good stuff passed. nt

[Dora]

2. Yes.

Yes, and yes.

Oh, and I'd like to add that we must begin widespread investigations and initiate impeachment proceedings.

[Ellis Wyatt]

8. bad idea

investigations and impeachment proceedings could be perceived as whiny and vindictive unless major things are exposed.

A much better position in 2008 would be to be hanging to the fact that there was a major victory in 2006, and for two years everything that was attempted was vetoed. The republicans will have little ammo to campaign against that, but there will be a lot of ammo for the repliccans to campaign against if the next two years are filled with trials and investigations if they don't uncover a lot of scandal.

The message will go something like: "Democrats finally get power after 12 years, and their main activity was to go on some vengance and retribution campaign against their enemies? It's innapropriate and proves what we've been saying for 10 years. The Democrats have no plan, all they cared about was 'Getting Bush'. Vote them out of office, and we can start fresh...."

[Laelth]

9. If we don't investigate and impeach ...

... we're saying it's OK to shred the Constitution. Let the talking heads call us whiny and vindictive. The American people will call us strong. They'll see us standing up for their Constitutional rights, and they might trust us to wage the global "war on terror." If we don't fight back, they'll continue to see us as wimps.

imho

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2657058

:dem:

-Laelth

[Ellis Wyatt]

10. The American people

en masse are stupid. They are sheep who vote based on 15 second sound bites. Every political show has talking heads yelling at each other with little scripted quips that are 20% truth and 80% exaggeration or outright lies.

There is a very small minority that finds their own information and has a major grasp of the issues.

This runs the risk of being a very easy to exploit issue for the republicans is all I'm saying.

[Dora]

13. The "American people en masse" just voted the Republicans out of power.

And your point is that we're stupid?

Get outta here. You're sinking.

[Ellis Wyatt]

14. And the people "en masse"

vote for republicans for the past 12 years. So, they were stupid before but are smart now?

Are you saying that if someone votes for a republicans they are stupid, but smart if they vote for a Democrat? Yeah, that's nice simpleminded logic.

I am saying that the voting public by and large is driven by a very little bit of fact and a whole lot of emotion. These tiny soundbites and headlines are what people understand. The full detail behind it; they don't. They don't even care.

These are the same people who vote against democrats because they are "tax and spend" and "pro-terrorist", and vote against republicans because they want to "starve the poor" and "steal medication from the elderly"

It's all visceral reactions from high level, simplified headlines.

And the impeachment stuff runs the risk of alienating a lot of them.

[Dora]

19. No, they haven't voted for republicans "en masse"

The elections of 2000 and 2004 were hotly contested, and it's pretty clear to nearly everyone here on DU that both of those elections were manipulated and did not reflect the true American majority. Elections given/manipulated to the Republican candidate as a result of gaming the system do not equate with Republicans voting en masse for anything. It simply illustrates that the system was gamed and that Democrats were asleep at the wheel.

Voter turnout yesterday was higher than the norm for mid-term elections. That fact tells me that the people "en masse," regardless of party affiliation, are restoring the system of checks and balances to government. An important component of that system of checks and balances is the power to impeach.

A failure to investigate and impeach (if evidence of impeachable offenses is found) is a failure of duty. And it was failure of duty that drove the Republicans out of power. The Democrats must not and will not make that same mistake.

[Ellis Wyatt]

21. so you're sticking with that, eh?

republicans = stupid
democrats = smart.

Ok, moving on.

[Dora]

22. Nice try, putting words in my mouth. I never said it, I don't believe it.

[Dora]

12. I disagree. Your idea is a bad idea.

Your idea embraces powerlessnes and inaction.

My idea embraces empowerment, bold action, and justice.

Mmmmm. Which sounds tastier?

[Ellis Wyatt]

15. different action is not inaction

Because I don't like your action, I'm supporting inaction?

How many laws can you list that you'd like overturned from the past 12 years? How many laws would you like enacted that weren't?

Do you really put impeachment as a priority above every single one of them? I don't. There are countless things the Democratic Congress can and should do ahead of trying to throw Bush in jail

[Dora]

16. You're arging that we take no action to enforce justice.

No action = inaction.

I'm not arguing that we investigate and impeach at the expense of positive legislation. The two are not exclusive.

I am in fact arguing that we investigate and impeach while at the same time we legislate positive change. As a result of yesterday's elections, it's clear that we have the majority, and that there are enough Democrats to handle sharing the tasks at hand.

We're going to be pretty dang busy for the next two years.

[Ellis Wyatt]

18. I'm not against hearings

I'm against making them the priority, or even A priority.

After 12 years of being in the minority, if investigations/hearings/impeachment is one of the first things Democrats tackle, it will backfire and cause a significant loss of seats in '08.

They should be above the fray and enact what they feel is meaningful legislation. The hearings can happen - no one wants to let crimes go unchecked, but as a PR move, making that a priority is a bad one.

[Dora]

20. Being afraid is not going to solve anything.

We do not agree.

[Odin2005]

24. This is a very good point.

I do think there needs to be investigations, but the first thing we have to do is to start putting a legislative agenda into action amd start attacking any Bush vetos as obstructionist so MSM can't tarnish us with the "whiny liberals" soundbite.

[The Count]

3. But REALLY< REALLY try to improve elections - or else....

[WI_DEM]

4. Not a bad idea. It's the reverse of Truman campaigning in '48

against the "do nothing congress." The problem is that Bush nor Cheney will be on ballot in 2008. If the GOP does nominate a Senator then perhaps we could tie it around him as well, but if its a governor it would be harder.

[rpgamerd00d]

5. Tie the obstruction to the party. Just like we did this year.

We tied "Bush" to the Republican party. Its how Lincoln Chafee got the boot.

[greeneyedboy]

6. exactly, and i'd bet some of the more moderate GOP congresspeople will vote for these

because... VOTERS WANT POSITIVE CHANGE and they know their BS spin isn't working anymore.

[blm]

7. Yes - but also expose the corruption - the mandate was AGAINST corruption.

And corruption connects every Bush policy, from energy to Iraq.

[Mythsaje]

11. Yes, blm...

Obviously you get it.

Why is this not obvious to everyone?

[Xenotime]

17. There's a lot of momentum to get anyone we want in the WH now.

[Odin2005]

23. I've been suggesting this since yesterday!

You're late. :evilgrin: