What if we retain control of Congress AND win the presidency in '08?

[Mutley]

One of the biggest problems I had with the Republican controlled government was that there was very little relevant opposition to keep the Republicans in line. And we are all perfectly aware of how that is ending in a cauldron of lies and scandal and villainy.

Now the Democrats control Congress, and if things keep looking as good for us as they do now (knock wood), we'll likely win the presidency in '08 as well. Seems like a great thing, and in Many ways it is. However, if that should happen we will then have a Democratic controlled government, with little relevant opposition to keep the Democrats in line.

However much we like and respect any given candidate, that person is still human, and is still susceptible to the lure of corruption.

Is it any better for the Democrats to have complete control than it was for the Republicans? In the event that we do eventually take control of all three branches, how do we keep the corruption at bay? How do we keep from falling into the same trap as those who still insist to this day that Bush is the best thing to ever happen to America? How do we ensure that everyone, liberal and conservative alike, is represented fairly in the governing of this country?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

1. I think it's always a bad idea to have one party hold all power...

Our government has checks and balances and when one party holds all the cards, those checks and balances are gone, like we just saw for the last six years with the republicans. Politicians need to be kept in check, regardless of the party.
Duckie

[Mutley]

11. I agree.

But how do we keep them in check if we hold all the control?

[557188]

35. Bullshit

Europeans don't have all these silly checks and balances and as a whole have far more progressive, not to mention better, governments.

Split ticket voting is stupid and anyone that does it should be forced to go back to college and study poli sci. Our system was created for paranoid people, and as a result has given rise to a party that thrives on paranoia. Supporting such notions of paranoia only gives the Republican more momentum.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

40. Wow. Calm down there dude.

I think you're comparing governments that are completely different. I don't know if you can really compare the way our government works and parliament. They both have checks and balances, they just don't call it that in Europe.
Duckie

[baldguy]

2. One-party government isn't necessarily authoritarian.

The Dems don't have to prove they don't get their style of government from Stalin.

[Mutley]

13. I never said they have to prove such a thing.

[MoonRiver]

3. It's the only way we can really fix the mess Repukes have created.

Under normal circumstances, i.e. one that didn't include maniacal rightwing lunatics controlling the Republican Party, I would agree that there should be more balance in the government. But when the patients have taken over the insane asylum, drastic measures are necessary.

[Mutley]

14. But how do we ensure that we don't end up creating our own messes?

[MoonRiver]

29. The voters will have oversight, plus I doubt the Pukes will just shut up

and go away. They'll be screaming loud and clear if we cross any line, regardless of how insignificant.

[Perky]

4. I think Hillary will not run because of this

She is already a lightning rod and the american people have shown a disposition for divided government.

The GOP coalition is unraveling. a Hilary candidacy wold put it back together in a heartbeat.

We will retain congress and gain the presidency with a new face and fresh ideas.

[Mutley]

22. A new face and fresh ideas are a good thing.

But as I asked in my OP, how do we avoid becoming just as bad as the Republicans?

[zanne]

5. We have to wait and see how the Republicans act.

Right now, they're like sedated wild animals. When they come out of their stupor, we might find that the country has to be protected from them. Let's not talk peace and forgiveness quite yet.

[Mutley]

15. I said nothing of forgiveness

But I hope you're not suggesting we leave them with as little control over their own lives as we've had for the last six years. I, for one, do not want to sink to their level.

[zanne]

25. I'm hearing alot of talk like this.

It's almost as though we think the Republicans have had an epiphany of some sort. They haven't and the only reason we won this time around is because we used their tactics. You have to fight fire with fire or be prepared to lose to them again in 2008. Yes, we HAVE to sink to their level; that's the only way we've been able to beat them. Let's not become limp noodles now.

[gollygee]

6. Maybe we could fix some of the mess the Republicans have made

Generally I like the idea of one party having congress and the other having the presidency, but that was back when republicans were conservatives. They serve no real use at this point.

[Mutley]

16. There are still 20 some percent of them out there.

That is a significant portion of the population, and while they are just about our exact opposites idealistically, that does not mean we have the right to repress them the way we've felt repressed for the last six years. How can we ensure that doesn't happen?

[blondeatlast]

7. I'm not worried; it will look a lot like GD--seriously.

One thing unites us here--we support the Deomcratic Party. Yet we argue and whine and occasionally hit each other over the head with the best of them.

It won't be pretty, but it will be DAMN effective.

There will be enormous infighting, but I believe if this happens, there will be some damn good legislation hammered out. Think of the possiblities--single payer health care, education funding, infrastructure building. Not just a bill or two here and there--we'll pass through some tremendous reform.

If we do control 2 branches, we still are highly unlikely to have the judicial, anyway.

[Mutley]

17. I don't doubt that we'll accomplish many of the things we've been

waiting to accomplish. My concern is that they will become just as corrupted by absolute power as the Republicans.

[rucky]

20. Totally agree.... and Democrats don't steal

(as much), so this "checks and balances" arguement people are using is not strong enough to shut out all the great possibilities that control could bring to this country.

[Mutley]

23. Democrats are not super-human.

They are not any less susceptible to corruption than anyone else. If we allow ourselves to believe such a thing, we're setting ourselves up to be used the same way Bush has used the freeper types.

[rucky]

28. Does that mean you'll be voting Republican in 2008?

Checks and balances is built into our system - no matter which democratically elected party is in power. What happened over these past 6 years was an organized system of corruption. If just one branch had adhered to the Constitution, we wouldn't have seen this unprecedented corruption.

[Mutley]

41. Uh, no. That's one hell of a conclusion to come to from my post.

:wtf:

[BlackVelvet04]

8. I think it will be very difficult for Democrats to take the presidency

in 2008. The American people just got rid of one party rule and I'm not sure they will be anxious to return to it and I don't blame them. IF the Democrats use the next two years wisely and do enough to alleviate the suffering of the lower and middle classes they may win the hearts and minds of Americans who will forget why they didn't want one party rule.

As soon as I heard the Democrats had won the House and would probably win the Senate I knew it would make 2008 a more difficult race for the Democrats.

[Mutley]

19. I don't think I Want them to forget why they didn't want one party rule.

There is a very good reason for wanting to avoid such a thing. I don't want one party rule, either, even if it is my party.

[Clarkie1]

34. Need someone who can reach across the party divide. Clark, for example. nt

[BlackVelvet04]

37. A bit obsessed with Clark, are ya? n/t

[Clarkie1]

39. No, not really. I think there are good choices in 08'. nt

[alarimer]

38. We absolutely need a Dem President for the judicial nominees

We are likely to lose several and we need to be able to replace them with actual non- Neaderthals. No more Alitos or Roberts, more justices (throughout the court system) like Ginsberg or Breyer or Kennedy. People that will be able to turn back the clock on the rightward drift of the courts. For that we also need at least the Senate to get the nominees through.

[Ravenseye]

9. Checks and Balances

In theory the House and Senate and Supreme Court all should be a check on the power of the Executive, regardless of who is in control. In practice, it makes it easier to have moderates on the Court, and an opposition party controling one house of congress, I think probably the Senate.

The last time the Democrats had full control was I thnk 92. We're still reeling from the conservative backlash of those 2 years prior to the 'republican revolution'. Yet the following 6 years, 'scandals' aside were some of the best for our country. A democratic president presiding over a Republican Congress, generally working together to find solutions for the country.

Sure if there were full democratic unchallenged control we would probably have universal health care, a better environment, and other so called 'liberal' ideals, but as we saw before, if we took full control and tried to change everything, the country would spasm. Change needs to happen incrementally.

So to answer your questions...

I think that while it's better for Democrats to have complete control than Republicans, it's only marginal, and I think it's better to have some sort of check on the system to create honesty and reduce corruption.

If we do have all three branches in the future, the only way to keep corruption at bay is to have complete openness and disclosure of all non-national security issues. Allow the press unprecedented access. Open the books. Put all the cards on the table. Needless to say, I'll believe that'll happen when I see it.

I think we've already to a certain degree fallen into the same trap. Just as 30% of this country would vote for Bush if he drank the blood of the innocent on national television, so too would 30% vote for his democratic counterpart. By that I mean, there are plenty of die hard 'support your team' people on both sides not thinking rationally. I think the only way to truly not fall into that trap though is to not equate our politicians to our party. Force our own side to hold up the ideals they stand for. Be critical of our own guys as well as theirs.

I'm not sure that it's really possible for EVERYONE to be respresnted fairly with the current system devised by our constitution. We're more concerned about the vast majority. I don't know if we woudl even necessarily WANT to represent everyone fairly.

[porphyrian]

10. The type of republican that will be able to win in the forseeable future...

...will be unlike the ones we have today. However, after six years of uncompromising neocon rule, I think they've earned a ride in the back seat for a while. And they'll be forced to acknowledge that Democratic policy is good for all of us not just their uber-rich cronies.

[patricia92243]

12. I have wondered exactly the same thing to myself. Before I knew anything about politics, I ALWAYS

split my ticket. I did have enough sense to know it was not good for our country to have all our eggs in one basket - so to speak.


Now that I'm more aware of politics and how much harm the Republican party does to our country - I would find it very hard to vote for a Democratic President and Republican everything else.

Having said that - you are right.

It is a real problem trying to decide what to do.

[rucky]

18. National Healthcare?

that is reason enough to get excited about the possibility

[originalpckelly]

21. We should split the Democratic and Republican parties in two:

One for the executive branch and one for the legislative branch. Mandate that they should never share funds or planning.

That will reduce the possibility that Congress or the executive will fall into the old trap of single party corruption.

Option 2 is a power sharing system. One party would check the other. In Congress we could pass a minority party bill of rights, which would allow the full privileges of the house + senate to investigate corruption. In the executive branch we could repeal the 12th amendment, and remove the VP from the executive ticket. The VP would be from the other party, no matter which one is in control, and would probably have to be given a little power to check the corruption of the President.

Option 3 is the creation of an independent grand jury, which would select an equal number of registered Democrats and Republicans from the various states randomly, to serve on the jury and investigate corruption in our government. This would prevent the abuses of prosecutorial power found in the Independent Counsel. (Think Ken Starr.)

The bi-partisan grand jury would have the power to indict someone with 2/3 vote majority.

[sweetheart]

24. JETS or GIANTS

Since the party structure is false, where people in a normal
multiparty democracy would actually stand in parties that represent their views,
people are instead wedged in to parties that defend their interests.

Interests, however, are not views. It might be my interest that student loans
be affordable and reasonably available that kids today get good education, but
my view rather is that education should be affordable without debt. By views,
progressive politics has no common ground with the corporate wing of the
democratic party.

Unless the persons elected take a risk do something brave, like end the drugs
war, or radically transform the tax system, put equal rights in the constitution,
student loans, ok.

[Hamlette]

26. add swinging too far right or left to your list of lies or ways to go bad

While this was a big win for us remember, we lost 54 house seats in 1994. Clinton had only been in office 2 years and I what they say pissed them off was gays in the military and the health care "mess". (Help remember a better reason if you know one.) I think we were deamonized on those two issues but maybe we were too far ahead of our time.

Gerrymandering is either as big a problem as we've always suspected or the county is more right wing which is why it is CRITICAL to hold onto power at the state level through 2010 when we can redraw the lines...or we do it now ala DeLay.

[Murdock]

27. It would be a net positive

Democrats are not the organized lock-step party that the Republicans are. Also which hasn't been mentioned thus far is the judiciary, which is nearly completely controlled by the right. Take into consideration the fact that Republicans will wield their power MUCH more effectively as a minority party than the Democrats could ever fathom doing. They are absolutely fearless and will march lock step. We won't see the same number of Repubs crossing the isles to vote with the Dem's as we would see Dem's crossing the line to vote with Repubs in the case of one party rule.

I'd be content given the current state of affairs to give the Democrats at least 4 years of uninterrupted control over the fed government. (Enough time to nominate 2-3 Supreme Court Justices and clean up the elephant crap the Republicans have strewn all over the place)

Also for a historical perspective, we've been able to keep our own in line much better than they have their own. (Senator Truman investigating the FDR admin for War Profiteering for instance)

[Eric J in MN]

30. It's the job of activists like us to demand...

...elected Democrats serve the people, regardless of who has the majority and the White House.

I want Democrats to control the Senate, House, and White House to pass progressive legislation.

Bush can veto any progressive legislation he so chooses for the next two years.

[Perky]

31. Towards what end??

If we pass legistlation Bush will be sure to veto and we do not have the votes to override the veto... we are back to square one on legislation and with the voters who want us to get something accomplished.

I will take incremental victories over wasting the taxpayers money and time anyday.

[Eric J in MN]

36. I was answering a question about Democratic control

...of the White House and Congress after 2008.

[porphyrian]

32. Outlook good. - n/t

[readmoreoften]

33. Well, you're safe. We won't have the courts. But I'm fine with holding all 3.

Yeah, I'm fine with the Democratic party ruling all three branches. Why? Because the traditional Democratic and Republican parties are ALREADY REPRESENTED within our party. The Republicans have largely become the party of neo-conservative extremists who want to bomb the middle-east into a fascist strip mall and theocrats.