Winning the Presidency in 04 isn't Going to be Enough...

[PopSixSquish]

_________(fill in the blank)is the only Democratic candidate who can beat Bush.

Ok - swell. But what happens if we don't get at least one house of Congress back? What happens to the "advise and consent" for cabinet posts? for judges? Do you honestly think that Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are going to just rollover and play dead?

Think the Clinton investigations were harsh? Pppfffttt!!!!!

Well, the president can make all kinds of executive orders, you say. Well there is something called a budget which needs to be passed by both house of Congress. But Newtie got in all kinds of trouble when he shut down the government right? That was 7 years ago and I don't think any of the candidates have the political chops to pull off a "Clinton".

So my questions are:

1) What's the plan to win back Congress?
2) Which candidate will have the biggest coattails?
3) And rather than stand around in a circular firing squad, what are we at DU going to do to help?

I'm not disrespecting any other poster or any candidate. This worries me the most about '04.

[PopSixSquish]

1. So Nobody Has any Answers

questions, comments, jokes, flames, little bits of gossip?

[diplomats]

3. Maybe if Bush drags other candidates down

we can win at least one house. But I wouldn't count on that.

[SavageWombat]

2. Short of a political earthquake...

I don't think we have a chance of retaking Congress in the traditional sense. The House seats are gerrymandered in place, and the Senate just isn't falling in our favor.

I think we can squeak a balance in the Senate, which would give us voting control with the VP. But the House is a long-shot.

What we'll need to do, therefore, is build new coalitions with key Republicans on the important issues - rebalancing the budget, for example. We'll have to show that WE are the party of bipartisan negotiation, "reaching across the aisle" and "changing the tone". But we'll have to be ready for more Whitewater-ish antics from the House and the GOP, and be prepared to counter them.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. We have to win the House

It's important for the Democratic party to control the most Democratic institution in our country, the House of Representatives.

Gerrymanding isn't an excuse. If we can't take the House we are truly a minority party.

[Booberdawg]

4. One step at a time

Winning the Presidency in 2004 is the first priority. I'd rather get that big foot in the door first.

Although I agree we need to win back seats in the Congress.

[Q]

10. Certainly you're not saying we should win back the presidency...

...and THEN come up with a plan?

- The Neocons seem to have their politics lined up decades in advance. (See: PNAC) Dems seem to have a hard time planning for tomorrow.

- The party sure could use some viable leadership.

[Booberdawg]

17. No I'm not saying that at all

I agree there should be a plan now if there isn't one.

I don't have all the answers - I'm just saying we don't have to win the whole ball of wax all at once to consider a Presidential win in 2004 a success.

[redeye]

20. You didn't answer Pop's arguments (n/t)

[GainesT1958]

5. I hope there's a cogent plan of SOME sort...

To re-take the Senate! I'm beginning to wonder if the DNC is even BOTHERING with the House next year--I'd hope they would be, because who wants to see a new Dem. president have to put up with the likes of Tom Delay? Goshalmighty, not me--and not that new president, either! :eyes:

But we MUST get the Senate back--we never should've lost it in the first place--and we'd want an easier time with our Supreme Court nominees, I would think.

B-)

[ewagner]

7. Agree

The Senate is the only realistic target of opportunity. Need to make sure DNC is working on that little item. Hold their flat feet to the fire!

[PopSixSquish]

12. You're Right...We Need the Senate More Right Now

Although I do worry about some of those house committees.

I hope like hell someone at the DNC is paying attention. Last I heard, we were having a tough time finding someone here in Georgia to run for Zell's seat. And what about NC?

[Cocoa]

23. the house IS a priority for them

I saw a DNC event with most of the candidates on C-Span, and each of them in turn said that they had to win the House in 2004.

Also, some reporters asked Pelosi, who endorsed Gephardt, if she was going to be campaigning for him and she said not very much, that she was going to be focussing on winning the House.

[Brian Sweat]

6. We don't need the house.

We need the White House and the Senate. With that, we can undo the judicial revolution that was begun 20 years ago. Replace a couple of conservative Supreme Court Justices with moderate to liberal judges. Replace any moderate to liberal justices who retire with moderate to liberal judges and the Republicans will be dead in the water for 40 years.

[onehandle]

8. Right...

It's all about the justice system. They can have the House...for now.

[fizzana]

9. Our best hope is that *'s presidency is so damaged by election

time that Republicans either switch or stay away in droves. Despite the gerrymandering and the power of incumbency the numbers are still close enough that we could win the House.

The Senate is a lot tougher because of the races and the red state majority.

[Q]

13. If that's our 'best hope' then we're in trouble...

- I believe our best hope is find leadership that actually represents US instead of the interests of corporate donors.

[AP]

11. I thought you were going to say, it's not enought to win presidency...

...we have to have a president who's willing to take on what's wrong with America right now.

What's wrong with America is not just the fact that Bush is president. Bush is a sympton of a deeper cancer in American society, and that's that we have a system which is designed to concentrate more and more power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and they're willing to go to great extremes (no matter how much at odds they are with deeply held principles of American democracy) in order to keep and build their wealth and power.

I think America's going to be in serious trouble if we don't get a president like FDR or Kennedy or a less troubled Clinton who will be able to reverse this tide, as FDR did, and JFK almost did.

[PopSixSquish]

15. Your Post Reminds Me of Clinton's Inagural Address

I can't remember if it was the 1st or 2nd - shame on me.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed with what is right with America"

I miss Bill Clinton and want somebody to inspire me that way again.

[Upfront]

26. Call Me Crazy

but I beleive if things continue on like they are now, you will see a democratic land slide. We could very well take back congress and the whitehouse. Something is starting to happen in this country and it is not happy days for the neo cons. I know it sounds crazy but I am seeing it and hearing it every where I go. I live in a strong rethug area and it looks like they are starting to wake up. The speach last night cuts into there pocket book, and greed is what most of them are all about. Crazy, I know, but fingers crossed hear. ;-)

[grasswire]

19. we need to punish them...

...with such a presidential landslide that the coattails bring us the Senate at least, although I would sure appreciate having John Conyers as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with the power to open investigations and issue subpoena.

The only person who can effect such a landslide is Wes Clark.

And yes, I worry a lot about the aftermath of the election of a Dem president. Some of us have been specifically fighting the vast right-wing conspiracy since the day Monica's name entered the national conversation. The thugs will redouble their efforts to destroy any Democrat elected.

[PopSixSquish]

21. John Conyers as Chairman of the HJC

now makes me smile. :-)

I like General Clark from what I have seen of him so far. I think he'd be great as Prez, VP or any cabinet position.

[tom_paine]

16. You make a very good point

The Busheviks are here to saty.

Their multi-billion dollar corrupt Party Sub-Media is here to stay.

Their corrupt network of "elves" and Federalist judges and other low-morality types who would sell out the nation in a moment for some gain for their Masters (Like Larry Silberman, Terry Wooten, et al) the Bushevis...they aren't going anywhere either.

Did you think all the growing millions of Propagandized Automatons, whom Uncle Karl and the rest of Goebbels v2.0 have worked so hard and spent so much money in order to immunize them to critical thinking and even factual, demonstrable truth (is their even really such a think in Imperial Amerika?)...are THEY going anywhere?

No, they will just continue to wait to be told what to think, what to oppose, and what they used to oppose that they must now support.

They will do it without question, without thought.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

So I very much understand your point, PopSix Squish, it just may be that the Old American Republci is gone gone gone.

But I would like to try to elect a DEmocratic Emperor in the 2004 Stalinist Oretedetrmined Imperial Reappointment of Bushler, juts to see...

[PopSixSquish]

18. Oh, I'm Going to Try with Everything I Have

regardless of who the nominee is.

[Kenneth ken]

22. I've thought about this

Eloriel wrote something interesting the other week. Based partly on that, and partly on my own feeling that a Democratic President facing a Republican Congress would be mostly futile, I came up with this.
Since Eloriel is a Dean supporter, it is tilted toward Dean, but could apply to ANY Dem candidate:

Here’s an idea to consider:

Given the large number of Meet-up groups, and their varying sizes; plus the underlying idea of Taking Back Our Country; would it not make sense for Dean supporters to not only focus on the Presidential election, but also to look within the various Meet-up groups to seek out potential candidates for both the US House of Representatives, and for the US Senate?

To this point, the DLC has been indifferent to hostile to the Dean campaign. I do not think they or their corporate-owned ciphers currently serving as Representatives or Senators will be strong supporters of the positions of a Dean presidency. It might be a worthwhile idea to consider replacing them as well. Certainly for Dean supporters who live in Republican-held districts, it would be well to replace those Representatives.

I don’t think Dean supporters should lose sight of the Presidency, but I also think that in the 2004 election, there should be no such thing as a “safe seat” in the US House of Representatives.
Any Senate seat up for election should also be non-safe.

It is not simply the Bush misadministration the country needs to be taken back from; it is the corporate oligarchy currently in control that needs to be defeated. To anyone paying attention, it must be painfully obvious that the corporate oligarchy owns members of both parties in both houses of Congress.

While I do not think all the US House nor the entire 1/3 of the Senate up for election can be won by the people in this election; it is certainly possible to win some of those positions, and in so doing, shake up the complacency and business-as-usual aspect pervading those two bodies at present.

I don’t have details, the idea just occurred to me last night; but I think a Dean Presidency would be able to accomplish its goals much more easily if it had an attendant Congress composed as much as possible with Dean position supporters, rather than opponents intent on blocking those goals.

[PopSixSquish]

24. No Such Thing as a Safe Seat...Agreed!

Tell you a quick story...during the 1996 election I worked for the Democratic candidate for the state assembly in my district in California. Now his opponent was one of those Repub candidates who come straight out of central casting - all smiles and a nice haircut without much else. Well we made it enough of a fight that the state GOP had to pour resources into this district from other places and the Dems retook the state assembly majority. The new speaker of the CA assembly credited our candidate (even though he lost) as being one of those who helped put the party over the top. By at least making the race competitive, he woke up a lot of otherwise placid voters and in 1998 a Democrat won this assembly seat and a Democrat won the US House seat as well.

I don't like it when I hear the DNC or whomever say "well we're not going to contest this seat, that seat, etc." You never know what could happen!

[IrateCitizen]

25. What you're describing is the need for a paradigm shift

And it's something that won't happen overnight. Not even close.

Basically, the majority of the population has had the attitude of Social Darwinism beaten into them so much over the past 30 years, that they have come to accept it as the way things should be. It's the "I've got mine, go fuck yourself" school of values, and it leads to a complete lack of empathy for others and breakdown of community and interconnectedness.

While there may be some 30% of the population who embrace this ethos no matter what, there is already 30% who never really bought into it, along with the remaining 40% who are swayable.

The first thing is for us, as "Democrats and progressives of all stripes willing to work together to achieve our shared goals", to lay out a vision of what our country should be -- and then to hammer that vision home over and over and over and over again. We should be passionate about who we are, not apologetic. And we should avoid, at every opportunity, embracing ANY of the rhetoric used by the right wing. For example, the term "tax relief" is one should never exit the mouth of ANY Democratic candidate or office-holder. In the current climate, a better term might be "revenue giveaways" -- because it implies the giving of something that is not deserved, rather than the lifting of a burden.

But this is something that will take time. It will take time to remove the ethos that currently permeates what is left of our society -- the one that tells us that the bottom line is the only line. But over time, it can be done.

THAT is the only way we will truly be able to take this country back. Anything else will be the equivalent of putting band-aids on gangrene.