Maybe it doesn't matter -- all that much -- if we take the Senate.

[pnwmom]

Of course I would love to have majorities in both Houses -- but maybe it's not critical. I'm not trying to be a spoilsport. Bear with me.

Even if we had majorities in both Houses, we could only impeach Bush -- not convict him in the Senate, because that requires a 2/3 vote.
And even if we had majorities in both Houses, we couldn't pass any bill we pleased -- because Bush retains his veto power. We would need 2/3 majorities to override him.

So the fact is, unless we can get a lot of Republicans as riled up as we are, we're going to be stuck working with this President, and working with the Republicans, and doing a lot of COMPROMISING. Even if we have majorities in both Houses. And you know how much DU'ers hate the idea of compromise. (I can already hear the moaning and groaning that will come from these boards -- "there's no difference between the parties!" "sell-out!" etc., etc.)

When we win, we're going to be held accountable for what we do or don't accomplish -- especially if we control both houses. Even though having a crazy man in charge of the Presidency is going to limit our options severely.

It almost seems as if we might be better off if we only take the House -- let the Republicans take the blame for the lion's share of the mess that we'll have in the next two years . . . .except I sure would like to see people like Kennedy and Leahy back in the Chairmanships where they belong.

What do you all think?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. I think subpoena power. nt.

[burythehatchet]

7. As much as I want to see these thugs hung

every minute we spend prosecuting them is a minute that we need to fix our mess. I'm not saying leave them alone, I'm saying that until we can get our arms around the frickin mess in this world, I would be fine with just neutralizing them. Just so you don't misunderstand, burythehatchet does NOT mean make nice.:evilgrin: :mad:

[pnwmom]

I would guess that it would all depend

on where exactly you want to bury the hatchet.

Is that right?

[burythehatchet]

10. it really doesn't matter where you bury it

as long as you bury it deep.;)

[pnwmom]

12. And I hope

it's a very big hatchet.

[burythehatchet]

15. blue steel

I sense a deleted sub-thread

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

16. You shouldn't waste your best one.

Any old rusty hatchet will do, since you're just going to bury it.

:hi:

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Impeachment proceedings would occupy his time and Kkkarl

[Jackpine Radical]

8. ...and besides, imagine a scenario in which

there is an impeachment proceeding that uncovers all kinds of dirt on Bushco & the dirt is so bad that the public is totally disgusted with them. The scandal becomes huge; the Dems throw in an impeachment of Cheney as well; all kinds of stuff that we don 't even suspect now comes to light. The Dem House votes to impeach. A majority of the Senate votes to convict, but it fails of a 2/3 majority on a straight party vote. TGhere is a huge public outcry at the miscarriage of justice. How would you then like to be a Puggy Senator running for re-election in 2008?

[pnwmom]

11. 2008 could be interesting, if we can only get the machines fixed.

And that's a big if, unfortunately.

[orpupilofnature57]

31. Yeah, what You said!

[LiberalFighter]

24. How about lots of secret grand juries??

[eyesroll]

3. Supreme Court justices require a simple majority.

Bills, too -- not just the ones we want passed, but perhaps more importantly, the ones we don't.

And Speaker Pelosi (or Speaker (D-Whoever)) can actually get things we like voted on, and keep a lot of the crappy bills from seeing the light of day in the first place.

Remember that.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Especially since Hastert never let any bill /amendment

come from any Democrat

[pnwmom]

27. I agree it's essential we get the House.

It was just the Senate I was wondering about. But someone else pointed out that judge appointments are approved in the Senate, so now I'm stuck worrying about the Senate, too.

What a nightmare the last six years have been.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Hopefully with control of the House the Senate will have more balls

[Rowdyboy]

4. Must disagree....Senate Judiciary committee okays Supreme Court

nominees. I'd a helluva lot rather have Pat Leahy determining that vote than Arlen Specter. I know you do too!

[pnwmom]

6. Thank you, Rowdyboy. Very good point. I knew there was

something I was forgetting.

Darn.

[Rowdyboy]

9. The Supreme court and appellate courts are the single most important

issue facing us. If we can stop them from packing the courts with nutcases there may yet be a chance for the America we love to return.

[pnwmom]

14. I agree. The Courts are critical. Thanks for reminding me

of the Senate's special role in that.

I just wish I could feel more optimistic about actually getting control of it.

[Rowdyboy]

19. The chances get better every day!

Also, if we control the senate, we control the topics of debate. No more stupid flag burning/gay marriage votes; instead we'll vote on raising minimum wage and limiting corporate lobbying.

[pnwmom]

20. What? You mean REAL ISSUES?

I had almost forgotten about them.

[Nite Owl]

5. No way are we going to be able

to pass anything that will be signed into law but if the dems are the majority it will give them the chairs. This will determine what goes to the floor for a vote in the first place. If * does nothing but veto anything that is passed it should be obvious just who is blocking what the people want. The chairs would control who comes before the committees, under oath for investigations too.

[LiberalFighter]

26. We have to make sure that bush won't be able to amend

any passed bills with his own version.

[unblock]

13. the key is who sets the AGENDA

democrats in control of both houses can pass bills laying out what an actual democracy looks like.
democrats in control of both houses can force shrub to veto all sorts of reasonable bills.
democrats in control of both houses can investigate the crap out of the last 6 years.
democrats in control of both houses can determine what the election of 2008 is all about.

[Chipper Chat]

18. plus:

democrats in control of both houses can be a much-needed morale booster.

[OhioBlue]

17. I want both houses.

Bills get stuck in committee for no reason. This Republican controlled Congress has not been an effective branch of Government for way too long. They would rather vote on Resolutions to condemn animal-human relations or some other non-existent problem/issue than actually investigate the claims of the Executive Branch to launch a war.

[madmax]

21. I'm with you

I want them both and I'd love to see *bush impeached.

[ruggerson]

22. The Senate is the Supreme Court

It's pretty much the whole ball of was, as far as I'm concerned.

[pnwmom]

28. Yeah, Ruggerson,

someone else already pointed that out to me. I knew there was something I was missing. But thanks.

[truebrit71]

23. Both houses would be the icing on the cake, but we MUST take the House...

...otherwise the rubber-stamping keeps on going...

[pnwmom]

29. Agreed. n/t