Here are the advantages of having *any* Democrat as President

[CT_Progressive]

1. Congress no longer needs veto-proof support for bills. Squeaking by with a simple majority becomes just fine. And if we ever lose control of congress, we gain the power of the Veto.
2. Nominations for all the important positions in government. Secretary, foreign ambassadors, etc.
3. Filling spots on the Supreme Court and U.S. Judiciary. We know how important that is.
4. Being in control of "Executive Privilege." Now, we get to wiretap them. (or, you know, stop breaking the law - either way, we win this one)
5. Control Policy. We all know that its not just the President that sets policy. There is a lot of party politics that influences this.

And lets not forget the last one:
6. We stop Republicans from destroying our country and others.

You may not like the nominee we end up with, but to forego these solid advantages is simply foolish. My mom would call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Old people have such funny sayings.

[rodeodance]

1. and to think there are DU'ers who will not vote if Hil is the nominee.

[jgraz]

22. Waitasec. I thought we were talking about Democrats

:evilgrin:

[Zandor]

2. K & R n/t

[TheUniverse]

3. Well, any democrat except Lyndon Larouche that is

[semillama]

Kicking in the name of sanity and clarity n/t

[TwilightZone]

4. But, that Republican Hillary will veto Democratic bills!

Not to mention that she'll put right-wingers on the Supreme Court and in other positions.

Because she's a Republican, right?

(Sorry for the lame attempt at humor....)

[Vinca]

5. You're forgetting the obvious.

Who the heck wants to wake up to President Rudy or President Mitt? It's frightening. I saw a "Mitt '08" bumper sticker today that shocked the senses.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Not just the Supreme Court

the rest of the federal judiciary has turned decidedly to the right over the last 40 years. Assuming Bush leaves in 2009, Republicans will have been making federal judiciary appointments in 28 of the previous 40 years. Republic nominees control every federal court but one.

[CT_Progressive]

9. Good point, I fixed the OP. -nt

[tears4terra]

7. My mama use to say...

"The lesser of two evils is STILL evil."

[CT_Progressive]

10. The lesser of two evils is also easier to defeat.

Use your brain.

[tears4terra]

11. Dat true. LOL!

[Individualist]

12. I love Freudian slips!

:rofl:

[CT_Progressive]

17. Your Freudian slip is showing.

:)

[cooolandrew]

8. The options in 08 are existance or extinction. Climate change will shape the dems presidency.

[fedupfisherman]

13. Staying the course in Iraq

I'm sure all our dead troops now care about what you post.

[CT_Progressive]

14. A Dem President means we can bring them home sooner.

Even if its a Dem President that supports the war. Because the Dems in Congress have way more power and leverage to cut funding if the President is of their party.

[fedupfisherman]

15. I hope you are right

but at least Hill and Obama have NOT committed to pulling the troops out ASAP if they win

[CT_Progressive]

16. Remember, they are politicians. They have to get elected first.

I don't defend "misleading statements", but I know enough that they are made in politics.

Even if Hillary or Obama said they are all for staying in Iraq, that would still be tough for them to maintain as Dems, with a Dem congress pushing to bring them home. They would have WAY more pressure to agree with congress than a Republican would.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Right?!? Remember the chant, "Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids did ya kill today?"

Johnson, a democrat brought us The Vietnam War. :(

[CT_Progressive]

27. Irrelevant. Read the OP. We'd end the war sooner even with LBJ and our current congress.

Try to make sense when posting.

[ShortnFiery]

30. That's NOT what I heard in the debates save for Gavel and Kucinich.

Democratic Presidents = Neo-Liberals can be as big of War-mongers as the republicans.

Again, our true foe is the absolute power of "The Unitary Executive."

[CT_Progressive]

31. I'm not arguing with you on that point. My point is simple.

If the choice is between a war-mongering Republican or a war-mongering Democrat, the Democrat is the superior choice due to points 1-5 in the OP.

You have to agree here, don't you?

[ShortnFiery]

33. All war-mongerers are POISON to our treasure, our youth. nt

[CT_Progressive]

35. OK, now you're just trolling and not making sense.

Done with you.

[ShortnFiery]

37. No I'm not trolling - there's no such thing as a GOOD warmonger. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

42. I'm with you.

In the south, the Democratic Party upheld the remnants of slavery for a century. They were Democrats, but not democrats. When the Democratic Party got its shit together and rejected racism in their platform, many in the south ran away to join the party that had originally ended slavery because now, the republicans were closer to their side.

What does it profit a party if it gains the election but loses its soul?

[CT_Progressive]

44. I already answered that question

"What does it profit a party if it gains the election but loses its soul?"

It gains all of the things I posted in the OP.

As opposed to not gaining those things and having run a candidate that lost.

Its, you know, pretty straightforward.

[FiveGoodMen]

46. It's pretty straightforward if you like having D's betray you instead of R's.

Otherwise, you've got to take the least objectionable party and clean it up. If you tell them you're with them no matter what they do, you'll have two republican parties before you can blink.

Feet to the Fire!

[CT_Progressive]

48. How do you do that by electing an R and ending the world?

You kinda need a world left to clean.

Electing a (R) means War with Iran, and none of the 5 things in the OP.
Electing a (D) means no War, and all of the 5 things in the OP.

Again, pretty straightforward.

[bain_sidhe]

18. 50 (or so) More reasons...

Controlled (mostly) by the Executive Branch:

Cabinet Secretaries & Appointments

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health & Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of The Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of the Treasury

Judicial Branch

Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims
Federal Judicial Center
Superior Court Judges
U.S. Circuit Court Judges
U.S. Claims Court Judges
U.S. Court of International Trade Judges
U.S. District Court Judges
U.S. Supreme Court Judges
Territorial Courts
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Tax Court
United States Bankruptcy Courts
United States Courts of Appeals
United States District Courts
United States Sentencing Commission

Regulatory Agencies

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Trade Commission
Food & Drug Administration
Occupational Health & Safety Administration
Securities & Exchange Commission
(just to name a few)

[CT_Progressive]

20. Exactly.

Those are the most important advantages of all, if you ask me.

[L. Coyote]

19. VSQ very silly question!

[Kelly Rupert]

21. K&R'd.

[tandot]

23. K & R. Thanks, CT_Progressive

:hi:

[CT_Progressive]

47. No problem.

[ShortnFiery]

24. DLC Democrat in WH = values and policy of a moderate Republican.

No, if we are going to go down the crapper through endless warmongering, let it be under a Pub NOT a DLC democrat. :(

[CT_Progressive]

25. Did you not read the OP? You'd give up 5 valuable things that have nothing to do with the President

Try reading it again.

To want a (R) is simply counter-productive to being a Democrat.

[ShortnFiery]

28. That's because WAR-MONGERING trumps all other issues.

There'll be no one to save - with the world in a grave. :nuke:

[CT_Progressive]

29. You are illogical. A republican would war monger. So would a bad Dem.

Therefore, the Dem is superior due to points 1-5 above.

Unless you think otherwise?

[ShortnFiery]

32. NO, real anti-war democrats holding the majority in Congress can ROLL-BACK

the absolute power of The Unitary Executive.

I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House - the absolute power that Bush-Co has gleaned for The Executive Branch is dangerous and UN-Constitutional.

It's our duty to elect congress people who will make it a priority to 1) end the war; and 2) scale back the power of The Executive Branch, i.e., re-establish the balance of power between our three branches.

[CT_Progressive]

34. If you can refute points 1-5 as advantages, please do.

A Dem is a superior choice for president (even a warmongering, unitary executive Dem) than a Republican, no matter what, due to points 1-5 in the OP.

If you disagree, prove otherwise.

[ShortnFiery]

36. No, your points 1-5 will not be realized because again, a DLC democrat = moderate republican.

[CT_Progressive]

38. Really? How?

Explain how a Dem who is a Conservative nullifies points 1-5.

I'm all ears. (Um, well, eyes.)

[ShortnFiery]

40. Because they will TRIANGULATE to appease the republicans - as such corporations

will continue to rule and we will realize endless wars.

The 1-5 points are moot when we slip into a depression because our leaders just can't stop buying all those pretty weapons systems and sending soldiers to kill and die in foreign lands.

Game Over. No Reset Button. :(

[CT_Progressive]

41. Are you only capable of rhetoric, or would you like to have a real conversation?

I'm asking you to explain yourself and why you think a moderate conservative Democrat would not grant us the advantages I posted in the OP.

Can you do that, or not?

I'm willing to listen, but you need to explain yourself.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Don't worry about it. It's impossible to talk seriously to DUers.

[Odin2005]

59. She's Miss Dogmatic, it's no use arguing with her

[Dr Fate]

39. If Hillary wasnt running, I doubt we would need as many of these threads.

Do everything you can to make sure the DLC doesnt get their pic, and we have nothing to worry about.

[VP505]

43. I am wondering

how long it will take for the RePukes to start impeachment for Hillary should she get elected. I would guess it will be within the first year, they will start building a case.

[CT_Progressive]

45. Not long.

[MilesColtrane]

49. I would add...

7. People who think an "expanded Unitary Executive" is just fine now, join those who want to roll back the powers grabbed by Bush and restore some Constitutional balance.

[CT_Progressive]

50. Another good one.

[BlooInBloo]

51. No, no, no! There's NO difference between having Clinton, and having a republican!

In fact, it's WORSE having Clinton!

Why can't people simply shut-up and toe the DU-line?

[Horse with no Name]

53. How is that working for you folks in Connecticut?

That *any* Democrat business?
It's sucking for the rest of us, actually, and if you all had elected THE ONLY DEMOCRAT on the ticket...

[CT_Progressive]

54. See, my op was right. The Dem would have been better than the republican we elected.

:)

[Zhade]

55. Your theory has already been proven false.

The Dems control the agenda in Congress, and keep sending war funding bills to the floor when they don't have to do so.

[CT_Progressive]

57. Not true at all. The current Congress needs a veto-proof vote.

This would change if a (D) was President.

[ribrepin]

56. Justice Stevens is 87 years old

That will make him 96 if another Repub gets two terms. I'm not in favor continuing Bush-Clinton dynasty, but Justice Stevens' age will force me to hold my nose and vote to continue the dynasty if Hillary is the nominee.

[sniffa]

58. hardLy

this utopian view is not going to happen with just "any dem."

in fact, the "any dem" this is most LikeLy referring to, wiLL be Lucky not to Lose a significant amount of congressionaL seats if "any dem" actuaLLy manages to win the presidency (big if).

but, i'm sure "any dem" wiLL embrace any right of center and beyond judges, biLLs, etc that the bipartisans serve up, as "any dem's" own aLL aLong.

tada!
doma.

tada!
dadt.

tada!
weLfare reform.

[Jed Dilligan]

60. Not if we gain the White House at the expense of Congress

Hillary will get the freeper vote out the way Bush 1 got out the black vote. A Clinton victory will come at the expense of key seats IMO.