Looking forward to 2008

[majorminor]

I’ve thought about this. If in 2 years the dems can’t point to Iraq and say “look what we did” and have it be clear and decisively “better” could they have a problem in 2008? I think they got handed a tar baby.

[Supertramp78]

It depends on whether anything they want to do is actually DONE by Bush. I think the person driving the "we got to do something different" bus right now is the New Sec Def. He was part of the Iraqi study group that wanted to talk with Iran and all sorts of things that the current guys never did. If he comes in and starts doing things the Dems like, they can sell it as "See what electing us did? It got you a Sec Def who made changes."

[roylundelius]

2008 is a long way away we could all be dust by then. If Iran and Korea have there way.

[Deleted]

I haven't been under the impression that the Democratic Party was not in control of both House and Senate. I mean they didn't have the numbers but they were still very much in power.

If they produce solutions and demonstrate some actions toward solving even a few of the problems the nation currently faces I'm convinced they'll be in good position to regain the Whitehouse in 08. I'm also convinced that going too far left or being too negative could backfire.

Elect Hiliary in 08 and watch both houses swing back to the Republicans within four years. I could vote for a Democrat for President but I'm afraid the Democrats that I could support will be "swept under the rug" in favor of a more extreme candidate.

Just my current analysis.... and subject to change between now and 2008.

[TDR]

All the Dems have to do to keep the Congress and win the Whitehouse in 08 is look like they have their act together.

Of course, when have they ever done that?

[timfarney]

Yep, the executive branch does foreign policy, the Pentagon does war, under the direction of the executive branch. If they don't want to go along with anyone's recommendations, they don't have to, and the only thing the legislative branch can do is cut off funding. They won't. They shouldn't. Not just because it would be political suicide, but because it would simply be irresponsible to cut off support for American troops, regardless of how you feel about the mission.

I haven't been under the impression that the Democratic Party was not in control of both House and Senate. I mean they didn't have the numbers but they were still very much in power.

You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

Tim

[epaul]

Maybe,

But if the Dems offer an amendment to the Medicade drug program that allows the government to use its considerable clout to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies rather than paying the blue ribbon rate, AND Bush vetos it (and the Republicans fight it tooth and nail) how will that look to a nation that is considering its health care options as they will no doubt stressfully exist two years from now?

If congress offers up an energy bill that doesn’t fund the big oil companies but instead subsidizes some alternatives, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

If the Dems offer up a higher minimum wage bill, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

If the Dems offer up a bill that requires hospitals and insurance companies to disclose their pricing arrangements and allows consumers more information, and incentive, to compare prices, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

If the Dems offer up a bill that unifies and coordinates all Medicare, Veterans care, Military care, Congressional care, and all government health care for the poor packages, under one single management system, and then gives this single system the ability to negotiate the prices of drugs and services, and then offers the uninsured, underinsured, and uninsurable a chance to sign on to the program at cost, instead of going through a higher priced, and already subsidized, private outfits, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

If the Dems offer up an incentive package that encourages all American homes to upgrade their old drafty doors and windows with stylish, energy efficient doors and windows, hand crafted in Montana, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

There will be more at play than just Iraq. The Dems will be very careful to insure the Iraq remains Bush’s baby, as it ought to be.

It is unlikely Iraq will end well. Our best and only option seems to be a very expensive and costly installation of a pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq that will quickly become very anti-Israel and antithetical to nearly all of our perceived interests in the region.

It will be very, very hard to make that pig smell good.

In the years to come, nearly everyone will be wondering why in the hell we did it.


Paul

[paulschlimm]

Of course, when have they ever done that?

I believe 1994 was the last time the Dems controlled the House, Senate and Whitehouse. If I do my math correctly, that means Bill Clinton enjoyed 24 months under those conditions until the 104th Congress met in Jan 1995.

Interesting to research this for sure. Jimmy Carter went out in 1980 controlling both houses. Ronald Regan never controlled both houses. The Democrats controlled the Senate from 1955 to 1981.

Ok back to the debate. That concludes today's history lesson.

Paul

[dradtke]

It's not that hard to make a pig smell good, Paul. A few hot coals, a little barbeque sauce...

[TDR]

Good points, Mr Tandberg.

If congress offers up an energy bill that doesn’t fund the big oil companies but instead subsidizes some alternatives, and Bush vetoes it, how will that play?

Thing is, that bill is likely to include a bridge to nowhere and armor for the troops and tax loopholes for pork packers. So until we get a rule that says one thing on a bill.. you still have omnibus clusterfumck in legislation.