Is it better if we win the Presidency or the Congress?

[demothinker]

I've been thinking about it, and I've had an epiphany-maybe it's better if we win the congress and lose the presidency instead of vice versa (of course, winning both would be the best option).

Think about it this way-if Bu$h loses, he's just out of office. But if he wins and has to face a Democratic congress, maybe, just maybe, if they have enough stones for it, the Democrats might step up and do to Bu$h what the right did to Clinton, and maybe Dubya will actually have to face justice for what he's done. Even if it's just shame and humiliation, that and being out of office would be better than just him being out of office... Plus, with a Democratic congress, we could stymie any efforts by a President Halliburton (ugh!) after that.

Then again, I can't see the Dems winning that many seats in the house nor having the cajones to make him accountable...<sigh>. It's a nice thought, though, isn't it?

[sallyseven]

1. I want bush out

I want the Senate democrat and the House of Reps too. I want it all.Those bad people should all go home.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. We must win both

Here in the Third District of Arkansas, the regular Dems have rolled over and are already playing dead. They have said they won't support the candidate because there is something 'wrong' with all of them-Dean is ok on guns, bad on choice/civil unions; Clark isn't pro gun enough and he's pro choice, etc, etc. The bozos I talked to didn't even know the name of the Democrat that was running against the Rethug Congressman! A group of independent voters have decided we must support Jan Judy for Congress and help get her message out to the voters, because the local Dems sure aren't going to do anything about it.

Hope that no one is discouraged by the local Dems in their area-if you are, make up an independent group and get the word out about the Dem candidates for Congress!

[demothinker]

4. We all want that

But I'm interested in opinions on an "either/or" scenario.

[alfredo]

6. Congress. We will have control of the investigative committees, and

that will be the only way we can get justice for the crimes committed by the Bush Junta.

[FreeperSlayer]

3. Bush Out!

Period. Out.

[patricia92243]

5. No way! Bush is the example of how much damage the president can do. Let'

put a democrate that can do as much good for our nation.

[RC]

9. bu$h can only do that much damage because

they also control both houses. If the Dem controlled both houses, do you really think we would be up to our necks in Iraq right now?

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Dem senate voted for the war resolution by quite a hefty margin...

But a house with maybe 10 or so dem majority might've not voted for the resolution.

[jbfam4]

7. one thing at a time

first the white house. We need to restore "honer and dignity", a remark that Bush said he would do for the country. He never mentioned honesty.

[countmyvote4real]

8. If by some miracle, we win the congress

then I think we would get the WH back, too.

[Eric J in MN]

10. Because of gerrymandering, we don't stand a chance at the House, anyway nt

nt

[salinen]

11. When the day comes that we have

both houses and the white house, everyone here should remember what these last 3 years have done to this country and not become soft ever again.

[randr]

12. Presidency Good

House and President Better
House, Senate, and President Best

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Actually Presidency Good...

Senate and President Better
House, Senate, and President Best
If we have the senate then we don't have to face such a huge battle over judicial nominees.

[elfin]

13. If we cannot have both, the Presidency is best

Much power via executive orders (ex. gag order, many environmental issues) plus control over who judicial nominees are, plus bully pulpit etc.

[Strelnikov_]

14. The Presidency

I have been torn between getting the chimp out of the executive office vs. the benefit from letting the chimp be re-elected so that once the whole Ponzi scheme implodes in 05-07 he, and the ROG, will get the blame instead of the Dem challenger elected in 04. With a Dem in the executive office, the crisis in 05-07 will just set up the ROG to run, and win, with an even more extreme candidate than the chimp in 08, thus further consolidating power. Without taking at least the House or Senate, which looks nearly impossible, the Dem challenger would only be able to fight a holding action in 05-06 with little chance of passing any policy initiatives. If we are ever to have meaningful change in this country, I am afraid that a majority of the sheeple are going to have to personally suffer at the hands of the ROG, thus opening the possibility of true change in 08 similar to 1932.

That said, one event this week has firmly swayed me toward thinking we MUST remove the chimp in 04, and thus take our chances in 08 and beyond. That event was Musharraf ‘s admission that his nuclear weapons program has leaks. Between the (Islamist leaning) knowledge leaked from the Pakistani program, and the material North Korea has produced, it now appears that ‘The Event’ is only a matter of time. Considering the way the chimp has mismanaged post 9/11, there is no way I want the chimp administration in office when ‘The Event’ happens. Do you?

[demothinker]

15. I like your analysis, but

your last lines are flawed. There's no way of knowing when "The Event" will happen-that's only an argument for never having a Republican in office, which is what we agree on anyway. What if I were to say that it's more likely "The Event" would happen post 08, and your original analysis is better because it increases our chances of having a dem in office then? Without a more precise way of gauging when "The Event" is likely to happen, it's really irrelevant to this discussion.

On edit-changed subject to better represent post.

[demodewd]

16. President..by all means

A Democrat President will be able to veto Republican dominated legislature. A Democrat president sets foreign policy. A Democratic President submits budgets.

[Snappy]

17. Speculation

It isn't going to happen. The Dems will not have a majority House and
Senate. If the Neo Fascists retain power they will also control the Supreme Court. Think about that for a few minutes.

[burrowowl]

18. If the Repubs are still in control

of Congress, they will probably start harassing a Democratic President, just like they did Clinton.

[Old and In the Way]

19. If it came down to a single choice - Congress

(1) They can pretty much take Bush out of the equation.
(2) Start the investigations.

If we only gain the Presidency, I fear the poor bastard is going to have an uncooperative Republican majority that will do anything to derail/destroy his legacy.

[mlawson]

20. Remember the likely SCOTUS nominees in the next 4 years.

We can't have bush stacking the court for the next 40 years. I do not trust the Senate Dems to stop certain nominees, if they are from the Senate. Orren Hatch is a good example.

[Isere]

21. No contest here between the choices

The Presidency must be reclaimed for one reason alone: the Supreme Court.

[arewethereyet]

25. Supreme Court choices have to be approved, its Congress

but your point is not a bad one

[arewethereyet]

22. congress, of course

the prez can't do much on his own