Democrats or Republicans, does it make a difference??

[killerbush]

For the first time in years, Democrats could take one, or both houses of Congress back if the upcoming elections pan out the way the polls suggest they might. But the question is, if the Democrats do take back control, is anything really going to change? Before you take the butcher knives out and start stabbing me into a hundred little pieces, just hear me out.
Yes, the Democrats will certainly hit the ground running, but the Democrats have a track record of not cleaning up government as well. Will the Democrats reduce spending, without hurting groups important to them? How will Iraq change? Will we be out by a set date? Can we leave if the situation doesn't improve significantly? Will the Democrats get the pork out of Washington, and not have their hands in the trough as well? What about health care? 44 million people uninsured. Are the Democrats going to make health care universal, so that everyone is covered? Can we afford it? Will taxes be lowered, or will they have to be raised? Will the tax cuts disappear? How will we repair damage around the world that Bush has caused? Will the Democrats impeach Bush? Do they have the votes to do so? How much money to fix roads, schools, and other projects in desperate need of repair?
Those are just some of the questions Democrats need to answer if they take control. And remember, just because you have control of the Congress, you still have dumbass in the White House, who can still use the veto pen. If Democrats do take control, it will be no easy cake walk to get things passed.

[Flabbergasted]

1. Time for another New Deal President!

[ladjf]

2. Just compare the Democratic record during the forty years they

were in power to the years that the Republicans have been in power. You will see a huge difference.
Yes, there are Democratic politicians who are crooks and cowards. But, by in large, the Democratic Party cares about the masses of Americans, not just the rich and righteous. The Democrats were not ignoring the laws of the land.

You are restating Ralph Nader's argument, an argument that was instrumental in costing us the election in 2000.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

11. I'm not a sheep and I wasn't bleating. In fact , if you had read my

post carefully, you would have noted that I said, "You are restating Ralph Nader's argument, an argument that was instrumental in costing us the election in 2000. "

Nader's argument was that there was no difference between the two parties. I was discussing the argument, not Nader. The fact that many agreed with that argument was A factor in the outcome of the election.

You went nuts in your desire to defend Nader and knock the Democrats. In one short sentence you have totally dismissed the possibility that there might have been serious irregularities in the Florida voting process or that maybe the Supreme Court sort of favored the Republicans. And while I didn't say anything about 2004, that election was so corrupt that our former President, J. Carter said that it did not meet any International standards of integrity.

It appears that you have a canned rant that you open up whenever someone complains about the 2000 election outcome.

[skipos]

12. The difference is

the 2% knew they were voting for someone who wouldn't win, and thought that there would be little or no difference between Bush and Gore. I am not laying blame for 2000 on Nader but it is obvious most of his former supporters learned their lesson. His support droppped about 85% in 2004.

Also, 8% of republicans voted for Gore. Usually 5-10% of self described dems or reps vote for the other parties candidate.

[BillZBubb]

15. Hogwash! For someone with "tech" in his/her name, you aren't

very good with stats. Nader played the spoiler and helped install Bush in the White House every bit as much as the Supreme Court. If you think Nader had no influence on the outcome, you are not a sheep, you are a dodo.

Exit polls showed Gore won Florida. The exit polls apparently aren't too useful. So, your exit poll data is worthless on face value. It is also absurd because you don't have the data for Florida alone. It is also absurd because you don't know how many "self-described" Democrats voted Repug in prior years as a baseline. It is also absurd because you don't know how many of the supposed 11% were influenced by Nader's lie that "it doesn't matter, both parties are the same". That's just for starters.

I don't know about sheep, but your post was pretty sheepish--or maybe more ostrich like.

[ladjf]

17. Thanks amBushed. Very good rebuttal.

[uppityperson]

3. It won't be a cakewalk for whoever gets the mess.

And in answer to your subject line, yes. It does make a difference.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. If one compares Republican scandles with Democratic scandles

in the last forty years the answer is clear.

Th4e rEpubs are by far bigger crooks.

Compare the S&L rip-off against Stamp gate for instance, or Iraq corruption with Traficante.

There is no comparison.

Also, having the power to hold hearings, compel testimony and having access to documents is huge.

It does make a difference, a big difference.

[PBass]

10. I think these are fair questions...

I'm not convinced that Democratic control in Congress will be everything we at DU would like to see... for example I'm not convinced there would ever be an impeachment even with Dems in control. I think there are plenty of moderate Dems who think impeachment would be bad for the country and who would pull their punches.

I kinda WISH that the Dems would do what the GOP has been doing (run Congress with an iron fist, rarely if ever compromise, shove their policies down the opposition's throat, refuse to let the minority call witnesses or even speak sometimes, hold votes open until they get exactly the tally they want, etc). I am not convinced that the majority of Dems have the killer instinct to conduct themselves that way (and I'm not even convinced they should... divisiveness in the House is at toxic levels and i don't know if Dems should escalate it, or continue it via tit-for-tat, if they have the chance.) I don't know.

On the positive side, Democratic control of Congress would hopefully put an end to some of the TERRIBLE legislation we've had shoved down our throats.

We need to win in November because even if Dems win the White House in 2008, it will be hard to make progress without a good number of Dems in Congress (and I'm not sure we can turn the tide in Congress in just one election... we may need to do it in steps).

Just blabbing, again.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senate to sustain an impeachment, so

impeachment is a great grassroots issue but not a great legislative goal perhaps. We need to be aware that elected legislators (Congress) and the grassroots have different strenghts and weaknesses and different rolls to play to bring about change.

Here's my idea on using impeachment (by the grassroots) as a means to regain control of one or both houses next fall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x26835

[Minnesota Libra]

If you ask me there is a HUGE difference between.......

.....the two parties. Remember, no party is or ever will be perfect. Democrats will back Congress and I'll bt Bush will have plenty to worry about.

[MissWaverly]

14. I agree

I think the Dems will rebuild the infrastructure, ride herd on the FBI, NSA and the
military contractors. Yes, we will still have pork and big lobbyists, but we have come
close to an empire, where the prez reigns supreme and all the other parts of government
are forced to grovel at his feat, not a pretty picture and no way to run a democracy.
The Dems will shut down the secret prisons, rebuild our contacts with the UN, get
serious about nuclear proliferation again and take away these foolish tax cuts for
the wealthy. They will work to repair social security and investigate the hell out
of everything. I want some of this stolen money recovered & I know they will work
on election reform.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[killerbush]

9. That's a good one flabbergasted

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ladjf]

13. So, if you are correct and there is no difference, what is your

recommendation for the voters in 2006 and 2008? And what do you suggest to improve the political situation? Or, are you satisfied with the status quo?

[killerbush]

19. ladjf

I just put the question out there. I'm sure their is plenty of difference between the parties, and no, I'm not satisfied with the status quo. Give me something the Democrats would do differently than the Republicans would. I ask the question, you respond. that's the way the game works.

:shrug: :shrug:

[ladjf]

22. The first thing the Dems could do would be to stop breaking the

law, stop lying to the American people, stop giving billions to the wealthiest, stop trying to steal other countries assets, stop trying to overthrow other governments, stop putting right wing ideologues on the Supreme Court, stop raping the environment, stop disenfranchising the poor, sick and elderly, stop giving Federal bribe money to all sorts of so-called faith based organization, stop trying to run public schools out of business, stop rigging the elections, and stop the rampant illegal lobbying.

Are these enough different things the Dems could do?

[Flabbergasted]

20. Its a joke. haha. I ponder this alot. I think each individually needs

to vote their heart..

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Well, dems won't so much be able to do stuff as be able to stop stuff

So long as they have that asshole Fuckstick in the whtie house, they would be able to do little; but they will be able to block his evil fascist premillenial pretribulation dispensationalist armageddon-hoping-for jeso-fundie pogroms.

[dajoki]

8. committee chairmansips&majorities...

will make a difference. at least we may be able to stop the pillaging.

[mmonk]

16. I honestly don't know. Many of our elected dems

call some of us outdated, outmoded liberal radicals. That makes me nervous that they might not address all our problems in a prudent way. I guess the good thing is they would be somewhat better than the current administration because I don't see how they could be worse.

[bvar22]

18. There will be some differences, but not as much as people think.

Those who believe that there will be an immediate winfall of investigations are in for a dsiappointment.


Based on my observations of the Democratic Leadership, and the Inside the Beltway meddling (fixing) of the Primary elections,
I will GO ON RECORD with the following predictions!

*Bush will not be impeached (at least for anything so far). In fact, there will be no serious call for impeachment or serious investigations.

*There will be no reopening of the 9-11 investigations.

*There will be NO investigations into the illegal Iraq Invasion.

*There will be no substanitive reform of campaign and lobbying (though Democratic lobbyists will re-take K Street)

*There will be a "dog and pony show" about reforming the Free Trade Treaties, but nothing REAL will be done.

*The Selling Off of America's assets will continue.

*There will be a proposal called "Affordable HealthCare" that will actually change nothing. The HealthCare Indusrty will remain firmly in the For Profit Corporate hands.

*The Iraq Occupation will drag on because "we can't leave now".

*The bush* tax cut for the RICH may get pared down slightly. Mostly a token gesture.

The Newly Empowered Democrats will reach across the isle in a magninous gesture of bi-partisan healing, and say stuff like "Its not time to dwell on the past and wallow in recriminations. The American People expect us to Move ON and get back to work running the country!"
IOW: The Democratic Power Elite will join with the Republican Power Elite to protect the system!.

Mark my words, and bookmark this thread!

Bob
St Paul

[incapsulated]

21. Look at it this way...

When you are drowning, you really don't care were you will be when you are saved, you just want to get to dry land. If we take back the majority in 2006, they can stop the worst shit that BushCo. is pushing through all the time. At the very least they can stop the bleeding before they trash the constitution completely. They will be busy just getting the country back to some sense of pre-fascist normalcy for a while. Righting this ship will be a very big job and I don't envy them the work ahead. But the only other choice is the road we are on straight to hell.

In addition, it will help our chances in 2008 greatly if we have some legislation or corrections we made to point to. Right now, all we have to run on is "we aren't them".

[WhiteTara]

23. oh, please n/t

[deutsey]

25. Well, if recent history is any indication, I don't feel encouraged

The Dems had control of the House, Senate, and White House in '92, for a brief, shining moment.

Still, it will be much better for everyone if they get the House and/or Senate this year.