How effective would Bill Clinton have been if Democrats had controlled...

[kentuck]

both House and Senate for his two complete terms? As we know, Newt Gingrich and the Repubs took over the House and Senate in '94 and foiled President Clinton at every turn. How important was it to have the House and Senate? With that in mind, we might want to think about 2006 before we pronounce who we are for or against for President in 2008? He will be as worthless as a bucket of spit it we don't take back at least the House...

[Mythsaje]

1. Everything hinges on 2006

We can't afford to waste too much energy looking to '08 until we recapture at least half of congress.

[kenny blankenship]

2. How effective was he before 94?

Hill Democrats sandbagged him, Senate Rapepublicans filibustered him.
It seemed like there was no point to his Presidency by 94.
But he was able to push NAFTA and GATT. Wooohooo.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. And don't forget good ol' boy Sam Nunn and Don't Ask/Don't tell

such a fabulous compromise!

Mostly I remember the first two years of Clinton's terms as being savaged by the press, right from the get-go over gays in the military and Hillarycare. His approval ratings were nearly as sucky as Chimp's are at the moment. Set the stage for the Goopers and their counter-revolution.

Here's hoping '06 brings a similar shakeup.

[AX10]

4. That's why we need the win big in 06'.

Forget the idea of a Democrat in the White House is you have a GOP Congress.
Even with a Democratic Congress, they foiled their own (Clinton) during the 103rd congress.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I believe, had this been the case, Al Gore

would be in the White House today. There would have been no eight year witch hunt against Clinton, making the 2000 election about competence instead of integrity, and the MSM would not have been able to slander Al so easily and install their would be puppet. Al would have dominated the electoral map with a margin too large for the neocons to steal.

[kentuck]

6. Excellent point, Uncle Joe!

There would have been few investigations and no impeachment.

[AX10]

7. True. Gore would have had a 12% point mov.

[melissinha]

10. Not to mention no War in Iraq, no anti-consumer bankrupcy laws

Lower gas prices.... Katrina reconstruction would be well underway, people would have real homes.....

[zbdent]

8. Just take a look at the speeches by repukes when Clinton submitted

his budget . . . the Repukes were screaming about how Clinton's plan would bankrupt this country and kill all the jobs (of American Citizens) . . . passed without a single Repuke vote Aye . . .

Had the Repukes not capitalized on a few bounced checks (from all parties, not just Dems) and the willingness of the Dems to hinder their own party president, the Republican party might just have been ready to go to "historical footnote" status by now.

Despite their "takeover" win in the 1994 elections, the repukes were on a downhill slide, essentially losing total control of the Senate and almost losing control of the House by the 2002 elections. In 2002, the Repukes rode the fear of 9/11 to rise back to relevance . . .

[Ignacio Upton]

9. Not much more

The only reason why Democrats didn't lose Congress until 1994 was because there were still enough conservatives within the party (think Richard Shelby and Sam Nunn, who both assailed Clinton whenever he tried to govern.) Maybe Hillarycare or form form would have passed eventually, but I doubt it. The GOP still had their VRWC, even if they didn't control every branch of government, you would still have them pressuring Congressional Democrats into hurting Clinton for fear of losing re-election (ironically.) If we manage to get back the House this year, it will be a narrow majority, and we may have the same problem of having Congress get along with the next Democratic President.

[AX10]

11. I am not sure if we will have the same problem this time around in.....

House. What I am sure of is that the GOP minority in the Senate WILL FILIBUSTER the next Democratic President's legislation.