Should we sacrifice the Senate?

[ck4829]

I'm not going to say yes or no, but there might actually be some good things about losing majority in the Senate.

Pro:
We'd still have a nice sized majority in the House
We can still launch investigations from the House
The Senate becomes the responsibility of the Republican Party once again
Since the Republicans don't want us out of Iraq, they can be responsible for it again
Even though we can't convict, we can impeach members of the Bush Administration in the House
With a 50/50 vote, we'd get the power sharing deal we got in 2000
We'd get rid of Joe Lieberman (If he made the switch to the Republican Party)

Con:
Mitch McConnell would become Senate Majority Leader
We wouldn't be able to convict if we ever got to impeach people
We would probably lose on judicial nominees, including those going to the Supreme Court
Republicans get control of all Senate committees
Republicans control legislation in Senate

Yes or no, what do you think?

[NYCGirl]

1. Absolutely NO. NT

[SteppingRazor]

2. You missed a few cons...

Republicans get control of all Senate committees
Republicans control legislation in Senate

It's those cons that make me say we should definitely not give up control of the Senate.

[ck4829]

4. Thank you, I've added them

Don't want to leave anything out.

You make a good point too, I'm arguing from a political point, we might win there, but on the legislative front then we would lose a lot.

[SteppingRazor]

7. There's definitely two sides to it, for sure...

I just think what we lose is probably not worth what we gain.

[ComerPerro]

3. problem is, even though we don't even have the Senate now

if the Repigs get an even slight margin on us, they will dominate everything. Becasue even though they shut us down when they are the minoirty, Dems won't do the same to a Repig majority.

But I think we should do everythign we can with the House while we have it.

Part of your point seems to be "who cares about the balance in the Senate, we have the House". If that's the case, you make a good point. For once, progressive measures could come from the House, and even that is a start.

[camero]

5. Please excuse my ignorance.

But I wonder if Connecticut has a recall provision in thier state constitution? I don't think Ol Lieberman is doing what the people in Connecricut intended.

[NYCGirl]

6. No, they don't. That question has been asked here before. NT

[genie_weenie]

8. Lieberman is doing *exactly* what the

Republicians of CT wanted, addtionally he ran on the facts he has 18 years in and "saved" the New London Naval Base.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Ah...Supreme Court?

Wow.

[mmonk]

10. I say force the senate to deal with revelations they can't hide from

by having someone in the house request an inquiry for impeachment.

[meldroc]

11. No, we can't afford to have another right wing authoritarian on the Supreme Court.

There's already too many of them on the court, especially with Alito on the court now. We have to make sure we can bury any nominations to the Supreme Court that can make things even worse. If necessary, we should keep that Supreme Court seat empty until Bush is replaced in 2009 just to keep the fundies from controlling the SCOTUS.

[champt10]

12. Lieberman

Lets have a public sacrifice of him.

[tavalon]

14. That's certainly one way to get a recall

but I don't think we should advocate that one. I suppose we could hope that God decides on a recall vote there.

[tavalon]

13. Huh?

No, of course not.