If Democrats lose Congress, especially the House..

[Dawson Leery]

then how does Obama get legislation passed?
We all know that any legislation that may be even mildly progressive will be dead on arrival with a GOP congress.

[Mz Pip]

1. He won't eom

[elocs]

11. He won't, but they won't have the votes to over ride his veto.

Unless he is in his bipartisanship/kumbya mood.

[AnArmyVeteran]

2. They had better use the lame duck congress to shove through everything.

If they lose the house and don't shove through legislation between November and January it will be obvious they couldn't care less about their base or the country.

I'm hoping they wake up and start to use all of the ammo given to them by the right wing. You'd think that with all of the insanity coming from the right wing the democrats should be in a position to gain seats.

[Dawson Leery]

5. We agree.

Do the Democrats have a strategy to utilize the insanity of the GOP?

[Xipe Totec]

3. how does Obama get legislation passed?

with hapless hacks like my congresscritter, Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who voted against Health Care Reform?

Would it make things any harder for Obama, if he had an (R-MA) ass-tick to deal with?

I'm just asking, because I'm not seeing any D-love from my current rep.

[OHdem10]

4. Very Simple: He will pass Republican Legislation.

He can try to veto , but the Republicans have been
known to get enough Conservative Democrats to vote
with them to override the veto.

The Republicans can then just as they now do with
Clinton---Attribute the Legislation to Clinton.

[xchrom]

6. Kinda like dems did with Romney -care. Nt

[nightrain]

7. If Dems lose Congress, especially the House.. they will have earned it.

We might consider not supporting New Dems and Blue Dogs, and instead get some more good progressives in there in 2012 to do the Peoples' Work, not the corporations.

[davidwparker]

9. +1

Right. There needs to be a purging of them.

[RKP5637]

14. +1, n/t

[davidwparker]

8. It won't. If you can't get things done with a super majority

then it certainly won't if either house is lost.

But, unlike Nancy, the new House will manage to have hearings and get up on the impeachment table.

It's not good enough, to have (D)'s in charge. To get a progressive agenda, most (D)'s need to be thrown out first. Then, come back for some change you can believe in.

[sendero]

10. Obama already had..

... his golden moment.

He wasted it, too bad. It's all downhill from here.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I think they expect it to work like this.

The Democrats get so punished that they're like "we're sorry, we'll be progressive next time!"

You see, the whole reason that the Democrats lost in 1994 was because they weren't progressive enough, even though a lot of the districts they lost were in the south and conservative. But even if that "progressive revolt" didn't work, this next one will.

Mostly though, I think what you're seeing is the results of the fact that the only activism you can really do on the Internet, on a political message board where most people have made up their minds, is try to scare people with threats and create "chatter" intended to scare the Democrats. I mean, what else can you do? Doing things like trying to make the voters themselves more and more progressive, so that more progressive candidates can win primaries, is something you generally have to leave your house and do work for. The path of least resistance is just to try to scare people behind an anonymous username.

The splinterists (who are not DUers, I am not calling out anyone who is using DU in accordance with the rules because DU rules forbid campaigning against Democrats) do it because they can do it without doing actual work, and it's little cost to them.

[BootinUp]

13. I don't think there are enough posts that make sense

around here (like yours) to keep my interest much longer. Seriously. I think I have had enough.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Ha! Here's what I'd recommend to all the people reading this who feel the same way.

Check out the first two links in my signature.

The first is set up by a person I know in Chicago which basically serves as a go-to point if you want to get into doing some real-life activism for Democrats in Illinois; even if you're not in this state, I encourage you to take a look as an example of something I'd like to see people set up in other states.

The second is the Democratic Meetups nationwide (Illinois Dem Net started up as a Democratic Meetup, I think, before Meetup.com hiked fees or something) which will connect you with Democrats out there in your area.

You might want to check out Drinking Liberally as well.

You'll find that there's less theater and posturing in real life, where people have a reputation to uphold and are connected with people who've made an effort to get up and do something. I want to like the liberal Internet world, and have found it useful for some things (emphasizing news stories that are de-emphasized on TV news is one thing I really like that goes on here), but some of the more permanent residents are really crufting up the place..

[Dawson Leery]

18. Thank you.

[LoZoccolo]

19. You're welcome! I'd also like to add two pleasing characteristics of real-life activists.

1. They are not so eager to tear down what they have accomplished. Once you've done the work on the ground and seen results, you appreciate it for the effort it took to get there. In 2004 we had carpools and even some rented buses transporting people from solid-blue Illinois to swing states to get out the vote, and I ended up in Wisconsin on election day doing things like seeing if elderly people needed rides to the polls and getting them in touch with some local party people who were scheduling them. Someone was keeping track of the numbers of people that were encouraged and/or helped to the polls statewide and because Wisconsin was decided by a margin of less than 12,000 votes, there was some evidence that these get-out-the-vote efforts had actually swung Wisconsin for Kerry! Even if it didn't put him into the White House, I saw the importance of these efforts and what people can do.

2. Even if they don't like how things are going, they at least see what is needed to change them and have a plan. They realize that if they want to get something, they are going to have to think through how to get it rather than act on their emotions, because they've seen these plans in action before and have worked on them.

[Dawson Leery]

21. Certainly. The right wing

was and still is deeply invested in their cause. They took their hits after Goldwater and continued slowly but surely for the next forty years and got most of what they wanted, which of course has ruined us.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yep, so right.

[RKP5637]

15. Questionable! The dems blew the majorities we gave to them. Possibly downhill

if they lose the house and right on through 2012. I am very disappointed in the performance of the democrats.

[valerief]

17. We'll become entirely third world in four years. nt

[RKP5637]

20. Around about then... that's what the corporatists want and the corned wealth of the US. Dirt cheap

labor right at home from a third world. I think one has to really try hard not to see what is happening.

[deacon]

27. They'll "NO!" us right into a depression to get that white house back. n/t

[valerief]

29. We're in a depression. 20% real unemployment (vs. the patched up 10% official number). nt

[Dark]

23. What's worse is they could pass some punishing bills, like anti-flag-buringing,

tax cuts, etc.

They've proven that they have no limit on the ideas they can use to hammer dems.

[villager]

24. Isn't mildly progressive legislation already dead on arrival?

with the Democrats "in charge?"

[Kablooie]

25. Obama will get legislation passed if he decides to continue Bush's policies.

That's how he can get legislation passed.

[grahamhgreen]

32. All he has to do is wait for the repubs to introduce crappy health care, expanded war, etc..

[deacon]

26. If we lose. Stock up on dried beans. It will be a lot worse than continued "NO!" votes. n/t

[scheming daemons]

28. forget legislation... how does he avoid impeachment proceedings?

[LostinVA]

31. What in the world could they impeach Obama for?

Even if he suddenly started sleeping with an intern, that particular gambit won't work again, as it backfired mightily when they tried it on Bill Clinton.

[Dr Morbius]

34. How did it backfire?

The GOP in the next election very nearly controlled the Senate, only failing to do so because Jim Jeffords left the party after the election. The GOP kept the House and took the White House. Were members of the GOP embarrassed? Sure, with good cause. But politically speaking, they got away with it. I think they won't hesitate to do it again if they can.

[LostinVA]

38. Of course it backfired -- it played very badly outside of the Beltway

Clinton's approval rating went through the roof. I don't think you can blame any Congrssional takeover on Monica Lewinsky. The only people who cared were people who wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway. I'm 45, so I was an adult furing all of this.

Al Gore made a strategic mistake by trying to distance himself from Bill Clinton.

[JoePhilly]

35. Don't remember Whitewater??

The GOP majority investigated that and litigated all around that for years.

Remember that Obama bought a house from a guy who got in trouble for some inappropriate funding?? The GOP will be all over that regardless of if it has merit.

They'll be in Kenya trying to obtain "evidence" that he was born there .... in Indonesia trying to show he is a Muslim.

They will crawl up Michelle's ass with a microscope. Every job either one has every had. Every person they know.

The GOP doesn't want to govern. Investigating the President is all they will want to do.

[LostinVA]

39. What does any of this have to do with impeaching Obama?

Obama has been thoroughly "investigated" by an RW operatives. The worst he has is some Chicago politics dirt. They already tried their best with Mrs. Obama, too.

I am not a fan of Obama, but at this point in hos Presidency, and is this day and age, I think he's safe, unless he NOW does something really stupid.

I find it odd that some of The President's biggest DU supporters are anticipating his impeachment, while I think the man is basically clean.

[JoePhilly]

40. Let me explain it to you ...

It has NOTHING to do with whether Obama has done anything wrong ... and EVERYTHING to do with endless congressional investigations.

The investigations by the RW currently have little influence in Congress. If the GOP gets control, that will change SIGNIFICANTLY.

He is not safe. Michelle is not safe. They will pay people to lie and create false accusations that can hurt him even though false (see Swift-boating 101).

I am a big supporter of Obama ... and I KNOW what the GOP is willing to do. Saw it under Clinton, expect nothing less (anticipate more) under Obama.

Anything to weaken him.

[LostinVA]

41. Thank you for your condescending subject line

I quit Reading there.

I don't need anything explained to me, thank you very much.

:eyes:

[scheming daemons]

42. They don't need a real reason... they'll invent a reason

Ask Gray Davis.

Ask Maxine Waters.


The GOP will invent reasons to kick Democrats out of power and subvert the results of elections.

[grahamhgreen]

30. What legislation? Will he 'fix' HCR, as promised?

[Dr Morbius]

33. Answer: President Obama gets impeached.

Not that he'll do anything to deserve it. There is absolutely nothing beneath today's Republican party.

[JoePhilly]

36. Agree completely.

They will investigate every aspect of his life. They will pay people make accusations against him, and Michelle.

That's how they really got Clinton. They couldn't get Whitewater to stick, so they went the sexual harassment route ... did whatever it took to get an accusation ... used it to find Monica and force him to testify about her.

If the GOP gets control, that's what we'll see.

That ... and an endless stream of GOP BS bills that rile up the nut jobs.

[spanone]

37. he can't get legislation passed now...the democrats won't lose, trust me