Dems take back Congress - Does anything get done?

[Keystone Phil]

2007-2009 will be even uglier than these past two years if the Dems take back Congress, in my opinion. This President vs. a new Dem led Congress will mean some of the worst gridlock we've seen in decades.

Now it is your turn. Tell me how you feel.

[Sam Spade]

Very little happens.  However, the American people tend to like this state of affairs, so it makes little difference.

[MODU]

I doubt it.  They haven't done much in the current congress other than refusing to help, so why would they do anything in the last two years that would make Bush look good?

[nick]

If we win the house there will at least be some form of gridlock, which will control spending.  I know of at least one conservative blogger who is hoping the Democrats take back the house for this very reason.  He doesnt want the Democrats anywhere near control of the Senate for judicial purposes, though.

[ian]

Nope.
But at least the Republicans can't.

[adam]

A lot of pork barrel military spending will be haulted, and perhaps we can finally get that minimum wage bill passed without GOP political foxing.

[Nym90]

No, because Bush will veto pretty much all of the Democratic agenda. But at least we force the issues into the debate and make him do that rather than allowing the Republicans to ignore the problems and pretend they don't exist.

[BushKenya]

Nym is right, Bush will veto most everything the Democrats put forth, but I still like the idea of not having the same party controlling all three areas.  However, I do have to say, that winning Congress in 2006 will probably mean that the Republicans will keep control of the White House in 2008 and regaining control again in 2008, and here's why.  A lot of these Democrats who will win in 2006 are most likely beatable in 2008 (Remember, the country is fed up with Republicans, so they aren't voting for the Democrats as much as they're voting against the Republicans).  The country will get tired of all the gridlock and either put the Democrats in control of all three, or the Republicans in control of all three in the 111th Congress from 2009-2011 (my money is reluctantly on the latter).

[opebo]

What gets done is the Republicans are made to look bad by Bush's vetos of popular social welfare legislation, such as minimum wage increases, which helps in 2008.

[© Tweed the Younger]

They haven't done anything since 2005 anyway.

[nlm]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

[Nym90]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

Exactly, plus there will be an honest discussion and debate about ideas instead of one party ramming through their agenda and the other side having no voice.

[nlm]

They haven't done anything since 2005 anyway.

They have managed to spend our money like water - you need to give them credit for at least that.

[nlm]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

Exactly, plus there will be an honest discussion and debate about ideas instead of one party ramming through their agenda and the other side having no voice.

I don't know about the "honest discussion" part - Congress and honest don't exactly go together that well.

[Nym90]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

Exactly, plus there will be an honest discussion and debate about ideas instead of one party ramming through their agenda and the other side having no voice.

I don't know about the "honest discussion" part - Congress and honest don't exactly go together that well.

Well, true, but at least both sides will have some say in things anyway.

[nlm]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

Exactly, plus there will be an honest discussion and debate about ideas instead of one party ramming through their agenda and the other side having no voice.

I don't know about the "honest discussion" part - Congress and honest don't exactly go together that well.

Well, true, but at least both sides will have some say in things anyway.

I understand the desire for a little honesty or at least a little balance if we can not have honesty. When Cheney is saying actual debate of his correctness emboldens terrorists, and Rumsfeld compares folks that want to debate his correctness to Nazi appeasers, and the House leader is talking about people that disagree with him in terms of them being more interested in protecting terrorists than Americans - it's time for a change and a lot less crass politics from some of our most important leaders clouding our national security.

[MasterJedi]

No, it will be the same as it is now, maybe even less getting done. (great )

[nclib]

I'd rather nothing get done, than Bush and Co. driving society back to the 1950s.

[Citizen James]

Well, given that the current congress is about the smash the record set by the "do nothing" congress of 1948, so I think buisness as usual certainly wouldn't help anything.

I think some things will change.  If democrats take the senate, republicans will suddenly change their mind about how immoral they think fillibusters are - in fact many will do a complete 180.

There will probably be more than a few investigations opened up, though Bush will probably be able to stonewall them with Nixonian style claims of executive privilidge and the such.

If democrats only take one chamber, there will be a lot more legislation, but little that passes both houses.  If we take both, I don't think we'll be overly timid about sending legislation to the white house no matter how much Bush vetos or refuses to act in a bipartisan manner.

In short, if we regain control, It's Bush, not the congress, which is stuck in lame duck status.  And it's up to him whether or not he wants to sabotage his party further by continuing with his polarizing attitudes.

[Sam Spade]

Well, given that the current congress is about the smash the record set by the "do nothing" congress of 1948, so I think buisness as usual certainly wouldn't help anything.

I think some things will change.  If democrats take the senate, republicans will suddenly change their mind about how immoral they think fillibusters are - in fact many will do a complete 180.

There will probably be more than a few investigations opened up, though Bush will probably be able to stonewall them with Nixonian style claims of executive privilidge and the such.

If democrats only take one chamber, there will be a lot more legislation, but little that passes both houses.  If we take both, I don't think we'll be overly timid about sending legislation to the white house no matter how much Bush vetos or refuses to act in a bipartisan manner.

In short, if we regain control, It's Bush, not the congress, which is stuck in lame duck status.  And it's up to him whether or not he wants to sabotage his party further by continuing with his polarizing attitudes.

Actually, there's quite a long history of Presidents who, after getting demolished in mid-term elections, use the veto mercilessly or react negatively with Congress to increase their base enthuasism. 

Eisenhower after 1958 is the great example of this.  Nixon almost won in 1960, even though the economy was in simply terrible shape. 

Clinton in 1994 is another good example, but in a different way.

[BushKenya]

Ah, I remember the fine days of gridlock in times past and look forward to seeing them again. When the Dems and Reps are locked in mortal combat with each other (with each side having some actual power) they tend to do a lot less damage to us tax payers.

Exactly, plus there will be an honest discussion and debate about ideas instead of one party ramming through their agenda and the other side having no voice.

I don't know about the "honest discussion" part - Congress and honest don't exactly go together that well.

Well, true, but at least both sides will have some say in things anyway.

I understand the desire for a little honesty or at least a little balance if we can not have honesty. When Cheney is saying actual debate of his correctness emboldens terrorists, and Rumsfeld compares folks that want to debate his correctness to Nazi appeasers, and the House leader is talking about people that disagree with him in terms of them being more interested in protecting terrorists than Americans - it's time for a change and a lot less crass politics from some of our most important leaders clouding our national security.

Well, if Con is the opposite of Pro, then what is the opposite of Progress?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

NO!