This pretty much echoes where I stand
Control of the Senate, whether by one vote or a dozen, means a Democratic majority on every Senate committee, Democratic chairmanship of all committees, power to subpoena witnesses when investigating the executive branch, and a number of other procedural powers that must not be left in Republican hands. Winning either chamber of Congress in 2006 would allow us to conduct real investigations of the Bush Administration. The betting markets give us only a 19% chance of retaking the Senate this year, but I think we stand a pretty good chance of getting it in 2008, when many more Republicans than Democrats are up for re-election.
And can you imagine what it’ll look like if January 2009 rolls around and we control both chambers of Congress, and John Edwards is president? It’s time for universal health care and fixing poverty and taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage (which Cantwell supports) and appointing judges who respect women’s rights. Even if Cantwell votes against us sometimes (or hell, even if she votes against us all the time), she’ll help simply by allowing for Democratic chairmen and a Democratic majority on all the committees that we need to pass our proposals through. And no matter who’s president, I’m a lot happier with subpoena power in Democratic hands than in Republican ones.
On the left there are apparently two camps – liberals and Democrats. The coalition is responsible for the election of most Democrats but it isn’t a happy one. Very few Democrats in congress meet the liberal litmus test, while those of us who are just Democrats simply want center-left control of the government. The problem is, now that we’re out of control the liberal faction’s main concern is apparently purity over party control. I’ve always said that’s a problem I’m more interested in dealing with after you’ve got majority control. Nowadays, my only litmus test is which party leader the prospective candidate would vote for should they be elected to congress. Right now, if the answer is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – that’s good enough for me. We can have big arguments about the makeup of the party idealogically when its Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and President Clinton/Edwards/Warner/Whoever.
Lemme get this straight: It’s the Republicans who are concerned only with power and staying in office, at any cost, right?
BTW, nice layout, but I do miss the old banner…
And then we can forget about the Senate or House wanting to investigate the White House. Or do you think we’ll somehow see more oversight with Dems controlling everything?
Especially if democrats were to miss a golden opportunity to make significant gains and take control of the House this election. If the democrats do not gain much traction this time around, there is no question that there have to be changes at the top.
Since you brought the subject up (well sorta) – While the democrats taking control of Congress (especially the House) would be a good thing, neither Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid can seem to speak without sounding like a political hack. I think it’s time to look at different leaders. There are plenty of democrats, like Sheila Jackson Lee of TX who would better represent democrats.
Yes, you’re for Big Picture Politics… except for when you’re not.
Actually, it’s a sign of a party that understands “big picture politics. Schumer would support Lieberman b/c at the end of the day, Lieberman will for the “correct” leadership. Lieberman outpolls Ned even as an idependent…
So, which is it? Ideological purity or “big picture politics”?
Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy
I’m consistently for it, but Lieberman makes it hard for the party to govern as a minority much less a majority. He’s continually sabotaging the party in the press. There are other members of the Democratic caucus who are much, much, much more conservative than Lieberman (Mark Pryor, for instance) but they don’t knife the party in the back.
So much for your “idealogical purity”.
Senator Lieberman is prettymuch of a liberal Democrat on every issue but a couple — and y’all are ready to throw him under the bus for those. And this coming from a party that actively recruited a pro-life, moderate Democrat to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania.
But my bigger point is on the theme change: I can’t object to theme changes, ’cause I’ve been working on my own (which, of course, you should check, every day!
), but this one is very difficult to read. the links in the near right sidebar are so faint that they can barely be read (although I can still see that I’m not blogrolled! 
), as is the new “Recent Comments” feature.
Whatever font you are using in the “Leave a Reply” box is bigger, better and easier to read than either the sent copy or your original.
You might actually do better if the near right sidebar had a black background; that might make it more interesting graphically.
I ve always said that s a problem I m more interested in dealing with after you ve got majority control.
The problem with this view is that it is the Democratic Party’s failure to be more liberal and less Republican-lite that prevents it from garnering the broad support necessary to become the majority party.
If we did have John Edwards in the White House and nominal Democrats in the majority of both houses, as the writer you quote suggests, a significant number of the nominal Democrats would join with the Republicans to sabotage any major program of the Edwards administration. Universal health care, addressing poverty, tax increases, etc., are not going to be supported by at least ten of the current Democratic senators. Just check their votes on the bankruptcy legislation for a ready reference.
Senator Lieberman is pretty much of a liberal Democrat on every issue but a couple
The opposite is true. Lieberman makes a handful of “show” votes in order to qualify as a “liberal” on a few scorecards. He is and always has been a wholly-owned hack of corporate America. Moreover, when any issue of any importance is being debated or decided, Lieberman is never on the liberal side.
“Winning either chamber of Congress in 2006 would allow us to conduct real investigations of the Bush Administration>’
Aren’t you just a bit embarrasssed by this statement. I mean you talk about governing and minimum wage, etc. and yet out creeps the real motivation behind it all (what we pretend doctors call BDS or Bush Derangement Syndrome). I would be ashamed.
Agree w/Dana some other place. Good new look. Font size could be fine-tuned up.
Dugger, Back in town
Mr Willis, I checked this on another computer, with different monitor settings than mine, and your site is a little more visible on it, but I’d still say that the font size is a bit too small.
“I would be ashamed.”
You bloody well should be for defending this administration.
Dont’ forget Clark in your list of Presidential possibilities. Clark 08!