PDA

View Full Version : Now that the democrats are 'in charge' .....


Monica_Rules
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:12 PM
What happens now?

What does it actually mean?

What will take to make the american people happy and keep the democrats in control?

Just wondering, i know the dems are more liberal in general but how will american politics change now?

Lord Nelson
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:33 PM
No because U.S. is a Presidential system. The Bush administration is still no. 1 force in the country. :)
But Congress can influence policies. But you must see that many democrats are actually moderate conservative and they include popular figures like Barack Obama who may run for President.
I think that Congress won't make same mistake as Republicans when they too controlled the Senate under Clinton. They won't impeach Bush like Republicans did with Clinton. Otherwise they may be viewed as trouble makers.

Kunal
Nov 9th, 2006, 01:36 PM
what it means that bush can still do what he wants....but now his decision making process will be slowed down cuz the democrats will be clearing some of his decisions

samsung101
Nov 9th, 2006, 04:01 PM
The Democrats control the committees in the House and Senate
leadership, they're all even, with the chairman being the deciding
vote, and normally that's the majority.

They control what gets put on the table, and how it is handled.

Does it mean they get all they want?
No.

The GOP didn't pass all it wanted.
Look at what the GOP did with judges and the tax
cuts, they couldn't make them permanent, or pass
Bolton's UN position through by votes.

The President didn't get all he wanted with
a majority.
Why?
They have differences w/i the party.
Same for the Democrats, though most are pretty liberal
and will vote with San Fran Nan and her gaggle of left wingers.

Some Democrats are not liberal, and may not want the same
fiscal or policy items Pelosi does. If they all agreed on everything,
they wouldn't have dumped on Lieberman so badly. There were some
Democrats that supported Lieberman in the House and Senate that
didnt go along w/the Lamont party candidacy.

As even the NY Times pointed out, the Dems gave people candidates
in many states that were running as Republican style leaders -
no new taxes, no to cut and run, no to bigger govt. Will they
just ignore all those candidates now that they won?

Coalitions...you'll see a lot of little groups form. Like McCain's bipartisan
gang of 14. He loves doing that. He used to do it to needle
Bush. Now, he'll do it to screw up the Democrats, and make them
look like liberal nutjobs - to help his campaign hopes with the GOP base.



They will push fast for:
amnesty & immigration reform that is lax;
higher minimum wage (again);
national health care ( again);
bigger prescription plan (again);
removal of tax cuts (again);
higher taxes for individuals & companies (again);
cut and run from Iraq;
impeachment proceedings (again- payback time).



Will it only give the GOP base the push it lacked in 06,
in 2008?
Will it help spur the liberal base even more?
Will it irritate the 2% that change election results enough,
getting nothing done...to change things in 2008?


Who knows.

The results are a Democratic win, but, it's not like the Ronald
Reagan 49 state sweep - that was a landslide across the board.

LoveFifteen
Nov 9th, 2006, 04:13 PM
what it means that bush can still do what he wants....but now his decision making process will be slowed down cuz the democrats will be clearing some of his decisions

Wow, you really understand the three branches of the US gov't quite well. :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Nov 9th, 2006, 06:24 PM
what it means that bush can still do what he wants....but now his decision making process will be slowed down cuz the democrats will be clearing some of his decisions

Yeah like the Indian-U.S. civilian nuclear deal which may not pass Congress or if it does it will take some time. :fiery:

Wigglytuff
Nov 9th, 2006, 07:01 PM
Now that the democrats are 'in charge' .....


:lol: :lol: :lol:

it doesnt quite work that way. there are three branches of government, the dems control one branch by a very thin margin.

samsung101
Nov 9th, 2006, 07:28 PM
1995 -
Bill Clinton twice vetoed budget bills from the new GOP controlled
House and Senate - after the 1994 landmark win (like 60 seats
changed breaking the long Democratic hold on the House).

The govt. shut down twice in 1995 because of it.


They compromised eventually.


The President is still President.
No matter what.

If Bush vetoed a Democratic big budget, do you think that
would make his base unhappy?


No.

samsung101
Nov 9th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Between the veto power, the recess appointments, the
appointments he can make w/o congressional approval,
the bully pulpit the presidency has all by itself, the good
relationship he has with the military personnel, and his
personal strong attachment to pro-Mexico policy the
guy has lots to move agendas with.

He's doing the smart thing - he's reaching out to Pelosi
to seize some issues together and before her. They don't
have much common ground, but, what they do have, he'll
grab running to get ahead w/it.


Personally, if Hugo Chaves and Al Queda and North Korea
are cheering on your party wins...that's not necessarily
a good thing Democrats.




As I read today- both parties got results election night because
of one thing: they betrayed their base. The Democrats won
all those misc. seats across the nation with non-traditional
Democratc candidates, and platforms that sound a lot more
Republican than Democratic. The Republicans lost by behaving
way too much like Democrats and betraying the fiscal and
social conservative base.

Bacardi
Nov 9th, 2006, 07:48 PM
He's doing the smart thing - he's reaching out to Pelosi
to seize some issues together and before her. They don't
have much common ground, but, what they do have, he'll
grab running to get ahead w/it.


Bush can't grab anything and run with it, he's not allowed to run with safety childrens plastic guarded scissors. He's simply doing what his advisors are telling him too, try to kiss ass. Pelosi doesn't buy his honestly and congraduations for one second, it's the same guy that slandered her every chance he could get.

Anybody else other than me glad that it's about damn time we had a Woman Speaker of the House!?