Skip to main content

View Diary: Perhaps Winning the Presidency IS Enough (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Certainly the Oval Office is essential (6+ / 0-)

    to effectuate the needed changes, but control of the Administrative branch is like a good treatment for a disease. It may ease the pain and slow the process, but it ain't no cure. We need Congress and then slowly (as the system dictates) alter the judiciary. Then we have the cure for the disease of creeping Neo-conservatism.

    If it is spelled correctly---it's a typo

    by alasmoses on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:18 AM PST

    •  We need three things (14+ / 0-)

      The Presidency, The Congress, and respect of the rule of law.  

      The big fear is that the next Democratic President won't roll back the power grab of the Executive Branch and will continue to not honor the lawful orders and subpeonas of the Legislative and Judicial Branches.  We need a President that won't regard the Presidency as a monarchy.

      We need actual working Majorities in both the Senate and House.  Even if we are able to gain six seats in the Senate it will be barely enough to get some bills through, we almost have to wait until 2010 to have enough changeover.  In the House we need thirty more seats to overcome the DINOS and have a real working majority.

      The respect for the rule of law is required to make the Constitution work.  The Constitution is nearly broken.  The ultra neo-cons have nearly accomplished their agenda of breaking the government.  It's time that the balance of the branches is restored. The Constitution only works because it's honored and regarded as the highest law.  the neo-cons have broken that honoring and the Constitution is now a piece of paper.  It's going to take a Presidency that honors lawful orders and subpeonas, even when they don't like theose orders and subpeonas.  

      The Presidency is a seductive office and the occupant must have a sense of its limits for the Constitution to work again.

      •  According to some at DKos (0+ / 0-)

        Charlie Brown would be a Blue Dog not worthy of our support...I disagree of course

        Clinton - Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

        by dvogel001 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:15:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Charlie is not ultra left wing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sacrelicious, oldjohnbrown

          He is highly for things like the rule of law.  He's also far from being the ideal for the ultra-progressive.  No ultra-progressive could get elected in CA-04.  Charlie is a kitchen table Democrat.  We need lots of those.  As to Blue Dogs, check out the California Congressional Blue Dogs, only Joe Baca, a certified Bush Dog is against the no immunity drive.  Check out Mike Thompson of CA-01, you'll be surprised in most cases.  California ain't Kansas, Dorothy.

          •  That is my point... (0+ / 0-)

            if Charlie gets elected in 2008 and I support him...he will get bashed as a Blue Dog along with the others on DKos and that makes me sad...

            Clinton - Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

            by dvogel001 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:33:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Too true (0+ / 0-)

              At the moment we have a very hormonal group with out the basis for critical thought.  It's seems it's more important to emote than think.  Many of them are screaming variations on "An Eye for an Eye!" while they yell "Sell Out" and support candidates whose positions are fuzzy at best.

              "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."  
               --Mohandas Ghandi

              •  The House of Representatives (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                greeseyparrot, lotlizard, Uncle Bob

                was designed to be a changing house, in contrast to the Senate, which is supposed to be the longer-serving, stable house.

                I do not think the Framers intended Representatives to serve forever; I think they counted on them being more representative of the wishes of their constituents because they had to stand for election every two years.

                If a representative isn't representing, then we should primary his or her ass out of there and put someone in who we think will represent us.  That's how the system was supposed to work.  

                I don't think it reactionary to cry "Foul!" when the Congress is acting against the wishes of the people who sent those congresscritters up there in the first place.  It's not an eye for an eye at all; it's simply working the system to ensure that we're being appropriately represented.

                That said, a Blue Dog's job is to represent his or her constituency.  My complaint is that on issues like the bankruptcy legislation, the "compromise" on the economic stimulus, telecom immunity, and more, they are simply not representing people as much as they're representing corporations.  Those are the ones I think we should try to raise a primary challenge against.  Those are the ones who are selling out.  And in the main, it's long-time members of Congress who have little to fear about re-election because they've courted big money -- they have begun to act as if corporations were their constituents.

                Je suis inondé de déesses

                by Marc in KS on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:04:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  The arrogance of majority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wytcld

        Getting a significant majority seems to be bad for the priciples of any party.  I don't agree with anything they did, but the fresh-faced young Republicans who came to Congress in 1996, riding a wave of disgust with the complacent Democratic majority, were idealistic (you know, about THEIR stuff, not mine). They quickly became very lazy and precisely like the arrogant Democratic majority they ran against.

        I'm not sure I trust our current crop with a real majority.  I'd like to think they would use it to enact universal health care, end the war in Iraq, get rid of NCLB, restore the Constitution, rescind the Bush tax cuts and give me a pony, but I'm starting to think that they'll use it to just cement their own power.

        Schumer's my Senator, too.  I used to like him.

    •  With a Democratic-led Congress (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marc in KS

      willing to capitulate on so many issues, time and time again, to the unitary presidential theory, and having cornered themselves after bowing to radical Supreme Court nominees ensuring that the WH's desire that this theory goes to the Court will be winnable for the WH, how the hell are we supposed to see that electing more Democrats to Congress is the key?

      Those that are there have failed to stand up to the principles embedded in our Constitution that they have taken an oath to uphold.

      I would therefore argue that the Democratic Congress has set the precedent that electing a Democratic President is enough because that unitary executive will then be able to push through anything desired just by getting in front of a camera and saying, "Boo!"  Again, the precedent is set.  If they act differently, any current Congresspeople from the Democratic Party will have proved themselves too cowardly a/o hypocritical to retain their seats.

      Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

      by lgrooney on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:58:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site