So what should happen the day after the election?

[sknabt]

Say the Democrats take both houses of Congress. What next?

What worries me is the Democrats are united against Bush but not united for a whole lot. And responsibility can be a sobering experience. If the Democrats win the mid-terms but can't manage to get a lot done between then and 2008 it'll hurt their chances in presidential races. It could even tilt Congress back the other way toward the Republicans.

Keep in mind, if the Democrats manage to take Congress - all of Congress - they will have a very narrow mandate to govern on. Maybe a one seat majority in the Senate. To get something done they'll have to work with moderate Republicans.

I'll be frank, I don't have the answers just some fuzzy thoughts. What do you folks think?

[MadMaddie]

1. What they can and should do is make sure that * is a lame duck

President for the next two years....they should try to fix Homeland Security and FEMA if they can.....I suspect that the Repugs will become more desperate and are willing to commit more heinous crimes to stay in power in November...these crimes should be investigated and prosecuted and if they reach to "Nero" than he should be Impeached.....

[derby378]

4. Homeland Security? Don't fix - let's "deep-six"

The DHS is as worthless as a soggy breath mint at a turd convention.

[MadMaddie]

5. Yea....you are right about that....it is one big sink hole.......

they have fucked up so many organizations....

[C_U_L8R]

2. Courtmartial that son of a bitch

of a commander in chief for war crimes
and crimes against humanity

[AX10]

3. I believe that they will have more than just a 1 seat majority...

in the House. We should work towards 230+ seats.

We must pass progressive legislation. So be it if Bush veto's it. It will just show how committed he is to stiffling a congress that wants to do good for every American.

[sknabt]

6. The 3 priorities I see

Iraq is sure to be tops on everyone's mind. Democrats are accused of being of a "cut and run" mentality. Plus, there's a whole lot of Democrats who voted to authorize Bush's war powers. So the Democrats will have to come up with a winning strategy that does not make this nation look weak.

I see 4 options (in no particular order):

1. Stay the course. That's Bush's motto. IMHO, it's an addiction to failure. I can't imagining too many Democrats being happy with this option.
2. Send more troops. I don't know if he's still behind it but Sen. Biden has advocated this one. I personally know a lot of moderate Democrats who favor this.
3. A time line for withdrawal. IMHO, this is the most popular option with Democrats on the Hill. You hear it used to explain that yes they want to get our troops out but no they don't want to "cut and run".
4. Immediate withdrawal. Realizing "immediate" here isn't exactly immediate. There still will have to be a time table of transition. This one just will be measured in weeks or a few months versus a longer time line of, say, 18 months in option 3.

After that, there has to be a major economic agenda to get our government's financial house in order and get the middle and lower classes participating in the benefits of our prosperity. Wages except among the top wage earners isn't keeping up with inflation. A minimum wage increase is in order. Tax reform is in order. And Democrats better prove better managers of the government's purse than the incompetent Republicans have been.

That dreaded topic: immigration reform. Democrats better come up with a popular fix here because the populist neo-cons are turning nasty as Hades on this topic. If the Democrats can't reasonably control our borders while offering millions of immigrants a legal chance at a better life, it scares me what the Republicans may eventually do in this regard if they get a chance.

So there you have it: 1) Iraq, 2) economic reform, and 3) immigration reform. If they can seriously address all 3 and get at least one tackled before 2008 the Democrats will get a firm grip on all 3 branches of government in 2008.

Remember, you heard it here first! ;)

[razors edge]

7. donning flame suit

1) what is the course? continue to guard the un-metered pipelines in iraq, support the saudi elites, and threaten opec to sell only in dollars while swatting usama flies.

2) send more. too late, troops there now are bogged down in concrete bunkers or walking pipeline and killing a lot of pissed off people now will only piss off more. triple the troops won't suppress the locals and syria, iran will see it as a build up to invade them.

3) timetable. insurgents back off, half go try to rebuild a life, the other half have no life to rebuild and move on to the next battleground wherever that may be. leads to #4

4) leave. that half with no home to go back to, make efforts to team up with hezbollah or start their own group, whack the sunni then team with iran, storm into jordan and get some payback on israel. Israel fires nukes or not, russia or china retaliate or not, but the democrats get the blame for swelling a muslim tidal wave against israel. iran starts a bourse in euros and the dollar crashes.

this chess board is stacked against the democrats and short of a rook or queen in hiding, we have a defensive battle on this board if the re pubs retire, or even if they win in november. the pukes may see the writing on the wall and prefer to let it happen under democratic control, a sudden set of balls in the press will be the indicator.

the bush strategy isn't to win the hearts and minds in iraq, its to control the oil, its to control trade of oil in dollars, and separate the iranians from the Israelis. if israel first strikes iran's nuclear plants, our troops are just like the trip wire in korea, they will be sacrificed and the death of more americans will give our government no choice but to draft and retaliate. all bets are off on where it goes from there as every oil vulture with a gun boat with converge on the carcass.

on a lighter note, did anyone catch the game last night?

[sknabt]

8. Tough choices but if we don't lead someone else will

I can relate. Because I keep blaming an incompetent Bush administration for invading Iraq. I knew at the time his case was weak. I was - and I still am - very frustrated that our leaders, including many weenie Democrats, took the easy political path and followed Bush merrily off to war.

So, sure, the Democrats can simply win an election by saying why trust the incompetent who got us into this mess? It's time for a change. Change is the oldest theme in politics.

Change of party is a political goal that's achieved the night of an election. Okay, we got someone new in the chair. So what? What are the Democrats going to do? And if Democrats think they can shrug their shoulders at Iraq because Bush has left us no good options and run off with some narrow, liberal social agenda they will get absolutely trounced in 2008. It'll be another decade or more before the American people will trust them again.

Even if Bush is the fool who committed us to Iraq, we're committed. Which means we bear a huge responsibility to clean the mess up. So back to the 4 options I laid out.

At the extremes is Bush's stay the course, an addiction to failure, and immediate pullout which will be hailed as "cut and run" and which will leave a weak Iraq government vulnerable.

We could try to clean the mess up by sending the troops we should have in the first place. But that's going to bankrupt our treasury even more, provide many more targets who will end up casualties, and may only serve the mask the problem if we drive the terrorists underground because we can't stay there forever.

So, I personally think we need set a time line for getting out. It may be 18 months. It may be 2 years. Whatever. And we set specific milestones and goals then commit the resources to achieve them. With a time set, the Iraqi government will be forced to get off the pot and get more serious about dealing with their problems like massive, massive corruption. Because they will have the same goals and time line as us to fix things.

Of course, the criticism of this is the terrorists have a time line and can wait us out. The terrorists already know we're eventually going to pull out. They're playing a game of outlasting us as it is. Does anyone think if we say we're pulling out in, say, 3 years the terrorists will quit attacking and sit on their hands until 2009?

Despite our best efforts Democracy may fail in Iraq. But nobody in the world should look at us and say we didn't do but our absolute best to help the Iraqi people. And, hopefully, we will learn from our mistake that nation building without the benefit of strong internal forces in our favor is a fool's bargain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. "Despite our best efforts Democracy may fail in Iraq"

This is our "best effort"? Hilarious. This is no effort at all. That is biggest pack of bullshit I ever saw. We are raping the Iraqi people silly, for cynical forign policy ideologies, natural resources, and domestic political power. What is obvious to the whole world is that very few people in this country ever gave a good goddamn about the Iraqi people (except, perhaps, as a pretty little concept in their trouble-free heads, dressed in flowers, and bathed in soft lighting), and certainly, the architects of the war, the occupation, and the continued occupation posing as nation building could give fuck-all for the Iraqi people. Absolute best? The corpses piled up like wood for miles in every direction, a fucking national shame for us. With friends like us, doing their "absolute best," who needs half-assers, enemies, and incompetents. We haven't done shit for the Iraqi people but throw their lives into turmoil. And it's so nice that we can "learn from our mistakes." Ho hum. Ooops. Our bad...

You must be smoking the funny stuff.

[sknabt]

14. Did you actually read what I wrote?

This is our "best effort"? Hilarious. This is no effort at all. That is biggest pack of bullshit I ever saw.

I've lost count of the body bags, the tragically wounded, and the hundreds of billions of dollars - all because of Iraq. To call it "no effort at all" is not to be paying attention.

The sad thing is we agree to some degree. Iraq is a fudged up incompetent mess beyond belief. I think where you got your wires crossed is in confusing the point of my posts as talking about the past when I was discussing the future.

...few people in this country ever gave a good goddamn about the Iraqi people...

So what about you? Is that where you stand too?

We can rant that Bush is there for blood and oil, a popular sound bite. I don't know what was going through his head at the time. Probably not much judging by his track record. But belly aching about the war is the easy part. Accept the fact - I didn't say like the fact - Democrats need to come up with a solution. So, back to my original question. What do they do the day after the election?

Judging by the reaction to my suggestions the consensus appears to be vent anger and impeach Bush. I'm sure many Democrats frustrated by years of Bush administration incompetence will feel better for it. But if that's what passes for Democratic governance and leadership I give them 1 week before their collective poll numbers make Bush's sub-40s look good.

The party that can come up with an effective strategy in Iraq will win in a landslide in 2008.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Hey, buddy

I was disputing a specific point you made: that this was our best effort at creating democracy. It is a piss poor effort at best, and probably no effort at all, and nothing you say here argues against that. That we have body bags to the skies doesn't mean that we made "best efforts" for democracy, which is what you claim, and which I take to be utterly false. It only means that we were up to something over there, but democracy-building is not the obvious conclusion.

As for the rest of it, the only solution is a phased pull-out over a short span of time (say, six months), declared in advance, and taking that time only to ensure a safe redeployment, together with some attempt to get unspoiled parties on board for some other program. The whole lie that we need to stay there to fix it is utterly bankrupt by now. We ARE the problem in Iraq; our presence is the "broken-ness," so it obviously can't ever "fix" anything. The plan for Democrats will have to include 1) accepting this basic and fundamental fact, and 2) convincing the American people that, contrary to the last several years of "you broke it you buy it" bullshit, there is zero we can do to fix Iraq, and that our "duty" to the country is limited to (significant) reparations, cessation of meddling, and reinstitution of Iraqi autonomy

[razors edge]

12. The bush admins only incompetency is

their transparency, they have accomplished everything they had hoped for and more.

If you believe we went into Iraq to help these people in any way then you probably also believe the conspiracy theory about 19 arabs with box cutters who outfoxed a whole empire's defenses.

bush has kept the petro dollar in place, conquered and intimidated those who challenge it. this alone has kept the us financial markets from a melt down that will make the great depression look like a bounced check.

Fiat currency is only as good as the goods and services one can obtain with it. When the world no longer needs the dollar to purchase oil we will see a breakdown of epic proportions.

he has enriched the wealthy, stolen from the poor, established the necessary police state apparatus to control the soon to be unruly mobs, carved up the remaining natural resources of this and other countries and served them to those at his table.

Other than the fact it is all so brazenly obvious to all who look at it, where is the incompetence?

If a pickpocket is telling you he can make you rich while he steals your wallet, who is incompetent, him or you?

If america pulls out of the ME and iran sells oil in euros, our way of life will cease to exist. Instead of the petro dollar will we then rely on the bomb and bullet dollar?

The democratic leadership is not ignorant to these facts and will have to find a way to keep the petro dollar afloat, and it will be no small task.
If they should fail then they will feel the wrath of the voter, if there are still elections, for a long, long time.

[Stardust]

15. And stop the exportation of our jobs. And support clean money.

[laylah]

10. Introduce Articles of Impeachment! n/t

[beyurslf]

11. They need to rally the Dems we have in the Senate and filabuster

everything the Repubs try to do until we take over in Jan.

[Bake]

13. Let the subpoenas fly!

Put Rove, Chertoff, and every other Puke asshat in BushCo under oath. And make them bleed.

Bake

[Tiggeroshii]

16. You haven't been paying attention.

Democrats are united for working families, raising the minimum wage, resisting tax cus for the rich, getting behind tax cuts for working classes, and strengethening the economy by not only continuing to provide jobs, but allowing people to live off of the jobs they have.

[onenote]

17. The Democrats need to present a positive agenda

with proposals on both domestic and international issues. On the domestic issues side, we need to come forward with proposals on health care, minimum wage, etc.; what we also have to do is be careful about making proposals that can be attacked as "tax and spend" proposals. We need to tie proposals to narrowly targeted tax amendments, aimed at the wealthiest percentiles.

On the international side, we need to start hearings aimed at developing an exit strategy for Iraq and a better approach to Afghanistan and Iran.

We also need to come up with a few "stinker" bills that we can force the repubs to vote on the way they try to force Democrats to vote on flag burning, etc.