Would you agree to a Bush 2nd term if we gained control of Congress

[sleipnir]

Hypothetical here, based on a conversation I had with a friend last night.

If I could promise we'd win back both the House and Senate with a 60% majority (enough to over-ride a veto,) but the deal includes the provision that Bush get a second term, would you agree to the deal?

Of course we'd have an undeniable majority in the Legislative branch for 2 years, but the normal mid-term re-election would occur in 2006.

My question: Is it worth sacrificing the Presidency if it means gaining back the House and Senate for at least two years if not more? Right now, it will realistically take until 2008 or 2010 before we regain control of the House, which is the main stumbling block towards passing critical Dem legislation. But is it worth the risk of at least a two year "Lame Duck" Bush Presidency?

[Goldmund]

1. If this country were faithful to its constitution,

I'd say "yes". But since the executive branch has been so succesful at eroding the power of Congress in the last few decades, I say "no".

[phantom power]

3. I agree.

This administration happily bypasses Congress at every opportunity, and when it's done with that, it works on altering the constitution to create even more opportunities.

And don't forget the Supreme Court. If Bush gets a second term, he might very well get to appoint up to four judges. The SC would end up being completely dominated by neo-cons for decades.

[sleipnir]

6. But the judges would require Senate approval.

Which of course we'd control for two years and very likely the entire four year Presidency term. He'd be forced to appoint moderates, and possibly even a single liberal.

Though, I fear BushCo would find a way around the Constitution and just put people on the Bench anyway. They seem fond of that approach.

[CrowNotAngelGRL]

25. I say "no way"

cause I don't trust Bush with the country or his people. They'd still find some way to get their way.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. Exactly what I was thinking.

The whole problem with this premise, is that it presupposes that we're under the Constitutional framework with regard to the separation of powers. Since we've decided to ignore the Constitution in this (and many other areas), the Executive Branch would still set policy. Simply put, Bush would still subvert our Congressional authority.

[aden_nak]

2. Hell no.

I wouldn't even agree to a Bush 2nd Term if it came with Angelina Jolie dipped in chocolate sauce.

[evilqueen]

4. not only that

but Bush has often bypassed congress altogether via presidential executive order. Bush hasn't earned a second chance, imho.

What president in the history of the U.S. has spent 44% of his term on vacation *WHILE AT WAR*?? Talk about not "supporting our troops"... heh.

[mhr]

5. Yes, With Both Houses, We Could Impeach Bush's Ass

And drum him out of town on a rail.

That would be such sweet victory.

Otherwise he just leaves town with no repercussions.

[rucky]

7. Impeachment? Hell, INDICTMENT.

Damn straight I'd take that deal.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

8. No - no - no to Bush and Cheney

We would still have Cheney if Bush is impeached. We would not be any better off. They would still have the finger on the button, executive order power, the veto and the ear of the Supreme Court. The whole bunch has got to go. It will take years to fix their mess but we shouldn't have to fight the same battles over and over with the White House while trying to do so.

[evilqueen]

13. Impeachment is not limited to just the Presidency.

Check the rulebook (aka The Constitution).

*grins*

[VOX]

14. Exactly. The Puppeteer would be in charge, just like he is now.

No difference, just no more puppet.

No, the whole sorry lot of those crooks has to go.

[Rosco T.]

21. Can we impeach Shrub/CrashCart at the same time?

dual impeachments??

[amber dog democrat]

9. I don't trust the chimp and his handlers

enough to want to give them so much power. Its better to make a clean sweep.

[sleipnir]

18. Though a clean sweep won't likely happen until 2008 or 2010.

The House is so entrenched in Republicans, it's going to be a hard, long fight to get them out. The most optimistic outlook for next year is a +6 Republican advantage in the House.

The more I think about it, that's really what the question comes down to. Do we trade an uncertain future for a controllable known evil? Without the House and Senate, BushCo loses a lot of steam and power, unless they decide through executive order to throw out the Constitution.

[grace0418]

10. No because...

Bush has already shown he has no interest in anything anyone has to say. He ignores Congress anyway and just changes laws or appoints judges when it's not in session. I'm telling you, give Bush four more years, or even two more years, and he'll do his best to change this country into a dictatorship.

[Thrill]

11. Even if we have congress

their are toooooo many Dems like Bayh, Nelson, and Leiberman that will cross the line. So winning Congress and still having the Chimp does nothing for me. Especially when it comes to picking judges. There are just too many weak Dems that will cross over

[against all enemies]

12. Interesting, we could have formal hearings on all Bush's dirt.

We definitely need either the senate or the House to start investigating Delay, Bush, Halliburton and the rest of the crooks.

Bush would be left being blamed for the fiscal disaster about to happen, and Democrats would rule for 20 years after.

[AntiCoup2K4]

15. What I'd REALLY like is a clean sweep...

Not only removing this Fraudministration, but also anyone in either house of Congress who voted in any way to enable this fucking bullshit neocon agenda. Granted, that's not likely, and it wouldn't leave too many people in DC, but damn it, anything less than that ain't justice.

[onecitizen]

16. Great question!!!

wish it were mine. :-)

[Bleacher Creature]

17. Two words: Supreme Court

On edit: That would be a resounding NO

[blue neen]

19. No, No, For Gawd Sakes, NO!

[mvd]

22. No

Bush is too destructive based on his own powers IMO.

[tokenlib]

23. Only if the Dems get backbone and the DLC implodes....

We would have to get a guaranteed impeachment and conviction of Bush. Run out DeLay for ethics violations and general crookedness.

[footinmouth]

24. No. Just no.