What's a Democratic Congress going to do?

yes, but not not their own Justices.

Only with a 2/3rds majority, right?

Quite frankly in the current climate the only bill that would get one of those would be a one liner saying:

'The Senate likes Kittens'

And even then I can see problems.

"To pass a bill over the President's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber."

(I'm saving "Beto" for a future purpose)

And even then I can see problems.

I would like for you to detail those problems for our amusement.

2) Signing some stuff into law in exchange for easing up on the investigating is always an option for bush

3)Some serious investigating

why do we think that this is such a sesmic change?
start getting third (or fourth or fifth) parties up and running, and then we will talk?

good news:
az not hating fags, some propostions being passed (esp the anti emminent domain stuff in oregon and the illegal sodak abortion ban)

arizona passing on the anti-gay prop is pretty much the only good thing that happened here; a bunch of nasty anti-immigrant props passed by a good margin. at least we turned down the one that proposed turning elections into lotteries by giving a million dollars to a random voter.

and the great hope for teh democrats, is a former reagonite who was involved in the contra affair?

and yeah its great the speaker is a woman, but im convinced that she is someone who bungled from the beginning

i am not heartened

Maybe YOU would. 7 out of 10 people on the street couldn't even tell you what it means. Much less how to spell it. ;)

minimum wage
implement 9/11 commisssion recommendations
implement baker commission recommendations
bush immigration plan, extend health care to illegal immigrants
stem cell research
modify/expand no child left behind
renewable energy legislation

Here is what I think they should do. US politics are weighted vs the Democrats and in favour of evil people. Partly in that the Reps seem to steal votes, intimidate voters, sabotage voting machines, etc, whenever they need to. That supposedly happened in 2000; I have also read that in happened in 2004. Also, because it takes insane amounts of money and stupid TV adverts to get into politics in America; and the political Right will always have more of these. Until these problems are solved - a proposition that already looks naive and impossible when I type it - the Democrats will be at a major disadvantage in fighting elections; including 2008. They need landslides of opinion to get moderate swings to them.

So - one of their priorities should be addressing this vast problem, and trying to make America more democratic; making sure votes are all counted and voting is fair; and also making a start on the perhaps impossible task of, as it were, taking the money out of US politics. If they could make some real progress on this in 2 years, then their candidate might have a better chance in 2008.

Jimmie

Looks like we have both house and senate ... just incredible. Wonder what it is going to be like with Darth Vader running a Democratic Senate. It will be nice to see the little guy get a few breaks for a change. Hope in the beginning, Conyers group does not get tooo carried away with hearings so that the party can focus on some solid legislation that has been way over due. Have a nice Thanksgiving and give my best to Gene!

Best Wishes - Vic

in 2000 I was really struck by how difficult this is to enforce, in a country where you have county level officials "looking after" the design of ballot "papers" and the counting of votes for national level elections.

xpost

Maybe he will SUE you for reproducing them!

Short answer to thread question: nothing.

1. Kyoto is horrible legislation. Doesn't help anyone. From a structural standpoint, it's worthless. If you think this will change national behaviors, you're a naïve fetishist. The US is already carbon neutral. India and china? Oh they get a pass.
2. A Nancy Pelosi speakership is going to be so bizarre even democrats won't go for it for long. You will never hear the words (as you did for Tip oneil and others, zum Beispiel), "speaker for 10, 15 years") in reference to the Pelosi-zany.
3. The Dems haven't campaigned FOR anything. Only against. That's not a policy. If they don't develop a reasonable agenda, they'll just pave the way for the next republican president.
4. Iraq is a mess but what's their plan? Oh yeah. There's not one.
5. If there's another terrorist attack, the republicans will be back with a sizeable majority. Voters aren't going to buy a let's just ignore the obvious and blame ourselves approach. Repubs will pick up those votes with hollow posturing.
6. Which is a shame because they are pathetic.

But I admire your looking on the bright side.

qua?

NAHHHHHHHHH

[more likely, not much, although i was heartened by dean's somewhat elliptical comments last night on daily show. what i don't understand is why the party was so neutered during their minority status. instead of standing up for anything, they got browbeaten everywhere, making them look even weaker than they were/are.]

gabbneb most likely correct way up above, assuming they do accomplish stuff

Safire in NY Times today expects infighting between the libs and the RepubLites:

Committee chairmen like Charles Rangel of Ways and Means, John Dingell of Energy and Commerce, Barney Frank of Financial Services and others will crowd the airwaves with hearings grilling contractors and torturing accused torturers.

After a few months of this posturing, a newly emboldened Bush, emulating F.D.R.’s derision of the isolationists “Martin, Barton and Fish,” will be moved to denounce “Rangel, Dingell and Frank.” This will be the signal for new Republican leaders, like Mike Pence of Indiana, to take up the tactic of Harry Truman by denouncing “the do-nothing 110th Congress.” At the same time, as the 2008 primaries loom, the Trumanesque Bush will measure his reduction of troops in Iraq by the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own defense.

That’s when the new Democratic majority will suffer great stress. Senator Hillary Clinton evoked “the vital, dynamic center” in her victory speech, and Representative Rahm Emanuel was the model of non-hubristic responsibility during the delighted Democratic deluge. But it’s hard to imagine Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Kerry-Gore-Edwards campaigners and the whole loser left holding still into the snows of New Hampshire.

There's probably good momentum to look at the AMT (alternative minimum tax.) There will be a lot of talk about "rolling back" some of Bush's tax cuts, but I doubt they will make it through the Senate.

There will also be hearings and investigations regarding Iraq and some of the other scandals that have come from the past six years. You can bet your balls on that one.

Just in via Reuters:

Senators Levin, Bond, Voinovich, Stabenow reached an agreement on bipartisan auto aid agreement a senate democratic aide said on Thursday.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/New_Senate_to_get_major_global_warm_11202008.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/who-are-swing-senators.html

why does he list hagel as still being in the senate?

xp: even the swing republicans are terrible, awful, horrible people who will only vote with the democrats when it's something they absolutely have to vote for. four more years of obstruction.

i would put Specter ahead of Collins

matthews lol what the fuck is that about

bravo Feingold, Harkin and Byrd.

i kind of agree w you about geithner

his excuses are total bullshit. who the fuck doesnt know they have to pay a self employment tax

he had a lot on his mind

ppl who aren't freelance journalists, maybe? xp

are u serious

anyone who gets hired to be an independent contractor deals w/ that shit -- i had to do that for an office job i had earlier this year. and my first job out of college started off the same way.

lol

forever craven.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/09/nelson-compromise-stimulus/

Utterly pathetic:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html

Couldn't find the recent politics thread, sorry.

Oh wait there it is.

Jonathan Chait: Why the Democrats can't govern:

Even at this early date, the contrast between Democrats under Obama and Republicans under Bush is stark. Republicans did not denounce Bush for squandering a budget surplus to benefit the rich, the way Democrats now assail Obama for big spending and deficits. And Republicans did not refuse to use the budget procedures available to them to break through the Senate's inherent lethargy. Republicans, in other words, acted like a parliamentary party.

Voters in 2000 did not go to the polls with the intention of giving the GOP a chance to put its agenda into place. But Republicans acted as if they did. With very few exceptions, Republicans in Congress behaved like the legislative branch of the Bush administration, helping Bush enact his agenda by using every method at their disposal.

Democratic partisans constantly complain that their leaders in Washington fail to display the same partisan unity as Republicans do. And, in many crucial respects, they are correct. Even when they control the White House and both branches of Congress, Democrats have not displayed the parliamentary-style cohesion Republicans managed under Bush.

One reason is that Democrats are trapped by their past. America's two major parties have, historically, lacked much ideological cohesion. The GOP contained conservatives alongside progressives. The Democratic Party consisted of everything from Northern liberals to Southern reactionaries. The latter, in particular, held disproportionate sway in Congress. Having less in common with Democratic presidents than Republican ones, they carved out an independent role and guarded their prerogatives.

I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, it's great that Congress is asserting itself as a co-equal branch of government; but it doesn't seem to know what the hell it wants.

The Democratic Black Caucus kisses Castro's ass. Lift the embargo, I say, but don't be so abject about it -- and mention all the political prisoners, fer crissakes.

Key members of the Congressional Black Caucus are calling for an end to U.S. prohibition on travel to Cuba, just hours after a meeting with former Cuban president Fidel Castro in Havana.

“The fifty-year embargo just hasn’t worked,” CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) told reporters this evening at a Capitol press conference after returning from a congressional delegation visit to Cuba. “The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.”

Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro's later statement that members of the congressional delegation said American society is still racist.

"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.

“It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.), adding that he found Castro’s home to be modest and Castro’s wife to be particularly hospitable.

“In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor,” Rush said.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.) said Castro was receptive to President Obama’s message of turning the page in American foreign policy.

"He listened. He said the exact same thing" about turning the page "as President Obama said," said Richardson.

Not sure that's the time for mentioning "all the political prisoners" though. I mean if the idea is to reach out and not antagonize anyway.

It's like listening to an old friend.

Yeah that was a pretty choice quote.

That said I'm sure Hussein was pretty cordial when Rummy was visiting in the 80s too when he was gassing fuckers left and right, I just wish Lee/Rush/et all would be a little more circumspect about the whole thing.

Someone needs to explain why that generation of black Americans remains enraptured with this man. Cuba's biggest political prisoner is black.

Duh they read a lot of Che. That's not hard to understand at all.

There's a lot of romanticization of hard-leftist Latin American leaders in black nationalist thought, which pretty much anyone Af-Am and politically inclined has been exposed to, and often, with varying degree, internalized.

I don't think that's peculiar to the current generation. It's been that way since at least the post-civil rights era.

^ pretty well groomed by castro w/ harlem visits, asylum for shakur, brent, etc., just a low-key 'enemy of my enemy' connection that never got severed
throw some parochial trade concerns into the mix and you can cut the bs with your finger
this morning heard a radio interview w/ CA Rep. Laura Richardson; sickeningly credulous, sorry to say. in the 15-20 minutes i heard not even a nod to Obama's own human rights caveats, although i couldn't stay for a second segment and i have more faith in that particular interviewer than to think she was let completely off the hook.

Jane Harman's in trouble, it seems.

“This conversation doesn’t exist.”

classic

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “bull****.”

some ppl (ok josh marshall) are commenting on this part specifically: doesn't the idea of Gonzales doing a favor for Harman and then asking for her help defending the illegal wiretapping program seem kind of nice, for Gonzales? it's just as likely they told her what they had on her and then put her to work, despite how "three top former national security officials" might have described it.

That's the way it looks to me.

don't see why gonzalez would expect her help otherwise but who knows

http://www.newsobserver.com/1573/story/1491969.html

^ sounds like the 'carbon tax' idea, not calling it that is a start i suppose. hopefully enough stink is raised to at least force some teeth into the carbon trading regulation

i linked to page 2 btw

oh nevermind

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/did_goss_target_harman.php

kinda glad to see Specter getting screwed, tbh

I'll take Mikulski over him any day

Classic.

Krugman: Obama, you pussy.

Krugman is still annoyed it wasn't Hillary.

lolz like Hillary would be doing any better

Precisely!

[redacted]

Good times, baby. Good times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103001377.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/30/2009-10-30_congressional_defense_appropriations_panel_rocked_by_ethics_probe_leaked_by_hack.html

Congress is awesome.

lolz @ paltry amounts involved

(in regards to the first link - totally not surprised about the defense appropriations stuff those guys are all dirty)

lolz @ paltry amounts involved

wonder how much the investigation cost

Did ye ever get this sorted

No.