President!
We can't afford, as a nation, another four years of a Republican executive.
Posted by snark at October 26, 2007 03:45 PMI agree with snark...
Posted by Tom at October 26, 2007 03:48 PMAnd one other thing;
John Paul Stevens.
Posted by snark at October 26, 2007 03:54 PMSteve, that is one tough scenario! I think I would have to go with Hillary as prez and hope our Dem congresscritters would somehow show some spine.
Posted by Tommy Harper at October 26, 2007 03:58 PMPrevious to this presidency I may have said give me congress. However the reality of congress' in ability to check the unitary moves (e.g. signing statements) by 'Ol Chuckle Nuts has set an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Give me the White House and while there do something to eliminate use of signing statements.
Posted by Simp at October 26, 2007 04:00 PMGive me Congress everytime. I don't care who the President is, if there are not enough Democratic votes in Congress to overcome a Republican filibuster, it doesn't matter. Personally, I would like both, a Democratic President and Congress. However, given the colossal stupidty of the American people, I have no hope of that. As likely as not, many Americans will vote Republican to show how pissed off they are at Democrats. Go figure!
Posted by PretzelsOne at October 26, 2007 04:09 PMWe've seen what an executive with no shame or scruples can do to a congress, I'd take Hillary every time. Still, by the end of next year, when the fruits of this admin's labors start rotting and stinking up the place even worse than now, I'm hoping we end up with both the exec and congress. And yes, snark, Stevens is ready to go. No more activist judges!!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 26, 2007 04:20 PMthe Supreme Court is the greatest threat. Bush has put in two rightie nuts. We've seen the SC install a president of choice, setting the country on an 8 year reign of Constitutional Horror and war. I am still very skeptical that a woman will be elected, and Hillary is probably the worst woman that could give it a try. I'll vote for her, sure, but this will be the worst episode in American free electoral process we'll ever see. It will be a tough 12 months.
Posted by T2 at October 26, 2007 04:45 PMpoor word choice....I should have said Hillary is the worst choice, not worst woman, to run as the first woman presidential candidate. Why give the nuts a perfect target?
Posted by T2 at October 26, 2007 04:47 PMNo good can be done without Congress, and much wrongdoing cannnot can be prevented without the executive branch.
In theory the Congress is the dominant branch---it may absolutely override executive vetoes, it need not confirm a single executive appointment until it concurs, and it has absolute power to remove the executive if it chooses. Congress also has absolute control over the all-important power of the purse, which power resolved every monarch v parliament struggle in history.
I can see why, given our current insane militarism, and the technological and lawbreaking ability the executive now has at its disposal, Dems would prefer holding the presidency. But under either scenario, it means that the planet's climate is doomed.
Basically, we have to play for a miracle---the complete destruction of Repub power in government.
Posted by euzoius at October 26, 2007 04:52 PMA no brainer.
Just give me Supreme Exaulted Commander of the Universe, Hillary.
She will put the newly grabbed executive power to good use. Bush, Cheney, and Conarteesta go directly to Gitmo, do not pass go.
Posted by TIKI AL at October 26, 2007 05:02 PMPresident, mainly because of SCOTUS.
The ability of bu$h/cheney to influence congress, the media, foreign policy and corporations the last 7 years is another prime reason. Not that those will be greatly affected but it will be marginally.
We do need to rub the neo-cons out of business permanently.
Posted by Seven of Six at October 26, 2007 05:05 PMThe most important thing is having a Democratic branch -- whether the Legislature or Executive -- that has some spine. Option B could be preferable if the extra votes in Congress were committed progressives (or moderates with balls). But if we are talking more Bush dogs, who cares?
If you had Democratic leaders in Congress who showed leadership and courage, the only GOP President who I would actually fear would be Giuliani (i.e. He is the only candidate who would likely trigger a Constitutional crisis. The others I merely disagree with, even if profoundly.)
Posted by space at October 26, 2007 05:20 PMIt won't matter which you get. The Dems are going to have the unenviable task of repairing everything and there will be no glory in it, and very likely they will not be able to repair things successfully no matter how hard they try. The Dems have crippled themselves beyond recovery by waiting and hoping too much already.
Posted by gtash at October 26, 2007 05:49 PMJustice JP Stephens is retiring in after this session is finished if he lives that long. We will have much fun next year after that. I'd still want the presidency, the next president will probably see two and maybe a third Justice leave SCOTUS. Priorities have always been the courts. I'd want my 'guy' making the choices.
Seems, Steve is getting a little antsy about Democrats chances next year. I firmly believe that Rudy W Giuliani will be our next President. If Huckabee catches fire, I wouldn't be disappointed, Rudy's a general election dynamo.
Posted by peter at October 26, 2007 05:51 PMSorry Steve but I'm not buying the premise of your question here. I'm just not convinced that we'll be hurt down ticket if Hillary wins the white house next year. People have HAD it with the republicans here in DC - they want change and I think we're going to see some pretty decent gains in both houses next year.
Posted by Alegre at October 26, 2007 06:04 PMWhich would you choose?
I'd choose "both": A Democratic president, and a Senate with 60+ Democrats.
'Cause we can get it. And because it's time the country was put back into safe, sane hands.
Posted by mbayrob at October 26, 2007 06:26 PMI'm just not convinced that we'll be hurt down ticket if Hillary wins the white house next year.
Was Steve implying this? I kinda thought it was a Friday night frolic of "What if?"
Posted by iamcoyote at October 26, 2007 06:45 PMDon't you just hate it when people can't just answer the question?
Yes, we could have both. But that's not the question.
Posted by snark at October 26, 2007 07:35 PMIt's tough, but the Supreme Court is the swing issue. We cannot have any of the Republican candidates picking the next two. We can barely trust the Democratic candidates.
Posted by James E. Powell at October 26, 2007 08:02 PMThis is a presidential republic. You've got to control the executive branch or else you're stuck with at best the Harry and Nancy show. IOW, you're stuck fighting a rear guard action to prevent a bad government from getting worse.
Once the two nominees are determined, that's where the focus is going to be until the November election. Congress is an afterthought. An important afterthought, but still an afterthought.
You also have to take into account the appointments that the exec gets to make. Imagine the difference if people who were actually experienced in a field were to take charge of the departments, rather than industry lackeys? Legislation's great and all that, but if people who knew how to govern were put into governing positions, one would think that alone would effect real change. Start with putting Waxman in charge of the IGs...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 26, 2007 08:11 PMYou also have to take into account the appointments that the exec gets to make. Imagine the difference if people who were actually experienced in a field were to take charge of the departments, rather than industry lackeys?
Great point coyote.
We will barely be able to survive the remaining 15 months of total imcompetence! The thought of 4 additional years makes me shudder.
Speaking for the Rest of the World, you'd better pick a very smart and strong decision maker/pusher/seller. The US faces a huge range of major problems that, frankly, ROW doesn't think you have the ability to solve; finacial bubbles, energy crisis, global climate change, productivity loss, social inequalities, loss of confidence.
The US is seen as a nation in decline with an unwillingness to face reality. You need an FDR now more than ever. Tinkering with the courts or congress right now is too little, too late.
Posted by Allen/Vancouver at October 26, 2007 09:37 PMThat really isn't much of a choice, so long as the Democrat is a Democrat and not a turncoat like Lieberman or Zell Miller.
Did anybody hear Reid on Big Ed's show today? I heard the first couple minutes, before I had to go back to work, but I lost every shred of respect and positive thoughts that I've had for Reid in those couple of minutes.
I don't think they're the same as republicans, I don't think they're spineless cowards, I think that they just don't have a fucking clue. They are the epitome of the goody two shoes, namby pamby, politically correct, every generalization the gopper thugs throw at them, milquetoast fools.
Sorry ladies, but Harry Reid is a fucking pussy. And since he's a man, with a dick, in man talk that's not a good thing.
This house vote they managed to bungle and piss off the repubs that were backing the schip, everything they do, every judge they still approve and so on, they just aren't any use, and they need to go away.
More of this current crop of losers just means there will be more losers to get rolled by the mean ol repukes. So clearly the answer is Dem President, they should be able to roll the Dems in Congress just like Cheney/Rove has done for the past 7 years.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 26, 2007 09:43 PMI think the best bet for winning a Democratic Congress is with Hillary Clinton at the head of the ticket.
Also, of the Democratic candidates, she will be best able to coordinate and manage Congress to get some needed reforms through. Some kind of universal health insurance option, for sure. Some solid court and agency appointees.
Another GOP president is very dangerous -- for the world on the level of war and violence, as well as the environment; and for the nation, in terms of civil liberties and the bill of rights.
Posted by coral at October 27, 2007 05:28 AMI would prefer a strong majority in congress that could overcome the conservative red dog votes. Short of that, I would prefer a Dem who is President.
Posted by Pugsey at October 27, 2007 05:34 AMDuckman, all ok in your Southern California world?
Posted by peter at October 27, 2007 07:12 AMWhy don't you ask him at his blogsite peter?
Posted by Seven of Six at October 27, 2007 07:21 AMBush proved he can govern with 1/3 of the house +1. We need control of both of branches of govt.
Remember Gingrich could not fullfill his agenda even with the weak Bill Clinton.
My choice: Ron Paul as president (as an independent) with greater Democratic hold on congress. He is the only one that I am absolutely sure won't renege on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Many believe his views extreme but he himself said the top priority is getting out of Iraq and his understanding of the Constitution requires he work with congress not over congress.
Posted by skeptic at October 27, 2007 08:43 AMA strong president can put spine in his or her party no matter how shaky the majority. A POTUS has too many tools and weapons (even when he is at 24 percent)to not take advantage of the opportunity.
I slept on this "choice" overnight because initially I was thinking larger numbers in Congress but couldn't put my finger on why....Now, I'm not so certain that would make enough of a difference because of the current crop already there. So.....and also because of Scotus appointments, cabinet appointments, and the need to clear house and depoliticize the DOJ.... I agree, a Democratic Potus would make more of an impact. Heck look at the havoc a Mr. 24% Preznit continues to wreak on this nation and people all over the world every single day due to those appointments...even with a Democratic Congress.
Posted by emal at October 27, 2007 01:53 PMDemocrats in Congress are nearly worthless; more would probably help, especially new and more progressive ones. But Hillary as President is my pick. Giuliani would be a disaster for this country.
Posted by QuakerLiz at October 28, 2007 12:09 PMHillary. Or whatever Democrat. Reid and Pelosi have no fight in them.
Posted by Moses at October 28, 2007 01:12 PMYou're kidding, right? For those of us who have been paying attention, president + president's justice dept + special counsel rule expired = congress is just a smoke and noise machine with no effective power whatsoever. So what if Cheney is impeached? Just who/what would make him leave?
Posted by darms at October 29, 2007 08:30 AM