Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Well after the Foley sex scandal, it's hard to see how we're going to keep the House.

But, this could be a good thing since now the Dems are going to have to put up or shut up and their lead face is going to be a San Francisco liberal who makes New York City liberals look conservatives.

Could this possibly be a good thing for 2008?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well after the Foley sex scandal, it's hard to see how we're going to keep the House.

Mayabe but you have to bear in mind that a week can be a long time in politics.

But, this could be a good thing since now the Dems are going to have to put up or shut up

Your pretty much spot on the Dems dont have any plans or values other then there anti Bush platform.

Could this possibly be a good thing for 2008?

My personal feeling is that the Republicans will win in 2008 for the simple reason that without there anti Bush platform the Dems will be like a ship that has a jamed rudder and is taking on water.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by xpert11]

I have trouble understanding the whole party politics thing.

First you have the whole lot, Republicans and Democrats all standing shoulder to shoulder and passing every bill before them with glee. Then, when things start getting messy and there are elections looming, they step back and whine and change tack.
Do they think their past voting record and speeches are forgotten? Possibly so

That's politics though I guess. No backbone or personal stance on any issue, just whatever may be necessary to gain or keep a seat at election time

Britguy,

I don't think that's usually true anymore in American politics. Lately, in most cases bills squeak through on party lines with just a few crossing the aisle.

In the past when we usually had Republicans as President but there was a Democratic Congress which contained a lot of conservative southern Democrats, the situation was different. But almost all of those conservative Democrats are gone (mainly replaced by true Republicans) and the remaining pool of Dems are far left wingers.

edit:

I must also say whatever party is the majority part has a HUGE advantage, since they get to be the chairmen of every single committee and these chairmen determine what bills are scheduled when, so in a situation with a split Congress, you may get a bill passed quickly by one house, but held up by just one person in the other chamber.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by djohnsto77]

OK I know this is an blog entry but I can say for certain that it makes a brief but interesting point to bear in mind and the source is legit. No matter how bad the incumbers are there is no guarantee that there is an creditable alternative on offer to American voters.
Cheers xpert11.

This sex stuff is a trap for the Democrats: the case against the Republicans looks so bad, so utterly unanswerable, that the pressure is on the Democrats to win big in the elections on 7th November.

If they fail to deliver they surely go up in flames - this view confirmed to me a few minutes ago in a conversation with a former staffer in the Clinton White House who added these prophetic words: "Never underestimate our ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

link

[edit on 6-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-10-2006 by xpert11]

What happens if Nancy Pelosi is number three in line to the oval office, then Conyers gets his way and impeaches both the President and the Vice President? Is that even possible? President pelosi? Talk about stealing one! Please someone tell me this can't happen...

Originally posted by Gatordone
What happens if Nancy Pelosi is number three in line to the oval office, then Conyers gets his way and impeaches both the President and the Vice President? Is that even possible? President pelosi? Talk about stealing one! Please someone tell me this can't happen...

It's theoretically possible but they just wouldn't have the votes in the Senate. Even if someone is impeached by the House, it takes 2/3 if the Senate to convict and remove from office.

djohnsto77, that's the nicest thing I've heard all day. Thank you for clearin that up for me. *huge sigh of relief...

It's amazing how silent Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been over the last few weeks.

I haven't seen hide nor hair of either of them...perhaps they learned something from Kerry.

As soon as the Republican loose the "Bush" tag, there are no problems.

The problem with the Democrats, from a non-American point of view, they are too liberal in my opinion and don't really have a platform that is appealing. I mean, liberalism is not bad, i see myself as a liberal conservative, but very liberal politics is too soft and dangerous in my eyes.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite
As soon as the Republican loose the "Bush" tag, there are no problems.

The problem with the Democrats, from a non-American point of view, they are too liberal in my opinion and don't really have a platform that is appealing

I totally agree, luckly our executive branch is separately elected from the legislative, so Bush will remain in power for 2 more years and the Democrats in Congress, even if they have tsunami election there, won't be able to do much over his veto power. The Bush tax cuts don't expire until 2010, so we can just let the next two years be a reminder of what the Democrats are like without giving them much real power.

A Democrat Congress will probably benefit the Republicans, think about it if they go against something that can be used against them in 2008? its priceless material.

Plus, if the Democrats do anything just to block Bush for the hell of it and to make him look weak, i doubt the American voting population would stand for it.