Ok, so it's February, 2005 and (insert Dem name here) has won

the presidency and been inaugurated. He or she has garnered the votes of millions of traditional, but frustrated and angry, Democrats who "swallowed the bitter pill for the greater good" (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the voter and the candidate).

What does he or she now do in regards to those voters? What does the DLC do?

Perhaps more to the point, what do YOU do with a Democrat in office?

Although I probably shouldn't have been, I was surprised a few weeks ago to find that the ultimate goal of many DUers' political involvement was the removal of Bush from office. When another Dem takes office, will you simply return to your scheduled programming? Will Al From (not that he's ever deviated from his)?

ed. for clarity.

If we have taken back Congress, I'm busy partying and doing some cheerful legislative tracking.

If we haven't, then I'm watching some fairly brutal legislative battles on C-SPAN.

And of course, there's always

Goobergunch Political Report 2006
Volume 4                     Number 1

...and that's where I come in.

Remember the Republican Revolution, and how they had that celebration on the floor of Congress???

This time, I'll be there. And I'll be cheering this time.

It's time to hold all sorts of feet to the fire. If the Democratic President doesn't turn over the shrub* administration to Hague, then that President is a traitor. This will not satisfy me either. I want to see all of the board members and executive types from all of the war profiteering factions involved in Hague too.
It's time for a really major cleanup of the Party.
But this is only going to come if a suitable person gets the Democratic nomination. I won't hesitate to walk away from the ballot box if I don't like what I see.

That's PRECISELY what DUers need to do, hold their feet to the fire. We need to DEMAND Democrats behave as Democrats or organize to have them removed via primaries.

"But this is only going to come if a suitable person gets the Democratic nomination. I won't hesitate to walk away from the ballot box if I don't like what I see."

I've seen similar sentiments by others around here and I have to ask why? I'm not flaming you on this, as I said, I'm really curious.

I admit when I was younger, I held the same attitude when I thought there wasn't anyone worth voting for on the ballot. But at this highly critical juncture, and when so many feel that the key to this election is getting the disenfranchised voter to the polls, why would someone choose to walk away?

I agree with the other post that this is not about just ousting this administration, although that should be enough motivation given its track record. It's about getting things pointed back in the right direction again. I don't think all of the nominees have in mind the sweeping changes that are needed, nor do I trust some of them not to be compromised. The wrong Dem could set back the cause of rebuilding this country and its relationship to the world.

But to simply walk away from this one is a little more than I could possibly conceive of.

And in answer to the original post on this thread, I can't possibly imagine ever becoming disengaged from this process again. Regardless of who is in office, there is still work to be done and issues to be dealt with. People are still going to be needed to speak to the agenda of whomever is elected. Altho, I will probably be able to breath a little easier than I do these days.

I would vote for ANY of them.

IMHO, both those who'd vote for "any" and those who'd vote for "none" are victims of the destruction of trust in our political "leadership." When we see the tips of icebergs of deep corruption in the most preeminent institutions, whether they be corporate, religious, or political, it's not surprising that our ability to distinguish between truth-tellers and truth-challenged is eroded. We have the examples of corruption at the highest levels in major religious institutions. We have the examples of corruption at the highest levels in major corporations. We have the examples of corruption at the highest levels in national politics. Everywhere we look, we see our systems failing the general public for the sake of entrenched power. Who's to say which of these candidates is even conscious of the difference between the truth and their won fervent desires? Who can really say the Junior is able to distinguish? When we allow ourselves to be ruled by certitude rather than healthy skepticism and open-mindedness, we're lost.

:thumbsup: Thank you.

you have diagnosed correctly,imho.

running currently considered victims of 'the destruction of trust'...

blah blah blah...

There's idealism and then there's pragmatism.

... with "pragmatists". :eyes:

I admitt it.. I slept through the Clinton years... NO MORE o that.
I'm gonna go to one of those Wellstone camps, I'm gonna keep writing LTR's, contacting my reps, giving money. I'm hooked for a long time to come.

...plus there will always be attempts by the right to smear the new president and other assorted dirty tricks.

Just because there's a Democrat in the White House does't mean that there are no more fights to fight.

be writing 1,000's upon 1,000's of Executive orders to reverse every single thing that Bush has done. Anything that can possibly be done without having to go through Congress. In FACT, I would hope that the next presidents secretary would have all the papers ready for him to sign the minute he takes the oath of office. What better way to say goodbye to Bush then letting him watch the new prez reverse all of his garbage. But thats just MHO

How sweet would that be...

War crimes, High crimes...etc. That is my sincere hope, that someone (who is actually guilty) will be made to pay.

much as I'd love to be wrong...

i think their strategy will depend on who gets the White House. who that ends up being will set the tone, i think, for what comes afterwards. controlling power will be top of their agenda, of that i'm sure.

after the election that is the time to make real progress towards important issues--the DEMs will be in the White House.

a lot of unforeseen issues probably too with need our attention.


i'm going to keep doing what i've done in the past, what i'm doing currently,being an agitater, a thorn in 'their' side.

a lot of unforeseen issues probably too with need our attention

Yup.

i'm going to keep doing what i've done in the past, what i'm doing currently,being an agitater, a thorn in 'their' side.

You're so impolitic... :D :loveya:

I was thinking about starting a similar thread yesterday.
Assume a best-case scenario -- Favorite Dem becomes president, AND Democrats gain control of at least one of the houses in Congress.

So, what's the first order of business? And for that matter, the second and third?

Tackling the economy is a key concern, but does not have a quick-fix solution, so that would be a long-term process. But early movement would have to made to indicate that we're serious about addressing the deficit, and ready to become a fiscally responsible nation again.

What about executive orders, especially ones rescinding the more odious orders that have come from this administration? Those would be quick-implementation, high-visibility moves that would get attention and quick results.

What about pushing for the repeal of the anti-American laws that have gone into effect, such as the cynically-named "Patriot Act"?

What about apologizing to the rest of the world for the mess created by these clowns? At a minimum, what about re-opening a reasonable diplomatic dialogue with other countries, letting them know that we're their partners, not their superiors?

What about opening sealed records from the Energy Task Force?

What about investigations into the alleged crimes and misdeeds of the people just thrown out of office? Would it be considered bad form to dwell on the past? This is a tough one for me -- I think these guys should be in jail, but is it politically smart for a new president to open investigations into the administration that s/he just succeeded?

What about pulling out of Iraq and getting our troops home? On a related note, how about getting back on track with protecting our national security?

Honestly I'm not sure where the new president should start -- so much damage has been done already that it's hard to identify what the highest priority should be.

And this doesn't even begin to address the scenario of a Democratic president with a Republican Congress -- how soon would they start impeachment proceedings?

(Argh...I wrote this an hour ago and keep getting interrupted. Darn work. Didn't even get a chance to proof-read it...)

...and oppose him/her full force when his/her plans/policies/actions are wrong. it's a shame that the question even has to be asked. that's what every citizen should do all the time, to the extent of their ability.

i have no illusions whatsoever about MY goals being met by a dem OR repub prez. my only goal is to stop them from making it worse until we can, perhaps, as a country, or a species, evolve a bit.

it's a shame that the question even has to be asked.

I'm still waiting for someone to perfect the "evolve" pill. :)

Call me a cynic, but....

You wanted to know what we (I) would do when a Dem gets elected, as opposed to what we would want the Dem to do once in office. Yeah, I'm an idiot (but an idiot who kept getting interrupted and didn't read the thread closely).

It would be nice to be able to get back to the way things were, or at least the way I thought they should be -- we elect our "leaders" and representatives to manage things in our stead, and to manage them the way we expected them to when we voted for them, so we can get back to living the rest of our lives while keeping a wary eye on them.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. We'll have to be more vigilant than we were in the past to make sure that the Dem President doesn't decide to become a surrogate Republican -- a possibility if s/he decides to over-compromise with a stubborn Republican Congress. This means that we'll have to keep on the Congressional Dems as well to make sure they continue to support "their" president, and not try to stab him in the back.

My quick $0.02 before turning in...

neither all that clearly. :silly:

:P

Well, since you asked both questions, then I guess I won't re-post my first response as a new thread...even though I had hoped to re-write so it didn't look as incoherent.

Thanks for starting this thread, btw. While we need to focus on winning '04, we definitely need to be thinking beyond the election as well.

:)

Bush and DeLay are leaving so much scandal material around in all areas of federal policy that a lot of any first year will involve exposing all of it. Sadly enough, that isn't even wishful thinking. The tax cuts for what they really do. The 'War on Terror'. Enron. Texas and Florida judiciaries. Rummie and Wolfie.

Iraq and defunding all those Republican constituency subsidies are the first place to go after the federal agencies get some housecleaning. I imagine any Democratic Attorney General will be working 24/7.

Then it's off to the 2006 election where President X will ask for a Congress that isn't mere gridlock.

prize. Dumping Dubya is not enough!

How did you find out that Shrub removal is the ultimate goal of many DUers' political involvement? Was it a poll I missed?

in response to a challenge from someone. I forget who it was.

sending all AEI warmongers to jail, thouroghly investigating
all the crimes and conspiracies commited by US administrations'
foreign policy teams for the last half century and punish
those responsible, independently of whom they might turn up
to be...

...then I'm sorry to say that nothing will change and Jeb Bush
will bring the neo-cons back in 2008.

No matter how important many may view the Presidential Election of 2004, it is trivial compared to the immense political problems facing our nation. One does not rid one's lawn of dandelions by ceremoniously clipping the pretty yellow flowers. When this reichwing regime can blithely overstep its Constitutional limits in declaring war (stampeding a cowardly Congress), stomping on civil liberties, looting the public treasury for many years to come, flash a middle finger at timorous demands for public accountability, and vandalize the electoral processes, we're in far more dire straits than the vast majority can seemingly comprehend. I can see no way of avoiding vast civil disobedience, amounting to a civil war in the streets of this country, before this is through.

that's no "prediction-lite" right there

My inability to see another path out of this protofascist morass, however, should not be construed (even by me) to say there is no other way. I do not see the 2004 election as even near sufficient. Until neither dominant party is infested with corporatist protofascists, bent on national and world domination either politically or economically, we're nowhere near having dealt with this corruption. It is symptomatic of the corruption of entrenched and predatory private wealth and the widespread ignorant zealots viscerally aroused to do their bidding, antithetical to any but the narrowest of malignant interests. There seems to be a long path ahead of us, and I doubt it's appreciated by very many.

what are your plans when the election is over?

if you had to pick just one issue to take on, what would it be?

Free/fair trade, probably, although I'd likely give you a different answer next week. :)

there are quite a few serious issues that need our immediate attention. i change my mind daily,sometimes hourly, which is the most pressing.
(secrectly i'm working on setting up a recovery program for over-schooled polisci students who are great with numbers but lack people skills)

here's a definite, i'll still be hanging out here with the pesky leftists when the election it is over. :loveya:

about it.