Which would you want more? Control of Congress or Presidency?

Which would you want more?

The Presidency, but with a GOP majority in both the House and Senate

or

Democratic Control of the House and Senate with a GOP president.

I know we want both...but that would make it too easy to answer.

stop all the hemorrhage of civil rights, money, lives and EVERYTHING that's directly attributable to shrub, and control SC appointments again.

Look how much damage the guy has done from the presidency. It's true that the congress has been an important enabler, but my choice would be easy.

If Congress really did their mandated job of passing legislation that was good for the people of the nation (hello, representative government?) or fulfilled their roles in "advise and consent," I'd say "Congress."
But if we are now in an era of a monarchical White House, then I'd say "President."

I think it's a fuzzy question you ask here, sorry.

Cause it comes quicker

foreign policy, domestic agencies - ala FEMA, etc.

....I'll take the control of Congress any day.

The effect BushCo is having on the EPA, FDA, Justice Dept., Civil Rights, all the scientific areas of the government, etc. Plus the friggin Supreme Court.

The President does essentially dictate the foreign policy. If there wasn't a Republican President there is no way in hell we would have invaded Iraq.

If it had to be one or the other, I'll take President with his veto power and control of the entire Federal Bureaucracy.

If the choice is Congress in 2006 or President in 2008 - I'll take Congress now. That wasn't the question as I read it.

.....still controls the purse strings. If there was a Democratic Congress they would simply need to cut funding for the war to stop it. They did it to Clinton. So again I say I'd take control of both Houses of Congress.

Presidency with a Democratic Congress vs. Clinton Presidency with a Republican Congress = Clinton years were better IMO.

The Presidency is so powerful now, I'd take that.

We will just have to respectfully disagree.:)

Choice number two would be Democratic control of both houses so that we could throttle most of the president's bad ideas.

have a democratic president or a dem congress which has enough votes and power to force a GOP president to appoint a moderate?

thanks to the fools who re-elected W.

It was my way of saying that short term the biggest threat is the one we can't do anything about. We can have a wholly Democratic congress after the 2006 elections and the court will still be slanted right. The court is now tilting slightly more to the right and chances are quite good that W will have a third opportunity to nominate someone. Even if the next justice is considered moderate, it will be a Republican version of moderate, which is conservative light.

The only way we can regain control of the court is to hope for a lot of retirements under the next Democratic president.

Under the Constitution, we do have the power to impeach Justices, if we can somehow get control of congrees & the whitehouse, and there are three Justices who have blood on their hands, two who's hands are just dripping with blood, and there are plenty of evidence against them especially one of them. Why wait for deaths or retirements when we can speed things up with impeachment. I know its a long shot, but you never know what may happen. :)

:)

If you don't believe it compare the years 1987 - 1993 to the years 1995 to 2001. In the first set we had Congress but not the Presidency in the second set the Presidency but not the Congress. I have no doubt which years were better.

Despite what is written in the constitution, the White House has an incredible amount of power that the legislature doesn't. Control of foreign policy being one of these powers.

However, I'd take all the wins we can get. Bush is really making all the Republicans look bad.

Assuming that we have to choose one or the other, I guess I'd prefer having the Presidency, especially with how powerful the Presidency has become under Bush. With his ability to sneak controversial nominees into cabinet positions through his use of "recess appointments" and his flouting of enacted laws through "signing statements" and advice from his legal counsel, his power is almost unlimited right now, especially since the GOP-controlled Congress is not really TRYING to "check" his power, nor hold him accountable for...well.....just about anything. Since Bush is getting away with all of this, what's to stop future GOP presidents from acting any differently? Plus, we can almost be sure that there will be more Supreme Court vacancies during the next presidency and we will want to be able to ensure that the new justices will be more like the more moderate members of the SC who are likely to retire instead of enabling the GOP to add more "stealth" conservatives to the SC. With the presidency, we would also have the ability to shape foreign policy and, hopefully, try to repair and undo some of the damage that Bush's "War on Terrorism" has wrought on the world and on our own citizens. It WOULD suck not really being able to get much done in Congress with a GOP majority unless they suddenly decided that genuine bipartisanship and cooperation are far better for the country than corruption and divisiveness. Unless the GOP undergoes a massive transformation, I can't see this happening. I'd love to get proven wrong, however.

will be much more powerful. however, congress, as an opposition check and balance, is much more powerful. look what happened to clinton.

having a democratic congress and president never did half the damage this congress and president have.

ellen fl