Assume a Democratic president is elected in 2008, and we keep the house and senate

[More Than A Feeling]

but do not gain a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Given that scenario, which parts of the Republican nightmare will actually be consigned to oblivion, and which will survive to become "the way its always been?"

[Enrique]

1. I think things in the agencies will change first

political and industry hacks out, professionals back in. But if Hillary is pres. (I think she probably will be), there will be a Wall Street person at Treasury.

[calteacherguy]

3. What do you have against a "wall street" person? nt

[Seabiscuit]

4. Actually, a "wall street person" would be a huge improvement over

what we have now.

At least that person would understand Wall Street.

Probably a lot better than I. I don't understand it at all except that it is full of fearful and irrational rushes to judgment.

[Enrique]

8. what we have now is former CEO of Goldman Sachs

[Seabiscuit]

12. So? Probably an extremist right-wing Repuke based on this admin's track record.

[Enrique]

14. not really

Paulson is the kind of republican that could conceivably serve in a Democratic administration.

[ProudDad]

18. Uh, isn't paulsen also

a "wall st person" -- from the Chicago branch;

"Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs."

They always put a representative of our corporate capitalist masters in charge of Treasury...

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Jon Corzine held that same job before getting into politics

And he had one of the most liberal voting records when he was in the Senate and wrote an article shortly after he was elected about why he refused to join the DLC. Granted I'm not saying a Democrat will inherently appoint someone that liberal. Bob Rubin was certainly the epitome of third way economic policy.

[MiserableFailure]

27. Yeah and Bob Rubin was the best Sec of Treas in my lifetime

Your point?

[Hippo_Tron]

29. He was the best Secretary of Treasury in my lifetime as well

But Reagan was in office when I was born, so my lifetime has been filled with mostly shitty Presidents and therefore shitty Treasury Secretaries

[Enrique]

6. a Wall Street person would tend to have different interests than myself

for example, they would tend to have a higher tolerance for unemployment than I would.

That's my general bias against a Wall Street person. I'd always be open to looking at the individual.

[Seabiscuit]

13. Actually, the market plunged almost 300 points Friday in response to several

factors, but mainly due to new reports about a major increase in unemployment statistics.

Bad unemployment news always depresses the market. Wall Street people understand this.

[Enrique]

15. no, often it's the opposite, as Wall Street people know very well

bad unemployment news is often directly correlated with high stock prices.

"What's good for Wall Street" is not always "what's good for Main Street."

[Seabiscuit]

19. Just an example of what I call the "irrationality" of Wall Street.

[Enrique]

21. no, it's highly rational

self interest, more money for them. UNBELIEVABLY high money for them. Those bonuses are staggering.

[Seabiscuit]

22. What do corporate "bonuses" have to do with Wall Street???

[Enrique]

25. I'm specifically talking about Wall Street bonuses

they are astronomical even by corporate standards.

[Seabiscuit]

28. OK, so what are "Wall Street bonuses"?

I'm getting a bit dizzy here...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Why single HRC out? She is a distant second on Wall Street

Obama beat her almost 2-to-1 on Wall Street last quarter and raised almost as much as Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney combined on Wall Street. Why does HRC continue be singled out, especially since she was not Wall Street's darling?

[ProudDad]

20. They're ALL DIRTY

"Based on contributions from employees, their families and political action committees, no company has contributed more to the candidates than Goldman Sachs, the giant investment firm. Goldman’s executives and employees donated nearly $500,000 in the campaign’s first three months, followed by Citigroup, UBS Americas, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Two hedge fund companies, Fortress Investment Group—where John Edwards has served as an adviser—and SAC Capital, come in at #9 and #10, further establishing hedge funds as major political contributors.

"Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton led their parties in money from the securities and investment industry. Both collected about $1.7 million, with Romney raising slightly more in CRP’s preliminary analysis.

"The top law firm, and the 12th largest contributor among all companies, is Sidley Austin LLP, whose employees have donated more than $190,000. More than 55 percent of the firm’s contributions have gone to Barack Obama, who reportedly met his wife at Sidley Austin’s Chicago office while she was an attorney and he was a summer associate.

"But it is Edwards, a former plaintiff’s attorney, who is the legal industry’s favorite candidate, by far. Edwards has taken in nearly $4.4 million from lawyers and their firms since January, or $1 out of every $3 he has raised. Clinton trails Edwards with about $2.8 million from attorneys."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2007/PresidentialMoney.4.18.asp

[Hydra]

2. It's too hard to call

Would there be an election?
Would the election not be rigged for next pub?

Assuming the first two don't happen, would the Dem keep all the power that * has been hording?

Would Harry Reid call for the end of filibusters?

Too many things could and will happen. The possibilities are there, but the will?

[Seabiscuit]

5. There are endless possibilities, from

the realization of our fondest dreams to a far worse nightmare than we've ever imagined during the past 7 years.

[AtomicKitten]

7. they need to flush out the Justice Dept first (nt)

[CK_John]

10. Tell me if the stock market will be below 10,000 and I tell you who will win in Nov 08. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

11. Very little will change, even if we had a filibuster-proof majority

I have come to the conclusion that my friend Keith was right, and I was wrong, when I expected a change of direction by having a Democratic Congress. The several Democratic cave-ins we have seen recently on defunding the war and warrantless searches, are symptomatic of something seriously wrong within the Democratic Party. Too many Dems in the Beltway are too willing to enable Bush's dictatorial agenda, so many in fact, that one can only assume that they are co-conspirators with Bush.

How come establishment candidates like Hillary Clinton only criticize the management of the war in Iraq and not the war itself, unless they share the same imperial goals that the neocons advocate.

We have been played for fools!

[ProudDad]

16. You're right...

the corporate capitalist masters will win...all of the "top tier" candidates are hooked up...

We will get screwed again...


The phony "war on terror" will not end -- it's too lucrative for the corporate interests that have returned to being generous to Dems...

The phony "war on drugs" will not end -- It's too lucrative for Smith and Wesson and Remington and Glock and the banks laundering the money and the Dems have not the cajones to do what should be done...

The Empire's war machine will get MORE money, not less...to "rebuild" the lost might of the U.S. killing machine -- and to shovel money at the military-industrial complex -- heavy donors to Dems again...

There will be NO Universal, Single-Payer Health Care in this fucking country -- it's too lucrative for the corporate insurance companies to leave the system as broken as it is now...now that those insurance companies are being generous to Dems again... (Clinton topped the recipient list with $868,722, 23% of all the healthcare money donated to candidates this year. Romney was a close second at $833,385, 22% of the total dollars. The other frontrunners followed. Sen. Barack Obama, with $574,268, 15%; Sen. John McCain, $423,751, 11%; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, $408,822, also 11%; and former Sen. John Edwards, $222,950, 6%.)


Maybe if there's a filibuster proof majority we'll get some crumbs...They'll throw Dennis or the Barbaras or Teddy a bone once in a while -- but not much.


Until there's Public Financing of elections with OUR AIRWAVES taken back for substantive, FREE campaign events for publicly financed candidates -- there will be no substantive change -- it will still be elections open to the highest bidder...owned by the corporate capitalist masters...

Remember Clinton - NAFTA, GATT, The obscene Telecommunications act (giveaway to corporate media), the END of the safety net "as we knew it", etc.


I don't have any short-term hopes for the Belly of the Beast -- the U.S. Fascist/Corporatist Empire. The real hope lies elsewhere with the good People working on alternative economic/political paradigms...


On Edit: For those of you that are bummed out by these TRUTHS, sorry... :shrug:

[Enrique]

17. I remember Clinton

I remember all those criticisms you list (and would add welfare reform).

But I look at it different now. Now what I also see is that things were pretty good generally in the country, I also see the way the right wing went after him, and what we got when he left.

[ProudDad]

24. Clinton sowed the seeds

for "what we got when he left"...

I consider his term the bridging transition between ray-gun/bush I and bush II...

I understand he was unfortunate to inherit the repuke "revolution" brought about in no small part by the crimes of the Dems...but still, when it came to corporate privilege and triangulating about the poor and misfortunate of our brothers and sisters, his was a worthy transition to the deprivations of the 21st so far...

[Enrique]

26. I see it very differently

I see the Bush administration as a radical change from Clinton, and I see the impeachment attempt and the 2000 stolen election as the evidence of the virulence of the radical rightwing extremists.

From the GOP primary campaign, I see that they are still controlled by the radical rightwing extremists.

[truebrit71]

30. All of them, because the Democratic President will simply imprison those that disagree with them...

..in fact, it'll be mighty quiet in both Houses after the next GE and a Dem gets in...You speak out against the Dems, you get "Gitmo'ed"...You know, because the President will have all of those lovely powers given to him by the previous office holder...