In the new Democratic administration, do you think ..........

[Stinky The Clown]

.... we will see any significant advances toward the core Democratic goals? It seems to me that we will have not only a Democrat in the White House, but majorities in both houses of Congress.

This is not about specific candidates and is **NOT** the place to speculate about what a President Obama or a President Clinton might or might not do. For the sake of this discussion, assume they both share the very same core values.

Do you think we will see some form of health care for all? (I hesitate call it 'universal single payer' although that is what I favor and I bet you do, too). A bastardized system that gets everyone covered is probably better than what we have and would hopefully be a step toward true universal single payer.

Do you think we'll see codified recognition of gay people as equal citizens? A Gay Rights Act not unlike the Civil Rights Acts that helped women and minorities achieve at least a measure of equality.

Do you think we'll see a final end to the War in Iraq and withdrawal from that country?

Do you think we'll see significant, meaningful strides toward energy independence? And toward a greener country in general? Not bullshit band aids, but serious, meaningful changes.

Do you think we'll see some structural reforms in our country that favor fairness, and may not at all be 'core democratic values"? Things like a more independent media? Like a more secure voting system? Like serious campaign reform that gets corporate money out of the system?

How much hope do you think is reasonable?

[niyad]

1. unless we get a veto-proof house and senate, it will be business as usual

[electropop]

2. We need 66% in both chambers.

And not 66% wimpy half-dems, but the real deal.

I'm not holding my breath.

[shraby]

4. If we get a Dem. president, we don't need

a veto proof anything.

[niyad]

6. no, but we do need a majority--you know, the kind that can overcome filibusters and other

such things?

[wryter2000]

11. Right

We'd need 60 good Dems in the Senate. A simple majority in the House would do.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Thanks for that response ......

.... that's exactly the kind of thinking this post was intended to elicit. <---- ***Totally*** not snark.

Following along with that, If we have solid House majority, and, let's say, a four seat Senate majority (without Lieberman), do you think we would be emboldened to do the 'right' stuff over the safe stuff?

[niyad]

7. I would hope so, but I am very cynical. (and having one of the biggest DINO"s as my

senator doesn't help)

[Stinky The Clown]

17. ::snap:: Oh, that's right! You're in LieberLand, right?

[niyad]

25. no, mine is ken salazar, fredo's good buddy, and voter for torture.

[nels25]

15. Depends on what is proposed

who is proposing and backing it and if Obama means it when he says he will work with the GOP to some limited degree.

If we act like Bush has (nuts to the opposition) then we should not be to terribly surprised if what is left in the GOP in the senate gets it back up and starts to block things.

Remember we did like it when we were treated like that and neither will the republicans.

Consultation in no ways means giving away the store IMHO>

If push were to come to shove though than use our power, pass our legislation and dare the GOP to in effect undue it when they get power.

That is a rule my political science professor should be known as the Wilson rule, and he lamented that Bill Clinton did not learn it.

[nels25]

14. Don't see how we get to a veto proof senate

it takes 67 IIRCC and that is just not going to happen.

In fact I doubt we can get to a fillibuster proof majority (60) that some hope and wish for.

My guess 55-57 in the senate when the dust clears.

10-15 seats pick up in the house (of which I think we turn around and lose around 20 in 2010, because bi-elections never help the party in power)

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Veto proof only matters if we expect the president to veto legislation

I don't see the need for that with a Democratic president and a Democrat congress.

[nels25]

24. Duh of course

my mistake for which I am duly chastened.

:spank: Myself.

[LSparkle]

3. I hope we'll see the first REALLY Democratic administration in decades

A return to the kind of priorities Jimmy Carter first espoused (energy
independence for one -- put those solar panels back on the White House!).
I admired Bill C. but he really was no progressive (far more of a cen-
trist than I would have liked). I'm enough of a realist to know that
Obama won't be able to go as far left as I'd personally like, but I'd
hope that his administration could be described as "moderately left"
or at least LEFT to some degree (as opposed to being right down the
middle).

[SlipperySlope]

8. My crystal ball

If a Democratic administration operates for the next eight years, I predict:

Universal health care: Yes. It will not be "single payer", but nobody will be excluded for medical history or lack of ability to pay.

Codified recognition of gay people as equal citizens: Nothing sweeping, but maybe some minor improvements.

War in Iraq: I predict the Democratic president will find resolution in their first term. I predict almost (but not all) US troops out, but those remaining are rarely in harms way.

Energy Independence / Greener: I predict significant steps towards independence, but not towards any kind of "greening" that implies reduced consumption.

Structural Reform: No major structural changes, but instead a general repair of the damage the last eight years have done.

[lonestarnot]

10. OMG I love that sound!

:applause:

[SlipperySlope]

12. Specifics on Iraq

I don't think the Iraq situation can be resolved without international support. The current administration is f****d in that even it the WANTED international support, they burnt all those bridges years ago.

I think that a new Democratic presidency has the potential to say "the last 8 years are over and we want to rejoin the international community".

The best hope I see for Iraq is that an international stabilization force, made up of soldiers from primarily other Arab nations, can take over the peace-keeping and nation-building.

At least, that's what I hope for. Staying is disaster, pulling out is disaster, but getting someone else to step in and help just might work.

[lonestarnot]

19. Sounds good, but I haven't thought to much about giving our pile of crap to someone else.

Who'd have it?

[SlipperySlope]

27. I don't look at it that way.

Let's say that everybody involved looked at Iraq and said "wow, what a pile of crap". That doesn't mean that nobody would be willing to get involved with dealing with it.

First, consider the neighbors: They are left living next to a pile of crap no matter what, but they very may want some say in what sort of pile of crap it is. Given the choice between a complete US pullout with a collapsing Iraq, versus a pan-Arab stabilization force with a gradual US pullout, I think that many of them would prefer to get involved. If each of Iraq's immediate neighbors would step up with 10% of their active forces, that is 167k troops.

Second, consider the European powers: This would be a much harder sales pitch, but conceivably a new president could try to argue "Look, the last four years were a big mistake, and now I'm here to fix things. Please show some support, even if it is token support, and it will go a long way towards helping make things right". Lets say that another 20k troops could be committed (I know, this may be more wishful thinking that the Arab troops, but play along).

Now we've got almost 190k "new troops" to help stabilize Iraq, on top of the 164k already there. But the big difference would be the Arab presence and international support.

Arab presence is key. Right now you know that the insurgents in Iraq are getting support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, etc. But if there were Arab troops trying to keep the peace, and Arab boys going home in body bags, that would probably make a lot of that support dry up.

I think we could see "stability" in Iraq in year one, and a general draw-down of US troops in year two.

So yeah, I think we could get other countries to help us take our pile of crap off our hands. Mainly through convincing Arab states that a pile of crap that they get a say in is better than a pile of crap that they don't.

[blondeatlast]

16. Very realistic, IMHO. Also, the new president will probably have at least two SCOTUS appointments in

the first term--with the way it's stacked now, that could be very significant--and very crucial.

Edit: spelling

[wryter2000]

9. A wild-assed guess here

And I'm never, never right.

What I'd try to do about health care coverage is regulate the amount of profit the HMO's can make. The problem, imho, is that the insurance companies that handle most health care insurance treat them as a cash cow rather than a vehicle for dispensing health care. I think if they were required to put 97% of their income into health care, rather than profit and dividends, the resources would be available to take care of people.

The bill would probably also have to disallow the big insurance companies from just dumping their customers.

[TooBigaTent]

13. Health care is going no where - there is too much money being made and "only"

a few million are suffering.

Equal rights for gay Americans will not progress much at all - the pukes are against it and not enough Democrats are willing to fight for it.

The US will be in the Middle East as long as Israel controls our foreign policy in the region.

Energy independence. Hah! We have been hearing the same crap since the 70's. Not until the oil runs out and the oil companies have to come up with another way to make money will any major advancements be made. The "high" mileage touted in car ads is no better than it was 30 years ago.

The powerful never willingly give up their power. With the consolidation (corporate, media, etc.) that has occurred over the past 25-35 years, they will become even stronger and more able to more fully control more of our lives.

So, even if the Dems have the WH and large majorities in Congress, they will accomplish little or nothing. And it will be because they do not want to give up THEIR power. Things will not change until the American people are uncomfortable enough and suffer severely enough to demand change. That point is nowhere close.

Hope is fine. Just do not confuse it with reality.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Gotta question ......

.... why bother to vote?

Or to even care?

[blondeatlast]

20. Many people (I know of one) think we all enjoy their misery as much as they do...

Just sayin' (a close relative is very much like this)

[Carrieyazel]

21. We first have to get the White House back, and then we can deal with the goals.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Tis is not the thread for that discussion.

If you wish, may I kindly suggest you start your own thread about it. :hi:

[Truth2Tell]

26. Hmmmm...

Universal Health Care: Bastardized system, but even more bastardized than anything yet proposed. Think Old Dirty Bastard.

Codified Recognition of Gay People: Sorry, try again next time.

Final end to War in Iraq: You're kidding right?

Energy Independence: Some, but also bastardized with steaming heaps of pro-corporate "incentives" and loopholes.

Structural Reforms: That's even funnier than the Iraq withdrawal question. series.

It could turn out better than all this... but no wagers on that here.