Having a large majority in the House and Senate is as important

[Snotcicles]

or more so then having a Democrat in the white house.
This last bush veto proves it.
Please consider donating any amount to help get Dem's elected.
I sent Al $50.00 bucks, http://www.alfranken.com/
I live in Michigan where our Senate seats are safe, but every senator's vote effects every one of us.

[new101010]

1. I agree

I agree but the WH is still important . I gave to Kucinich the other day. Now 's a good time he and others like Edwards or Dean need the money

[Snotcicles]

2. Yep I agree. I back Edwards, he takes no PAC or Lobbyist money. nt

I like Dennis also but I think he is to much of a long shot.

[new101010]

3. thats

kinda why I wanted to give now when he can really use it so that it won't be such an outside shot

[Snotcicles]

4. Welcome to DU. You'll like it here. nt

[Snotcicles]

5. P.S. Most of the time. nt

[newyawker99]

11. Hi new101010!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dave_p]

6. Huh?

A veto over a Congressional majority vote underlines the importance of a Congressional majority?

The power of the White House has been pushed to unprecedented limits under its outgoing occupant. And it's nowhere near being broken unless Democrats play hardball.

In 2000 I might have agreed. But we're seeing the ongoing harm a corrupt and very possibly deranged "President" can do despite congressional opposition.

Democrats won't get a veto-proof majority. With the Presidency, they shouldn't need one.

[uppityperson]

7. Democrats need a veto-proof majority, even IF a Dem president

It is called checks and balances, not just party-line.

[dave_p]

10. ... it's just not likely

[uppityperson]

14. which? Dem pres, veto proof majority, or not voting strict party lines?

I'm curious. I know that all 3 seem far off in these times of nasty fundamentalism and division, wondering which you see as unlikeliest.

[dave_p]

15. vetoproofness is unlikeliest

I think we can be optimistic on the Presidency, but I think the Bush legacy of polarization will mean a lot of party strictness: even if hearings break GOP unity, they'll want to close ranks afterward.

So given a choice between the Presidency and a supermajority, I'd aim for the Presidency and a comfortable ordinary majority. It's just my reading of where the power's been moved. And how it's moved.

[cooolandrew]

9. I think the veto proof idea is if we lost the WH we'd still pass bills, so it's safer than sorry.

[cooolandrew]

8. Totally right, they are the ultimate goosesteppers. Even at expense to ..

... their own career. This is why impeachement is such a pipe dream. It's great in theory but without the votes it's wasted time. These 2 years were always going to be hard work, the GOP are 100 percent anti-democratic. big D and little d. Plus added bonus the less repukes up there the better it is to breathe in DC I would imagine.

[Blackhatjack]

12. This OP is right on the money! You have to be able to overcome the filibuster in the Senate...

No bill becomes law unless it passes the senate, and you need more than a majority to overcome the filibuster in the Senate.

Plus, you need to 'dominate' committee chairmanships AND total Dems assigned to committees. Getting bills through committee and voted out takes more than a bare majority, given the rules that apply in both the House and the Senate.

Hopefully we will have a Democratic President. However, we will need every vote to effect change given the years of campaign contributions that currently fund members on both sides of the aisle.

[cooolandrew]

13. I know there are concerns about absolute power but it's the only answer to fix things at this point.