It's not all about the White House (rant)

[TrogL]

(I've just had hand surgery. The fact that I'm posting this at all shows how upset I am)

You people seem to have forgotten that you are NOT living in a Parliamentary system. Voting for a Democratic president does not automatically give you a Democratic government. What you are left with is what you've been living with most of the time (when the BFEE isn't implementing a coup) - gridlock.

While the president can do a certain amount on his own, most of what goes on in your government has to pass through the House and the Senate. If they are dominated by Republicans, you are going to get Republican-style bills sitting on the President's desk to be signed. He can't veto everything or nothing will get done - a lame duck presidency.

It's coming up on 2003; elections are in 2004. I have not heard one word that I remember about taking back the House or the Senate - you're pinning your hopes on the Presidency as if it was a magic talisman.

When are you going get off your asses and do something about it?

[theivoryqueen]

1. good point about the house and senate

both federal and states - Dems everywhere should be gearing up for battle along slightly less conspicuous lines. Here in Texas we have a little problem with the new district lines... as do several other states. Hopefully these (very serious) drawbacks will be removed before our next election or we will have very little power to change the republican driven quest to capture seats (both US and TX).

[BlueJazz]

2. Don't assume that some of us...

...are not doing all we can to change the scene that we have now.
I (and countless other DU'ers) are working to elect Dem Candidates.
We just don't talk about it much because so many others would have no idea
who we were talking about. :)

[Toronto Ron]

3. Right on...where are the competitve congressional races?

Here in NC, Erskine Bowles (who lost to that useless b*#ch Liddy Dole, who's so cold that I doubt Viagra is helping Bob) has a good chance of winning John Edwards' seat. Unfortunately, my House district (NC-6) has been owned for many terms by the repug Howard "poor-man's Helms" Coble, who got over 90% of the vote in '00 and '02 (no Dem opposed him).

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Ron_GreensboroNC!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[eleny]

4. I guess some folks are hoping for long coattails

I have also been sending $ support to Dem candidates who are not in my home state - both Congressional and non Congressional positions. I've seen threads about local campaigns posted.

But it's only natural for us to be focusing on the WH. The president has a bully pulpit from which she/he can reach out to citizens who then reach out and "touch" their people in Congress. And besides, we have to get the shrub out of the people's house. The president has a lot of influence on Congressional seats. Try not to be angry. The Presidency is a mighty and powerful position on which we will focus at least until primaries are over.

[MarianJack]

5. You're Right, But...

...I think that history bears out the notion that the party that wins the White House controls the agenda. Example, Bill Clinton accomplished a lot with a hostile congerss.

[evil_orange_cat]

7. In Illinois, (R) Peter Fitzgerald *Senator is stepping down...

and the front runner, albeit early on, is a Democrat of African descent... Barack Obama... a prominent lawyer who has settled in Chicago.

you can read from a local Chicago suburban paper here:
http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/col_mabley.asp?intID=37958220

The writer liked Fitzgerald, who actually wasn't an EVIL Republican; but is confident about the Illinois Senate Seat returning to Democrat control.