Worst case scenario.

[MadHound]

There has been wailing, gnashing of teeth and fearmongering about what happens if the 'Pugs take the Senate or House. Many people are claiming that the Bush tax cuts will get extended permanently and that they'll do away with Social Security and Medicare.

I have no doubt that they will try to push through legislation along these lines, but even if they do, don't we have the ultimate backstop, the White House. Yes, 'Pug legislators can pass these obscenities, but the fact of the matter is that Obama could veto them. I also seriously doubt that the two thirds majority in either branch of the Senate could be mustered to override such vetoes.

Therefore, it looks like the worse that could happen in DC if the 'Pugs take power is simple gridlock

Or is the fear that Obama won't veto such horrible legislation?

Just a thought.

[drm604]

1. I think you're right,

but gridlock, especially at this time, would be a very bad thing. Not as bad as Republicans actually being able to pass anything, but still bad.

[MadHound]

3. I don't deny that gridlock would be a bad thing,

But I'm tired of people screaming that the sky is going to fall if we fail to retake either the Senate or House. Gridlock will ensue, and though gridlock is no fun, it isn't the all consuming, apocalyptic end that some many people are saying will happen if the Dems fail.

[drm604]

6. If we can't move things forward, we won't stand still, we'll fall backwards.

We won't move backward as quickly as we would if they really had power but, at least economically, we'll move backwards.

Not only that, they'll use the failure to accomplish anything against the President and Democrats. They'll be screaming about his "lack of bipartisanship". It'll be the ultimate hypocrisy but they'll do it and people will fall for it.

[leveymg]

2. Indeed. Worst case scenario would be a continuation of "bipartisanship"

In which case, we're truly f-cked. But, somehow, I wouldn't be real surprised. Would you?

[DCBob]

4. I dont see Obama using the veto threat that much.. he is more likely to work out a compromise..

especially when it comes to economy related bills.

[MadHound]

8. Then his failure to protect the public on such issues would be on him

There would be no excuse for his failure to veto an extension of the Bush tax cuts and/or Social Security of Medicare "reform".

[DCBob]

14. Certain specific things he threaten veto... but based on what he has done in the past..

I suspect he would work out a compromise on most economic related issues.

[MadHound]

17. Then it would be on him,

It seems as though part of this fear of a 'Pug take over is a fear that Obama won't do the right thing and veto legislation that would not be in our best interests.

Obama has already stated, more than once, that he doesn't care about a second term, just so long as he does the right thing.

[DCBob]

20. Well, yeah.. its always "on him".. he's the Prez. My biggest fear is that if the Pugs take over..

and new economic legislation is passed and then the economy rebounds they will get the credit. I could see that happening.

[MadHound]

23. Well, first of all, I think you give the 'Pugs too much credit

For their ability to pass good economic legislation that would help us.

Second of all, if they do, they actually would deserve the credit, after all, after almost two years, large majorities and control of the WH, the Dems have failed to do just this.

I don't care where good economic legislation comes from, the fact of the matter is we need help out here and we're getting very, very little.

[DCBob]

26. The economy improving may not have anything to do with new legislation..

its more likely will just be the cycle finally reversing due to pent up demand and businesses starting to reinvest and hire again.

[MadHound]

27. Given the mess we're in, the hole we've dug, I doubt that the economy will pull out of this

Anytime soon, at least not without help. What is needed is a massive WPA style jobs creation program, but I seriously doubt that will happen.

[DCBob]

28. yeah, you are probably right.

on both accounts.

[blindpig]

31. I would doubt that too....

the question is why. Why is a massive federal jobs program not even under consideration? At least discussing it would bring some clarity, we'd know who is on whose side...or mebbe that's why.

[VMI Dem]

5. "Or is the fear that Obama won't veto such horrible legislation? "

Hmmm.

[ThomWV]

7. "simple gridlock" is what got us into the mess we are in now

It will kill Obama's chances in 2012 if he becomes the Veto king. It is induced gridlock, induced by "just-say-no-Republicans", that has got people to despise Government during this election cycle. If the grid-lock gets worse the Democrat's chances will get worse right along with it if recent history is any indicator.

[MadHound]

9. It all depends on how it is framed.

If Obama is perceived as protecting the public from the more egregious of Republican legislative excesses, it could work out quite well for Obama.

[Junkdrawer]

10. I expect that the worst legislation will be vetoed, but almost-as-worse will be signed.....

and trumpeted as "reasonable compromise given the legislative realities".

[MadHound]

11. Then what you're expressing is essentially a lack of faith in Obama

A lack of faith that he will do what is right to protect the people.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Correct. n/t

[scheming daemons]

13. No... the worst that can happen is endless subpoenas and an impeachment circus

You're not thinking like THEY do, MadHound.

[MadHound]

18. Then we'll have a repeat of Clinton's second term,

The one where he had strong public support, despite his backing of some atrocious legislation in his first, because the people saw the stupidity of the 'Pugs and decided to support Clinton as a show of solidarity. Thus, a second Obama term:shrug:

[Wednesdays]

30. And then a stolen election like in 2000? And then 8 more years of wingnut control?

Followed by endless war, and a widening income gap until we become a fully plutocratic society. The idea of history repeating itself doesn't sound so good now. :(

[MadHound]

32. I don't think that history repeats itself in that literal a fashion n/t

[annabanana]

24. (my first thought as well). . . n/t

[Erose999]

15. Obama and the Blue Dogs would just jump on the GOOP bandwagon. Pretty much what they have been doing

all along, giving the GOOP everything it asks for.

There won't be an impeachment circus, because a GOOP majority in both houses and the pressure of the teabaggers and the rigged public opinion polls will keep Obama cowed. They can pretty much get their way now with just 41 votes in the Senate and a laughable minority in the house...

[MadHound]

19. If that is the case, then apparently Obama wouldn't be worth having anyway.

Seriously, if your scenario plays out, it would just show how craven Obama is.

[earthlover]

16. If we are forced to use the veto, we will be called the party of no....

We no longer would be able to call the Repukes this. They would propose crazy stuff, then we would have to say no. They would then go into 2012 blaming the gridlock on Obama and telling voters to end the gridlock by electing an idiot to be president....

Losing either house would be worse than you think.

Not to mention, we would lose any chance to get anything positive passed.......

[MadHound]

21. Maybe, maybe not,

It depends on how the Dems spin it, how they fight back. If Obama is vetoing legislation that would harm the people, then he can be portrayed as the great defender of the people, which would actually help in 2012.

[annabanana]

22. What *I* worry about is that hundreds of frivolous "investigations"

will be launched, which will be the ONLY "narrative" in CorpoMedia® for months on end, and that NOTING good will come out of Washington for the next two years.

[MadHound]

25. The 'Pugs actually might think twice about that,

It didn't work well with Clinton, the people rallied around him during his trials and tribulations.

[Gaedel]

29. Putting on my "evil genius" hat

If I am a GOP strategist:

1. Investigations which embarrass the president, but only target some of his people for removal. No impeachment (never do impeachment unless you have a solid two-thirds in the Senate)

2. The president does have the veto threat, so you vote in bills with stuff he wants or that are popular with the public and load them up with Trojan horses and poison pills that give you what you want.