Ill fortune and Diebold notwithstanding, and Kos' defensive pessimism aside, it appears that come next January the Democrats will have a majority, however slim, in the House of Representatives. This is, of course, good. But I suggest that unless we also win a majority in the Senate, taking the House may mean very little. More on the flip:
There are two jobs the Constitution leaves only to the House: (1) initiating revenue bills; and (2) impeaching federal officers. The Senate has the exclusive authority (1) to ratify treaties; (2) to confirm, or not to confirm, Presidential appointees; and (3) to remove federal officers upon impeachment by the House. If we can hold our expected majority in the House, we can play defense against more harmful legislation of the sort that has plagued the American people over the past twelve years, such as the bankruptcy bill, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. But we cannot be successful in getting favorable legislation enacted without veto-proof majorities in both Houses, which of course isn't going to happen. Our lot may be improved a bit by the other side's need to negotiate to get anything passed, but we won't be ushering in a new era of progressive legislation with only one House in our hands. And, of course, without having a two-thirds majority in the Senate for removal, impeachment would be little more than a vent for our frustration.
We look forward to taking the House, among other reasons, so that Democratic-controlled investigative committees can conduct true and meaningful investigations into the crimes of this Administration and of GOP congresscritters. Essential to that course of action is the power of subpoena. Those with something to hide will of course not give testimony unless compelled to do so by subpoena. However, without control of the Senate, our ability in the House to compel such testimony may be nugatory. With the Senate in GOP hands, Bush will appoint the next Supreme Court justice (at least one more; possibly more than one) and, like Roberts and Alito, we can expect that such a Justice - who will give the right-wingers a Court majority - will support Bush's theory of Presidential supremacy. Facing a majority of Bush supporters on the Court, it is predictable that Adminstration officials, called to testify before House committees, will refuse to do so, and that Bush will move to quash the subpoenas on the ground that to give the required testimony will endanger national security. It is instructive to recall that while the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (418 US 683 (1974)) upheld a subpoena for the famous Nixon tapes, it did so on the grounds that Nixon's "broad, undifferentiated claim of the public interest" as supporting quashing of the subpoenas (issued by the special prosecutor ) did not overcome the finding that the materials subpoenaed were "essential to justice" in a criminal case. But the Court also emphasized that the result might have been different if it were faced with "...a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets." It is frighteningly likely that a Supreme Court majority of Alito-clones would deny enforcement of at least the most important subpoenas on claimed "national security" grounds, and our investigative power would be all but useless.
We must gain control of the Senate. Control of the Senate would enable us to put a halt to the parade of right-wing judges and Justices that will allow this Administration to harm our country long after it is out of office. It will ensure that only reasonable judges will get appointments to the Supreme Court (and the all-important circuit courts as well), and thus give some backing to our investigative power. Having majorities in both Houses will allow us to pass reform legislation and compel Bush publicly to veto it or live with it.
We have it within our grasp to take both Houses, but the odds of getting the Senate are too long for comfort. We need to assume that Lieberman, if he wins, will switch parties, or consistently vote with the GOP, or resign to accept an Administration post and allow his governor to appoint a Republican in his place. His strong GOP support cannot have come without some very high price tag, to be sure. This being the case, we have to look at Connecticut as effectively a GOP pickup in the event of a Lieberman win. With the Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri races so close, and with the GOP within reach of a pickup in New Jersey, it is essential that we direct all available resources into these races and take the Senate as well as the House.
We may not have such a favorable climate for election of Democrats for a long time to come. We have to capitalize. Democrats must avoid the temptation to be satisfied with just taking the House. For the past several years the COP burglar has been pilfering our collective home, and it is not enough to shoo him halfway out the door.