It could be that the events of the last four years have helped the ignorant portion of the American electorate put blowjobs in perspective.
Or, perhaps, you could actually read what I wrote. Monicagate was '97-'99. I was talking about the check-kiting scandal, Rostenkowski’s various scandals, Clinton’s inability to actually make up his mind on gays in the military, the giant sucking sound that was Clinton’s attempt to reform healthcare, etc.
No. It depends on who offers the most appealing alternative. As I said before, the '06 Congressional elections are just too rigged already thru gerrymandered safe districts to make much of a change in Congress. If Cheney were running in '08, I’d agree with you about that election, but he isn’t. The most likely candidates (at this point) are Giuliani and McCain. Their success or failure at the polls will depend in large part on the Dems nominating a strong, centrists candidate. If they do, then they have a good chance of winning, but if you think it’ll be a “slam dunk”, then I’ve got some Iraqi WMD’s you might be interested in buying.
And here’s the nub. What does it mean, “cash in the chips”? OK, you get a Democratic majority in the house, split the Senate, and elect a Democrat to the White House. And then?
Government isn’t just about winning elections, it’s about governing. It seems to me that all you care about is a Democratic majority, what the Democrats actually do doesn’t matter.
OK, replicate Clinton’s approach to governing. What exactly is that? Cutting taxes or raising taxes? Cutting spending or raising spending? Gays in the military or no gays in the military? Abortions for all or abortions for none? I know, I know, you think the Democrats should keep their plans secret, wouldn’t wanna alienate the idiot voters. Stupid voters, always voting for the candidates they agree with. Well, this time you’ll show them.
The advantage of spelling out your agenda is that when you win, voters aren’t outraged when you try to enact your agenda. It’s a way to generate the political capital you need to pass laws and enact policy. If you don’t care about changing policy and consider yourself a caretaker whose only agenda is to prevent the other side from enacting their agenda, that’s fine. But then you’ve given up the initiative to the other party. They–unlike you–are going to learn from their electoral defeats and come up with a new agenda that the idiot voters are going to fall for. And next election time you’re going to be out again and the bad guys are going to be back in office. Are you then going to wait a few more election cycles until they screw up? When exactly do you cash in your chips, and why? Why exactly are you running for office?
Don’t judge by my position, I’m not in the Democratic Party anymore. But it seems to me that this isn’t associated with any wing. I’d say it is just common sense that Dems need to pander more to Christians. I see it as more of a PR angle than anything else. You know, adorning your current positions in Christian rhetoric rather than adopting a more conservative position. Like so:
While I’m on the subject of PR, the Dems need to start attacking the media. They can’t let the Republicans “work the refs” without responding. There wouldn’t have been a Bush presidency if the major news organizations hadn’t repeated all those untrue allegations about Gore’s integrity. The Dems need to hold them accountable for their lack of ethics. If I were a candidate I would be touting my Responsible Media Act which would require news organizations to not only make corrections when they pass on false information but do so ten times as prominently as the original mistake. And it would allow private citizens to sue and keep the large punative damage awards from news organizations who fail to live up to the law.
Change “Democrat” to “Republican” and you’ve described the current political climate.
I agree that the '06 elections are not going to amount to much especially in the Senate. But if the Dems pick up every seat that’s in play, it sets them up nicely to win the House in 08 and at least balance things out in the Senate in '08. But it doesn’t matter who runs as a Republican – if it’s Giuliani or McCain, they’ll still be vulnerable to charges of running that Republican machine, hwoever moral they may be as individuals.
Also, if it just keeps Jeb Bush out of the running and gets someone in the Repub Party who’ll throw the neocons out on their ear, that’s a major victory for the nation.
One thing that strikes me about this thread as well as our political culture in general is how people, even myself, talk down to the average voter. What this country needs more than anything are informed voters. Cecil ain’t getting the job done because ignorance is rampant. Yesterday my own wife, “Mrs 2sense RN, BSN” who votes at least in the general elections, drew a blank when I started talking about Joe Wilson. Shaping the Democratic message for the uninformed may be the best that can be hoped for in the short term but the long term goal should be a politically educated electorate.
On the GOP nominee side, I would guess it will be Jeb. Guiliani killed his chances when he blamed the troops for failing to find that weapons cache and McCain’s hatred of Dubya makes him untrustworthy to hold the GOP secrets. Though if McCain is the GOP nominee I don’t see how he can lose unless the country is in another Great Depression.
We have history and civics in high school. Everybody has the same access to the news media and public libraries. Both parties buy ads to get out their message during campaign seasons. What can the Dems or anybody else do, that isn’t already being done, to politically educate the electorate?
He might lose through being perceived as too old.
Good point, but a daunting task if ever there was one.
Not a chance. I’ll be shocked if he even runs. That WOULD be a referrendum on Bush, and the GOP won’t risk going thru that again!
And this is good? No, it’s terrible. Of course some people vote for one party just because they belong to the party.
But I think a lot of Republicans care about what the Republicans are actually doing/not doing. The religious right is upset that more isn’t being done to discriminate against gays and stop abortion. The small government types are upset by the explosion in federal spending. And so on.
Right now some of these people typically vote Republican because they think the Democrats are bound to be worse. And they’ll probably continue voting Republican out of habit. But the Republicans will lose those voters quickly if the Democrats shape up. A caretaker Republican majority isn’t going to last any longer than my hypothesized caretaker Democratic majority.
Well, John Mace, my idea is that the pendulum has begun to swing, not that it has swung.
Which means that the right has peaked, but that doesn’t mean that the left really offers any kind of viable alternative to the majority yet. My take is that we’re going into the twilight period that last happened from the late sixties to when Reagan won, when the left was on the outs but the right hadn’t yet got its act completely together. Once Reagan won, the right was in for sure, because he completely changed the terms of the national debate.
So, we’re entering another one of those periods now, with the right on the outs but the left not quite ready yet. Sometime in the future, there will be a leftish version of Reagan who will turn the debate again. But it won’t be, unless I’m wrong, any one of the contenders in the '08 election, and I do expect that one will be close, regardless. As to the '06 Congressionals, I do believe that one will surprise with the strength of the backlash against the Republicans, regardless of all those gerrymandered districts. Whether the Dems take back one or both of those houses I don’t know, but I do have money riding on it, and that bet looks better every day. (see the transcript of this past Sunday’s Meet The Press, where Russert is interviewing Mehlman and points out that in 16 of 19 categories, people chose the Dems over the Reps. Priceless stuff. Well, depending on your POV, anyway.)
Like you, though, I do think the Bushes are well and truly through. No way anyone with that last name is being allowed anywhere near national office any time soon. '08’s gonna probably wind up being H Clinton vs either Rice or McCain. Either one will be one helluva fight.
Could be. As I’ve said many times before in this forum, both parties screw up royally when they’re given full control. The Republicans have done that, and the Democrats have as good a chance as they’ll ever get to return to power.
Also, I saw Meet the Press on Sunday and the interviews with both Mehlman and Dean (I think I referenced it earlier in this thread). That was a good show!