Everything that was a campaign issue in 2004 – seems to have lost its salience. Except for the ongoing occupation of Iraq. E.g., nobody much talks about gay marriage any more. Meanwhile, no new issues have clearly emerged. Neither party has promulgated a definite agenda for the next two years. That’s bound to happen at some point. What issues will each party bring to the fore? And in terms of deciding issues, is this more likely to be a national election or 460 local elections?
Illegal Immigrants, Globalism & the War.
Not necessarily in that order.
It’s like 460 local elections… but that won’t stop the pundits from pontificating interminably about the deep significance of the results as a sign of our national health and how Republicans/Democrats should/should not be deeply worried about how their party is dying/recovering as the public rewarded/punished them.
Good start – now, what position will each party take on each of those? How will each party distinguish itself (or not) from the other?
I’d say the War and corruption. Dem’s will say the War is wrong, and that corruption is bad. Pubs will say the War was the right decision, they’re not corrupt, and that the Dems have nothing positive to discuss. On the latter point, they will be correct.
Have you seen any clear indication of that yet?
Well, I just heard our esteemed Sen. Kerry on the radio last week saying it was a complete mistake and that he regrets his vote to authorize the Prez to use force. I know he doesn’t speak for the whole party, but I figure the only reason he’s saying this now is because it’s expedient and uncontroversial within the party.
It may surprise you to hear that quite a few of us in the electorate have formed rather similar opinions. One gathers the impression that you have decided that Sen Kerry is entirely cynical and grasping in his political manuevering, falling far short of the pristine standards set by…who, exactly? The noble Sen Frist, whose purity makes the angels blush?
The elections will be local and the results spun mightily by both sides. People are so polarized at this point that they are prisoners of their own ideology, and they will process any information in that way.
Right. Kerry is MA Senator for life, if he wants it, just like Kennedy. Now he decides to grow a spine and a conscience. Sorry. I’m not buying it anymore. So he’s not as bad as Frist. Let’s face it, the Dems were spineless weasels leading up to the war, bigger weasels when they handed Bush the mandate, and now have nothing to offer but spite and recrimination. They went from craven enablers to craven denunciators who only summoned up the ethical mettle to resist the criminal activity of the Bush admin. when his poll nubers dipped below 40%. Lieberman’s probably the most courageous of the bunch. He’s in entirely the wrong party, and may be entirely in the wrong on a number of issues, but at least he seems to believe in something enough, and be enough of a leader, to take risks that indicate he stands for something.
I think corruption is going to be an issue, and I predict that both parties will go on the record as being against it. Abramoff isn’t huge news anymore, but Democrats are going to attack Republicans on that front, and Republicans have complied by distancing themselves from Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham and others. Whichever party is more convincing on the “we’re not crooks” front will have a leg up.
Phony issue of 2006: Illegal immigration. Like the 2004 “gay marriage” decoy, it’s good for a lot of heat and smoke, but is largely overblown.
Real issues of 2006: How the conservative-controlled government has totally screwed everything up. The Republicans will deny this, of course, but the simple truth is that they’ve got control of all branches of government, and the only people who’ve benefitted from that are the Haves and Have-Mores.
Hopefully, border control and tax reform.
What “tax reform” do you want that the Pubs have not already enacted?
War was mentioned twice and off year elections tend to focus on local issues. Neither party is viewed positively in national congressional polls. For the handful of non-gerrymandered safe seats up for grabs, the Dems will focus on corruption, health care & gas prices. My hunch; the GOP will wrest the security issue from their opponents hands when Bush invades Iran in early Autumn.
He can’t do that without Congressional authorization. You really think he’s gonna get it this time? After how the last war worked out?
Yes he can. Under the Constitution, he needs Congressional authorization to declare war, but other than that, according to the War Powers Act, he’s free to initiate hostilities and doesn’t have to get Congressional authorization for up to 60 days afterwards (really 90, but…)
Admittedly, it would be stupid of him to do it without Congressional authorization, but he still can.
I’m going to guess doubling government spending and repealing every single tax ever. I imagine retroactive refunds for everyone, too.
But somehow the Left-Wing Media will find a way to make this seem like a BAD idea. Scumbags.
-Joe
No, no, no. Invasion of Iran is scheduled for Summer-Autumn 2008, just before Cheney runs for President.
Nitpick: You are referring to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution), not to be confused with the War Powers Act, or Trading With the Enemy Act, of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act).
And Congress still controls the money. And war on Iran would be impossible without some funding outside the regular defense budget, just as war on Iraq was.