That’s certainly a legitimate question. One might ask, e.g., whether the level of opposition is more good or more bad for the country. For the purpose of this thread, the more precisely relevant question is, Is the amount of Democratic opposition so great that the voting public will react negatively? If so, how negatively?
Clearing away the underbrush. squeegee questioned whether the Democrats really are in “attack mode.” I have provided a cite and some evidence that they are. If anyone wants to argue the contrary, please show some evidence the other way. Otherwise, I will focus on the intended point, which is whether the current level of Democratic opposition will turn out to have been good politics when we come to the 2004 elections.
I am on the fence. I think the Democratic attacks are helping them right now. E.g., my Democratic friends are eager to trot out the canard that Bush is dumb, or even that they hate him. As I said, he is sinking in the polls.
OTOH, as the saying goes, when you point a finger at someone else, you’re pointing three fingers at yourself. ISTM the Republicans haven’t tried much in the way of counter-attacks. Bush’s headlines are pro-war, rather than anti-Democratic opposition. Presumably, when the election is near, Bush and other Republican candidates will try to make a case that Democrats obstructism is bad for the public. The Dems will try to make the case that their opposition was good for the country, because Bush was doing the wrong things. Time will tell which case the public buys, if either.
ISTM that Bush’s success in Afghanistan has already proved wrong some Democrats, who claimed it would be a quagmire. If the war in Iraq goes well, and if large stores of WMDs are found, then Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq will be proved wrong as well. If the public can be convinced that Democratic opposition was interfering with good policies, that would be helpful to the Republicans. If the public is convinced that Bush is pursuing many bad policies, then they would want a divided government, to hold him in check.