Will Lott's return to the leadership backfire on the Republicans?

[tomndebb]

ElvisL1ves, your responses look a lot, to me, like the type of comments I saw posted during the Winter/Spring of 2003/2004 where any number of posters truly believed that the whole country just “had” to see how badly the administration was screwing up in Iraq (added to minor complaints about the economy) and that GWB was as good as removed from office.

You perceive that the election last week was a vote of no confidence for the Republican party leadership. Perhaps it was. Alterrnatively, it was a vote of no confidence in the President who had his supporting Congress removed to prevent further abuses but which may not have been a comment (by the voters) on their perception of the Republican Congressional leadership.
I do not know the exact reasons for the vote, but I am offering cautionary possibilities and you are speaking from your desires.
I do not intend to bet on any particular event, particularly not for the 2008 election. I am also not really desirous of seeing the Republicans come back into power so swiftly. However, I am, again, offering cautionary commentary on what might happen while you seem to be arguing like a sport fan–your team just “has” to win. There were plenty of Democrats in late November, 1992 who thought that the whole country had finally “seen the errors” of the Reagan era and was going to restore the Democrats to their “rightful” place as the owners of Congress. They were rather forceably disabused of that notion just two years later.

Regarding voting for the party one wants in power, you missed my point: clearly the electorate will vote for one party or another for the purpose of expressing their wishes; they just did. However, no one in the U.S. votes for their representatives based on the party leadership (other than in support of or opposition to the president). While many people will vote for a Democan to keep (or get) the Republicrats out of power, no one in the U.S. is going to change their vote because Democan Senator Applepieandmotherhood happens to be the party whip or Republicrat Representative Ibringhomepork is the current majority or minority leader.

Again with the minimum wage: you are arguing as though I were promoting one decision or another. My point is that if you want the minimum wage raised, you need to persuade a substantial number of the electorate to pressure sufficient congresscritters to pass a veto-proof bill. Pointing out that huge numbers of people are already exceeding the current (and proposed) minimum in the hopes of downplaying it as “not radical” can backfire when your opposition uses the same numbers to say “not needed.”

I am also aware that we cannot predict who will pop out of the woodwork to take the presidential nominations in 2008. Neither Carter not Clinton were given any chances as late as early '76 or early '92. However, by breaking up my actual statement, you again missed the point: this election was a one-time referendum on a single issue, the Iraq war. Unless the Democrats actually come up with solid proposals while successfully fending off claims that they have sabotaged the war effort, they are going to have a really hard time holding the limited power they just gained.

To repeat: you are treating this discussion like the OSU/UoM squabbles preceding The Big One this coming afternoon. That is fine for a cheering section, but it will do nothing to actually make things happen the way you would like.

[BrainGlutton]

@OneCentStamp

Considering the reason Lott was disgraced in the first place, am I really the first one in this thread to point out the humor in his new title? I mean, he’s the minority whip.

SETH MEYER, SNL, “WEEKEND UPDATE,” 11/18/06: . . . although Lott was disappointed to learn this does not mean he gets to whip minorities.

[furt]

@GLWasteful

Well, for now I stand by my statement. After all, there have only been two, and The Dope is hardly representative of the general population.

Umhm. And how many does it take before you allow that they exist? Three? Ten? A million?

This is where I lose you. It appears that you’re saying that you’ve no problem with the government stepping in as mediator, but you don’t want them establishing a national norm. Do I have it?

More or less. As I said, some things have to be done nationally; but things that can be done at the state or local level should be.

Because establishment of said norm would, to my eye, eliminate the need for them to ride to the rescue, after the damage has already begun happening.

Establishment of said norm creates the need for them to monitor, regulate, investigate, and supervise.
Generally speaking, I think individual people should be free to do what they want unless it harms someone else; if they do, then cops need to get involved.
Generally speaking, I think individual towns should be free to do what they want unless it harms another town; if they do, then the county gets involved.
Generally speaking, I think individual counties should be free to do what they want unless it harms another county; if they do, then the state gets involved.
Generally speaking, I think individual states should be free to do what they want unless it harms another state; if they do, then the feds get involved.
Obviously. it’s more complicated in practice, but that’s the principle.

[GLWasteful]

@furt

Umhm. And how many does it take before you allow that they exist? Three? Ten? A million?

I allow that they exist right now. And I’ve encountered precisely two. And I have a pretty large pool of examples that I’m pulling from. If I encounter more, I will be certain to adjust my position.

Obviously. it’s more complicated in practice, but that’s the principle.

Brother, you just won the understatement of the freakin’ millenium award.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

ElvisL1ves, your responses look a lot, to me, like the type of comments I saw posted during the Winter/Spring of 2003/2004 where any number of posters truly believed that the whole country just “had” to see how badly the administration was screwing up in Iraq

And the evidence, based not only on the election results but on every single damn poll taken on the subject recently, is that they do. Example.

I do not know the exact reasons for the vote, but I am offering cautionary possibilities and you are speaking from your desires.

The *facts * are out there for you any time. If you prefer instead to yank “possibilities” out of the air to try to form a debate position with, you’re welcome to try. Good luck finding a sparring partner, though.

However, no one in the U.S. votes for their representatives based on the party leadership (other than in support of or opposition to the president).

No one? Really? Not a single person? Care to consider a “cautionary possibility” to the contrary? :rolleyes: Come on now, Tom, you’re better than this, *much * better.

Again with the minimum wage: you are arguing as though I were promoting one decision or another.

You said it was a “strong argument” that nothing needed to be done by the feds. How the fuck else could that be interpreted?

My point is that if you want the minimum wage raised, you need to persuade a substantial number of the electorate to pressure sufficient congresscritters to pass a veto-proof bill.

An utter truism, regardless of topic, and even your “veto-proof” condition is irrelevant in this administration.
Pointing out that huge numbers of people are already exceeding the current (and proposed) minimum in the hopes of downplaying it as “not radical” can backfire when your opposition uses the same numbers to say “not needed.”

However, by breaking up my actual statement, you again missed the point: this election was a one-time referendum on a single issue, the Iraq war.

No, on that part, you’re mostly right, your accusations of my cheerleading notwithstanding.

Unless the Democrats actually come up with solid proposals while successfully fending off claims that they have sabotaged the war effort, they are going to have a really hard time holding the limited power they just gained.

No, your point, which I addressed, is that it’s simply silly to think that the Democrats are somehow going to get blamed for this fiasco. There is NO basis for that claim, even on FreeRepublic, and it is not a reasonable extrapolation. The responsibility for pulling out our troops lies with the President, whoever that may be. I don’t think you’ll find many people who don’t know that.

If your position were, instead, that the next President will be a Democrat, will pull a Nixon and not, in fact, pull out by 2012, then he’d get blamed for it, then of course you’d be right. But that isn’t it, is it?

To repeat: you are treating this discussion like the OSU/UoM squabbles preceding The Big One this coming afternoon. That is fine for a cheering section, but it will do nothing to actually make things happen the way you would like.

*One * of us is basing our positions on the facts. One of us is instead arguing for the apparent sheer fun of it, or perhaps out of simple obstinacy, it isn’t clear which and it doesn’t matter one bit.

When come back … well, you know the rest.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

@tomndebb

ElvisL1ves, your responses look a lot, to me, like the type of comments I saw posted during the Winter/Spring of 2003/2004 where any number of posters truly believed that the whole country just “had” to see how badly the administration was screwing up in Iraq.

And the evidence, based not only on the election results but on every single damn poll taken on the subject recently, is that they do. Example.

You might take the time to actually read what has been posted. I noted the fever pitch among some posters in the run up tothe last presidential election and you respond with a non sequitur regarding the current numbers.

In other words: yes, the population is currently upset about the situation in Iraq. So what? Just as so many folks were just sure that Bush could not possibly be elected in 2004, based on their own desires, people who are just sure that the Democrats have some sort of lock on the 2008 election may find themselves rather suprised. The Democrats do not have the votes to compel the administration to withdraw from Iraq or even change tactics there. In two years, the Republicans are quite capable of pointing to every small roadblock and challenge by the Democrats and claiming that it was Democrat intransigience that prevented the president from accomplishing our “mission” and getting us out. And if any terrorist pulls off an attack on U.S. soil and the administration can claim (honestly or not) that the terrorist originated among ex-Baathists or Iraqi al Qaeda members, then the next Republican may just get a boost, regardless of any actions by the Democrats.

@ElvisL1ves

The *facts * are out there for you any time. If you prefer instead to yank “possibilities” out of the air to try to form a debate position with, you’re welcome to try. Good luck finding a sparring partner, though.

Thank you Agent Mulder. The question was what would Lott’s return to power do to harm (or, I suppose, help) the Republcan Party. Against those who have let their emotional wants dictate what they need to have happen to satisfy their desires for the future, I have offered some historical information with which to rinse the rose color off their glasses. I have made no predictions that I have any vested interest in defending. You are free to ignore my comments. It is just a message board discussion and I have no deep religious belief in the outcome. I would prefer that the Republicans not regain Congressional power so soon and, despite their popularity, i am not that impressed by any of the current Republican presidential front-runners. I simply see in the arguments that imply (or express) the naive belief that the Democrats have a lock on Congress through 2010 or that the presence of Mr. Lott as a Republican leader will help the Democrats maintain that lock, a re-enactment of the emotionally driven claims about the ouster of President Bush that were expressed in the Fall of 2003 and the Spring of 2004.

@ElvisL1ves

No one? Really? Not a single person? Care to consider a “cautionary possibility” to the contrary? :rolleyes: Come on now, Tom, you’re better than this, *much * better.

Not a single voter in the entire U.S. I have polled every one and I am confident that they did not lie to me.

@ElvisL1ves

You said it was a “strong argument” that nothing needed to be done by the feds. How the fuck else could that be interpreted?

As it was stated. That a person who wandered out in the road waving the information on which you relied would be likely to be run over by people waving the same information in the other direction. This does not mean that your argument (that Ms. Pelosi is not radical) was wrong, only that while waving that banner you provide a strong (but also not decisive) argument–as in an argument that many people will find persuasive, regardless of its accuracy–against the need to raise the minimum wage.

@ElvisL1ves

No, your point, which I addressed, is that it’s simply silly to think that the Democrats are somehow going to get blamed for this fiasco. There is NO basis for that claim, even on FreeRepublic, and it is not a reasonable extrapolation. The responsibility for pulling out our troops lies with the President, whoever that may be. I don’t think you’ll find many people who don’t know that.

Today? You would be right. Over the next two years? I see no reason to hold that as absolutely true. A lot of German polticians in the 1920s made good use of blaming the socialist parties for “betraying” the army in 1918, even though the socialist rank-and-file were very supportive of the war, and even many of the leaders bought into the idea. The Republicans made a lot of political hay blaming the Democrats for “socialized medicine” even though Hilary Clinton’s proposal was defeated by a Democrat Congress without even coming to a floor vote. Bush will always be blamed for getting us into Iraq (although I know a lot of people who still believe he just had “bad intelligence”), but as to what will be the common perception among the electorate regarding who failed to get us out of there before 2008, I see no reason to believe that substantial portions of the voting public cannot be persuaded to believe that a failure to extricate ourselves would be the fault of the Democrat Congress.

@ElvisL1ve

*One * of us is basing our positions on the facts. One of us is instead arguing for the apparent sheer fun of it, or perhaps out of simple obstinacy, it isn’t clear which and it doesn’t matter one bit.

What you call “facts” (changing the discussion from 2004 to 2006 either without recognizing or by refusing to acknowledge the change, assuming that conditions in 2006 will prevail right through to 2008 regardless of world events or political spin, etc.) appears to be very much a matter of your desire. If you do not like hearing contrary opinions, then post on your own message board.

[DoctorJ]

I’m wondering about the whole Bill Frist thingy. There was a lot of opinion at the time that Trent’s demotion had more to do with grooming Bill Frist for bigger and better things than with Trent’s rather clumsy gesture to an old fart. I really don’t think he was making any appeal for segregation any more than I think John Kerry was dissing the truth. It was an opportunity seized upon for another end entirely.

Exactly. The story had almost completely died down, but a day or so later the White House and the rest of the Republican punditry that had been mostly ignoring the story suddenly came out to say they didn’t have Trent’s back. I don’t remember why, exactly, but Lott was not Bush’s guy, and they jumped on the opportunity.

Now that the bloom is off Bush’s rose, it’s Trent’s chance to come back.

I have never, and will never, understand the appeal of Mitch McConnell. Some people are calling his seat a potential pickup two years from now, but I can’t imagine it. The only thing he’s really done to distinguish himself is to vigorously oppose campaign finance reform, which practically makes him a personification of the influence of money in politics. As fatcats go, he’s freakin’ Garfield.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

I noted the fever pitch among some posters in the run up tothe last presidential election and you respond with a non sequitur regarding the current numbers.

Only in response to your attempting to use it as a prediction for 2008 - something you now chastise me for. But, as I said, if you want to argue for the fun of it, go find someone else to project your strawmen upon.

This isn’t one of the theological discussions you excel at, where any opinion and any possibility is as valid as any other, and nothing is really tied to the ground anyway, so let’s just go at it. More stringent standards apply when you’re talking about peoples’ lives, when facts *do * matter, when probabilities *do * have significance.

I have made no predictions that I have any vested interest in defending.

As I said, when come back …

[ElvisL1ves]

@DoctorJ

Now that the bloom is off Bush’s rose, it’s Trent’s chance to come back.

I have never, and will never, understand the appeal of Mitch McConnell.

His appeal isn’t to us mere citizens. He was chosen, like Lott, by people who know him personally, who he’s done favors for, helped find funding for, all the insider stuff that is excoriated outside the Beltway but appreciated inside it. That’s the only “appeal” I can see for him.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

Only in response to your attempting to use it as a prediction for 2008 - something you now chastise me for. But, as I said, if you want to argue for the fun of it, go find someone else to project your strawmen upon.

This isn’t one of the theological discussions you excel at, where any opinion and any possibility is as valid as any other, and nothing is really tied to the ground anyway, so let’s just go at it. More stringent standards apply when you’re talking about peoples’ lives, when facts *do * matter, when probabilities *do * have significance.

What ARE you on about? So far, you have provided zero evidence that the selection of Lott will spur the electorate to keep the Democrats in power in Congress in 2008. Everything posted to date has been posted with the same team-cheering enthusiasm that was in evidence in the early months of the 2004 presidential election. You have provided no evidence that any party ever lost an election because the voters disapproved of that party’s in-house leadership (as opposed to prefering that the party in toto not hold power). You have ignored actual history that I have posted, such as the Democrats reclaiming the Senate in 1992 only to disastrously lose the whole Congress a mere two years later. I have also noted that that power shift was due (in part, not totally) to an effective disinformation campaign that left the electorate with a wrong impression regarding specific well publicized events while your best response is that “everybody knows” that the current problem was caused by Bush. And you have refused to address the scenario I provided that a disinformation campaign could persuade enough swing votes to blame the Democrtats for the mess continuing, even though such campaigns have been effective in the past.

It is beginning to look as though you did not want a discussion, but merely to post some sort of pro-Democrat cheer or anti-Republican rant to which you would get a bunch of dittohead-like backslapping posts in agreement.

If you’d like, I could move this to IMHO or MPSIMS for you.

@ElvisL1ves

As I said, when come back …

You first.

You also appear to not read the theology threads: I pretty much never wade in with a “this is true” opinion–a point which causes a certain other poster to gnash his teeth and call me names.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

What ARE you on about?

Keep reading. I’ll try to put into simpler language for you.

So far, you have provided zero evidence that the selection of Lott will spur the electorate to keep the Democrats in power in Congress in 2008.

Nor have I made any such claim.

Now pay, I say, pay attention, boy. You might learn something: The Republicans’ losses are due primarily to their *own * poor leadership, right? They’ve kept those same poor leaders in place, right? The changes they need to make to produce a different result next time are therefore unlikely to get made, right? The results *next * time will therefore most likely continue to be the same as they were *this * time, right? Yes, obviously, things can change, as you quite unnecessarily point out - but that would be despite their leadership, not because of it, right?

Did that make any sense to you? Do you see that’s what the topic of the thread is now?

You have provided no evidence that any party ever lost an election because the voters disapproved of that party’s in-house leadership

Conceded. Your own poll, cited by your own self, showed complete unanimity to the contrary.

You have ignored actual history that I have posted

Etc. Yes. Due to its irrelevance to the topic. Perhaps that dawns on you now, perhaps not, but it doesn’t matter, I’m not your interlocutor on it, that shadow on the wall is.

And you have refused to address the scenario I provided that a disinformation campaign could persuade enough swing votes to blame the Democrtats for the mess continuing, even though such campaigns have been effective in the past.

I did address it, to mention how silly an idea was. Which it is. Okay, you insist? Well, then: Where’s the cite for the party that did not control the White House getting most of the blame for a war? Where’s that “actual history”? Got something grounded in reality to bring to the table?

Now, if you can finally get on the topic, and provide actual substance to the discussion, that would be wonderful. But if you simply want the last word, nothing more, you’re welcome to it.

[What_the]

Too bad Lott didn’t realize he could call it a “botched joke” and it would all go away in a matter of a few days.

It’s also too bad the Stupid Party didn’t stand behind him.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

Now pay, I say, pay attention, boy. You might learn something: The Republicans’ losses are due primarily to their own poor leadership, right? They’ve kept those same poor leaders in place, right? The changes they need to make to produce a different result next time are therefore unlikely to get made, right? The results next time will therefore most likely continue to be the same as they were this time, right? Yes, obviously, things can change, as you quite unnecessarily point out - but that would be despite their leadership, not because of it, right?

Did that make any sense to you? Do you see that’s what the topic of the thread is now?

The Republican losses are not due to the poor performance of the Congressional leadership. The Republican losses were due to the continued actions of the Executive branch which is not controlled by the Congressional leadership (or accountable to the Congressional leadership or even, in the last couple of years, paying much attention to the Congressional leadership). That the electorate sent a message of non-support for the party at the mid-term elections is due solely to the fact that the electorate has no other way to vent their displeasure on the president at the mid-terms except to reject his party. Therefore, your entire premise is faulty and the rest of your posts are irrelevant. I was addressing the actual relevancy of Congressional leadership, but I can see how you missed that with your apparent odd belief that the Executive answers in some odd fashion to the Congress.