You are right - those on the left are worried that the Democrats are showing their hand - and actually there are - to the most radical group on the left...read on
By John Dickerson of Slate
Posted Monday, May 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM ET
Elizabeth Dole sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party's Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush." It's a sad truth of politics that if you can't inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.
But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right. In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults. Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.
When Russ Feingold called for censuring the president a month ago, it seemed like a smart political move precisely because he wasn't a Democratic party leader. He was speaking for a vital wing of the party but allowing Democratic leaders to distance themselves from him. But Pelosi is the Democratic leader. Republican claims that Democrats would launch a wave of investigations like the GOP-style ones of the 1990s suddenly seem credible. Those GOP inquiries reached their absurd apogee when Rep. Dan Burton shot a pumpkin in his backyard in an at-home investigation into former Clinton adviser Vince Foster's suicide. "I don't think you'll see anyone shooting into pumpkins anytime soon," said Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart weeks ago when I asked him about the Feingold censure move.
But now, thanks to Pelosi, it may be time to start worrying about long-term pumpkin health. It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power, but it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you're trying to launch your policy agenda. It's unbelievably tactically stupid. Perhaps Pelosi couldn't have stayed completely mum on the topic, but she could have given some bland answer about Congress needing to play its oversight role and then returned to her positive agenda items. (She tried to backtrack on Meet the Press and failed.) Republicans, and Karl Rove in particular, want to paint Democratic leaders as cartoon Ahabs fixated on taking down George Bush, so why would you promise that you're going to turn the House into the Pequod?
Pelosi's defenders, and I am sure there are a few out there, will argue that her comments were smart, because off-year elections are about motivating the base and the base wants investigations. This is true, but isn't George Bush a professional base motivator who invigorates Democrats each waking day? And if the president is not sufficient, won't the base get motivated by the affirmative proposals Pelosi outlined? I know Pelosi is so unpopular in her own party that Democrats view John McCain more favorably, but are investigations really the way to increase her standing? Won't taking control of the House help more?
I thought the whole point of unveiling an agenda was to show that the party wasn't going to get bogged down with investigations and embrace the worst Bush-hating tendencies of its members. Independents and moderates in those swing districts that will help Democrats pick up the 15 seats they need for a majority don't want more investigations: They want results on the issues that affect their lives. They may not like Republicans in Congress, but they're suspicious and disapproving of Democrats, too.
There's been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to emulate the Republican revolutionaries of 1994, but I believe the idea was that they should emulate the 1994 Republicans, whose Contract With America never mentioned investigating Bill Clinton, not the Republicans who ruined themselves through intemperate investigations after they came to power.
Mark, if you want to talk facts and real arguments, go to the original thread.
If you want to bloviate some more, keep on keepin' on.
Tom: Go to work or class or the library. As clever as you think you are, we know you are not and will get nowherewith your arguements.
Tell me, Tom, which fact in this post do you dispute?|
Irish, go to the first "A Liberal Figures it Out" thread.
Actually, I think the best thing for the Republicans would be to have the Demorats actually state what their for! Whenever they start talking, we start winning.
And whatever you do, don't ever suggest that the advocates of Socialism should actually have to experience Socialism from the victim's point of view.
(I was called the embodiment of all evil on Earth for that one.)
You are right - those on the left are worried that the Democrats are showing their hand - and actually there are - to the most radical group on the left...read on
By John Dickerson of Slate
Posted Monday, May 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM ET
Elizabeth Dole sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party's Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush." It's a sad truth of politics that if you can't inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.
But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right. In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults. Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.
When Russ Feingold called for censuring the president a month ago, it seemed like a smart political move precisely because he wasn't a Democratic party leader. He was speaking for a vital wing of the party but allowing Democratic leaders to distance themselves from him. But Pelosi is the Democratic leader. Republican claims that Democrats would launch a wave of investigations like the GOP-style ones of the 1990s suddenly seem credible. Those GOP inquiries reached their absurd apogee when Rep. Dan Burton shot a pumpkin in his backyard in an at-home investigation into former Clinton adviser Vince Foster's suicide. "I don't think you'll see anyone shooting into pumpkins anytime soon," said Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart weeks ago when I asked him about the Feingold censure move.
But now, thanks to Pelosi, it may be time to start worrying about long-term pumpkin health. It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power, but it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you're trying to launch your policy agenda. It's unbelievably tactically stupid. Perhaps Pelosi couldn't have stayed completely mum on the topic, but she could have given some bland answer about Congress needing to play its oversight role and then returned to her positive agenda items. (She tried to backtrack on Meet the Press and failed.) Republicans, and Karl Rove in particular, want to paint Democratic leaders as cartoon Ahabs fixated on taking down George Bush, so why would you promise that you're going to turn the House into the Pequod?
Pelosi's defenders, and I am sure there are a few out there, will argue that her comments were smart, because off-year elections are about motivating the base and the base wants investigations. This is true, but isn't George Bush a professional base motivator who invigorates Democrats each waking day? And if the president is not sufficient, won't the base get motivated by the affirmative proposals Pelosi outlined? I know Pelosi is so unpopular in her own party that Democrats view John McCain more favorably, but are investigations really the way to increase her standing? Won't taking control of the House help more?
I thought the whole point of unveiling an agenda was to show that the party wasn't going to get bogged down with investigations and embrace the worst Bush-hating tendencies of its members. Independents and moderates in those swing districts that will help Democrats pick up the 15 seats they need for a majority don't want more investigations: They want results on the issues that affect their lives. They may not like Republicans in Congress, but they're suspicious and disapproving of Democrats, too.
There's been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to emulate the Republican revolutionaries of 1994, but I believe the idea was that they should emulate the 1994 Republicans, whose Contract With America never mentioned investigating Bill Clinton, not the Republicans who ruined themselves through intemperate investigations after they came to power.
Mark, over the last week or 2 many of the Lefties as well as Conservatives who comment here have both been expressing confidence in the outcome of this fall's election. Obviously one side is going to be wrong, and in 179 days we'll find out which one.
It was pretty well documented that many of the people who voted for Kerry in '04 were actually voting against Bush. Bush isn't running this fall, so I don't see that dynamic working nearly to the extent it did in '04. There's a lot of talk from Conservatives that they're going to teach the GOP a lesson this fall. Some of them may do that by staying home (an incredibly short-sighted move, IMHO), but how many conservative Republicans do you honestly think will do a complete 180 and vote for a Democrat? (at the national level) The "Law of Unintended Consequences" come to mind. If you think a Democrat Congress will spend less and not raise taxes, then I have a nice bridge I'd be interested in selling you. If you think that a protracted, partisan investigation into and impeachment proceedings against this President will not have a ripple effect on the economy, then you are not thinking past the end of this post. If you think that a Democrat Senate will allow Bush to appoint 1 or 2 more Conservative Supreme Court Justices, then you are naive to the extreme. If you think that a Democrat Congress will allow the Administration to continue to fight the GWOT in an effective way, then you just haven't been paying attention. And if you think the Democrats will do a better job of securing our borders and come up with comprehensive immigration reform, then you're just a complete nincompoop.
I've voted in every general election, and all but one primary, since 1966. The only vote I would take back if I could is the one for Perot in 1992, because I wanted to "teach Bush 41 a lesson". The majority of conservatives in my circle of friends also voted for Perot, and most have the same regret. The election this fall is ours to lose, and I can't comprehend a legitimate reason why we would want to (lose, that is). The Donks don't have a cohesive message, and can't afford to really come out and shout from the rooftops what they believe and what they stand for because it'll scare the crap out of Independents and moderate Democrats.
While I have no doubt that you will find some anger buttons to rally hard core conservatives (like "imagine saying Speaker Nancy Pelosi"), when it comes to the center and the left (collectively "The Majority") you guys are talking to a wall. Too much damage has been done to your credibility and thus, you've lost your voice. People want to give the other side a try.
extra,
The problem with your theory is that the majority is Republican...you should understand that after 10 years of GOP control of Congress that the Republican Party is the majority Party in the United States...all we need to do to win it get our people to the polls.
Spook,
Agreed - there are both substantive issue reasons to support the GOP (war, taxes, judges) as well as plenty of reasons to work against the Democrats (war, taxes, judges). Everything works in our favor, provided we just fight it out.
Mark - by what metric do you arrive at that conclusion? Are you trying to tell me that more than 50% of the nations eligible voters are registered Republican? Last I checked it was around 30%- and you are fighting to hang on to those folks, with all of your rampant spending, weak border policy and roughshod foreign policy. Maybe if you say "Nancy Pelosi" a few more times...
Spook, Mark,
I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. Aren't you forgetting about Independents and Republicans who have left the party? When, Republicans gained the majority in 1994, they were supposed to be the party that would clean up corruption in Washington. Well, 12 years later, we've seen how well that's worked out!
Also, many fiscal conservatives are disgusted with the Republicans for overspending on earmarks. Many will stay home in the midterm elections.
Maybe Karl Rove can help get out the vote, by drumming up homophobia, and fervor for the flag-burning amendment---God, guns and gays always works when you have nothing of substance to offer the American people. That is, if Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't indict him for perjury and obstruction
extra,
According to what I find 32% Republican; 34% Democrat. However, Republicans actually vote, democrats just sleep through the election then bi*ch about the results.
kritter,
Republicans are out-regestering democrats, in 2000 the numbers were 29% Republican and 36% democrat. Do you think it's because democrats have no agenda other than anti-Bush?
Bane
I'd take no agenda over the agenda promoted by the Christian Coalition, but don't worry, the Dems will have an agenda that's inclusive, not divisive. While your guy is polling down in the 20's, Bill Clinton is up in the 70's. Seems people have a nostalgia for the 90's when we had a surplus, eight years of prosperity, and FEMA still functioned!