If Democrats Don't Win this November...

Back to the original topic, I think the Dems are in trouble if they don't take at least the House or the Senate.

Mid-term elections don't follow national news very often, so I tend to discount the impact of things like the Foley "sex" scandle. But they sure as heck are heavily influenced by the popularity of the head of the party that is in power (i.e., the President). Mid terms are always tough for the party in power, and if the President is less popular, his party usually loses power.

However, overt appeal to that ideal is not working in the races I know about ... in California, Phil Angelides is losing ground by trying to tie Governor Schwarzenegger to President Bush. The voters here aren't buying it. I believe the electorate is much smarter than most of the partisans would have you believe; I don't always agree with the majority, but their wisdom has been borne out over the last 220+ years.

There's also another factor I'll call "the Big Mo" to consider. Bush's popularity has been down so long that his detractors are starting to sound shrill and hysterical to the middle. When President Clinton, who was popular just after his election, was losing ground drastically as middle America found themselves disgusted with the alleged antics of his staff in the White House he lost the Congress to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. I think it had less to do with his overall poll numbers than it had to do with how his poll numbers were falling at the time of the election. Bush could be less of a factor if his popularity takes even a slight uptick.

So I think its too early to tell how books being published as "October Surprises", Congressional "sex" scandles and the lingering war are going to play out.

If -- in spite of an unpopular war, a president that less than 40% of the people approve of and amidst the various scandles -- the Republicans hang on to a majority in both houses of Congress, then Dean is gone and Hillary will start moving even more rapidly to the middle, carrying a Bible and talking like a hawk. Kerry, Gore, Edwards and the rest of that "wing" of the party won't get it, and continue to self-destruct. Evan Bayh may follow Hillary into the vacant middle to try and help salvage something of the once-great Democrat party.

They will be helped only by the fact that since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans can't field a respectible candidate themselves. And I'm not sure today's Republican Party would nominate Reagan again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 16 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]333676[/snapback]</div>

It never ceases to amuse and amaze me that the biggest supporters of the war are the geatest detractors of the candidate who actually served in war (regardless of the details of his medal), while completely ignoring the fact that their own candidate used his daddy's influence to get into the Guard so as to get out of having to go to Vietnam, and then deserted even from the Guard, and probably used his daddy's influence again to avoid being charged and imprisoned for desertion.

But maybe it makes sense: Bush might have been slower to go to war if he'd ever experienced one.

 

dbermanmd, how are we supposed to believe anything you say when you post stuff like this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]331781[/snapback]</div>

I'm still waiting for you to defend this one!

Here is the deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1965.
[attachmentid=5355]
What's that in 2000 when Clinton left office? A SURPLUS?

When are you going to stop lying dbermanmd???????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 08:48 AM) [snapback]333884[/snapback]</div>

Hilarious defense! I'm not disputing the 1.9% part, I'm disputing the "near record low since 1962" part! I guarantee the WSJ did not print this!

 

Here's something from the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7627&sequence=0) to back up Dr. Berman's claim.

We really should be careful before saying someone is lying.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 17 2006, 08:56 AM) [snapback]333887[/snapback]</div>

I completely agree. Again, I'm not disputing the 1.9% part of his statement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 09:04 AM) [snapback]333892[/snapback]</div>

Not true! I did not say this.

Yes, I will continually point out your lies, which is not slander, because what I'm saying is true. Go ahead and bring it up with the administration here. I'm waiting for them to tell you to stop lying!

What, are you threatening me now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 09:40 AM) [snapback]333903[/snapback]</div>

Agree - which is why I provided evidence to back up what I said.

How about some syrup with those pancakes!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 06:03 AM) [snapback]333876[/snapback]</div>

I was refering specifically to the Bush vs Kerry race of 2004, and the continuing support by war-supporters of Bush, who is so brave to send other people's kids to fight and die, but who used family influence to get out of fighting when he was military age.

To clarify: I do not regard either party to be "a party of war heroes." I merely said that I am amused and amazed that, in that particular election, the supporters of the war should have so excoriated the military veteran while voting for the draft dodger and National Guart deserter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]334037[/snapback]</div>

We agree on this point. You are aware that I don't think that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or either of the two Bushes were qualified to be president.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 17 2006, 11:44 AM) [snapback]334037[/snapback]</div>

I respect anyone who serves. I know it didn't happen often in the Vietnam era, but National Guard troops are subject to being called up and sent into combat. So I've never considered someone who joins the Guard, or the Coast Guard, as anything less than anyone else in the patriotism department. (I think only one National Guard unit was called up, as the peacetime draft kept the government in a steady supply of young men to feed the military).

I think Vice President Dan Quayle was the most forthright on this issue: during the convention, he told one of the big three anchors that during Vietnam, his father called and got him into the National Guard so he wouldn't be drafted and sent to Vietnam. The anchor was aghast, but Quayle said it was his family's influence that kept him from active duty service (a goal of most of us in that era).

 

oops

 

The recent back and forth interaction here in this thread is, in my opinion, an example and the reason for our inabilities to reach concensus. It is the immediacy of media which prevents us from seeing the longer term consequences of our viewpoints. Each of us have opinions. But as we see both here and in Congress we find ourselves being dragged into the short term, the unimportant, the lack of compromise and the ultimate inability to reach consensus.

What we may need to keep in focus are longer term goals, the need to compromise so improved views can ultimately come from such an enlightened discussion. In my opinion that is why our legislators have become less than effective. We have the ability to communicate at the speed of light but our government has continued to work within the rules of yesteryear. The only thing left is what we have all seen. And that isn't working.

Maybe if we limit our discussions to what we agree on instead of what we disagree on? That is but a suggestion. I have no secret blueprint for success. All I know is what I currently see is not productive.

I see everyone's point of view. We are, I think, closer than we think we are. Please do not take this comment that we should stop discussing issues. But please keep in mind that to be effective we need to formulate responses which will ultimately win concensus. Otherwise we are merely shooting ourselves in our collective feet.

I do hope the best in the coming election. I believe in our democracy.

Regards

 

Back to the subject at hand .. Currently the house, the senate, the executive branch, the military, and slowly but surely, the courts are controlled by one party.

I think we should all remember that although power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm a moderate Republican, but even more than that, I'm an American. Absolute one party control, regardless of party, is bad for our country.

It will be to the advantage of all but the most conservative of Republicans (currently the folks in control) to bring checks and balances back into our system of government.

In my state, there's a very close race for the House of Representatives. Our incumbant, a Republican, hasn't been all that bad, but I've got to do my part to bring to a close this era of unchecked abuses. I'll vote for the Democrat.

Before voting this time, we all need to think hard about what has happened to virtually every aspect of the American way of life over this past six years. It has not been a pretty picture. Let the Democrats return to the fold. And if they're smart, they will not try to push some ultra liberal agenda, but will concentrate on bringing reasonably fair negotiated legislation back to our system of government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper @ Oct 21 2006, 04:53 PM) [snapback]336186[/snapback]</div>

I agree. I don't think it will be healthy for Democrats if they happen to obtain total control in 2008. I hope the system will be changed so that no one party can take total control. I'm not sure how that would be done though.