posted
Has anyone been watching? It's taken a pretty leftist approach to analyzing our current government (always painting Bush badly). While I think it's an accurate depiction of how many Americans feel, isn't it just cementing that distrust in the government?
The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
Also, many conservatives are criticizing Bush from the "less government" standpoint, in that Bush has spent more and expanded executive power much farther than any democrat in the past.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
I have -- a big loss now would probably have the GOP seeking a big win in 2008. (Honestly, I think we might get more moderation with a split government.) If the GOP doesn't lose on Tuesday the Democrats can continue to blame the country's problems on the GOP majority and all use that momentum to push them into the White House.
quote:The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
The assumption behind this is that things are going down the crapper right now in the War on Terror, Iraq, etc., and it would be great (for the GOP) to blame it on the new democratic congress.
Of course, that's crap, blaming the current leaders for the effects of thier predecessor's actions, but it's been done succesfully (in both positive and negative directions) many times in the past.
In other words, [lame] politics as usual.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush was the first president not to lose any seats in Congress during a Midterm election since the Civil War. He actually gained seats during his first mid term election. On average the party not inthe White House loses 30 seats. That is no where near as many as the GOP is likely to lose this year. As a conservative, even if it means losing control of the House, a Democrat win doesn't upset me so much because it doesn't demonstrate as large a political shift as the GOP wins in the 90's under Clinton.
I also think that Democrats don't have a plan for what they want to do once they regain power, or any real agenda for how to maintain that power and expand their base. And two years of seeing Pelosi in charge will mean even more GOP gains in '08. The Dems have gotten too used to being the sniping party on the sidelines, trying to gain little debate points as they try to undermine the Majority. Sure they'll do a few things, raise the min wage, play with the edges of some of the tax cuts, but nothing too big. I pray that they'll hold impeachment hearings, try to pass an immigration amnesty bill, try to reverse the tax cuts, and try to pass resolutions for the immediate withdraw of all troops from Iraq. Not all dems want this far-left agenda, so that'll just set-up a Majority that is stuck in neutral fighting amongst themselves. The more the left gets its way and makes noice under a Pelosi Speakership, the better the GOP will do in '08.
This isn't my first choice. I'd rather the GOP win out-right and fix its ways, espeacially when it comes to spending. Leadership needs bring Newt back in, hire him as a consultant and listen to him. http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=14837Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
How about we just line up all of congress and, instead of voting, we cattle prod each and every one of them?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I pray that they'll hold impeachment hearings, try to pass an immigration amnesty bill, try to reverse the tax cuts, and try to pass resolutions for the immediate withdraw of all troops from Iraq.
Isn't that remarkably like Democrats praying for troops to die in Iraq?
Because, see, I know lots of Republicans who claim that this is what Democrats do, but until now I've never seen anyone actually admit to wanting the country's leadership to fail horribly so their party could ride the failure to victory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the thought behind hoping for a Democratic win now. But it's a big risk. What if the Democrats do really well in the next two years, and the Republicans look twice as bad in retrospect? They'll have handed the election to the Democrats in 08.
Mig -
I have to echo Tom, I think that's a pretty harsh way to look at government. You want two years more of failure just so you can retake the House two years after that? Geez. Maybe you should spend those two years cleaning up your party, and try to take it back in a fair fight, if you lose it to begin with.
If the only major Democratic thing we pass in the next two years is the minimum wage hike, I'll consider that more done for the average American than anything the Repubs have done in the last couple months.
And I hope they repeal the wreckless tax cuts of the Bush administration. I have to hand it to the Republicans. You guys run up a MASSIVE debt, and cut taxes so we can't pay for it. Then Democrats come along and try to do the RESPONSIBLE thing by cutting spending and raising taxes, so we don't waste billions and billions of dollars every year on INTEREST alone, you guys cry foul, say we want to tax everyone back to the stone age, then gleefully attempt to assume power. It's a clever little stunt you have there. Too bad the only real losers are the American people, and not the Democrats.
Resolutions for an immediate withdrawel from Iraq won't happen. Why? Because that isn't the Democratic plan. Republicans love to tout the fact that Democrats have no plan, but they do. You have to look for it a bit, they aren't as good at spreading their message, but they have one. Actually, your Republican poster boy just adopted it, it's called benchmarks. Handing over power to the Iraqi government over a shortened period of time, forcing them to step up. You guys just keep saying "No plan no plan!" like the guy from Rainman, regardless of what ideas the Democrats offer forth. And to your credit, it works.
The reality is, Democrats might retake the Senate along with the House, but it won't really matter much. They'll pass a minimum wage hike, but Bush will veto much of their legislative attempts and Republicans will sustain the veto. They'll probably pass immigration reform, because more Dems than Repubs agree with Bush on what needs to be done, so good luck pinning partisan sniping on us there.
But the downside is this: In two years, after having the majority of our domestic agenda vetoed and fillibustered, one of two things will happen. Either Everyone will hate the Democratic ideas, and will favor the Republican attempts to stifle them, or everyone will be pisses as hell at the Republicans for stifling change that they want, and then you lose even more seats, and the White House.
And I can't help but feel that the time will be soon when you sit in the back of the class, snipe at the Democrats, and fillibuster their attempts to fix the America you guys mucked up. Just like you guys claim is all Democrats know how to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if the Democrats do really well in the next two years, and the Republicans look twice as bad in retrospect?
I don't think many people advocating this strategy are worried about this happening. Letting the Democrats screw themselves is one of the most consistently performing parts of the Republican strategy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the whole, "Conservatives want to lose" plan is a marketing scheme by some Democrats. They hope that it will be a straw enough unhappy or busy conservatives will grab as an excuse not to show up at the polls on Tuesday.
Its much like the excuse a football team gives for losing every year--the draft picks are better.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The law of large numbers says they have to get it right eventually.
Regardless, Democrats aren't stupid, despite popular opinion. They know this is their shot, and even if the old guard screw it all up, the Barrack Obamas, Hillary Clintons, and the dude from Virginia whose name is escaping me right now that everyone likes because he breaks ranks all the time, the new guard like them will be the ones calling the shots if the old guard do nothing but snipe.
Dan -
I don't think they WANT to lose, but do you really doubt that in the back of their heads they aren't falling back on those thoughts to console themselves?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I hope they repeal the wreckless tax cuts of the Bush administration. I have to hand it to the Republicans. You guys run up a MASSIVE debt, and cut taxes so we can't pay for it.
The debt is shrinking, not that you will see this type of information widely reported any where with evil Repulicans in charge.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one running for office wants to lose, or else they wouldn't run. Too much money is spent and WAY too much money can be made while in office to actually hope that -you- will lose for the greater good of party.
I think it's a HUGE trap to think of Republicans and Democrats as unified and talk about them as if it was two individuals. Each and every politician, regardless of party, is an individual, with their own goals and their own agendas.
Personally, I think that the Repubs are -expecting- a big loss and are simply trying to make it look like a "plan".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's way too much power in being the majority party in the House. I can't imagine in a million years they'd WANT to lose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't want the dems to win but...
How about we just line up all of congress and, instead of voting, we cattle prod each and every one of them?
Instead of elections we hold quiz bowls where the incumbent and new senators are all asked key questions about things they ought to know about, especially in regards to their voting record. Cattle prod if they answer wrong, another 6 years if they pass the gauntlet.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Bush was the first president not to lose any seats in Congress during a Midterm election since the Civil War. He actually gained seats during his first mid term election. On average the party not inthe White House loses 30 seats. That is no where near as many as the GOP is likely to lose this year. As a conservative, even if it means losing control of the House, a Democrat win doesn't upset me so much because it doesn't demonstrate as large a political shift as the GOP wins in the 90's under Clinton.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Bush was the first president not to lose any seats in Congress during a Midterm election since the Civil War. He actually gained seats during his first mid term election. On average the party not inthe White House loses 30 seats. That is no where near as many as the GOP is likely to lose this year. As a conservative, even if it means losing control of the House, a Democrat win doesn't upset me so much because it doesn't demonstrate as large a political shift as the GOP wins in the 90's under Clinton.
Mig, simple fact-checking disproves your first sentence. In 1998, Dems gained seats in the House, and 0 in the Senate. So that's 4 years back, not 137. In 1934, FDR did the same: Dems picked up seats in the House and in the Senate. The GOP did well in 1994, not so well in 1998. http://hnn.us/articles/1094.html http://clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/1998/Table.htm
Morbo, check your facts again. Not sure what data base you're using, but this should be easy for you to confirm: Bush wasn't president in 1998.Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, doesn't that support Morbo's statement? Clinton was president, and in the 1998 midterm elections, the democrats gained ground in congress. This directly contradicts the statement that not since the Civil War has a president not lost seats during a midterm election.
Edit: Or what Dag said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, the erroneous civil war claim doesn't make the 2004 Congressional results any less impressive. First-termers lost congressional ground in all races since FDR.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's cool Mig. If only Kerry had acknowledged he was wrong more quickly this week. . . I hope someone muzzled him until after Election Day.
2 things: Mig's original statement might be correct if you add "Republican" before "president." I'm too sleepy to check.
And Dag is right: the 2002 GOP results were impressive, and totally counter to historical trends. But 9/11 and it's aftermath was a unique event that affected Bush's popularity and the 2002 elections.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
Some conservative commentators have said something along those lines. Others have called for a Dem win because they want the Republicans in power to be forced to take a look at how far they've strayed from conservative positions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
From what I've heard the current Demo leadership, especially the current minority leader, are hyper-leftist...certain to marginalize us centrists/moderates if they take power. I'd like to see a Democrate Senate and President (or at least anyone but a neo-con), and a Republican House.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aww, I like the current Republican Senate well enough.
The house is supposed to be run by idiots (and typically is, under either party), why can't they be Democratic idiots? So long as the margin is close, they won't be able to force anything particularly annoying through the Senate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The issue that struck me the most was that some conservatives DON'T want to win the elections next tuesday, saying that it will increase the chances of electing a Republican president in '08. Has anyone else heard this?
Some liberals don't want to win the elections next Tuesday, either, for basically the same reasons. I atually wrote something about it on the board. To repeat myself, while it would be totally unprincipled to try and lose just to let a country 'suffer' under bad leader so your party can win two years down the road, I think if the Dems put forth an honest effort to win, but still lose, they can console themselves that a loss this year isn't that big of a deal.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
