Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 6, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE PARTISAN STRAITJACKET....David Ignatius:

The challenge for the Democrats, if they do triumph in November, will be to break out of the partisan straitjacket that constricts American politics. That has been the real inner demon of the Republicans they appeared to care more about their party and its prerogatives than about the country's welfare. The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.

That's not going to go down well in the blogosphere. And yet, I don't think this is the sort of instinctive centrism that marks, say, David Broder. It's more about temperament.

And tactics. If Democrats win in November, they're still going to have a very limited amount of power to get things done. Policy-wise, they're going to remain pretty constrained, and that means they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

Which will do them more good? This depends on whether you think there are lots of moderate, centrist voters in America who will respond positively to Ignatius's wholesome message. On that score, though, keep in mind something Thomas Edsall wrote recently:

In late 2000, even as the result of the presidential election was still being contested in court, George W. Bush's chief pollster Matt Dowd was writing a memo for [Karl] Rove that would reach a surprising conclusion. Based on a detailed examination of poll data from the previous two decades, Dowd's memo argued that the percentage of swing voters had shrunk to a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most self-described "independent" voters "are independent in name only," Dowd told me in an interview describing his memo. "Seventy-five percent of independents vote straight ticket" for one party or the other.

Once such independents are reclassified as Democrats or Republicans, a key trend emerges: Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of true swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing. Which meant that, instead of having every incentive to govern as "a uniter, not a divider," Bush now had every reason to govern via polarization.

More on that here, including a chart that shows the breakdown of true independents vs. faux independents. Moderation may sound appealing, but there's growing evidence that it doesn't play well on election day for either party. Caveat emptor.

Kevin Drum 12:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Frist

Posted by: royalblue_tom on October 6, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

You can't negotiate with Terrorists, Republicans or fanatics of any stripe.

Posted by: wrolston on October 6, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

>> The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk
>> deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they
>> need to stop.

The Democrats have been _out of power_ for at least 6 years and realistically more like 8. How /exactly/ have they "drunk deep of the poisoned chalice" when they have had exactly zero power to DO ANYTHING?

As always I would refer you back to Grover Norquist, Minister of Doctrine for the Republican Party: "The Democrats will be more docile after they are castrated".

I spit in your poisoned chalice.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 6, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

The hallmark of creativity, and indeed, greatness, is one of defying the conventional wisdom, going beyond what the polls say. We will get a solid Democratic majority again when some politician decides that he knows how to move some of those "non-swing" independents from the "R" column into the "D" column, and can do it without alienating the rest of the Democrats.

It's not a question of either-or, it's about the miracle of "and".

Posted by: Doctor Jay on October 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

But it's also the case that republicans outnumber democrats, and conservatives outnumber liberals. The Democrat party is already small and shrinking; there's every reason to think that giving into the Kos/Moveon.org/Communist party wing of the party will cause it to shrink even faster.

I think what we're really due for is the complete dissolution of the democrat party, and the republican party dividing into two parties that compete for seats. The Democrat party just isn't viable any more. There's something about killing babies and robbing graves that doesn't appeal to real Americans, even if you call those things abortion and the death tax.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.

From where I sit, the Dems have been forced into strident partisanship by the galloping Atwaterism practiced by the GOP over the last 12 or 14 years.

The Dems have not drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and the absence of a unified party message should be your first clue. They don't put the party first in the things they say, so why would anyone think they put the party first in their policy decisions?

In any case, the point is well taken. If the Dems become the flip side of the GOPs party-first mentality, they're not likely to make good policy.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on October 6, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'll just note that the words "appeared to" are not properly used in Ignatius's column and should have been deleted by his editor.

Posted by: IMU on October 6, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Which will do more good?

Allowing one party to subvert constitutional restraint and to loot the treasury under the blackmailing threats of being soft on terror or islamofascism or whatever and then not doing anything about it when you can. Yeah, that's great for the country.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 6, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Moderation may sound appealing, but there's growing evidence that it doesn't play well on election day for either party.

But moderation is what the American people want, not fringe leftists like Michael Moore who wish to play to their leftist base rather than support sensible centrist policies backed by the American people. The American people want a true independent politician (like Joe Lieberman) who will rise above the harsh partisanship of the Democrats and leftist blogosphere. They want someone who will rise above the political fray. How can you be against the Amercan people Kevin?

Posted by: Al on October 6, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Investigate the hell out of the republican party.

Their objective: Maximize the prison population of members of the Bush Administration.

Nail the meme of "party of corruption" to the wall.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 6, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, had wondered about all of our "Independent Trolls".

No quarter asked - No quarter given

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 6, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think what we're really due for is the complete dissolution of the democrat party, and the republican party dividing into two parties that compete for seats.

Hey, asshole, time to return to Sophia where commies get their start.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 6, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
The Democrats have been _out of power_ for at least 6 years and realistically more like 8. How /exactly/ have they "drunk deep of the poisoned chalice" when they have had exactly zero power to DO ANYTHING?

The "poisoned chalice" is that of being more concerned with partisan power than substantive policy results. You can do that when your out of power just as well as when you are in power: indeed, its frequently excused by out-of-power Democrats with "we have to get a majority before we can accomplish anything, so its is obligatory to do whatever seems most politically expedient to attain a majority".

Posted by: cmdicely on October 6, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Policy-wise, they're going to remain pretty constrained, and that means they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

Um, I think you miss several possibilities, like (c) using control of the legislative agenda to push substantively good proposals (regardless of whether they are "moderate" or "bipartisan") to the forefront, make the public case for those proposals, and force Republicans to either block them in the Senate (even if by some stroke of fortune Dems get the majority there, Reps will still have the filibuster) or veto them from the White House, or go along with them, and if the Republicans do block them in either of those places, make them campaign issues in 2008.

You know, basic governing: make a public case for what is right, push it as legislation, and if your opponents oppose it, use that as a lever to get them booted out of office at the next election and replaced with people that will do what is right.

It can be "bipartisan" if the Republicans want to do what is right, too. And if they can make a good case for some changes or compromise, than those can be taken into account. But bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, "moderation" for the sake of appearing "middle of the road", compromise of principles for the sake of compromise alone, those are unnecessary, unacceptable, and counterproductive.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 6, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think what we're really due for is the complete dissolution of the democrat party

Apparently, "Democrat" isn't bad enough now. AH also has to dis us by leaving out the capitalization, too. I think he's getting desperate.

What he doesn't realize is that in order for something new to be born, something old will have to die. I can pick a few favorites that I think need to pass on to be with FDR. But they aren't the ones AH would pick.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on October 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the choice Democrats will face if they win the House in November.

1. Impeach President Bush and members of his administration.
2. Allow Bush to go to war against Iran which will smash the Dem Party in two.

The Bush administration isn't going to moderate its behavior.

People who counsel Dems to be less partisan are fools. Dems who take the advice are chumps.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on October 6, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

If i were a Dem I would keep my fingers crossed and my balls, if I had any, hanging in there before I started counting the chickens before they came home to roost.

Posted by: Jay on October 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why the dems cannot both investigate (Waxman, Conyers, et al.) and legislate - if they control congress. Like walking and talking.

Certainly some investigation is needed to figure good policy - think about terrorism, Iraq War, taxes, corruption (no bid contracts, etc.) pollution, labor relations. Cannot legislate intelligently without knowing about current policies including enforcement.

Posted by: marcel on October 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I loath party politics. I do not know if voters actually respond to well meaning policies that are in their best interest, but I do know that Democrats have failed when trying to moderate their message to equal their opposition. They fail to persuade opposition voters and they fail to persuade non-party activists like myself, who will not support candidates that vote to give war powers and torture powers to the executive just to ensure a certain party that represents a small amount of my 'liberal' values obtains a legislative majority.

In 2012 we will be debating whether or not the Democratic president will withdraw US troops from Iraq and how that will play to the American electorate before another election. Fuck that.

Posted by: Hostile on October 6, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

NO to "reaching across the aisle". That is a fool's game, a game that has repeatedly and repeatedly gotten the sucker Dems burned. Comity is dead and cannot be resurrected with ANY of the GOPers currently extant in either house of congress. The Dems must take over and lock out, entirely and without remorse or second-guessing, the GOP from ALL matters. Do what is right without any inane or pointless GOP input. They are a hindrance to good government, not an asset to be tapped into.

Comity is DEAD. Shove the GOPers into the barren, dry wasteland wilderness that they themselves have created. When a new species of GOPer, totally new and divorced from the current slime mold organism that is the GOP today, appears that is de facto interested in good government for most regular human beings rather than just for the super-rich and connected comes along, THEN we can reconsider the idea/fantasy of comity and "reaching across the aisle".

At this point, the only reason to reach across the aisle is to give a strong shove over a cliff for each and every GOPer in existence that dares even approach a mic in congress.

This applies to BOTH HOUSES!

Posted by: Praedor on October 6, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

"The center was literally disappearing."

"Moderation may sound appealing, but there's growing evidence that it doesn't work for either party."

This kind of talk assumes that the Democrats are liberals, which has not been true for years. The Center is in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party hugs the center, covers it, spills over a little to both sides of it, hugs it, tucks it into bed at night.

Posted by: captcrisis on October 6, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hey call us the Democrat Party - Harry truman squashed that movement with wit fifty years ago, and I'm a Missourian and a Democrat, it is my birthright to take a page out of his book. He famously said "Fine. I'll make you a deal - you can call us the Democrat Party as long as we can call you the Publican Party. After all, Democrats have fared much better than Publicans throughout history."

Now it's being resurected again. Ad I have been calling them the Publican Party ever since. When they reswtore our "ic" I will restore their "Re" but not one fucking minute before.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the "center" is disappearing because it currently seems to have no potential nature in reality. We are in the middle of a food fight, and there's not much reward in doing deep and subtle policy analysis when it is virtually impossible to get deep and subtle policies enacted.

I would contend that it is possible to re-make an independent center, by using the opporunity of the coming two years to demonstrate that policy does matter, and that politics is more than clan warfare. Remember--for a good portion of the voters--say those between 18 and 35--they have never seen "good government" even attempted. During that time, there has been an ongoing campaign to make "liberal" a dirty word, and the fallout from Watergate convinced Republicans that partisanship was responsible for Nixon's fall.

By showing the younger electorate that those kinds of considerations are even *possible*, I think the tyranny of rote partisanship could be substantially undermined.

Posted by: Osama Von McIntyre on October 6, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

No reason they can't do both. They need to. It's just a matter of division of labor, and balance.

Posted by: Neil' on October 6, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor - welcome back.. I've been wondering about your well-being.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK
Perhaps the "center" is disappearing because it currently seems to have no potential nature in reality.

I think its more simple than that: the center has always been somewhat illusory, people tend to have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong from government, the illusion of a "moderate center" was the result of a large pool of people whose views, though just as strong as major partisans, didn't correspond well with either major party.

As the work of analyzing and targetting voters with messages gets more sophisticated, party messages are crafted to capture valuable subgroups of those voters, and, at the same time, the more comprehensive party messages make those voters who aren't appealed to more likely to see the major parties as completely devoted to interests unlike theres, pushing more eligible voters into being either reliable partisan voters for one major party or the other, or completely disaffected from the major party system (either reliable minor party voters or nonvoters.)

Posted by: cmdicely on October 6, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin writes of the Democrats:

... they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years. Which will do them more good?

I don't much care what will "do the Democrats more good".

And franky, "focusing on bipartisan good government proposals" sounds to me a lot like a euphemism for "business as usual corporate ass-kissing and bribe-grubbing by bought-and-paid-for politicians".

But the "executive branch" -- the Bush administration -- has engaged in gross corruption and blatant criminal conduct during the last six years, with the self-evident goal of destroying Constitutional government and turning America into a totalitarian state ruled by a cabal of corporate petro-gangsters and war profiteers.

This blatantly corrupt, criminal and un-American conduct needs to be dragged out into the light of day, thoroughly laid out for the American people to see in its full hideousness, and appropriately punished, and measures taken to see that such conduct will never -- can never -- occur again.

The single most important issue that the US government needs to deal with -- more important that all other issues combined -- is the energy/climate crisis: phasing out the use of fossil fuels and transitioning to a clean, renewable energy economy based on solar and wind generated electricity and sustainably produced biofuels in order to stop and reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases and consequent global warming. Both Democrats and Republicans need to come to grips with that, the sooner the better, because time is running out before catastrophic climate change and global ecological collapse become inevitable and irreversible.

Aside from that, if the Democrats win control of either or both houses of Congress, there is nothing more important for them to do on behalf of the American people and the American republic than to "use the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years".

Under the rule of gangster-in-chief Dick Cheney, this country has come as close to a dictatorship as I ever want to see it come. The Democrats need to deal with that. If they gain the power to do so in November, and fail to do so, then they are worthless.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Why does American Hack hate democracy? Most of us prefer a two-party system. (One is called the Democratic Party, by the way, and it still has a slight majority.)

But when Turd Blossom and his shitty little pals are finally shown the door, if not the jail cells they deserve, these bootlickers are really going to have a crisis.

Re the main point, Kevin, I think Dems have to take a page (no pun intended) from the Republic Party playbook, and that is to call absolutely everything a mandate. Turd's people win by half of one percent, mostly through voter intimidation and selective fraud-by-Diebold, and treat it as a massive triumph. So when we win legitimately by 2 percent, or whatever, we should call it a fucking landslide.

Posted by: Kenji on October 6, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

How many think that IF the Democrats regain the House and/or Senate, the Republicans will be chastened and decide to reach across the aisle in bipartisanship? Raise your hands.

Nobody?

OK, how many think that IF the Democrats regain the House and/or Senate, the Republicans will go after the new Democratic majority in vicious attack after attack 24/7 while the President prepares to veto every single bill they send to him? Raise your hands.

One, two, three, four...

Posted by: brianinatlanta on October 6, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

If i were a Dem I would keep my fingers crossed and my balls, if I had any,

Oh, wonderful, wonderful and most wonderful.

It's good to confess, sometimes, and this one is, in its way, funny enough to be forgiven, but in the future please ask, "Is this to much info?"

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 6, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

More importantly if you don't get impeached for making the US a state that disappears US citizens for years at a time (Padilla) and whisks other people off to overseas torture chambers run by the CIA, then what the hell do you get impeached for?

Oh yeah, getting head.

We desperately need the democrats to ream the whitehouse with investigations, not because it is smart politically but because THEY ARE CRIMINALS. That can't be allowed simply to appease the gods of political advantage.

If the Dems don't fight hard to bring accountability with a congressional majority then frankly a lot of people are going to consider them utterly useless and not worth a cent or a vote in the future.

Posted by: Tlaloc on October 6, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Is that likely voters or registered voters or all eligible citizens?

Posted by: JIMMY on October 6, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I vote for a subpoena-fest. Too much stupid shit has gone down over the past 6 years. It can't happen again.

Posted by: Noam Sane on October 6, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Policy-wise, they're going to remain pretty constrained, and that means they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

The trouble with this argument is that the democratic agenda is much more popular than the republican agenda. The republicans have tamped down legislation, like increases in the minimum wage and have outright violated the law in their "interpretation" of regulatory legislation. Republicans have done this under the radar--by keeping legislation off the floor and undermining the EPA and other organizations within the bureaucracy. They do so because they know that if they actually do things like cast votes against stem cell research, they'll lose support.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on October 6, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK
The Dems have not drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and the absence of a unified party message should be your first clue.

I think your wrong; I think many Democrats in office have drunk from the same "poisoned chalice", but it manifests differently: the Republicans put party over policy by pushing through superficial policy designed purely based on political calculations and appearances, and not pushing substance. Democrats put party over policy by rolling over for the Republicans for fear of losing party power if they meet them head on. Both put concern for gaining and maintaining political power ahead of effective governing, both are counterproductive, in the long-term, even to the kind of political perceptions they seek to protect in the short-term, both are manifestations of the same defect.

We should hit the Republicans mercilessly for what they are doing wrong in this regard, but we shouldn't cut Democratic politicians a free pass for their own errors, and we should push them to do better. Otherwise, even if they win we're going to be sorely disappointed in their short and unproductive tenure in the majority.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 6, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

that means they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

Totally disagree that this need be a set of mutually exclusive alternatives. Should the Democrats gain control of one or both Houses of Congress, the key is not to overplay their hand rhetorically at the outset. There's no need to go over-the-top rhetorically at the outset, and it will only harm the Democrats. Instead, rhetorically it should be all about being the party of moderation and bipartisan good government, which includes real oversight. Meanwhile, Democrats should proceed both with real good government proposals and such, reaching out aggressively to whatever Republican moderates are left in the hopes of isolating ideological conservatives for a generation; and with real, standard investigations that are perfectly aggressive. Proceed quietly, and let the facts - including under subpoena - speak for themselves, then draw reasonable conclusions. they will be damning enough. Save the rhetorical firepower for the outcome of the investigations, as the conclusions warrant. By that time, rhetorical moderation having established Democrats' credibility, more hard-hitting rhetoric will be fine and appropriate.

Posted by: Jeff on October 6, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, Noam: scorched earth, at the earliest opportunity. These shitbags confuse violence with having balls, and apparently there's no (negative) political consequence for ruthlessness. So let's dish it out and hobble these miscreants when we get even the smallest window.

No point saving it for when things get, you know, serious! Tar and feathers, anyone?

Posted by: Kenji on October 6, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think Ignatius is right, and we should put country above party, right after we ban the Republican party and force them to disband.

Posted by: craigie on October 6, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

After listening to sound bites of the President's recent speeches, I am not sure the problem of excessive partisanship can be solved as long as President Bush and his team are in office. Frankly he views himself as the Republican Presdient, and not the American President. He has zero ability to move beyond his shrinking base. Without the President moving away from virtually calling Democrats traitors nothing can be done to restore sanity to this country until 2008.

We have real challenges in the world. We truly need a uniter not a divider.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 6, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Which will do them more good?"

Well, it shouldn't be about which will do /them/ more good. They should act in the country's best interests. And if that requires investigating, prosecuting, and convicting a cabal of Republican criminals that took power by illicit means and made the country more vulnerable to the crimes of others against all of us, then so be it.

Why should the Democrats hold themselves to the same unpatriotic standard that Republicans have in putting more emphasis on "what will do them more good" that what's best for the country?

Posted by: NealB on October 6, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I guess I'd stop reading David Ignatius a long time ago because of Iqnatius love of fear. As with most columnist at Washington Post, they preach to the choir, but certainly not us workig stiffs. This part where Ignatius writes: (b)using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

Is that really what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would do?

I don't think Ignatius knows how cowardly those two congress members have been. If somehow they did manage to take back congress, I expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to same thing they always do, nothing. Centrist columnist Iqnatius likes a spineless, cowardly Dem government and want them to stay that way.

So frankly, I don't know why Ignatius doesn't just vote Republican. Than there won't be any waves to have to worry about. Don't investigate the executive branch, we already have a Republican government that doesn't investigate anything that going in Washinton.

Columnist like Ignatius are the very reason why Republicans hold control of everything and Dems are spinelessly hoping that somehow their combined spinelessness is going to be the cure all for everything. Nothing from nothing is nothing, dust to dust is dust, RIP Dems, just pocket the taxpayer money and go home.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats need to move Republicans to independents is what I hear. That means, 1) Good Government and 2) Point out that the Republican Christain base molests young boys while the Republican rich transfer their expenses to government at the expense of the middle class.

Posted by: Matt on October 6, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

For me, unidentified option (c) is "push good, popular issues that nevertheless divide Republicans from their electoral and financial base." Turnabout is fair play.

Posted by: Drew on October 6, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

good post.

as a swing voter I have noticed the same tendency in my own voting. I have split my votes less over time, and voted a straight ticket (favoring Democrats by about a 5:4 margin) more often.

My reasoning is complex, emphasizing different factors at different times. Basically, once the elected official gets to Washington, he or she will be subjected to strict party disciplines of diverse types.

This time I am likely to split: Dem for Senator, Rep for governor and representative.

When Ford pardoned Nixon I wrote him a letter of protest, and promised to vote straight Democrat in every election for years. He pardoned Nixon so that Republicans would not suffer in the 1976 elections, so I did what little I could to make them suffer. I did as I promised I would.

Posted by: papago on October 6, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Kick the rethuglicans in the nuts. After what these traitors have done to this country anything less than impeachment and incarceration would be too little too late.

Posted by: razorboy on October 6, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

(a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

from the Federalist Papers: Ambition must be made to work against ambition.

(a) and (b) can be performed in parallel, however. For example, the Democrats in one house may propose and pass their own energy plan, while investigating the influences behind the Republican plan.

Everyone in Congress has multiple motives: doing good public service, feathering their own nests, getting even, to name the basic three. I do not expect the Democrats to take the majority in either house, but if they do I would recommend that they pursue all three in a mixed strategy.

Posted by: papago on October 6, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see (a) good government and (b) investigations of of Bush admin incompetence / malfeasence as a dichotomy. Investigation of these guyd IS good government. At the very least it would keep them occupied and prevent some amount of further mischief.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on October 6, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of true swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing."

Well duh. Thats what the previous two decades of polarizing rhetoric from republicans was supposed to do. You expect me to believe a republican pollster just sat up one day and noticed "Hey! People are really polarized these days! Whodathunkit?!"

Governing as polarizers has been the nature of republicans since Nixon. Its not a result of a natural reduction in swing voters, its been the cause of the swing voter reduction.

You either drink the kool aid, or you don't. There is no way for a non-kool-aid drinker to be a republican anymore, because their malfeasence and incompetence is obvious to everyone with any interest in examining the facts of policy and results. They may like the yellow kool-aid (the world is too scary!), the red Kool-aid (Jesus wants me to make you love him), the green Kool-aid (the rich are the heart and soul of America) or the white Kool-aid (white people are the heart and soul of America), or maybe even the rainbow koolaid (Only white rich people deserve Jesus's love and anything they do to protect themselves from the scary world is by nature good or at least forgiven), but they have all abandoned rationale thought and evaluation because those things are not as self-gratifying as simply knowing you are better than everyone else.

Posted by: Mysticdog on October 6, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone tell me what radical, loony left policies the Democrats should avoid? Other than being so awfuwwy mean to de li'l Wepubwicans?

When I was a little tyke in knee britches and Nehru jacket, far left was easily identifiable: it was Marxism. Smash the State. Workers control the means of production. All hail 35th collective tractor production. and so on.

These days, if you can find me a Marxist on the Loony Left, I'll send you an autographed picture of Edmund Wilson.

Whenever these people talk about the radical left, it's always about their tactics, or their anger, or how many obscenities they use. Never about actual positions. Tone. At the most, tactics.

If you look at the POLICIES espoused by these far leftists, it's things like internationalism, health care reform, balancing the budget, the separation of church and state, an adequate social safety net. There are of course Republicans who call that loony lefty socialism, but Democrats?

No the mark of loony leftism seems to be Bush hatred. They want to see his head on a pike. They want him impeached and sent to the Hague!

I go on record saying I agree with them. Does that make me angry? you bet. Partisan? abso-friggin-lutely.

Does that make me a far leftist? Point to a policy and tell me it's not a traditional moderate Democratic policy.

At best, it's muddled, at worst, it's destructive.

And it's just plain wrong.

Posted by: pbg on October 6, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Plus, if Dems win, even though they theoretically have little power, they'll have to do SOMETHING about Iraq.

And, on that, they do have the power to cut appropriations, if necessary. Not that they'll do that.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 6, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor - welcome back.. I've been wondering about your well-being.

Been busy punching the wall and screaming in the woods since the GOP officially blessed torture and gulags as "American values"...and obtaining temporary surcease by emptying clips at the shooting range (gotta make sure my shooting finger is primed for when the true jackboot Gestapo of the Bushistas come for dissenters you know).

Posted by: Praedor Atrrebates on October 6, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I think it can be safe to write that if the Democrats win in November and take the advice of the majority of the commenters on this site, then their stay in power will be very short.

I suspect the Democrats in Washington are not quite so stupid.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 6, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Last week E. Thomas McClanahan, the pedantic fly in the editorial ointment at the Kansas City Star had his hair on fire about the prospect of a Democratic victory next month. He is just frantic at the thought of a Democratic congress turning off the money tap on the Iraqi fiasco.

This putz was in an air conditioned office during the Vietnam adventure, writing about how the troops had lost their will and should hang in until victory.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

"US intelligence services will be weakened..."

Yeah, that's a slam-dunk!

Posted by: Kenji on October 6, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

You and Pale Rider and I are the ones who remind everyone else that the troops in uniform do not owe allegiance to any party - the oath they take is to the constitution.

You would think to hear some tell the tale that only Publicans serve.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

gotta make sure my shooting finger is primed for when the true jackboot Gestapo of the Bushistas come for dissenters you know

Keeping my powder dry myself.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

I don't care which party is in power, as long as government is moderate, pragmatic -- a stalwart of good sense. Only the Democrats offer that possibility, near as I can tell.

Posted by: Pothique on October 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

I don't care which party is in power, as long as government is moderate, pragmatic -- a stalwart of good sense

Ah. I remember my first experiment with hallucinogenics...

Seriously - when has this ever been the case in this country? The system is set up to keep those who could and would do a good job of governing in moderation from ever considering the notion, and so those who do are drummed out of the process efore they even get started.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa, good timing on my own return! Just in time to see Praedor back at it.

I suppose that means we will have to wait a while before taxes go up,

On the rich, sure; tax relief for the middle class is on the way.

an official open-borders policy becomes US policy,

Thanks to GWB bending over for Vincente Fox, yep, that's what we have right now and that's why you have an open revolt amongst the Tancredo wing of the Republican Party.

Clinton's ending of welfare will be reversed,

Whoa, whoa, son! Are you actually of the belief that "welfare" is any kind of issue these days? Sorry, but that ship has sailed.

US intelligence services will be weakened beyond the point where Carter and Clinton took them,

No, sorry--Defense Secretary Dick Cheney left us with huge cuts and, by 1992, your various and sundry intel agencies were cutting people left and right. But thanks for playing the idiot card--try bringing some facts to the table. And just a hint--there was a peace dividend from the end of the Cold War. Bush I and Clinton cashed it in with the blessing of the Congress. Anyone who wanted to increase the defense budget AFTER the Berlin Wall fell was considered a crank. It was about the deficit, stupid.

the US military will be cut to the bone,

Thanks to GWB, the bones are all that's left, and there ain't any meat on them. In fact, the dog has already dragged away most of the good ones.

the US surrenders in Iraq

After the November election, the Republicans are going to cut and run on Iraq--count on it.

and Democrat leaders look for bin Ladin to ask him why he hates us so and how meaningful dialogue can be initiated so he won't think so badly of us.

Nah, they'll just try to kill him--something that Bush as never actually done.

How many cruise missiles has Bush fired at Bin Laden again?

Posted by: Pale Rider on October 6, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

The challenge for the Democrats, if they do triumph in November, will be to break out of the partisan straitjacket that constricts American politics.

It takes two to tango. The only way dems can "break out of the partisan straitjacket" is if rightards don't fight them every step down the line. Why is it bipartisanship exists only in a dem majority? Funny, that.

That being said, the idea of trying to ram through an agenda against republican opposition for the next 2 years is almost as odious as the rightard behavior of the past 6 years. We don't have to agree on everything, we can even agree on things we disagree on.

For example, most dems will say invading Iraq was a mistake, while most repubs would say the opposite. That's fine, the challenge now is, what do we do about it? All except the most ardent of bush jock sniffers will agree that, whether you agree with the war or not, it has been badly mishandled. How do we rectify it?

That will be Speaker Pelosi's biggest challenge, to reach across the aisle and say "How do we resolve this?". It will be either commit more troops, or schedule a phased withdrawal, because "staying the course" ain't gettin' it done!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on October 6, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Typical MSM blather: the Republican'ts make a mess and it's the Democrats' responsibility to clean it up.

Posted by: Cal Gal on October 6, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

...and my balls, if I had any...

Don't worry, Jay, you clearly don't.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on October 6, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Without apologies for cross-posting this on several threads today:

The Century of Drought
by Michael McCarthy
October 4, 2006
The Independent / UK

Excerpt:

Drought threatening the lives of millions will spread across half the land surface of the Earth in the coming century because of global warming, according to new predictions from Britain's leading climate scientists.

Extreme drought, in which agriculture is in effect impossible, will affect about a third of the planet, according to the study from the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

It is one of the most dire forecasts so far of the potential effects of rising temperatures around the world - yet it may be an underestimation, the scientists involved said yesterday.

The findings, released at the Climate Clinic at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth, drew astonished and dismayed reactions from aid agencies and development specialists, who fear that the poor of developing countries will be worst hit.

"This is genuinely terrifying," said Andrew Pendleton of Christian Aid. "It is a death sentence for many millions of people. It will mean migration off the land at levels we have not seen before, and at levels poor countries cannot cope with."

One of Britain's leading experts on the effects of climate change on the developing countries, Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, said: "There's almost no aspect of life in the developing countries that these predictions don't undermine - the ability to grow food, the ability to have a safe sanitation system, the availability of water. For hundreds of millions of people for whom getting through the day is already a struggle, this is going to push them over the precipice."

The findings represent the first time that the threat of increased drought from climate change has been quantified with a supercomputer climate model such as the one operated by the Hadley Centre.

Their impact is likely to even greater because the findings may be an underestimate. The study did not include potential effects on drought from global-warming-induced changes to the Earth's carbon cycle.

In one unpublished Met Office study, when the carbon cycle effects are included, future drought is even worse.

Why is it that scientific studies like this are routinely front-page news in Britain and Europe, but are virtually never reported in the US mass media?

Why is it that climate change plays a major role in British politics (note these findings were released at a Conservative Party conference!) but is not even on the map of issues affecting the 2006 elections in the USA?

Why are Americans living in a fantasy dream world, ignorant of the global catastophe that is overtaking this planet, the only known home of life in the universe -- a catastrophe brought on in large part by our own greed, gluttony and profligate wastefulness?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

mhr blithered: "... and Democrat leaders look for bin Ladin to ask him why he hates us so ..."

Bin Laden has clearly, eloquently and repeatedly explained his beef with the government of the USA, so there's no need for either Democrats or Republicans to ask him that.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Now that torture is condoned and enshrined as an American Value, this isn't outrageous, right?

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Mere Hapless Rightard blithered: "... and Democrat leaders look for bin Ladin to ask him why he hates us so ..."

At least the dems would look for him, eh, Rightard?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on October 6, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

There can be no compromises with the 'no compromises' crowd.

Posted by: cld on October 6, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.

"In recent years?" Are we still trying to sell that load of steaming crap that somehow partisan politics was invented when the Republicans took power? How old are you people? You think James Carville was hired for his looks?

Posted by: cjc on October 6, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

First, I won't believe anything until Nov 8. Too early to rub hands in glee at winning house and/or senate.

In the event of a win, Dems still have to prove they have balls. Investigate Republicans, show them no mercy, brook no compromise, suffer no excuses. Bipartisanship is obsolete, thanks largely to Repubs. Dems have to adapt or die, and it's not 100% clear to me that they can adapt. They haven't yet shown the killer instinct that I grudgingly admire in Repubs.

Of course the fact that the Republicans have become the party of pedophiles and their friends is great news for us. Who knew that Republicans would feel so strongly about child molesters, why they should propose a Defense of Child Sex Act 2006/07, it would be great!

Actually, this is why Republicans are against abortion! They want the children to be born so they can molest and abuse them.

Bush4Ever

Posted by: Bush Rules on October 6, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

I woulda signed it "Bush Drools" but that's just me...

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 6, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

". . . swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing." Another reading might be that the electorate is more engaged and paying more attention. "Swing" on the other hand, could well be a proxy for "haven't a clue." This is not to praise the actual thought processes or information on which voters base their decisions, but perhaps there is something about the culture that is pressing for political identification. "Independent" shouldn't be confused with "open," thoughtful, unbiased, or in any way more or (less) superior than serial, ticket-voting, dems and repubs.
Martin

Posted by: Martin on October 6, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I want to know where all these lobotomized "centrists" are coming from, for whom political "moderation" can apparenly be achieved via Emily Post and haldol injections. What I wouldn't give for a return to Left vs. Right--because what we have now is merely Polite vs. Shrill. Last time I saw that held up as a model for behavior, I was a 10-yr old Cub Scout reading the "Goofus & Gallant" strip in Boys' Life.

Under this rubric, simple demands for public accountability magically become indecorous "partisan" vendettas, while the most fundamental betrayals of our founding principles can sail right through David Broder's flaccid colon and into US law so long as they're embalmed in the appropriate verbal laxatives.

It's a profoundly stupid and short-sighted way to run a democracy, and I wish Broder, Ignatius, Cohen etc. would stop pretending there's something noble in it.

Posted by: Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law on October 6, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

If the democrats dont have the cajones to tackle universal affordable health care, true national security improvements, campaign finance reform, big pharma abuses, energy independence, MSM fairness and honesty, truly representative government, election fraud, universal affordable education, progressive taxation, excessive corporate influence, and the living wage then what good are they? Issues like gay rights, flag burning, 10 commandment monuments, and abortion are trivial compared to the aforementioned.

It would be better for the country if the democrats seriously addressed these concerns, successfully or not, rather than just hold the door for plutocratic and corporate interests until the next gang of thugs manages to gain power via election fraud, pandering, or divisive misrepresentation.

The task is daunting but the alternative, capitulation or collaboration with forces that are driving the country to fascism, militarism, and third world status, is reprehensible.

The issues listed above DO appeal to the center of the country, liberal or conservative. It is the cacophony of fear, idealogical fanaticism, little mansion on the prairie fantasies, willful ignorance, American exceptionalism, and sanctimonious posturing relentlessly generated by the extreme right that drowns out reasonable discussion. That din has led many in the center to doubt the efficacy of government in anything but a military role and the right wing willfully, treasonably confirms it by their incompetence, indolence, and criminality.

If the democrats dont pursue this agenda passionately, without hesitation, without crass political consideration, they will never be heard over the noise, and indeed will give tacit approval to the destructive, nonsensical claims of the far right.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on October 6, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM

The air that crosses into the US from the Pacific Ocean has a higher CO2 content than the air that crosses from the US into the North Atlantic. The US, because of its regrowing forests and agriculture, is a net CO2 sink. When next KD has a thread based mostly on global warming or the catastrophic shortage of petroleum I'll put up a source, or sources, for this information.

Reforestation programs have also begun in Brazil. Effective reforestation in Indonesia, Burma, Thailand and Malaysia would be good if anybody could be persuaded to do it. maybe all those nations that signed the Kyoto treaty could contribute the money.

Posted by: papago on October 6, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

papago wrote: "The air that crosses into the US from the Pacific Ocean has a higher CO2 content than the air that crosses from the US into the North Atlantic. The US, because of its regrowing forests and agriculture, is a net CO2 sink. When next KD has a thread based mostly on global warming or the catastrophic shortage of petroleum I'll put up a source, or sources, for this information."

That's a load of crap. One hundred percent pure bullshit. If you've got a "source", post it now.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law wrote: "It's a profoundly stupid and short-sighted way to run a democracy, and I wish Broder, Ignatius, Cohen etc. would stop pretending there's something noble in it."

They are bought-and-paid-for shills for America's corporate ruling class. "Pretending" is their job.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 6, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats have an obligation to remove the cancer that has been growing within the Republic since Nixon was in office. They did a partial biopsy after the Reagan weapons for hostages deal in the 1980s that doesn't seem to have even come close to doing the trick. This cancer has grown and will continue to grow over the next several decades unless it is excised now. Just look at what the news tells you and then how little is done or how little criminality and incompetence in government appears to be of concern in Congress. It seems that "bipartisanship" means "don't investigate", "don't rock the boat".

Until one party or the other destroys its own corrupt practices the Republic will continue to suffer and government will get worse and worse...just like it has in so many other dominant powers throughout recorded history.

It has been said that those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it. But, it is also true that those who learn history only to forward their own power for powers sake are also doomed to repeat it. And that's where the lack of purpose in the Democratic power is leading that party and our country. It's not the Democrats fault as a party that this is happening, it is the fact that Democrats and Republicans seem unable or unwilling to stop the flow of money into their campaigns and private pockets from whatever source they can pander to. Is it mobster? No problem. Is it a foreign government? No problem. Is it child exploiters? No problem. Is it military black-ops contractors? No problem. And, eventually, the difference between the Representatives and the criminals they pander to becomes less and less until, finally, there is no one left who actually cares about the society as a whole...or at least no one competent to do something about it...for even if they do care, they cannot attain enough power to effectively govern. The system becomse so loaded down with self-interest that brilliant, decent potential leaders are eliminated, terrorized, or simply ignored. And that's what's happening in this country. As I said, just look at the news--if you read what you are reading in the newsservices about the United States you would be shocked and expect that people would go to jail, that investigations would be done, that there would be some sense of morality or ethics and the accompanying intellect applied to fixing broken aspects of our government. However, for the past six years that has not been the case. And now that these problems are abundantly clear, daily reported, nothing is done. Instead, the Leader of the House, who has presided over a one party government for four years, blames the otherside for problems he never told them about...and remains in power.

This is not just a problem for Democrats. It's a problem for all citizens. For everyone who believes in good government, free speech, and decent human interaction. It's not about anything less.

Posted by: parrot on October 6, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Until Bush and his criminal administration pay and pay heavily for their crimes, not only against America, but against the world will I be willing to set aside partisan differences.

I want Bush and Cheney in prison. They are criminals. Then there can be reconciliation. Period. Full stop.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger on October 6, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

So nice of Ignatius and Kevin to worry about democrats abusing power like some group of fanatics we all are unfortunate to be familiar with the past 6 years. They shouldnt worry their little heads though about democrats being like republicans and putting party over country in the least its not in the nature (of most of them). The left has struggled mightily with todays political reality that you need to be aggressively partisan to make any headway against vicious republican cultism and a corporate media choosing to act as the republican party propaganda machine. Should humanity be lucky enough that democrats gain some real power in November, democrats will revert to their cant we all just get along form is a skinny minute its their nature.

This is where so many like Kevin consistently miss the boat, like not realizing the craven vacuous disingenuous nature of bush and the republicans which led to them to trust republicans on the litany of disasters these past 26 years so many dont read the fundamentals. Bush and republicans are is a transparent as glass in their malfeasance and vile transience if you look to the fundamentals they are completely and thoroughly predictable. Just imagine the most heinous path from any situation and youll be falling all over republicans along the way.
.

Posted by: pluege on October 6, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Policy-wise, they're going to remain pretty constrained, and that means they can go in two basic directions: (a) acting as the party of moderation and focusing on bipartisan "good government" proposals, or (b) using the subpoena power of Congress to investigate the hell out of what's been going on in the executive branch for the past six years.

I don't see how "good government" proposals can be all that bipartisan. The Republicans don't seem to have an interest in the idea. Likewise, I don't see how you can have "good government" without congressional investigations of policy failures and secret executive policy implementations concerning torture, wire-tapping, and the purging of CIA officiers.

Posted by: American Buzzard on October 6, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

In late 2000, even as the result of the presidential election was still being contested in court, George W. Bush's chief pollster Matt Dowd was writing a memo for [Karl] Rove that would reach a surprising conclusion. Based on a detailed examination of poll data from the previous two decades, Dowd's memo argued that the percentage of swing voters had shrunk to a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most self-described "independent" voters "are independent in name only," Dowd told me in an interview describing his memo. "Seventy-five percent of independents vote straight ticket" for one party or the other.

This is utter nonsense. Every survey shows that conservatives outnumber liberals by at least 10%. If independents were such a small percentage, then conservatives would win the overwhelming majority of elections. Instead Bush has just barely scraped by, and the Republicans, including moderates, have narrow majorities in both houses of congress.

Posted by: bobo the chimp on October 6, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Re: the "shrinking" number of truly independent voters, might we be getting the cause/effect relationship a bit backward here? As more and more extreme candidates are fielded by both sides, and as the "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" have disappeared from their parties, there really aren't many reasons to switch back and forth on the ticket. As a former "lib Repub", now Independent, I mostly vote with Dems because the Republican party I grew up with has become the party of crazy whackos. The few remaining so-called moderates (Are you listening Susan Collins?) are just enablers. Yes, I would like to see and vote for more truly centrist candidates, and I truly don't care which party they say they belong to. But in this age of fine tooth comb gerrymandering, it won't happen because both sides are all about preserving the power they have.

And yes, I think it very possible to likely that the Dems will fall into this trap and quite soon. I already see plenty of stuff on Dem blogs that the only problem with the K street project is that the wrong party was running it. Too many Dems are so gunshy, they still think the road to success is Republican lite.

Posted by: bluewave on October 6, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

What are we going to do if most of those 'close' races for the House and the Senate (
end up being won by Repubs? Another round of ignoring the obvious and not making waves? That's my nightmare for this November. Staying up late and once more seeing the vote mysteriously go to the Repubs, despite exit poll results or pre-election polls. Another crazy night of despair...

Posted by: nepeta on October 6, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

darn, can't use brackets, the blank space should say: less than 5-10 percentage points

Posted by: nepeta on October 6, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Well this is an interesting question, and makes for some far reaching philosophical discussion.
But how about some REAL WORLD questions. If the Democrats take back the House and Senate, SHOULD they:
1. Try to threaten lobbyists who dare try to work with Republicans?
2. Hold open votes past called upon time to muscle supporters into going along?
3. Rewrite legislation without any consultation with Republicans?
4. Close down filibusters?
5. Refuse to bring any judicial nominations into committee?
6. Investigate all and any actions by the administration, whether or not it has serious consequences for the country?

These things and more have been done by Republicans over the last decade. Should Dems do the same?

If a Dem president is elected in 2008, should the judiciary committee restore "blue slips" just to be fair and honerable?

Posted by: DK2 on October 7, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, game theory dictates that the Democrats should adopt a tit-for-tat policy vis-a-vis the Republican policies. In other words, they should make the Republican base howl with pain - real pain - once they achieve control. The super-wealthy should be slammed with a "war tax" to pay for their Iraqi adventure. The programs paying for right-wing fundi efforts should be totally terminated. Those fundi churches should all be investigated by the IRS until they're out of business. The companies involved in the Iraq fiasco should be forced to disgorge their payments until they prove they actually provided the services they were engaged for - real proof, not some sham. The Democrats under Clinton didn't do this to Bush pere and his Atwater inspired crop of criminals and we all paid for it. Republicans don't believe in things unless it happens personally to them. It's time they received accountability from on high.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan on October 7, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Ths is completely ridiculous. Right now, Democrats aren't just a minority (not in numbers, but in power), but a demonized minority. What they need is not more bowing, scraping, and compromising of the Lieberman/Hillary variety, but someone who will stand up and say that these Democratic values are values that are American values, that we are loyal, patriotic, and moral. That we are not freaks on whom every human aberration can be blamed, but strong people with good convictions and beliefs that can make life better in this country, the way it used to be. Not by caving in and by being weak, but by presenting ourselves with strength and confidence can we succeed. The way that we can best present ourselves is be asuming the mantle of leadership with pride, not second guessing ourselves by undercutting our own best ideas and beliefs.

Posted by: Alexandra on October 7, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

For anyone to think the Dems are going to shy away from their agenda just to be Centerists is PIE IN THE SKY DOPE SMOKING HIPPIE MAGGOT INFESTED FM TYPE BULL. The Democrats however are different about Partisan Politics than the Republicans,they are more agressive more nasty more synical and bags full of DIRTY Tricks.They are Selfish,over Educated and Nasty. The Democrats have aligned themselves with Left Wing Kooks , Radical Enviromentalist who are mostly Communists.The GAY crowd who want to be Represented and married.We have The Howard Dean Idiots what will they require and what is their agenda.Does anyone think the Democrats can slide by til 08 without finding several Victims, persons that BUSH forgot and trampled over.All these groups expect their Slice of Pie.The Democrats in no way Represent middle America when it comes to TAXES, RELIGION, PROPERTY RIGHTS,IMMIGRATION, DEFENSE, EDUCATION or SOCIAL SECURITY.They are on the wrong side of every Issue allways have beeen.How will it play out to defund the war and run. Whae we get attacked again what will the Explanation be.Blame Bush for it since he created Terrorism? What will happen to the Economy when you Rasise Income Taxes you all know they will not be able to resist that. Punish the working people to save the World Crapola. How about Immigration, Drunk Ted wants a free pass to all Illegals how mad are The Unions goint to be over that one,what will the Blacks think they despise Mexicans(people from Mexico)?How will that effect starting level jobs for teens and others?How will you handle N.Korea which Bubba Bill was friendly with but Bush see's them as a threat(cant imagine why)?What of the UN,"un" is correct about as"un" as you can get. Will you get the French to like us agian and what the hell will that matter?The Democrats claim to be for the little Guy who is this short person? Where does he come from?How will you handle him? What do you owe the Unions?How will you lose the Election for Hillary in 08 thats what really matters.The screw ups that you will make the next two years will keep Her from her 3rd & 4th terms,I THANK YOU

Posted by: Glyn Lockhart on October 7, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

Ths is completely ridiculous. Right now, Democrats aren't just a minority (not in numbers, but in power), but a demonized minority. What they need is not more bowing, scraping, and compromising of the Lieberman/Hillary variety, but someone who will stand up and say that these Democratic values are values that are American values, that we are loyal, patriotic, and moral. That we are not freaks on whom every human aberration can be blamed, but strong people with good convictions and beliefs that can make life better in this country, the way it used to be. Not by caving in and by being weak, but by presenting ourselves with strength and confidence can we succeed. The way that we can best present ourselves is be asuming the mantle of leadership with pride, not second guessing ourselves by undercutting our own best ideas and beliefs.

Posted by: Alexandra on October 7, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

性生活 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 激情图片 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 激情小电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情图片 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 戴尔官方网站 戴尔d620 dell笔记本 dell笔记本电脑 dell d620 戴尔网上订购 戴尔电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔主页 dell电脑 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔公司 戴尔官方网站

Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 7, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly