Election 2006

Last election I asked reps what would be a sign that Bush n Co were bad choices after all (if they won). Perhaps the same should be done for dems as they enter.According to reps the dems will raise taxes on everyone and surrender to the terrorists. So I suppose I'll take that as the bench line. If they do this will people admit dems sucked? That they weren't the best choice?On the flipside if dems don't surrender to terrosists and everyone's taxes don't go up, will reps admit that was a sham charge? If they manage to pull things around and the state of the nation improves overall, are there any reps that will give them credit?Of course I realize dems could be hampered by the executive branch. More signing statements anyone?

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well I thought that was one of the ironies of Bush's criticism of dems. HE raised everyone's taxes with his outrageous spending, as it will have to be paid back by us somehow. He just slapped it on a credit card so that they wouldn't realize it till he was gone.I do agree that taxes will likely raise, the question will be if dems tax everyone... which was the claim. What did he say "If it breathes tax it... if it doesn't, find their relatives and tax them"?It seems rather unlikely if they will and I'd love to see a rep accept that if dems don't do such things, and make some successes, they will give dems credit.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... I don't mind when the criteria is so hyperbolic that their opposition can't fail. Let me note that this would be true if roles had been reversed.What I am looking for is a rep willing to accept some criteria such that if dems meet those goals that person will admit dems did a good job. I started with their own benchmark.I happen to have my own ideas of what I'd like to see them do, and what might constitute failure to me. But so far effects are already happening which look good to me and they aren't even installed yet.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

For them and end of an era.
For everyone else the end of an error.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That is pretty well the status of any minority party. The answer would be to seek a strong unified stance on issues, and not simply cave to the opposition.There were few strong voices from the dem side, and essentially no unity. You even had dems going after dems for not caving to rep pressure and allowing topics to be discussed on their terms.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... there should have been a drive to unite based on practical issues. Perhaps in other cases this might not be true, but with Bush and Co there were so many real problems lack of a common ideology shouldn't have been a problem in confronting the administration together. You are absolutely right about that. I think many went for power and "my party right or wrong" rather than sticking to principles and sound judgement. McCain is a great example of someone who cut their own balls (and credibility) off.I'll bet after the results of this election, he feels a tad stupid for reaching so low to court the evangelicals.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I would agree with the assessment that (IIRC) no single party has ever enjoyed such unilateral power within the nation as the reps just enjoyed.I'm not so comfortable speaking about a minority party being so demonized, but let me accept that for sake of argument.That doesn't change my point. Once shut out of real power, it really doesn't matter how much more one is shut out. And regardless of the degree, including demonization, how does that argue for having fallen to pieces like they did?The founding fathers were arguably shut out of power and villified. They banded together in cause. I'm not suggesting that the dems should have started a revolution, but they could have stuck together and made their presence known in a solid opposition.Instead you had constant backstabbing and doublethinking trying to figure out who was to blame for failure, and public deliberations of how to move back into power by embracing rep stances... or not rocking their boat.The neocons succeeded in placing themselves in power and undercutting dems to begin with. The dems had a hand in keeping themselves right where they landed.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Reid didn't shut down the gov't, he made it close its doors to the public. That didn't result in anything much, though it did bring attention. Conversely, while he at first stood up for filibustering Bush nominations, he caved once the "gang of fourteen" made their agreement.I am glad that Bolton was kept out, but that was a divisive appointment even among reps. IIRC Bush's social security priorities also had rep detractors.Where there was staunch rep power, dems tended to scatter and even backstab. Even if I granted those incidents above as indicating some dem success at doing something, that doesn't undercut my argument. For the most part they were scattered, and even backstabbing.Given that you appear to watch the Daily Show I'm not sure how you missed Jon's references to how scattered and divided the dem party was. Tom Tomorrow and other "left" political cartoonists, as well as serious "left" authors have pointed to that same problem.They were much less effectual as a minority party than they could have been if they had simply tried to be a strong, unified minority party with a purpose.Edited by holmes, : simply

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)