Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

’06? How about a prediction about ’08
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Bruce Bartlett gives us 6 things which will likely happen after the election (given the premise that the Democrats win). For the most part I agree with his first 5. But it is point 6 which echoes what I've been saying for quite some time as to how I figure, politically, the Democrats will find their win not to be as much a good thing as they expect:
Sixth, expect President Bush to remind Congress that he has veto power. Republicans undoubtedly will retain enough seats in both the House and Senate to sustain all such vetoes. Or they may simply kill Democratic bills in the Senate with filibusters, just as Democrats have been killing Republicans measures for years even though Republicans today have a bigger margin than the Democrats will have next year.

And when Democrats fail to act on Republican initiatives, expect Bush to denounce the do-nothing Congress as Harry Truman did back in 1948. Moreover, Bush can create showdowns with Congress on issues where he has the stronger hand, as Bill Clinton often did, putting Democrats into no-win situations that will quickly erode their support.

Thus, we see that even if Democrats retake control of the House and maybe the Senate as well, there are many challenges that await them. The Republicans will still have a lot of leverage against Democratic initiatives. And let us not forget that everything that goes on in Congress the next two years will be against the backdrop of a presidential election in 2008. It is quite possible that a Democratic victory in Congress this year will actually forestall what otherwise would have been a White House victory in 2008.

Many political observers believe that voters basically like gridlock, with different parties controlling the White House and Congress. Thus, ironically, Democratic control of Congress for the next two years may give Republicans just the edge they need in 2008 — especially given the president's overwhelming role in foreign policy and the importance of that issue in today's world.
The party with the problem if Dems win is - Dems. Responsibility with no authority. A horribly partisan atmosphere with neither side willing to give in to the other. The great possibility that other than complain, the Dems will not be able to do anything of substance in the next two years and by 2008 will be perceived by the American people as less competent than the Republicans they replaced (the nuance of how government works and the handicap under which a slim majority Democratic congress would labor being lost on most voters).

Gridlock for two years and an electoral loss in '08 a distinct outcome of a win. So, should they win, it will require deft leadership, good communication with the electorate, and at least the perception of success (or progress) to overcome that. And frankly, given the apparent leadership for the Dems, I don't think that's very probable.

And Bartlett concludes with a little reminder:
Remember, too, that Democrats thought their Senate victory in 1986 marked the beginning of the end for Republicans. They quickly moved to investigate Iran-Contra and pass liberal legislation. But the hearings went nowhere and the bills were vetoed. Two years later, voters elected Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, to the White House. I believe that they did so in part to put a check on the Democratic Congress, as they did so often in the postwar era. Indeed, I think that Democratic control of Congress has the potential to rejuvenate Bush's presidency, just as Republican control gave new life to Clinton's.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I see: Heads we win. Tails you lose.

Look, you have a point, to an extent, but I still think, on balance, it is the Democrats’ best interests (in ’08 and beyond) to win today. Presidential elections have very little to do with Congress. They come down to how people view the two candidates and the general macro conditions in the country (wars, the economy, etc.). The outcome in ’08 will turn on who the parties choose to nominate and what the overall state of the country is when voters go to the polls. The Democratic Congress (if there is one) is not likely to be a significant factor. Neither is Bush for that matter.
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
Look, you have a point, to an extent, but I still think, on balance, it is the Democrats’ best interests (in ’08 and beyond) to win today.
It is the best of all alternatives AL ... if they handle it well and can ensure that they aren’t seen as the non-effective ones heading into ’08. I’m simply saying, given the leadership in place, I don’t see how they pull that off successfully.
Written By: McQ
Well, they can call Cheney’s bluff and subpoena him.

It would be interesting to see how he plans to exert his unitary vice powers on that one.
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
In 2008 we will still be stuck in Iraq. How do I know? Bush has told us that he is not going to pull out. And the Congress can’t make him, unless they fail to appropriate, which even the Dems wouldn’t do.

And Iraq will be worse.

This creates a nightmare scenario for any GOP candidate for President in 2008. If he (it won’t be a she) agrees with Bush to stay the course, he won’t get elected. But if he disagrees with Bush and calls for something different, not only will he lose support from the Bush loving base, but he will be essentially agreeing with the Dem candidate. And if he agrees with the Dem candidate, the Dem candidate will win. After all, agreeing with the Dems on the issue of the Iraq war means the GOP candidate can’t really play the national security card against the Dems.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Look, you have a point, to an extent, but I still think, on balance, it is the Democrats’ best interests (in ’08 and beyond) to win today.
Either way, the D’s have a problem. Winning is probably better than loosing, but the problem is their ideology is wrong: look to France and Germany to see what the D’s want the US to look like. Then, try to sell that vision to American voters.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
After all, agreeing with the Dems on the issue of the Iraq war
Like these guys:

Written By: Don
URL: http://
Funniest post I have read in a long time, thanks!
Written By: Laughter is the best medicine
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks