Wretchard at the Belmont Club is fairly depressing today. Before the Democratic Party enunciates or even considers a policy on Iraq. The argument that this is a necessary mea culpa, a necessary retreat comes up against the question: retreat to what? Every rearguard action has a fallback line of defense prepared. Since the Democrats have not indicated where they want the retreat to stop, and there is no indication that the President has prepared a fallback position the appropriate term isn’t a rearguard action. Retreats without an endpoint have another name. They are called a rout. Let’s hope the new minority leadership acts fast (assuming they reform). Pence looks promising. |
| |
Written By:
ChrisB
URL:
http://
|
You are likely to hear a lot of things you want like in the comming months.
Now if the Dems wanted to really sew up a majority for the next whole generation they could take the route of moderation. They could pass their minimum wage and a few symbolic things like that, they could allow us to keep at least some of the tax cuts so the economy does not stagnate, and they could do something genuinely
populist like reform the immigration system. And generally change the tone by actually attacking things like earmarks and corporate welfare.
HOWEVER, in order to do all of that they would actually have to become something they are not, so I am not holding my breath, if they are true to form it will be
Special Prosecutors, Soak the rich, and no reform of anything.
So, there you have it. |
| |
Written By:
kyle N
URL:
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
|
|
As I said before, we we learn from this is "Hooray for our side" whoever YOUR side is, that’s who won...and it was those sluggards on the OTHER side that cost us victory.... |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
What exactly will democrats do different in Iraq?
|
| |
Written By:
WarCog
URL:
http://
|
Iraq: look for a bipartisan agreement on the Baker committee report which will essentially (I believe) be a disengagement path that will aspire to what the last President in such a bind called "peace with honor."
The people spoke in favor of oversight and moderation. The victory of Lieberman is a small indication of a desire by most to have politicians work across the aisles and reject partisan jihad. The challenge to Pelosi and Ried: be aggressive enough so as not to lose the base, but don’t lose the center in the process. The challenge to the GOP: find a charismatic and popular Presidential candidate and hone a message that is refreshing. (My suggestion to the GOP: put Olympia Snowe on the 2008 ticket.) |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
|
Scott, all well and good, but when your base says this sort of stuff towards the center, I see only the beginning of the great unravel. |
| |
Written By:
capt joe
URL:
http://
|
"The victory of Lieberman is a small indication of a desire by most to have politicians work across the aisles and reject partisan jihad."
And how do you draw that conclusion?
"My suggestion to the GOP: put Olympia Snowe on the 2008 ticket."
That’s it, become even more detached from conservatism than the Rep. party already is. |
| |
Written By:
Unknown
URL:
http://
|
|
Well Scott how about a Lincoln Chafee/Olympia Snowe Ticket in ’08, that ought to take all of Maine, sadly enough it won’t take Rhode Island. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Well Scott how about a Lincoln Chafee/Olympia Snowe Ticket in ’08, that ought to take all of Maine, sadly enough it won’t take Rhode Island. As goes Maine, so goes the nation!
Hmmm...how about Snowe-Lieberman? That should at least get Connecticut and Maine. Seriously, though, I’m not sure why the myth exists that somehow playing to the base is necessary or good for either party. When moderates run — and a large chunk of the new Democrats coming to Congress are moderate or even conservative Democrats — they tend to win. People like Snowe get strong Democratic support even though her views are moderate-conservative. Lieberman got massive Republican support even though his views are definitely left of center.
Those two examples are from New England, which is hardly indicative of the country. But President Bush won by touting "compassionate conservatism," while Clinton claimed to be a "New Democrat." Centrism wins! I think that’s shown in House elections around the country this time. That’s what both parties need to learn. Yeah, make symbolic sops to the base, and in some states and districts there will be ideologues who win (from the left in urban areas, from the right in the rural south, etc.). So use the base strategically, stroke them when necessary, but ultimately pragmatism and a rejection of ideology-driven politics seems the most effective path — and probably would yield the best policy. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
" the American people have spoken"
And how long have they been hearing these voices? |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
