Centerfield

My thought too. I wish “tough love” could be applied, but Democratic leadership has shown that their inability to frame a rational opposition suggests they could be even worse than Republicans in charge. When Rangel beats Kerry and Dean in denouncing the insult of Chavez, one has to wonder how they would unite, lead and protect.

Just because my shower body is leaking, hiring a bad plumber will certainly make the problem worse. Democrats suggest that eventually a monkey could do a better job, but that is absurd. I need to hear an empirical explanation of the cause that is reasonable and a practical plan on how Democratic plumbers can fix the leaking. Suggesting they WOULD BE better than the fumbling plumber I have now, is not sufficient for me to hire them.

I agree Democrats still need to learn WHY they have not won. It isn't Diebold or Rove. It isn't that Americans are stupid. If they win now they will think it is a mandate to ignore international threats and that such a blind policy can win in 2008 while our adversaries get even stronger.

Hamas again rejected recognizing Israel today. Hizb"Allah declares they will not disarm until Lebanon has a government of their liking (and Israel is no more). Iran refuses to suspend enrichment as the Thai coup cracks down. Sudan thumbs its nose at the world. Chavez incites the members of the UN to oppose the world's greatest threat -the elected government of the US.

To run for the third time, essentially calling all of the above, Bush's fault, indicates the unbalanced leadership we would have with the Democrats in charge. I am not saying domestically Democrats leading would be worse for America, but energy and security are the big items and I have heard little that shows me the soundness of Democratic strategy. Not all Democrats are clueless, but a majority continues to this day to believe that a clear plan of their own is not required.

Perhaps a threepeat would break this mindset. I say this as someone who has never voted for a Republican.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 22, 2006 06:05 PM

"I agree Democrats still need to learn WHY they have not won. It isn't Diebold or Rove. It isn't that Americans are stupid. If they win now they will think it is a mandate to ignore international threats and that such a blind policy can win in 2008 while our adversaries get even stronger, [they will have a bad showing to two years]."

Sorry, it has been a long week.....

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 22, 2006 06:07 PM

I'm also troubled at '06 Democrat prospects, precisely for the reasons Oliver gives: the Party has accepted an opposition culture and isn't doing much to explain what good stuff we'll do in power.

I feel we're doing a better job, though, than two years ago. At least Dean understands about attacking GOP weak spots, unlike his predecessor. So maybe it won't be the total loss of the last six years, but no '94, despite the huge potential.

My feeling is, it's going to stay way until 2008, when we have multiple potentially good Presidential candidates. The good ones, I think, understand they have to enunciate a forward program to win.

In more good news, Kaus just caught more '04-style media coccooning (http://www.slate.com/id/2149917/).

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 23, 2006 12:22 AM

P.S.: The Democratic Party is actually pretty good about terror and security, but we let the GOP do most of the non-moonbat talking on the issue, so nobody knows about it,

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 23, 2006 12:26 AM

Jon,
You're right. I think there is a filtering at the top levels of Democratic leadership. They simply do not want to take the light off BAD BUSH and not sound like they go along with the administration. Dean and others feel a plan for policy is not necessary while Bush is in charge. Many Democrats have great ideas about security and foreign policy. Somehow, they must wrestle control away from the top. As long as there is a litmus test over Iraq and a belief we can simply just "come home", or that Jihadism and allied apathy are not REAL DANGERS. Democrats remain in the hole. It is a shame as I support much of their domestic agenda as do most polling. The price of supreme stubbornness in both camps is hurting our future. If it continues past 2008, I sense the rise of a real Independent Party.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 23, 2006 10:21 AM

The author is mistaken is he believes that there is a single Democrat Party. Ask yourself, what does Howard Dean, an upper middle class Chinese-American in Palo Alto, and an African-American in rural Alabama have in common? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Look at the bright side, eventually demographics will put the Democrats in as the majority party in the US and the Republicans will be an also run. The downside is that means that what occurs today in places like California or the District of Columibia will occur at the national level.

Posted by: superdestroyer at September 23, 2006 09:59 PM

Whaddayamean the democrats don't offer alternatives to GOP?

That's a bunch of claptrap perpetuated by Rove and Co. There are plenty of alternative ideas from Democrats around the country in subjects ranging from our conduct (or misconduct) in the Iraq war to Medicare drug fiasco. Today the Ahnold vetoed a damn good Dem idea in CA - single payer health care that would have been in my mind a cheaper alternative to a current system that has run amok.

Look at any Dem campaign site you'll see what alternatives they do offer. Oliver has bought into the current GOP lie. Why? I dunno. Maybe he thinks that Dems need to go over the top or something to win over people. I don't. I note that despite the GOP's best efforts at gerrymandering and other voter shenanigans that the GOP stands to lose what woule have been considered a number of safe seats a mere year ago. I also note that the Democrats have a wide range of candidates, from absurdly left to very conservative yet many are doing well int he polls and at the very least are offering some pretty good competition. Obviously Democrats are offering something the voters like.

Posted by: Marcus at September 24, 2006 02:02 AM

If the Democrats have half a working brain for 2008, they'll pick a somewhat palatable, Red State governor with decent liberal cred but cross-appeal especially in the Swing States-- Mark Warner or Bill Richardson, maybe even John Edwards comes to mind.

Of course, knowing the Democrats as I did when I was a volunteer for them, they'll probably royally fsck up AGAIN and nominate Hillary Clinton, just like all the loudmouth idiots want. In recent months, Hillary has accomplished the seemingly impossible-- she's still despised by conservatives (and quite a few moderates), both Republicans and Independents, as much as ever. But she's also managed to enrage her non-radical progressive liberal base so much that they've already been pledging to vote 3rd party en masse.

So, the Dems have as their frontrunner, someone who already can't come within 10% of victory in just about any swing state, and she's even lost grass-roots support within her own party, and they won't go to bat for her and won't fund her. Furthermore, this isn't something Bill Clinton can help, if anything his campaigning would make things worse by highlighting how polarizing, divisive and unappealing she is compared to Bill, for all his flaws.

This is plainly obvious to anybody with remote ties to the Dem Party, but of course, true to form, they'll likely march in, knowing the disaster that awaits, and commit electoral hara-kiri anyway by nominating Hillary, rather than Warner or Richardson or Edwards, who could actually win.

This is one of the reasons I couldn't bear to work with the Democrats anymore. There's only so much that I could stomach of a party that repeatedly makes such an obvious attempt to lose in the face of a situation when they could so easily make a better choice.

Posted by: Barbara at September 24, 2006 06:21 AM

Marcus grumbled:
> Whaddayamean the democrats don't offer alternatives to GOP?

Yes, we offer real alternatives, but the problems are in perceived leadership and marketing. There must be a problem SOMEWHERE, at least in the recent cycles, or we would'n't keep losing.

By definition, most political jobs are about leadership. So one thing most Democrats have to establish to win the electorate at large is their leadership.

One near-requirement for that is to offer some considered suggestion of policy of your own that isn't just a simple response to your opponent. Because, remember, to win an election, you have to not just win the votes of people like you, but win the votes of people like me. In Texas and many other places, you also have to win a Republican or two.

So, let's take a look at literature I got yesterday on the health plan of (D) Chris Bell, running for Governor. It's largely just responses to Republicans. It talks about raising CHIP funding, which is a program Republicans love to cut, about funding stem cell research, and about other mostly response-type things. Fine, I'm for those things, but it'll never win a majority of votes in Texas. And it was all responses to GOP things. Chris Bell has real leadership and talent, but it sure didn't show there.

There are plenty of Republicans Gov. Perry has alienated, but Bell won't see any of their votes.

The other big problem is poor marketing of the Bush-bashing. Look, plenty about GOP stewardship is bad. But we do a bad job of explaining why. Voters at large don't assume everything Bush does is bad, so we need to explain why Bush is wrong on the points we're pushing.

Too often, I hear Democrats seeming annoyed at having to even explain why a GOP policy is bad. That comes across as arrogant. Tt's a politician's job to repeat as often as it takes, patiently.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 24, 2006 02:11 PM

Oh, and we aren't polling well, either. With Congress and the President deeply unpopular, we should be clearly about to win the Senate, and bring back near-parity in the House. That's not happening.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 24, 2006 02:31 PM

In working so hard to make the Republicans unpopular, Democrats missed that the effect is highly generic. They made ALL politicos unpopular, which included themselves.

Posted by: Tully at September 24, 2006 02:45 PM

I'm not going as far as to say that the Dems should lose, but I totally umderstand the sentiment. The fact is, neither Party really deserves to be put back in. I hoped that the Party would've figured out the lessons of '02 and '04, but nothing's changed. Far too many Dems favor pullout of troops, and they keep falling into the same traps. If the Dems win this time, they have no right to gloat. It'll be like beating a one-armed blind man at football, or the Cardinals. :-)

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at September 24, 2006 06:29 PM

Rafique,

That's not really very fair to the one-armed blind men, is it? I mean, have you seen the Cardinals play? If you gave me three points, I'd almost certainly take the one-armed blind men!

Posted by: Bobby at September 25, 2006 01:47 AM

I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat. --Will Rogers

Posted by: Tully at September 25, 2006 09:32 AM

I have always said that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and have no real ideas, at least on foreign policy. The Democrats, especially the "netroots" simply refuse to understand that the Republicans came to power, at least initially, because they did have ideas that resonated with people, repulsive as those were to liberals. So,to that extent, I agree with Willis. Nevertheless, I don't think the parties are two peas in the pod and I think the Republicans have forfeited the right to stay in power or at least to have the monopoly on power that they have now. At the very least, the Dems would offer a different perspective on foreign policy. I know a lot of people here distrust the Democrats because of their perceived dovishness on terrorism, et. al, (and I have problems with some of the statements too)but I don't see how the Republican policy has been any great shakes. I simply don't believe the war in Iraq has done anything to make this country more secure and the incompetence and arrogance of this administration in trying to remake the world has made it virtually certain that no one will follow even if we have good ideas. I think we need a different approach. It's inconceivable to me that anyone that is likely to be nominated by the Democrats--unless you think someone like Dennis Kocinich would actually win--could be as blindly incompetent and arrogant as this administration. I agree that a lot of left-wing Democratic activists don't take the threat seriously, but Michael Moore isn't going to be making policy. I am so fed up with the Bush approach that, while I agree the Dems don't offer a great alternative, I still think it's better than what we have now. Moreover, at the very least, we wouldn't have a president supporting, rhetorically at any rate, idiotic proposals like constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. That's enough for me--I don't have high standards.

Posted by: Marc at September 25, 2006 10:46 AM

Do the Democrats deserve to win? NO. Do the Republicans deserve to win? NO.

I don't care WHAT you believe in or stand for, is it not now time for a 3rd party??? I know the opinions of the usual suspects. I'm not asking them. But those who have posted seem perplexed at the current situation. And so I ask.

The Democratic party isn't ONE party, it's TWO. A wacko lefty party which either wants to destroy capitalism or blead it dry and a Centrist Party which has become something more like a liberal Republican Party. Call them New Democrats or whatever.

The Dems are in a real pickle, no doubt about it. As long as they remain tied to the counter-culture crowd, God bless'm, the Dems will never get a popular majority vote for President. However, if the Democrats became the "McCain" Party (pro-business, pro-legalization, pro-government) by nominating a presidential candidate that purposely excoriated the Left they might become more competitive. Stress on the word, "might." Can't be sure, however, doing something new is better than doing the same thing for millionth time, i.e. attempting to balance the two wings of the party by saying NOTHING on policy worth noting. Be anti-Bush, anti-GOP, anti-war, is not enough.

The GOP on the other hand, not only doesn't deserve to win. It deserves to lose for having given this President the biggest blank check the world has ever seen. The one caviat, for me, being the extent to which Republican candidates stand firm on an, "enforcement-first," immigration policy.

Would a Democratic takeover of the House be good for the GOP? I suspect it would be, because as other posters have said, the Dems haven't learned their lessons, yet.

At the very least it would show America again what the parties are SUPPOSED to be about. And just MAYBE (I say this with the smallest grain of salt) when Bush disses a GOP House minority, we'll get major political upheaval in the leadership and find some new leaders who don't take marching orders from the Oval Office.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 25, 2006 02:12 PM

What's that Clint Eastwood line echoing in my head?

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

Yeah, that's the one.

Posted by: Tully at September 25, 2006 03:24 PM

Cav, I'll heed your request and give a pass on discussing the merits of a third party. But, on the benefits of a Dem victory in the House, I can't agree. It would be disastrous for the Dems, for the GOP, and for the country. Government would stand still for 2 years, which would be fine if we weren't at war. We would be trapped in vicious, unstoppable open partisan warfare between John Conyers and other Dem Committee chairs and the President. At a time when Americans are feeling more alienated from politics, we'd get the worst barroom brawl politics we've seen in our life time.

I might back the merits of a Dem takeover of the House in 2008, but in 2006? No way.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 25, 2006 06:03 PM

Cav,
The architects of Congressional acquiesence to the President are: the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, the House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist. Denny Hastert will not be Speaker in the 110th Congress, and neither DeLay nor Frist is seeking re-election. To some extent, of course, the other player in this game is President Bush, who isn't running in this election, or any other henceforth. So essentially, if your argument is that the GOP should lose control of Congress because of its prior acquiesence, your argument has very little force. The people who have driven that policy, the people you want to throw out, the people you really have a beef with are already leaving.

Posted by: Simon at September 25, 2006 06:46 PM

Pat,
I understand what you are saying, but all I can see are ugly outcomes. I have never seen this stalemate before during such a critical time. If Democrats take the House, it will be by a very small margin. It might make Republicans reconsider their positions domestically. Would you recommend the present status quo with global animosity reaching all time highs (since WW2 ended)? Americans clearly want a different direction with the exception of maintaining strong security (even many Republicans). I don't know. I am completely stumped and I wish you bright minds had the answer.

As I said, I have become a political refugee.” With no direction home, like a rolling stone.....”. BD

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 25, 2006 11:09 PM

My recommendation, unless the GOP gets their Congressional act together, would be for them to return to control of the House (which is what looks like is going to happen), with a narrower margin than now. That will force them to change their behavior somewhat and stop wasting time on matters of great symbolic but very little practical importance, like the Terri Schiavo controversy.

The problem is that any Democrat majority gives them complete control over the committees to hold endless investigations and bring utter and complete gridlock to the Capitol, which would be very very bad for the country for the reasons I gave before.

As for global opinion, that's not going to change because Democrats take control of the House, not even a little bit. The world doesn't like us because the global media is way more lefty than even our own media, and they don't like many policies which Americans (not just ChimpyMcBushHitler) support. And I, for one, am not going to start letting idiots in France influence who I choose as leaders.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 26, 2006 08:54 AM

Frankly (pun there) I don't give much of a hoot for "global opinion." As I have said so often, they love us when we weaken or hurt ourselves to make them stronger, and despise us when we act in our own self-interests without bowing to their desires, so why should I care? Of all the nations whose opinions we're supposed to care about, very darn few reciprocate. They prefer their own self-interests, which they exercise freely without worrying about our opinions--unless we indicate that we weill back our opinions with some kind of force, be it military, diplomatic, or economic.

The idea that we should strive to be loved by those who prefer to hold us in contempt for even existing is absurd.

Posted by: Tully at September 26, 2006 10:03 AM

The problem is, Tully, you don't even care about the opinions of our allies. Global opinion doesn't mean anything? We don't care about the "decent opinion of mankind" anymore? Frankly, this disdain of world opinion, even those of our allies, just reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness. Yeah, we don't need to pay attention to the world because they are just a bunch of bastards who hate our freedom. We can just do whatever we want because their opinion doesn't mean anything anyway.

I find that attitude appalling and shortsighted; even if we don't really care about world opinion for itself, it's in our interest to care about whether other countries see us an a threat to them.

Posted by: Marc at September 26, 2006 10:41 AM

Marc,

We don't care about the "decent opinion of mankind" anymore?

Recall the context of that quote. It comes from the Declaration of Independence, and the heed that was to be paid to the opinions of mankind was that we should be open and frank in declaring our reasons for our actions, not that our actions should be constrained by those opinions. That is, the Declaration says that when "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Posted by: Simon at September 26, 2006 11:00 AM

Our "allies" such as whom, Marc? France? Russia? You're talking about something pretty damned amorphous when you speak of "global opinion," a completely elastic and subjective standard, shaped to convenience, and then used to condemn whatever others would like us to not do, or to (costlessly) "reward" us for suborning our interests to theirs. Would this be the same "global opinion" that gave Hugo Chavez a standing O on the floor of the UN last week? The "global opinion" that Clinton respected when he ignored the Rwandan genocide to keep from putting France and the UN on the hot seat? That had some Muslims dancing in the streets when the Towers fell? The opinion of Australia and Britain and Poland to come to our aid when asked, or the opinion of France and Russia and the UN in telling us to shag off when we asked them to keep their word and not actively assist Iraq in violating the oil-for-food sanctions? Heh. "Global opinion" is a chimera, a rhetorical broadax at best.

Frankly, this disdain of world opinion, even those of our allies, just reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness.

LMAO, which A you may also kiss, since you wanna stoop to ad hominem. Since it seems to be your opinion that we are somehow contemptible if we don't reflexively kiss the A's of others on demand. Is that disdain enough for you? (Actually it's contempt, expressed hyperbolicaly, but why be pedantic?) Let me say it loudly--if it comes to our national self-interests versus the "global opinion" of Jacques Chirac or Hugo Chavez or Kofi Annan, guess which I choose? Bingo! OURS. Yeah, it's nice to be liked--makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. But sucking up for head-patting is BS in international politics. France acts in its own self-interests. As does every other nation. Very few have allies they can count on--and the US has proven to be the most constant allie around over the last century, hasn't it? Only when you're putting their self-interests ahead of ours does it make sense to defer to "global opinion" when our national self-interest is involved. (I've noticed that relationship seems seriously one-sided.) That's as pathetic as kissing up to the in-crowd in high school to boost your self-esteem. It may make you feel better, ut it doesn't engender any respect. Quite the opposite. Everyone loves a good doggie, who will roll over on command, no?

Define this "global opinion." Explain why it's "decent" and actually represents "mankind." For the hard-of-listening who missed it the first coupla hundred times I've said it over the years, I will have Garret Morris translate: "GLOBAL OPINION" IS A BS PHRASE USED TO JUSTIFY DEMANDS THAT WE SUBORN OUR SELF-INTERESTS TO SUIT THE SELF-INTERESTS OF OTHERS, OR USED DOMESTICALLY TO JUSTIFY OUR LEADERS HAVING DONE SO OR WISHING TO DO SO. IT IS NEVER USED IN ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL CONTEXT.

Is that stated clearly enough? If you believe otherwise, please do explain.

Posted by: Tully at September 26, 2006 11:59 AM

Simon,

It's still a leap between new leadership and leadership that changes the whole dynamic of Congressional-Presidential relations.

Would a Speaker Shaddegg make up for six years of K-street nonsense? Plus you'll still have Boehner and now introducing, tah dah Tom Delay on steroids = Mitch McConnell.

I've already indicated why I'm supporting enforcement-first Republicans in this fall's elections, but absent that I'd be all for a two year reminder of what Democratic majorities mean.

But I just can't abide this attitude proffered by Republican operatives that even ONE term out of office is a threat to the Republic. The insinuation is that Republicans can and should never be held accountable and whatever they give is what the rank and file must eat.

Hogwash. This is also the attitude that makes me question the small "d" democratic bonafides of some Republicans.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 26, 2006 02:54 PM

That's not at all what we're saying, Cav. What I've been saying, at least, is that one term of Democratic control of the House with THIS President at THIS time in history would be nightmarish. The Democratic leadership have made it quite clear that their primary goal would be to investigate George Bush and his administration for the next 2 years, which would render any actual progress next to impossible. The war is too dangerous a place RIGHT NOW for us to devote 2 years to that kind of partisan muck-raking. I have no idea where you're getting this "never" mess. I've even said that I wouldn't necessarily fight too hard against a Democratic House in 2008, with a Republican president. My argument, and I think many other people's, has been not THESE Democrats at THIS time. Much, much more limited in scope than your comment allows.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 26, 2006 03:38 PM

But I just can't abide this attitude proffered by Republican operatives that even ONE term out of office is a threat to the Republic. The insinuation is that Republicans can and should never be held accountable and whatever they give is what the rank and file must eat.

I think that the insinuation is more that one term of Democratic rule might potentially place us at the mercy of that party's lassitude and incompetance. And I've got to tell you, more and more these days, I've been thinking that the Democratic party has to be kept out of power at all costs. To the extent that they have an agenda, it is just contemptible - surrender and socialism. That they did not do more with the golden opportunity handed to them in 1992 has a great deal to do with the then-prevalent idea that they had a divine right to control Congress, and thus had several more years than - thanks to Newt et al - they did. Can we take the chance that they'll make the same mistake twice? I think that the Congressional GOP should, almost to a man, for differing reasons, be taken out into the yard and beaten over the head with a copy of the Contract with America, but the simple fact is that given a choice between two more years of Republican disappointment or two years of a Democratic House, it's hard to reach the conclusion that the latter wouldn't be worse. There is ample opportunity to have these disagreements out in the primary. That time is now past for this election cycle, and in my view, while I think there is certainly a silver lining to the cloud of the Democrats winning control of the House, I think there's an element of this in Republicans who are actively arguing that we should lose the House to "punish" our Congressional delegation.

If we could be sure that the Senate was in safe hands, then maybe. We can't. If we could trust the Democrats not to spend the next two years, as Pat pointed out, doing everything possible to hamstring and vitiate this President - something they display every inclination to do, and which they would have more power to do in the unlikely event they capture both the House and the Senate - then maybe. But right now, frankly, I'm more worried about the Democrats getting some kind of power than I am about Al Queda.

Posted by: Simon at September 26, 2006 04:01 PM

Pat, I'll concede that you think only the 110th Congress is off limits now, but Bush & Co. plan in being in Iraq for the next 50 years the way we've been in Japan and Germany for the last 50 plus.

Granted we don't know what the GOP nominee's stance will be in 2008, but given Bush's success with it, I think there's a good chance this line will continue.

When we get to 2008, I just think you'll be sounding the same tune: Maybe the 112th, but not the 111th. If Giuliani were President in 2009 with a Democratic congress would they not be making the same kind of problems for him, as for the Bush? We'll still be, "at War."

And I agree with you that THIS leadership in the House (Pelosi and Reid) is extra-specially challenged. Special Ed. isn't to harsh to say. If we're simply talking the quality of the Democratic opposition then I'll grant those points to your side of the ledger. It would be nice to have SOMEONE who could hold their own against the President and his entourage.
(Hoyer in the House, but more and more the only one I could see who would make a good Dem. leader in the Senate is Hillary Clinton.)

But that doesn't keep me from despising the crew that has run the Congress as the funding raising-arm of the Administration. I seriously blame this in part on your #1 pet issue. But it's been inexcuseable nonetheless. Not every conservative swallowed the two-programs I spoke of above. A genuinely Republican Congress in a thoroughly Constitutional system should have told Bush, "not with OUR votes. You forget which party you supposedly belong to."

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 26, 2006 07:04 PM

"Republican disappointment or two years of a Democratic House, it's hard to reach the conclusion that the latter wouldn't be worse. There is ample opportunity to have these disagreements out in the primary. That time is now past for this election cycle,"

Simon, not sure at what point in a Republican primary an argument would emerge whether or not the party should win.

Your position seems less an argument and more a statement.: Democrats bad. BAD. Republicans should never lose. Part of which leads to this admittance that our democracy may not be working because power leads automatically to more power. I believe the GOP survived '96 only with the help of Ross Perot's accusations against Clinton that elevated his vote and the GOP share of the House vote that year. They survived 1998 by being in opposition in a mid-term which should have been a blow-out for them anyway. And 2000 was won only because the Presidency was won. So really it took the K street gang eight years get a hold of redistricting and all the Federal levers before they became entrenched.

As for the Senate, I'm sure you realize the going is not good. For, even if the GOP retains control of the Court confirmation process, technically, the loss of more than two Republicans would probably doom a future Alito.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 26, 2006 07:20 PM

Tully,
I understand your remarks about global opinion. Pat is right about it being way more lefty than American media. Ironic that Putin and Chavez can exploit this to promote anti-Liberal Democracy. As a military mind, do you think we can ever suppress terrorism without the majority of governments supporting our side? Iran might be the test case.

We cannot kill every terrorist. Perhaps, what you are also saying is that WE cannot persuade them. Events and threats to their own self-interest are necessary. WW2 precipitated NATO. Without Hitler and Stalin perhaps NATO would not exist. Still, we might do a better job bringing a consensus together which in the end, will be required to contain Jihadism and even the designs of Russia and China. There is a war of perceptions, which we can better influence. The Jihadists live on perceptions. We certainly would help our cause with improved Statesmanship, tact and exploiting our adversary’s internal vulnerabilities. Somehow, I think we can move global opinion to the degree we need to create a growing band of Liberal Defenders.

Or we will have to wait for things to get worse and change opinion apart from our encouragement. Let me guess, you say the later……

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 27, 2006 07:15 PM

this might be something we can build on

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 27, 2006 11:00 PM

Cheer up, Pat.

The odds of taking the House are about 60% right now. (But don't quote me on that.)

However, even if the Dems do take the House, (which I hope, but can't quite believe), then life will go on.

Will they investigate? Sure.

But even if all the House Dems were as hellbent Captain Ahabian as Tom DeLay was (or even half as powerful), the gov's wheels will grind along. Clinton accomplished a great deal, even though he had six years of a GOP congress.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2006 12:09 AM

Aww, thanks, Jean... But Clinton only had about 2 years of a GOP Congress hellbent on impeaching him.

But I'm not too worried. I'm pretty confident the GOP is going to maintain a majority in the House, though a smaller one.

Posted by: PatHMV at September 29, 2006 01:10 AM

You're welcome, Pat. I'd dispute you on your data, but let's split the difference and say four years. Now, go get yourself your favorite beverage and relax--it's Friday.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 29, 2006 12:15 PM