Dems Should Win Next Election Cycle, But They Won't

[Annie]

Not because the GOP is so strong, rather they just can't get their act from the left:

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/i...=article&sid=2388&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

ABP Calls on the Democrat Party to Save the Republican Party
Posted by H-Bomb on Thursday, 29 September 2005 (11:40:05) EDT
Contributed by H-Bomb

(Former) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted for campaign finance funny business. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is suspected of having pulled a Martha Stewart-style stock pullout. The trial of oleaginous Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is imminent. Don’t forget the Karl Rove thing, which hasn’t reach closure yet. As John Podhoretz wrote in The Corner, “brace yourself. It’s gonna get ugly.”

Possibly. But it is way too soon to tell.

We do know that a great many people – especially Democrat spokespeople and their flacks among the pundit class – will attempt to get the nation thinking its 1994 again, with a corrupt party in full control of Washington. We also know that this talk will continue through the 2006 election cycle. This will be the principal, if not exclusive, talking point of the Democrat Party, as opposed to some policy initiatives or new ideas.

Please click READ MORE ...

We also know this Democrat stratagem couldn’t be more stupid. “They’re just as corrupt as we were when we were in power … so put us back in power” is a message destined to fail at the ballot box. Of that we I can assure you. If the Democrats insist on using their own history of abuse of power as the benchmark for how ethically lackadaisical the GOP has become, more power to ‘em.

Moreover, for reasons stated HERE and HERE a Democrat takeover of the House and/or Senate is unlikely simply because the math doesn’t work out for them. The political architecture – reapportioned seats, fundraising and more – prohibit the Democrats from winning very many seats even if 2006 turns into an anti-Republican tidal wave.

A more likely scenario, unfortunately, is that the GOP will retain power after the 2006 election and never relearn the lessons and re-sharpen the tools that brought them to power in the first place. Pat was around for the 1994 campaign.

The GOP ran against lobbyists. Not specific lobbyists but rather the very idea that “K Street fat cats” (as we called them) were drafting legislation and deciding policy for a decrepit Democrat majority. We ran against corruption, such as Rostenkowski and all that. We were then an anti-Washington party, dismissing the “corridors or power” as a giant piggy bank for the highest bidding special interest groups. Hillarycare was just icing on the cake.

And yet somewhere along the line we became what we despised. Yes, big government spending is part of the problem. The spirit of federalism our new breed of leaders brought with them to Washington in 1994 is dead. Dead as a doornail. Just witness former FEMA big-wig (and Republican political appointee) Michael Brown's excuse-making at a Congressional hearing earlier in the week:
Quote:
He also said FEMA's capabilities were hurt by a cut of almost 14.5 percent of FEMA's operating budget, with the money being shifted to other department programs.

"It's those kinds of cuts or resource realignments ... that are leading to the kinds of problems that we're dealing with today of us not having the personnel or the programs in place," he said.

A Republican political appointee who has probably never read off-script before in his life is blaming budget cuts for his own ineptitude. What a distressing example of how far we’ve retreated from our “revolution.”

“Brownie” isn’t alone. The GOP is on an obnoxious spend-a-thon. Even our President George W. Bush has promised to “spend whatever it takes” to rebuild New Orleans. Since when has the federal government been in the city building business?

The last city built by Washington, D.C. was Washington, D.C. and having just moved from there Pat can tell you they aren’t very good at it. The place is a national embarrassment with the highest violent crime rate in the country, the most corrupt public school system and a police force more focused on job security than on crime control. Come to think of it, Washington, D.C. sounds a lot like New Orleans before the hurricane. And yet it is a Republican priority to rebuild it with money from working stiff taxpayers from Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Washington State.

1994 all over again? Shoot, we could be so lucky.

Clearly the Congressional GOP has lost much of its bearings, and is turning into the 1992-1993 version of the Congressional Democrats. And the question arises, what’s the point of having a majority if that majority doesn’t stand for anything useful? If the result is more of the same spending binges, nonchalance on the issue of illegal immigration, an expansion of the welfare state (i.e. Medicare Modernization Act), and the lack of backbone when it comes to cutting taxes permanently and reforming Social Security, then what have we really won?

One of the reasons that the GOP has been allowed to get away with their seeming drift away from the core principles of their base has been because they’re the only game in town. The GOP can rightfully say “Hey, you think we spend to much and allow too many illegals into the country? Fine. But what’s your option, the Democrats? They’re solution is to spend even more money and make it even easier for more illegals to come into the country”.

And you know what? They’re right. The Democrat party has drifted so far to the left that they cannot be considered a serious alternative. That is a bad thing.

We have said on numerous occasions that even though we delight in bashing Democrats, the country works best when two viable -- and sane -- parties are compete in the marketplace of ideas. While many scoffed at the thought, especially coming from us, we were, and remain, totally serious.

One of the main reasons the GOP was able to take advantage of the voter discontent in 1994 was because of the Contract With America. The Contract had a multitude of actual IDEAS and specific proposals that told the American people what to expect from a GOP Congress.

It worked because voters actually could compare what had been done by the party in power versus what would be done by the party seeking power. As we all know, the country chose the ideas of the GOP as set forth in the Contract. But what today’s GOP doesn’t realize is that if the Democrats were doing back in 1993 what the GOP is doing today, the GOP would be outraged and fighting like hell to get them out of office.

The Democrats have not learned the lesson that ideas win elections. Instead of coming up with actual policies and proposals to counter the GOP and connect with the aggravated voter, they are content to sit back and yell “Bush is Hitler.” Had they learned the lessons of 1994 they would be out there right now formulating specific policy proposals and alternatives to what the GOP is doing.

But here’s the Catch-22 they find themselves in if they follow that model. As bad as many feel about what the GOP Congress is doing, if the Democrats go public (and do it honestly – save the laughs) with their own alternatives, those same voters will be even more repulsed, and will choose the lesser of two evils. And is that really why we sent the GOP to Congress? We think not.

Thus, we have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can save the Congressional Republicans in the long term is the Democrat Party itself. What do we mean by that? The only way to bring the GOP party down from its perch (where it has obviously been “fat and happy”) is to inject some competition in the marketplace of ideas.

Such competition would make the GOP fight like they did in 1994, when they ran on conservative ideals and policies. Thus, sane Democrats in the mold of Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, or Sam Nunn must “take out the trash” in the current party (i.e. Howard Dean, Al Gore) and it’s minions (Kos’ers, DU) and come up with rational alternatives to what the Republicans are offering.

Is that possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. At least not now given the current makeup of the Democrat Party. But at some point in the near future the Democrats have to become a serious alternative again. That’s really the only way to make the GOP flex their ideological and ethical muscle again and remember what it was that let them get the majority in the first place.

We really think that if some sane Democrats repudiated the kook fringe and proposed policies of fiscal responsibility, strong defense and at the very least non-hostility to religion, they would find scores of former “Reagan Democrats” and true “Independents” receptive to their message.

But as it stands now the GOP knows that their only real enemy is the Nancy Pelosi’s and John Conyers’s of the world, which means the threat to their power is not a serious one. As a result the leadership is content with being the “pork party” and turning a cowardice cheek on tough issues like entitlement reform and real budget cuts.

If there was an alternative to their policies that voters weren’t afraid of, we wouldn’t be complaining about how the GOP seems to be ignoring its core constituency and playing fast and loose with the ethical rules. Why? Because they couldn’t afford to do that.

For the sake of the GOP,let's hope they can regain and implement the type of ideas that brought them to power in 1994.

Sincerely,
Pat Hynes
BDP

 

[Zhukov]

I disagree with quite a number of the characterizations in this article (the indictment against DeLay is baseless, and it seems unlikely, perhaps even impossible, for Frist to have been involved in insider trading), however with this part I cannot help but agree wholeheartedly:

One of the reasons that the GOP has been allowed to get away with their seeming drift away from the core principles of their base has been because they’re the only game in town. The GOP can rightfully say “Hey, you think we spend to much and allow too many illegals into the country? Fine. But what’s your option, the Democrats? They’re solution is to spend even more money and make it even easier for more illegals to come into the country”.

And you know what? They’re right. The Democrat party has drifted so far to the left that they cannot be considered a serious alternative. That is a bad thing.

We have said on numerous occasions that even though we delight in bashing Democrats, the country works best when two viable -- and sane -- parties are compete in the marketplace of ideas. While many scoffed at the thought, especially coming from us, we were, and remain, totally serious.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Not because the GOP is so strong, rather they just can't get their act from the left:

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/i...=article&sid=2388&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

A whole-hearted "True dat" :soul:

 

[Annie]

I am very disappointed to say that I believe that someone could easily start a 3rd party, especially of a Libertarian bent, that would draw enough votes to make it possible for the Democrats to come back. (Think perot.)

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Kathianne, I disagree with you on the third party thing because we've had third party candidates in every election for the last 50 years, but only a small minority votes for them.

I think the Dems have a better chance in the next election than you are willing to admit. Because even if both parties end up being equal in the "corruption" department, the Dems have a better history with policy that Bush administration could ever hope for. When you look at the Bush admin's policy failures (Iraq war quagmire, tax cuts for wealthy, failed energy policy, failed foreign relations policy, failure to appoint qualified people to key positions, failed social security policy, failed management of disaster areas, failure to balance the budget, failure to manage the deficit, failure to increase employment, outsourcing jobs, failed education reform: no child left behind) then you see how many weak points the Dems have to take advantage of. If the Dems can form a coherent platform to run on, they'll win it big time.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If the Dems can form a coherent platform to run on, they'll win it big time.

IF

 

[no1tovote4]

IF

LOL, and that's a pretty big if.

 

[archangel]

IF

would be when ol' Teddy,Boxer,Pelosi et al loose elections or pass away..and the old conservative Democratic party returns to power...this would be the only IF!


ps: before ya all jump on me I am neither a Demo or Repub...a registered ultra conservative "American Independent"

 

[Avatar4321]

If the Dems can form a coherent platform to run on, they'll win it big time.

I highly disagree. The Democrats have a platform to run on. The people know what positions they hold. They are getting their message out.

The problem is their message is shrill, hateful, and really just a bunch of socialist rhetoric that the majority of people dont want.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I am very disappointed to say that I believe that someone could easily start a 3rd party, especially of a Libertarian bent, that would draw enough votes to make it possible for the Democrats to come back. (Think perot.)

The Libertarian Party could do it, but it would take a few things in place first.

The Democratic Party would have to move farther to the insanity wing of their own party. Ok, just about done.

If Libertarians nominated somebody that would shy away from the extreme views of the party, like across the board drug legalization, it would greatly increase thier national appeal. The people who vote Republican with their pocketbook, but Democrat with their social stances (think Massachusetts or California), might take a hard look at that candidate.

A known name would help. Michael Badnarik was not only a nut, he was an unknown nut. The majority of Liberatians weren't even particularly familiar with him until their convention. At least Aaron Russo was a name some people were familiar with, and could have drawn a little more attention. Just imagine if they were able to lure someone like John McCain to the party, or even someone outside politics like Bruce Willis, if nothing else just to draw attention for future elections.

Money. Libertarians spending money is almost an oxymoron, but the fact is, without national advertising and media attention, a candidate goes nowhere.

There are a few other things. Thier nomination process would be foriegn to a lot of people, which could hurt, but also be intriguing to some. It might also help to get their National Convention on something besides C-Span.

 

[Nuc]

The Libertarian Party could do it, but it would take a few things in place first.

Just imagine if they were able to lure someone like John McCain to the party, or even someone outside politics like Bruce Willis, if nothing else just to draw attention for future elections.
/QUOTE]

They floated McCain as a Democratic candidate last time but he refused. One thing you can say about Republicans is that when push comes to shove they circle the wagons. Except Pat Buchanan.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

They floated McCain as a Democratic candidate last time but he refused. One thing you can say about Republicans is that when push comes to shove they circle the wagons. Except Pat Buchanan.

I don't think anyone took McCain going to the Democrats seriously, and I don't think the Dems were very serious about it. If a party wanted to make a serious offer, they wouldn't handle it the way the Democrats did. Then again, the Democrats didn't handle anything very well in the last election.

In any event, McCain is a "just for instance". It could be Guliani, or even luring Joe Lieberman from the Democrats.

 

[Nuc]

I don't think anyone took McCain going to the Democrats seriously, and I don't think the Dems were very serious about it. If a party wanted to make a serious offer, they wouldn't handle it the way the Democrats did. Then again, the Democrats didn't handle anything very well in the last election.

In any event, McCain is a "just for instance". It could be Guliani, or even luring Joe Lieberman from the Democrats.

The Libertarians would have to put together a very strong coalition in order to have a chance, with a credible left leaning and right leaning presidential and vice presidential candidate. Then both the Dems and GOP would have to screw things up for themselves. It would sure be nice to break up the two party logjam.

 

[ThomasPaine]

I am very disappointed to say that I believe that someone could easily start a 3rd party, especially of a Libertarian bent, that would draw enough votes to make it possible for the Democrats to come back. (Think perot.)

would not prepare the way for a return of Democrat power (shudder), but rather replace the Democrat party. Similar to the Whig party being replaced and supplanted by the Republican party in the late 1850's. Unless the Democrats can somehow shake loose the hard neo-marxist, socialist, anti-Christian, anti-Capitalist, left that makes up their current monetary and philosophical base the Democrats could cease to exist within a few eletion cycles. If the Democrats truly ran on what their core supporters believe the majority of those who call themselves Democrats and vote as such would bolt, the party would implode, and be replaced by a more centrist party.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kathianne, I disagree with you on the third party thing because we've had third party candidates in every election for the last 50 years, but only a small minority votes for them.

I think the Dems have a better chance in the next election than you are willing to admit. Because even if both parties end up being equal in the "corruption" department, the Dems have a better history with policy that Bush administration could ever hope for. When you look at the Bush admin's policy failures (Iraq war quagmire, tax cuts for wealthy, failed energy policy, failed foreign relations policy, failure to appoint qualified people to key positions, failed social security policy, failed management of disaster areas, failure to balance the budget, failure to manage the deficit, failure to increase employment, outsourcing jobs, failed education reform: no child left behind) then you see how many weak points the Dems have to take advantage of. If the Dems can form a coherent platform to run on, they'll win it big time.

You make the point beautifully. Criticizing Bush isn't a platform.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Well, that's not the point I was making, but...Way to read negitively into my post Avenger! Kudos.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, that's not the point I was making, but...Way to read negitively into my post Avenger! Kudos.

You just keep being you, puddin'.
:baby: :baby:

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, I disagree with you on the third party thing because we've had third party candidates in every election for the last 50 years, but only a small minority votes for them.

I think the Dems have a better chance in the next election than you are willing to admit. Because even if both parties end up being equal in the "corruption" department, the Dems have a better history with policy that Bush administration could ever hope for. When you look at the Bush admin's policy failures (Iraq war quagmire, tax cuts for wealthy, failed energy policy, failed foreign relations policy, failure to appoint qualified people to key positions, failed social security policy, failed management of disaster areas, failure to balance the budget, failure to manage the deficit, failure to increase employment, outsourcing jobs, failed education reform: no child left behind) then you see how many weak points the Dems have to take advantage of. If the Dems can form a coherent platform to run on, they'll win it big time.

As I intimated, all a 3rd party has to do is draw votes form one party to cause the other to win. The most likely challenge to the two-parties, is from the right, ala Perot. This time though, most likely someone a nominal Republican with Libertarian bent. Would be great to see a real Libertarian, but those that run seem cracked.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Well, that's not the point I was making, but...Way to read negitively into my post Avenger! Kudos.

But your post proves the point Hagbard.......that the only platform the libs/dems have at this point is to bitch about the Bush administration. Your entire post was to point out anything negative you could about the current administrative policies rather than pointing out what the Dems have accomplished and will make happen if they happen to gain political power.

 

[musicman]

But your post proves the point Hagbard.......that the only platform the libs/dems have at this point is to bitch about the Bush administration. Your entire post was to point out anything negative you could about the current administrative policies rather than pointing out what the Dems have accomplished and will make happen if they happen to gain political power.

Precisely. No sooner had I begun reading Hagbard's litany of half-baked, hysterical horseshit than my eyes started to glaze over. It's like a conditioned response: at the first hint of a loaded, disingenuous statement (usually coinciding exactly with the moment a liberal's lips start moving), I think, "Oh, yeah - the Ratherites...zzzzzzzzz". Democrats have nothing of substance to say; therefore, America simply doesn't hear them any more.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems more and more determined to lose its soul.