Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's Uphill for the Democrats
Winning the White House? History's Against Them.
By Samuel L. Popkin and Henry A. Kim
Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B01
The Democrats' road to the White House in 2008 runs through Congress, and it is uphill all the way. The last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. Democrats who think that it is their turn to expand their pet programs and please their core constituencies have forgotten how quickly congressional heavy-handedness can revive the president's party.
Right now, President Bush is a lame duck and an albatross. His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless.
However, such troubles are not unusual for a president whose party has just lost control of Congress.
It is far too soon to count the Republicans out -- or even bet against them. At this point in 1995, President Bill Clinton trailed Bob Dole in polls, and only 55 percent of Democrats even wanted him to run for a second term. The parties that lost control of one or both houses in 1994, 1986, 1954 and 1946 all won the White House two years later.
Early in 1987, to pick a powerful recent example, the Republicans' prospects looked even bleaker than they do today. Democrats had just recaptured the Senate and retained the House, and polls showed that the public had more confidence in them than in the Reagan administration to reduce the federal deficit. The Iran-contra hearings investigating the secret sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages and the funneling of the profits to the Nicaraguan contras were the big story, and looked ominous enough to derail Vice President George H.W. Bush's White House aspirations. Then in 1988, Bush handily dispatched Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.
But this wasn't a new story. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman was lower in the polls after his midterm defeat than were George W. Bush, Clinton or Ronald Reagan after their midterm losses. Truman was reelected in 1948.
Presidential parties have also done well in the legislative battles that have followed every midterm takeover since World War II. Presidents and their parties recover after midterm wipeouts because, as Clinton had to remind people in 1995, "The Constitution makes me relevant."
The president's party begins to recover when he wields his veto pen -- especially if he can establish his relevance as a defender of the center against the other party's excesses....
The Dems do not have a compelling leader to reconcile all factions. The most interesting brewing rift is the one between Obama and Hilary. The First Black President trumps the First Woman One (especially when Hilary was already part of a The Two-Fer).
At the same time, the GOP has a problem with philandering husbands, except for the Mormon. 
two words: Iraq War.
that trumps all those half baked historical comparisons.
The country is sick of this war and they are pissed at Bush and his party for lying us into it.
There is not a republican in the running that has not been captured in a photo op with Dubya and I guarantee that those photos will be featured in losts of ads. The potential republican party candidate has to work like hell to distance himself from Bush and this terrible war, but if the candidate is too vocal in his criticism, he ends up damaging the congressional reelection campaigns of all those republican sheep who blindly followed their president into the ditch.
Michael Goodwin
The wrong way home
Dems' deadline will surely damn the U.S. and proves pols have no idea how to win
Sunday, March 11th 2007, 4:00 AM
With their plan to set a deadline for pulling our troops out of Iraq, Democrats in Congress are proving the wisdom of an old maxim: Nothing is so bad that it can't be made worse.
The war is a disaster and President Bush has been a lousy commander in chief, with the disgraceful treatment of wounded warriors the latest proof. The public is sick of the mess and wants the war to end yesterday.
Voter disgust gave Democrats their midterm election victories. But now that they have power, Dems are stumped about how to turn anti-Bush slogans into policy. After weeks of fiddling around with various pieces of legislation and resolutions, their leaders have hit on something the party is rallying around.
Unfortunately, the solution they've settled on - binding legislation to pull all combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008 - is the worst one possible.
Think of the impact around the world. If you're the enemy, you know you've won - all you have to do is wait for us to ship out. If you're one of our G.I.s, you're being told to keep risking your life, but however it turns out, we're bringing you home on an arbitrary schedule. If you're an Iraqi civilian friendly to us, we're leaving you to the wolves.
If you're the nut job president of Iran, whoopee, you've driven the Great Satan off the battlefield. If you're Osama Bin Laden, you raise a glass of camel pee to toast a victory over the infidels. And if you're one of our allies in Europe or Asia, you wonder what the hell is going on in America.
Like I said, this "solution" takes a bad situation and makes it worse.
Ultimately, the legislation would come to nothing because Bush has promised to veto it. No doubt that's partially why some Dems are hedging their bets. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had advocated a cap on troops and opposed a deadline, says now she supports the new plan but insists it really isn't a deadline, despite what Majority Leader Harry Reid says.
"It's a goal, it's not a hard deadline, it's a goal," Clinton told The New York Times. "We're just trying to create some pressure on the President. That's the whole point here."
She better tell that to Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who wants to pull the troops out by the end of this year. If Clinton votes for any deadline when the Senate bill comes up next week, she'll be for it, no matter how she tortures the meaning of "is." Surely she doesn't want to go down the road of "I voted for it, but I was really against it." A similar whopper about her 2002 vote supporting the invasion isn't exactly a best seller on the campaign trail.
Therein lies the Dems' dilemma, especially those with White House ambitions. The war is off the tracks and Bush won't listen to reason. Troop requirements for his surge are growing beyond the promised 21,500 and our new commander says even more may be needed, and for a long time. Even then there is no guarantee Iraqis will choose reconciliation over slaughter, or that their government will be more than a front for warlords.
All of which means there are no good answers in Iraq or at home. There are only bad ones, and worse ones. Then there is the worst of all - a fixed deadline for withdrawal.
Here is analysis that reflects what I think 'the public' gets, that the politicians seem incapable of:
http://nydailynews.com/news/col/goodwin/index.html
you may be swayed by editorial rants such as this, but I don't see any evidence that "the public" is as gullible.
you may be swayed by editorial rants such as this, but I don't see any evidence that "the public" is as gullible.
I doubt you truly see me as gullible. And the public from all recent polls are having major problems with how the Democrats are handling Iraq. As I've said nearly since November, the politicians have misinterpreted the message from the voters.
the polling on Iraq is pretty clear. The American people do not like this war, believe it was started on false pretenses, and want us to get out.
I tend to agree....and regardless of how "the public" might vascillate on the democrat's legislative efforts in regards to this war, the fact remains that they do not like it and they blame Bush and the republicans for it.... and no matter how they might not LOVE the procedures that the democrats are trying to use to slow it down and end it, they DO know what party started it and they do not want that party running the foreign policy of our nation after january of '09.
Good take.
The Demoncrats have a major problem within their ranks.
They can win elections, but they cannot sustain a winning streak over time. The reason?
Its simple really. The Republicans offer solutions, the Dems only offer criticism and no real solutions. The dems base is a scattering of special interest groups, this will not change. However, the middle which decides elections, wants to hear solutions offered.
Criticism can work, but ONLY when the other party is in power. Once you achieve power, criticism will no longer work, you have to provide solutions, and provide positive achievements while you were in office. SInce the dems cant do that, unlike the Republicans, they cannot win again while they are still in office.
You can see it already. Like one poster, a lib, here said, its the war that will win the Dems the presidency. Again, they are relying on criticisms only. Now that they have rode criticisms of the war to seats in congress and the senate, they have to provide sollutions, answers, which they arent able to do. Deep down they know the Republicans are right, that we cant make a time table for withdrawl, thats actually a time table for ulitimate defeat.
So polygamy is the male answer?
NOT for ME thank you !
I already have 6 kids, just think if I had more than one wife !
