Liberty Belle
Well-known member
Terrence Samuel, the reporter for the American Prospect quoted here, is a liberal Democrat.
Time for the Democrats to Panic?
Ken Blanchard
It's not my question. It belongs to Terrence Samuel, writing at The American Prospect, a journal of "liberal intelligence." The conventional wisdom is that all the momentum is on the side of the Democrats. But Samuel points out a few inconvenient truths.
They can't stop the war or override the president's veto on S-CHIP. Harry Reid is less popular in his home state of Nevada than the president is in the country, and, if you listen to the pollsters and the pundits, the Democrats are about to choose one of the most divisive political figures in the Republic’s history to be their 2008 presidential nominee. Which begs the question: When should Democrats begin to panic?
The answer is "not yet." But the truth is that unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.
Samuel puts his finger on one of the most interesting facts of the current political environment. Bush's popularity is indeed very low, almost as low as that of Congress. And the latter reflect displeasure with Congress as a whole, not specifically the Democrats. On the other hand, Bush is enjoying a high degree of control over the national agenda for a lame duck President. This is in large part because the Democrats can't get their act together.
The underlying problem is the act itself. This was evident in the recent dust-up over Congressman Pete Stark's hissy fit on the House floor. From the Boston Herald:
“You don’t have the money to fund the war or children,” he told House Republicans. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
What's important here is not that Stark was over the line, which he was. It is that his hatred of Bush eclipses his passion for any other part of the Democratic agenda. He had to know that his tirade couldn't help his part advance the SCHIP legislation, and he should have known that it would allow the Republicans to make him the issue. But he just couldn't help himself.
Something similar when the Democrats advanced a resolution to condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide. Not a bad move, perhaps, solely on its merits. But just right now, when the US desperately needs the cooperation of the world's most moderate and democratic Islamist government, it is probably a very bad move. So why did the Democrats move this issue now, only to have to back away with egg on their face?
The answer is that they couldn't resist causing trouble for George W. That passion not only overrode their concern for American foreign policy, it overrode their concern for not looking like idiots.
And therein lies the reason why Democrats should be worried. They have become a party of one shining principle: the humiliation of one George Herbert Walker Bush. But pretty soon now they ain't gonna have Dubya to kick around anymore. And that may leave a party as hollow as a Thanksgiving parade balloon.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/
Here’s the link Blanchard referred to above: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_it_time_for_democrats_to_start_panicking
Time for the Democrats to Panic?
Ken Blanchard
It's not my question. It belongs to Terrence Samuel, writing at The American Prospect, a journal of "liberal intelligence." The conventional wisdom is that all the momentum is on the side of the Democrats. But Samuel points out a few inconvenient truths.
They can't stop the war or override the president's veto on S-CHIP. Harry Reid is less popular in his home state of Nevada than the president is in the country, and, if you listen to the pollsters and the pundits, the Democrats are about to choose one of the most divisive political figures in the Republic’s history to be their 2008 presidential nominee. Which begs the question: When should Democrats begin to panic?
The answer is "not yet." But the truth is that unless they can re-establish some of their 2006 momentum, Democrats may find themselves going into the next election tagged as the party that couldn't stop Bush when given a chance, or as the party that did not try hard enough.
Samuel puts his finger on one of the most interesting facts of the current political environment. Bush's popularity is indeed very low, almost as low as that of Congress. And the latter reflect displeasure with Congress as a whole, not specifically the Democrats. On the other hand, Bush is enjoying a high degree of control over the national agenda for a lame duck President. This is in large part because the Democrats can't get their act together.
The underlying problem is the act itself. This was evident in the recent dust-up over Congressman Pete Stark's hissy fit on the House floor. From the Boston Herald:
“You don’t have the money to fund the war or children,” he told House Republicans. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
What's important here is not that Stark was over the line, which he was. It is that his hatred of Bush eclipses his passion for any other part of the Democratic agenda. He had to know that his tirade couldn't help his part advance the SCHIP legislation, and he should have known that it would allow the Republicans to make him the issue. But he just couldn't help himself.
Something similar when the Democrats advanced a resolution to condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide. Not a bad move, perhaps, solely on its merits. But just right now, when the US desperately needs the cooperation of the world's most moderate and democratic Islamist government, it is probably a very bad move. So why did the Democrats move this issue now, only to have to back away with egg on their face?
The answer is that they couldn't resist causing trouble for George W. That passion not only overrode their concern for American foreign policy, it overrode their concern for not looking like idiots.
And therein lies the reason why Democrats should be worried. They have become a party of one shining principle: the humiliation of one George Herbert Walker Bush. But pretty soon now they ain't gonna have Dubya to kick around anymore. And that may leave a party as hollow as a Thanksgiving parade balloon.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/
Here’s the link Blanchard referred to above: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_it_time_for_democrats_to_start_panicking