• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Time for the Democrats to Panic?

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
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We all have opinions, but I think this will just help the Dems in the next election. "See how the Republicans are keeping us from doing the people's work, providing healthcare for children, getting out of Iraq? Vote more Democrats into Congress and in the White House and we can fix our nation's problems." Sounds like a good campaign pitch to me.

But keep telling yourself that while more and more Republicans are re-registering as Independents (and Independents are identifying with the Dems), while more Republicans are retiring (Hastert, Hutchinson) or choosing not to run for re-election (Warner, Hagel, Renzi.) The Republicans have more seats to defend this election cycle than the Dems. That's tough enough, but now that several Republicans have announced they won't run again, that puts even more seats up for grabs.

And before you put too much faith in this article, you might want to notice that Mr. Blanchard doesn't even seem to know which Bush is occupying the White House. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is one of the main reason the Dems are not pushing harder for a quick end to the "war"-whichever "war" you wish to choose--- nor the shutting off of "war" funds to Iraq....The whole bunch (R or D) in D.C. are in the pockets of the Corporate world that is proffiteering from this "war" while the taxpayers see their childrens and grandchildrens earnings mortgaged to pay for their profitteering....
And it appears those that are making the money believe the Dems will be in the winners seat and the ones they need to control.....

War makes thieves and peace hangs them. ~George Herbert
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre



The ever famed ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ has picked their candidate of choice: Hillary Rodham Clinton. When Hillary takes office, do not be prepared to see an anti-war populist of any sort. She is as establishment as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, ready to declare war on Iran at a moment’s notice. The defense industry sees this and, I think, has made a good investment. Well, good if you’re a defense contractor. The Huffington Post reported:

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post’s Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.

The strong support for Clinton indicates that a majority of defense industry executives currently believe Clinton is a favorite to win the Democratic nomination and, in November, 2008, the general election.

In the 2004 presidential race, defense company workers, almost all of them upper-level employees, gave George W. Bush $819,358, more than twice the $366,870 received by John Kerry. Similarly, in House and Senate races over the past 10 years, the defense industry has favored Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin.

Republicans holding public office almost always provide much stronger support for weapons programs and other Pentagon spending than do Democrats.

In an unexpected development, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, raised just $19,200, barely more than the $18,500 collected by Texas Representative Ron Paul (R.).

No other Democrat came near Clinton’s totals. Running second to her in the competition for Pentagon contractors’ cash was Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn), who raised $13,200, almost all from executives of General Dynamics which has a major submarine building facility in Groton, Conn.

Former Senator John Edwards (D-N. Car.) raised $12,200 and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) took in $10,000.

Clinton’s major industry benefactors - donors who gave the $4,600 maximum allowed by law — include Roger A. Crone, Boeing’s president of Network and Space Systems; Stanley Roth, Boeing’s Vice President for Asia, International Relations, $4,600; Anne Sullivan, a Raytheon attorney; William Lynn, Raytheon’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations; and Michele Kang, Northrop Grumman Vice President for health science solutions.
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There seems to be widespread support for increasing the size of our military forces. Interesting that the people who will profit from that support Hillary. Or at least are sending her money.

She's also getting a lot of donations from the health care industry.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/news/newsmakers/healthcare_clinton/index.htm

I've read that Big Business, overall, is donating a lot more money to Dems this year than Republicans. That's a change from the past.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Zogby: Half Would Never Vote for Hillary for President

Saturday, October 20, 2007 8:43 PM

Article Font Size



While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.


The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton—59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18-29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
 
Top