Journal pudge's Journal: Elections 2006 8
There's a big difference between 2006 and past years in which the minority party took control, and the Democrats know it, and are having a tough time figuring out what to do about it.
In those previous years, such as 1994, the country moved in the opposite political direction of the party in power, toward the minority party, which had a clear agenda for what it wanted to do.
But in 2006, with the Republicans in power, the country is still moving to the right. The majority of discontent with the Republicans is that the Republicans in Washington, DC are too far to the left/center.
And the Democratic leadership -- all of it pretty far to the left -- is doing its best to appear far more moderate than they really are, and in the process, they have very little of an agenda to present to the American people. The only firm policy goal they really talk about is a balanced budget, which is the least believable of anything they could say, since it's their lack of ability to balance the budget that led to the Republican takeover in '94, which subsequently led to the Republicans getting the first balanced budget in decades. (Not that it is believable that the Republicans could balance the budget today, either.)
And, of course, what Pelosi leaves out is that the way they want to balance the budget is with economy-crippling tax increases. And when the Republicans and enough Democrats vote against those tax increases, Pelosi and the Democrats will just blame the Republicans for refusing to balance the budget, giving them free license to increase spending with little political repercussion, because it's all the fault of Republicans and greedy rich people.
But, I digress. The point is, the Democrats will not put forth a substantive plan for what they would do as a majority, because they know it is too leftist to get them elected. They stick with unrealistic goals like a balanced budget that they can later blame the failure of on other people, and promise investigations of the President and Republicans. Their whole campaign is nothing more than "we aren't Republicans, and we will get the Republicans if you give us a chance."
Contrast this to the positive campaign the Republicans ran in 1994, which laid out specific, nonpartisan, goals for the new Republican majority. That's not to say they didn't criticize the Democrats, but it didn't take the form of "elect us because we'll get the Democrats," but instead, "we all know there are problems, and this is our set of solutions." With the earmarks and lobbyists getting out of hand, the Democrats can't even agree on a set of solutions to those problems, and instead just promise investigations of Republicans.
So, 2006 is 1994. There simply will not be a large number of voters switching to choose the Democrats over the Republicans, because the country continues to move to the right, and the Democrats are still on the left, and have no real goals to present to the American people. If the Democrats win, they will do so not in any way resembling 1994, but simply by convincing Republican voters to stay home.
Elections 2008
Quick note: Donna Brazille was with David Brooks and George Will on This Week, and they were talking about Hillary for President. Brooks and Will were laughing at the idea of Hillary as a moderate, but noted her gambit was probably going to work: despite how silly the notion is, given what we know about her views over the years, it looks like she is actually convincing people she is a moderate.
Brazille wasn't fooled by Hillary either, and she was actually apologizing for her, trying to explain away ther centrist things Hillary was saying, in an attempt to wink-nudge at the leftists in the Democratic Party, as if to say, "don't worry, she's still one of us." They quoted Hillary talking about how people should not expect to be rich upon graduating college, but should expect to work hard, and Brazille basically said, "she doesn't mean it, and she'll explain herself later," as if there was something wrong with the notion. Amazing.
Re:Majority of (Score:1)
That's not what the 2004 election indicated, nor is it what Pudge stated. You are implying that the reason in common with everyone who voted against Bush is that they all thought he was too far to the right. But that's not the case, so the idea goes nowhere and one can't draw concl
Re:Majority of (Score:1)
Nobody asked ME, but I'd say so. Mark me in the "Bush is too far to the Left/Moderate" column.
Re:Majority of (Score:2)
Adding on to what nandorman said, even if this were applied to Bush himself -- and I think we can safely do that -- where do you get "almost everyone who voted Republican"? His approval rating among Republicans is in the 60s. And yes, I think most of those 30-someting percent of Repu
Out of curiosity (Score:2)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:2)
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:2)
It confuses me that this would need elaboration. He has pushed for one of the most massive expansions of the welfare state in our nation's history. His first instinct after Katrina hit was to use the federal government to fix everyones' problems. To call his immigration policy "moderate" would be polite. His Iraq postwar policy is entirely liberal, even Wilsonian.
Bush shares some views with the conservatives, but is not himself
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:1)
Frankly, the whole left-right thing leads to too much confusion along the lines of "Bush is too far left" (because he spends like a liberal and unbalances budgets like a stereotypical liberal), when the rest of us are thinking "what, so