Random/<S>Deep</s> Shallow Thoughts.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2006 — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The RedHots on the subject (starting here) had me thinking about the '08 elections on the car ride over. I'm doing a story instead of a RedHot because: a, comments; and b, I don't how long working out my thoughts are going to be. We'll see.
One note: no links for this one. To paraphrase Chelsea Quinn Yarbo (or was it Kim Newman?) I am merely entertaining these thoughts, not inviting them in to live with me.
Read on.
As I see it, there are three ways that the November elections will play out for Democrats: Win, Loss and Disaster. Winning is easy to define: the Democrats take both Houses of Congress. Disaster is likewise easy: any scenario where the Democrats lose seats in one House and do not take control of the other. Loss is everything else - and, yes, that includes a scenario where they take back one House of Congress, but not the other. If it's the Senate and not the House, they won't be able to defund the war; and if it's the House and not the Senate, they won't be able to impeach the President (and the threat of that is the important thing, here). Either way, their base will only be happy with Win. They may claim that they'll be happy with just gaining seats in both Houses, but if they can't wrest control of Congress in the sixth year of an opposite-party Administration, then they're not as popular as they claim to be - and both they and we will know it.
The question is, in terms of 2008, what is best for the Democrats? Win, Loss or Disaster?
Chairman Dean's betting on Win. If he can take back the legislative branch he will, indeed be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008: I can even predict the slogan. "I brought you the Congress: I can bring you the White House". Well, it won't be put like that - I'm not a political sloganeer - but the gist of it will be that, and that's a powerful message to give. He also can hope for some leverage with a Loss than can look like a Win (the aforementioned win-one-House, not-win-the-other).
There's only one problem with that: there's a faction of the Democratic Party (their initials are DLC, and let's not pretend: their presumptive front-runner is Senator Clinton) that can use a Disaster for their own purposes - not to mention making a Loss look like a Disaster. If a Disaster happens, clearly it was somebody's fault. The lucky person picked to play scapegoat - not to mention his entire faction - will get blamed for everything up to and including the bad coffee in the break room... and the faction that most visibly opposed him is in a fine position to rally a demoralized party around them and charge to victory in 2008*. Right now, Dean's the favorite for the scapegoat role - which means that all of his friends and followers are, perhaps, not entirely aware of just how badly that he needs to win in November. Because they won't be prepared for what will happen to them if Dean loses.
Put all of this another way: the Democrats will undoubtedly be running a Good vs. Evil campaign in 2008. If Dean wins the upcoming faction fight, it'll play out as a remake of The Longest Day, with Dean playing the John Wayne role as his wise-cracking Democrats assault the NaziGOP beaches. If Senator Clinton wins, it'll be more Terminator 2, complete with motorcycle and sunglasses and "Come with me if you want to live". Which movie we'll end up seeing will depend on how November plays out.
Moe Lane
*Assuming we let them. Which is too open a question, and an entirely different post.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Casey Cagle: Giant Killer — Comments (9) »
Random/<S>Deep</s> Shallow Thoughts. 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The only problem is that disaster requires Republican competence, which as you mention, is not exactly inspiring at the moment.
If a disaster does occur can we expect more Republican arrogance?
The WORST that could happen is a democrat win, partial or otherwise, it will envigorate the fever swamp, but not totally convince Republicans to return to their Republican base.
Travis
The lack of a viable opposition party has led the Republicans to a decidedly less-than-ideal state.
Many of the intraparty arguments we have would be resolved by the threat of a viable opposition. As it stands, many of us are voting not so much for Republicans as against Democrats.
That is a horrible way to fill legislative bodies, and a worse way to navigate the conversation of setting policy.
Once the Dems complete their self-implosion, it will force the Reps to address the serious flaws within our own party.
If you expect the Republican party to govern in an IDEAL manner for anyone, you misunderstand the nature of governing with a national majority coalition.
Don't get their act together and return to the realm of Reality, then I think the Republicans will shatter into multiple factions and Parties. Possibly eliminating the 2 Party system forever. Then again, maybe during that break-up, a few of the Factions will band together to take the majority and force the others to ally with each other...
So many different possibilities. And all that I can see are better than where we are now.
... but Senate is needed to convict.
B.Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted.
time impeaching and muckraking, it would be a major disaster for them in 2008.
...and I even recognize that semantics are important. But I think that my point remains unchanged. :)
and it would spell long-term disaster for the Dems. OTOH, I don't actually want to see our country torn apart. OTOH (this would be the 3rd hand), we seem to be almost as torn apart as we could be.
I am less concerned about what's good and bad for the Dems than I am about what's good and bad for the Republicans. As much as I like us having all the power, which actually we don't have since the Dems have the Drive By Media and the courts (I say the DBM is more powerful), having both houses and the presidency has all but been the ruination of the Republican Party. They do not know how to govern or lead; they only seem strong in opposition, a point well made by Rush. They need serious challenges by a viable party, and I don't see that happening any time soon. I certainly don't want the idiots and loons that make up the Democrat Party getting their filthy paws on any part of government.
We not only live in interesting times, but (the Dems' intellectual fatuity notwithstanding) serious times as well.
that if the Dems don't take the Senate they won't be able to bring up the impeachment charge from the House. I guess you think the Dems would be happy with jut having hearings. Remember, you need 2/3 to actually remove the President.
...that they would quite dare, actually. Without control of both branches they don't have even a realistic chance at impeachment; and they'd look like fools if they tried. Even House hearings would run a risk for them.
What does worry me these days is a Democratic House deciding to replay the betrayal of South Vietnam by cutting funding, and that they could try.
in terms of 2008, what is best for the Democrats? Win, Loss or Disaster?
Win -- The country is ready for a new direction. Something bold, like a female president.
Lose -- The country is ready for a new direction. They just don't know it yet. Perhaps someone with Senate credentials and massive name recognition is just the kind of gal we need to vault us into the Catbird Seat...
Disaster -- That Howard Dean is worthless. Time to bring in the big guns -- Say it with me, "CLINTON!" She can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And she absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead....
Are you Sarah Conner?
Chairman Conyers I don't think could be stopped on this short of removing him from the seat, and that would be costly for them.
I'm sure the whole CBC would get behind him on this and throw up a huge stink. One scene I'll never forget is when Maxine Waters was throwing a fit at Al Gore over trying to get Gore handed the Electoral College vote. That was her guy she was hassling, so I can't imagine she'd lay off Nancy Pelosi.
In both 2006 and 2008 is what is best for the Democrats And this Nation.
If they are soundly trounced, if their ideology is refused solidly in both elections, then they will do 1 of 2 things:
Either way, we eliminate the stupidity that is involved in the kind of 1 Party politics that we currently have. This nation was always at its best with 2 or more Robust and Effective Parties. Right now we have exactly 0 robust Or effective parties.