I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the second half of the show they had their political columnists panel discussing the upcoming election. Novak made an interesting point, unlike the 94 Republican Revolution, this year the issues don't favor the Democrats traditionally. For example, in 94 welfare reform was a major issue. Crime in American cities were a major issue. Those are issues that Republicans are usually strong in. This year National Security is the hot issue, and illegal immigration is another major issue. Unlike 94, this issues don't favor the party, Democrats, that is trying to gain ground. The public wants change, but I don't believe they want to embrace the Democrats to bring solutions to these problems. I hate to say but I still think the Dems are weak on these issues and they have not sold themselves well enough to gain control in both Houses. What can be done. Can the Democrats ever gain popularity on these issues. Or have both parties proven themselves to be weak and mismanaged. I definitely believe both parties have brought themselves closer to each other in the eyes of the public, but they both have proven to be ineffective. I think this election year we are just gonna see more increased apathy by the public as far as our federal government is concerned. I really don't have hope of some Democratic Revolution like the Republican Revolution of 94. What I really feel is this is the prime opportunity for a new movement, a new party to start making some progress with the public.
Novak is ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the closet....the issue isn't national security in general, it's Iraq in particular. And the Democrats are strong on that issue not because of solutions or traditions, but because they aren't the ones who got us into this mess. Accountability is the theme, and Republicans are finally being held to it. Unfortunately it is two years too late.
I think it's all about the turnout. In the last election, the Republicans effectively used the gay marriage issue to get their people out. This time I think it's all about Iraq. I'm hopeful.
Yes, I think Bush and Rove wanted to conflate the war in Iraq with "the war on terror" and national security and, to their detriment, they have succeeded. It is to their detriment because a majority of Americans now see the war there as having a negative impact on security.
that's a fair point, it also links to a point obama made earlier in the show in this is why the guy is the new star in politics. he was making the point that we are still debating politics in terms that have been defined by repubs and dems from the 60's. big vs. little government, conservative vs. liberal, when he is gonna be framing his compaign in themes of problems and what are their best solutions. to get away from the larger themes and just address each issue separately as he feels what solution is best.
A cynical person could see that as political positioning for the attacks that he is too green to run right now. His opponents who are running against with more experience would be rendered obsolete because their experience is that of the "old style" of politics and debate. obviously...
God help us, with all due respect. I can just see Nadir crawling out of his hole, the millionaire in his cheap suit, ego in full bloom. I hope not, and I can't think of anyone else, unless it was a fundamentalist Christian type, who could make any waves, and that would help the Democratic candidate, for a change. Keep D&D Civil.
I guess we could really use a man like Ross Perot again [sung in the ALL IN THE FAMILY theme type way] Rocket River
I think that the 2008 elections will depend a lot oh how well the Dem House behaves. Pelosi is promising that she will not lead an impeachment fight against Bush. I find that extremely hard to believe. Pelosi is promising oversight, which I suspect will devolve into a seige battle with the WH. Most Americans may not see a big difference between impeachment and oversight, given that they will both be long drawn out partisan affairs. As an aside, most of the promises Repubs made in '94 in their Contract With America did not last until '96, ie on election cycle.
I don't like Republican Party and I don't like their policies. But I have to admit they have a very strong leadership and they are far more disciplined than Dems. A lot of Republican policies are either stupid or evil, but they seem always manage to push the issues and get what they want. On the other hand, Democrat Party is so weak and I am really not sure if they can get anything done.
The number one issue for me is the CAMPAIN FINANCE REFORM. Most problems we have today are a direct result of the undo influence of lobbyist. Lobbyist who represent nations as well as industries and companies give so mush money to politicians who require tons of cash to get re-elected that politicians see there votes to these lobbyists. The Republicans are worse about this than Dems. but the Dems., are by no means clean themselves.
pgabriel, because there are 15-20 power groups in this country that control the political process, this will NEVER happen. The different power groups have lined up on one side of the fence and most are so intertwined they cannot be separated. This is exactly why I'm independent and could never join either party! IMO, people that support the full Dem or GOP platforms are robots. Very few rational people, if they started thinking from scratch and were intellectually honest with themselves, would swallow 90% of their party's positions hook, line and sinker. Yet more than half (~2/3) of the American electorate is hopelessly partisan. The attitude is "take a side and support it". There is a pressure to be forced to fit a mold with little deviation allowed. Independents are viewed as weak and indecisive, which is a bunch of garbage. Independents are also labelled "moderates", when the two terms are NOT identical. My point is that no major party will nominate a person who isn't sufficiently wedded to the current power centers as they are currently aligned. Even someone like John McCain has sold out. In 2000, he led the "Straight Talk Express". The last 4 years, he has done everything possible to ingratiate himself to the people who shish-kebabed him back then. Most of the integrity points he had for thinking independently are out the window. (For the record, I never liked him that much even when positioned himself as a maverick). No major party nominee will ever deviate very much from the power centers that control their party. It's that simple. Lastly, if you honestly think anyone running independently from both parties can win the presidency, you are a hopeless idealist. It's a nice dream but come on back to Earth with the rest of us when you wake up.
Too many DEAL Breakers among groups Some folx will never be one party or another because of certain issue: Some are 1. Gay Marriage 2. Abortion Those issues alone Some folx will allow their party to do what ever as long as they stay on the side of one of these issue This is not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing Rocket River
Very nice post, and I agree with the vast majority of it. I'm enough of an idealist, still, to hope that someone who's not joined at the hip with the power structure, in it's different permentations, of this country can manage to win the nomination of one of the two parties and win the election. It's a near impossible task, and it would take someone who was brilliant, charismatic, an amazing speachmaker, and independently wealthy. Given the dearth of leaders produced by this country in recent decades, it's difficult to imagine that someone could show up who fits the bill, especially considering the microscope candidates go under now, and what their family has to go through. You never know. It could happen. Keep D&D Civil.
You never know. It could snow in Houston on July 4th. It won't happen. That said, please stay an idealist. You guys help the world go round and balance out the realists. We need people like you.
Agreed. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but it clearly shouldn't be about lobbying and who has the most money. Maybe some kind of system where anybody who can get enough signatures to get on the petition is then allocated a certain amount of $ by the state, federal government to run a campaign, and can't use any more than that amount....and have to return whatever they don't use. Put everyone on a level playing field. Then obviously a lot more lobbyist reform to get rid of their influences on important votes, etc. EDIT: Environment would actually be my number 1 issue, but I think if you take care of lobbying and campaign finance, then a lot of environmental policies will swing towards a better balance between respect for the earth and for the people living on it.
I think the Democrats CAN "do it" but as always, it's going to come down to voter turnout, which the Dems have always struggled with, especially during non-Presidential elections. I think they'll make some gains, but not as many as they would if this were a Presidential election. As far as how I'm feeling (as if anyone gives a frogs fat ass)... I'm pretty turned off by the whole political process right now. I used to shake my head when I heard people say that because I viewed it as a 'cop out' for people who were too lazy to keep up with the issues. Now, I'm starting to understand how they feel. I don't agree with the Democrats philosophically and I don't think they're offering any new ideas, I think they're just gettin' while the gettin's good and going against everything Republican so they can win. The Republicans, on the other hand, are pulling out the same tired old issues they bring up every election like gay marraige and keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegience, while (of course) avoiding the most important issue of the day, the war in Iraq. I think this election, I'm going to dish out my own brand of term limits and vote against every incumbent regardless of the little R or D next to their name.
