Mar 24 2009
Republicans Hope to Profit From Dem Mistakes in 2010
The Democrats have been in control of the legislative and executive branches of government for barely two months now and already it appears they are in a bit of a bad spot, what with the Roland Burris fiasco, the humiliating tax issues that have surrounded several of President Obama’s cabinet selections, the AIG bonus scandal, and the ongoing economic crisis. And soaring above the mess are the Republicans, with visions of another Congressional takeover dancing in their heads.
According to Politico writer Manu Raju, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made this prediction shortly after Barack Obama assumed the presidency: Democrats would make big mistakes that would play into the Republicans’ hands going into the 2010 midterm elections.
“With all due respect to the new president and the enhanced majorities in the House and the Senate, governing is tough business,” McConnell said at the time. “It’s hard. It’s very difficult to govern and not create issues, make mistakes, and I’m optimistic that the landscape in 2010 for my party will be very different than it was in ’06 and ’08.”
Well, Sen. McConnell has certainly mastered one of Sun Tzu’s fundamental precepts for waging war: Know the enemy. If there is one thing you can always count on the Democrats to do, it is to screw up when things are going great. Now Mr. McConnell and his fellow Republicans just need to learn the other important precept for waging war: Know yourself.
The Democrats still have 20 months until the midterm elections and a lot can happen between now and then. But in the meantime, they might want to stop giving credence to Republicans’ claims that they can’t be trusted with power during an economic crisis.
According to Raju, “While Democrats say it’s early and that the full impact of their agenda has yet been felt, some acknowledge that their image has taken a hit.”
The Republicans were handed another weapon on Friday when the Congressional Budget Office announced that Obama’s proposed budget would thrust annual deficits to the trillion-dollar mark over the next 10 years. The prediction came just as the president and members of his party were preparing a new public relations offensive on behalf of the gargantuan budget.
But all is far from lost for the Democrats. Polls show the public still favors them over the Republicans, and those numbers could go up in the next 20 months if the economic situation improves.
In answer to the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats are unfit to lead, the Democrats have accused the Republicans of being obstructionist.
“The problem we had here is the Republicans don’t want us to get anything done,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Okay, now it’s time to take bets. Who thinks the Republicans will take back both houses of Congress? How about just the House or the Senate? Who thinks the Democrats will manage to keep control of Congress?
I think the Bush backlash has not played out fully yet. Despite a wary America, the dems will likely keep control of congress. I predict a Republican rally in the House but the dems will pick up a couple seats in the senate. You heard it here first
Partisan haggling is a puppet show for the electorate. The same ruling elite who support the Republicans also support the Democrats. Follow the money. Both parties are in the pocket of big business and always have been. Democracy is dead in America the ruling elite present the electorate with a slate of “trustworthy” candidates and allow us to choose our masters. It’s all bullshit. I know people don’t read books anymore but there is an older one that lays to waste the fantasy of the 2 party system Walter Karp “Indispensible Enemy”. It shows clearly how the Democrats and Republicans collaborate to keep control of the political apparatus of the country. Both parties’ would prefer to have an opposition member in power that is not a maverick than to have one of their own that wants to buck the system. These guys are modern gangsters and we are acting like sheep if we trust either party to look after our interests as working people. The foreign policy is barely distinguishable between the two and the domestic policy has only subtle differences that reflect the various views of our corporate masters. We are herded into compliance by a sycophantic media whose job is to manufacture the consent of the electorate.
I’m with the guitar on this one. The wounds inflicted by the Bush regime have yet to heal. The Dems are certainly on the hot seat but as PA points out; there’s plenty of time left on the clock. It disgusts me that both parties actually pull for the other’s demise. Success by either translates to success for all and I would hope that would be the ultimate goal. How naive of me!! If I were a gambling man (and I am); my bet would be with the Dems. Time will tell. Nice piece PA.
“I think it is a little early to be ringing the death knell of the Democratic Party.”
ONce again, you’re exaggerating what i wrote. Of course, the Democratic Party isn’t going to be leaving anytime soon, especially with the country still sick of the GOP and the Bush Era. All i said was that the Democrats could lose one or both houses of Congresses (and as you know, it’s customary for the party in power to lose at least a few seats in a midterm) IF the situation does not improve, but as i also pointed out, they have 20 months to go and perhaps Obama’s plan will kick in and produce good returns.
Oldfart,
I love political discourse; however, your argument is so ill-conceived it really doesn’t merit a response. You are telling me that I “need to move to some other country” and most every comment you made is laced with deprecating overtones. You are assuming I don’t know things I have known for years. You’re telling me what I should be saying and what I “need to forget about”. Your reply is filled with ad hominem attacks, straw men and condescension. If you can’t be Socratic or show any respect I will ignore your foolish replies. I learned a long time ago that one should never argue with a fool for two reasons 1. Other people won’t be able to tell you apart. 2. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Either bring more game and come with some respect or you can’t play with my ball…
“It disgusts me that both parties actually pull for the other’s demise. Success by either translates to success for all and I would hope that would be the ultimate goal.”
Here here, tailback24. I completely agree with you. I’m all for healthy debates among parties, preferably more than two. Two is just too black and white, and we need some shades of gray to weigh in.
However, there is a difference between good arguments and the rhetoric going on right now. It’s counterproductive. Stop talking and start acting. If our elected leaders spent less time whining and more time thinking and working constructively, we’d be much better off.
I know…I’m such a naive, simple minded, and hopeless optimistic person. One can dream, right?
I would prefer to see both parties go up in flames and new ones to rise from the ashes, but in the real world, I just don’t think there will be enough time before the midterms for the Republicans to see a huge rally. That is, of course, the Dems don’t make things any worse between now and then.
I agree with Tailback and Oldweat, the partisanship is getting on my nerves. We should follow Eisenhower’s idea and create a new third party based on moderate principles and cooperation.
dsent, as usual, accuses Oldfart of his own tactics.
I know, Oldfart has trouble disagreeing with someone without at least some reference to some personal fault (at least with someone like dsent), but his post above is an exception, in that Oldfart waited to finish his argument first.
If you’d read his post, dsent, you’d see that the first 90% of it WAS an argument that you actually need to answer before regaining your credibility.
There’s a website I know - it’s called Above Top Secret - that I’d bet you’d love! All the conspiracy theorists hang out there.
rwahrens,
I am not the least bit worried about my credibility but it seems you would like to hear an answer to oldfart. To answer is a simple matter that should take but a few minutes so I would be happy to oblige. I will answer within his text to insure my response is thorough.
Oldfart; “Dsent - you need to move to some other country. Or come up with a positive suggestion. (Hint: Overthrowing the current government and replacing it with chaos is NOT a positive suggestion.) “
Well I don’t think it is oldfarts prerogative to tell me to move, as for a positive suggestion I am of the opinion that holding new constitutional convention and framing a less plutocratic system and a more democratic system would be a very positive thing. I never made any suggestion that we should replace our system with chaos that would is a straw man argument fallacy.
Oldfart; “How about starting a 3rd party? Wait……..that’s been tried. We (some of us, anyway) know that there is no Constitutional support for a two-party system. A two-party system is not part of the laws and precepts that describe our form of government. It is just ingrained in our history. And you and your parents and their parents were part of that history. And if you read that history, you will know that there was a time when there were more than Republicans and Democrats. There were, for instance, Whigs and Torries. Federalists, Democratic-Republicans and many more”
It is my opinion that the electoral process is corrupt and I am well aware that there are other parties that rarely if ever gain national office and that the vast majority of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money, which is something that reeks of plutocracy. I would argue that publicly financed elections that would insure equal access to the electorate would be a step in the right direction. I never argued that there were not other parties around or that historically there weren’t parties that are no longer exist.
Old fart “Politics is about power. And people who want power will fight to maintain control of that power. That is only human nature. It is NOT a conspiracy. Over 200+ years, the battle has settled on two parties out of the dozens available. And there are distinct political differences between the two parties.”
Politics being about power is central to the problem. Politics in a democracy is supposed to be about implementation of the will of the people and in a democracy the politicians answer to the people. When politics are all about power, the most powerful are the ones who have control. Given that capital creates power; politicians answer to capital interests and not to the people. This state of affairs shapes a nation into a plutocracy instead of a democracy. I said nothing about a conspiracy but rather collaboration between the two parties to maintain their bipartisan control of the system. I did not define that collaboration as illegal so I can hardly be accused of saying it is a conspiracy. And the similarities between the two parties are numerous as shown by the bi-partisan budgets they pass and the speed with which the Patriot Act passed. I could go on and on about the similarities but suffice to say I see many of the same people funding both parties. This bipartisan funding serves to homogenize policy.
Old fart; “The last 8 years should have taught you that. One party supports the Constitution and one does not. One party believes in never-ending war and one does not. One party supports the rights of man(and woman) and one does not. One party wants to make the rich richer and one does not.”
The lessons I have learned about the behavior of our federal government extend well beyond the last 8yrs, I would argue that the last 8yrs have been 8 of the most destructive to our constitution and our democracy, however, that said. Even the most cursory review of US military intervention will reveal that both parties have made use of US military force around the world to impose the will of Washington on other nations. There is nothing partisan about perpetual war. The US has military bases around the world and spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined. Our military budgets are passed with bi-partisan support. Such budgets represent a wind fall of profits to the most wealthy individuals and companies in our country thereby showing bipartisan support for making “the rich richer”. Furthermore, all too frequently military contractors are driving the procurement process and not strategic needs. One example being the Stealth Bomber, at the end of the cold war the pentagon said they no longer had a mission for the plane and would rather have money to spend on weapons systems that would better suit emerging strategic needs, However, parts of the stealth bomber were coming from most every state in the nation, so in spite of the pentagons position; pork barrel politics won out and we got a fleet of them. Additionally the current Democratic president has approved of detaining people indefinitely with out charge or trail which is antithetical to both the constitution and democratic principles.
Oldfart, “Dsent - you need to forget all this conspiracy stuff and come out with a plan to solve it. And then act on that plan. In the process you will have to state what you believe in and not what you don’t believe in. That will open you to attack. Have fun”
Conspiracy is a very common charge in courts around the nation; however I had said nothing about any conspiracy. I was discussing the plutocratic nature of our system. But of late the term conspiracy has been used to insult people and suggest that their ideas are unsupportable and baseless. 9/11 is the best example of that. Anyone who dissents from the official story of 9/11 is frequently branded a “conspiracy theorist”. Given that the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory there is no substance to the charge but it does illuminate how the colloquial usage of the term is often meant as an insult. Furthermore I frequently assert what I believe in and welcome any attack that will inform me and help make better sense of the political landscape. And actually I can say that these last few minutes have been a little “fun” so thanx to you rwahrens for bringing me back to task and thanx to you oldfart for making it so easy.
Mr. Oldfart,
Did you notice that I addressed what you said in detail and that in your last response you did not address anything I said. But rather you ask me to describe a “perfect system”. Lol indeed sir, it has never happened in the history of the world but you want me to describe it in a blog thread. Claiming my politics are right out of the 60s is no kind of critique of what I said; it is simply another insult as is asking about my age. Like I said before, if you care to discuss issues I am happy to do that, I just don’t enjoy exchanging insults… I repeat, you are not being Socratic and you are engaging in argument fallacies. You attack me personally rather than attack my positions. Thanx for trying, but you’re not bringing anything to the table other than condescension. I really do enjoy political discourse but insult exchange aint my business, if you want to do that find someone else to play with. Actually, I think your last reply validates my reasons for dismissing you previously. But really, do have a nice day sir.
Well, SKW, you make a good point; the last 8 years havent played out yet. By 2010, they probably still wont.
DSENT, you made some good points about the electoral system. It is old, dated, and not in line with today’s forward thinking society. If everything else can evolve, why cant the electoral system do the same?