« Karl Rove's Shit Storm | Main | The Next Open Thread: FL's Mark Foley Resigns »

September 29, 2006


I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. If you are saying that the Dems are pinning their hopes on the Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional, then you and they are taking a big risk. Who will take it to the SCOTUS? If it does happen to get there, who will guarantee that the SCOTUS will vote correctly this time?

It does no good to say that the Dems will block W and his cronies if the Dems take control of either the House or Senate. The Dems don't make any real trouble now, even when it is very evident that the majority of the country wants a change. For instance, we have supported Lautenberg in the past, but he is not looking to be reelected so he had no excuse for voting for giving the pResident these extra powers. When the Dems had the opportunity to get behind a candidate offering change in Conn (Lamont), the Dem power structure and even most of the rest of the elected reps ran to support LIEberman who gives so much cover to rethugs. Since HRC planted a worker in Lamont's campaign, as anyone could have predicted, Lamont's campaign went down the drain. We at our house were supporting Menendez and were going to work for him in this critical part of the election run up, but not now. It really doesn't matter if Kean wins, and don't even try to tell me about Karl in this case.

I think that you are trying to put the best possible spin on this lousy outcome. I don't think that they deserve any solace in the miserable vote that they have cast.

Well, there is a certain validity to Demct points. I had to let go and let god yesterday. I just needed to hug up to my higher power and say "it's in your hands." I was much amused and happy that Karl Rove has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal. That cannot hurt the dems at all. The facts are all there, present and accounted for. This president and this administration has within it a criminal element. It is no longer outside the scope of possibility that Bush allowed 9/ll to happen. Factually he did absolutely nothing to stop it. That's a fact. Furthermore his handling of Katrina was criminal. People died. More still we have the Plame leak. You know, when he had a high popularity rating it was hard to imagine that they leaked on one their own to punish her. Today, that's not even a stretch to believe. Abramoff puts the icing on the cake, add that to the war profiteering and there is no doubt that this administration is criminal.

The american people need to understand that what the Bush administration has had since the supreme court ruling in 2000 is power. They have power. Just like big huge corporations have power. He was not like Clinton in that Clinton had a power fueled by his popularity and his effectiveness. No he wasn't perfect but his ability to compromise was intelligence at it's finest, most of the time. Clinton's power came from his ability. With Bush, his power comes from his power. He had it when he came in. He used it his whole life and there is an element in america that lives off of this kind of power.

That is what we are up against. It's not something that will be solved overnight, I think we are going to question our values. This country is going to go through some big changes. I believe it will cause us to question those concepts like voting that we had become apathetic about. I think the deregulation of corporate america begun by Reagan is going to be called into question once the truth hits the fan. I think we will struggle. Being comfortable doesn't make for innovation or creative solutions. It is the struggle that makes a better country. We are going to have to fight for our democracy in a way we haven't for a long time. But that's okay. It's good for us. Maybe we will earn a new appreciation for our constitution, the bill of rights, checks and balances, and

We fell in the global market competitiveness scale from number 1 to number 6. Bush's policies are really bad for the American people and for the country, but we are going to have to hit pretty low before the picture is clear. (good for corporate america and good for the wealthiest). We each need to put our heads down, dig deep into our hearts and work to become the best Americans we can be. That will get us where we need to go. Effectiveness is always rewarded by the universe. It'll be okay in the long run. I think this was a lesson we needed to learn and that we needed to not forget for a long time. We didn't get it with Nixon. We didn't learn it with Reagan. This time might just sink us deep enough so that we never forget that when we take care of everyone, like a good functional family, we all benefit.

We'll get there because it's truth. (I might die before I see it, but the truth cannot be denied). Everything is as it should be.

we have one very important thing to do, get democratic governors elected
for they will be the ones appointing new congress people after the indictments and jailings
that is more critical for some states than anything else.
think about how many representatives under investigation will go next year?
their replacements may tip congress

Actually, in the event of vacancy Governors appoint new Senators but new House Reps are always elected by special election.

But it is important to elect Dem Govs and Secs of State, to ensure that post-election here can be any necessary investigations into irregularities. Blackwell in OH knows he is going to lose and won't get a free pass this time. Some of the incentive to cheat is therefore gone.

Torture and detention completely absorbed me yesterday, but it was only on Page 3 in the SF Chronicle, admittedly not one of the nation's great newspapers. Maybe because both of our Senators opposed and there was little drama about that. But there was a long article on Nancy Pelosi's message to her troops.

"I said we must not be tempted to be overconfident, and we must understand that we will have a barrage of negative ads poured upon us, and the Republicans will not be constrained by money, by truth or by sense of decency.

"But we will not be constrained in our optimism for the future, our enthusiasm for moving forward in a new direction and our determination to win,'' added Pelosi, who unlike many of her colleagues refuses to publicly predict what will happen in the upcoming elections.

The torture vote doesn't play well against challengers, IMHO. You have harpies like Nancy Johnson in CT-05 lying about her opponent and trying to look tough, but I can't help but agree that touting your pro-torture vote isn't going to go over well with any but the GOP base, and that is not enough.

And even if the Dems get only one seat each in CT and PA, NY is looking better and there are at least 6-10 seats in the 3 western time zones that will go Dem. The Dems can do this.

As I said the other day, I'm a bit muddled on this whole thing myself, but a few points:

DemfromCT is quite right about the local angle. Yesterday I referenced the Brady Bill/assault weapons ban. These were measures that had huge support in polls -- 70/80% range -- yet in individual races, the vote was lethal; apparently all those Dems who had said stay away from this issue were right. The result? Pubs have held the House for 12 years and counting, and the measures have have essentially disappeared from the books. What was our gain? It felt good?

What's fascinating is, though I'm reading white-hot reaction here in blog-land, the media in general hasn't focused on this issue much -- at least not since St. McCain did his swan dive. I expected to hear major excerpts from Hillary or Obama's speeches on the news last night...but ABC, at least, didn't even cover the story, and even the Times gave it its lowest-grade top story billing (far left column single column, standard font headline). Why? Possibly because, like many Senators, they believe it will be tossed out by the Supreme Court, thus rendering it mostly meaningless (I grant, we don't KNOW this).

In any case, the result, as Dem says, is a bill that's not cutting as expected right down the middle of party lines (though Bush tried to sell that in a completely hysterical speech yesterday). The fact that 10 Democrats voted for it -- and some Republicans fought, however impotently, to weaken it -- makes it not the ace of trumps Bush/Rove thought they had (and that they need, to overcome all the negatives otherwise dominating campaign season).

As I've said, don't confuse this with my being happy. I think it was a sad day, and will cause international damage. But I'm shocked to hear people, here and elsewhere, swear they're dropping Democrats forever. Who were the ones speaking out against this? Who were the ones voting against it? Are people really saying that, unless a party matches their position unanimously, they're of no use?

Andrew Sullivan of all people got it right yesterday: the only way to put a stop to this nightmare is to put Democrats in charge of one or both Houses of Congress six weeks from now. (If they'd been in charge yersterday, the bill would never have got past committee) I know everyone's angry/disappointed. But it's really frightening if Andrew Sullivan understands the November stakes better than people who've called themselves Democrats.

As I've said, don't confuse this with my being happy.

Thank you. People seem to resent the idea of analyzing things, as if to say that 56% of the public rejects torture means you're happy that only 56% of the public rejects torture. I don't do outrage particularly well, but that doesn't mean I don't feel it.

There is no upside to this bill. Even in an indirect way. There's no perspective to put on it's passage, there's no silver lining.

Despite the fact that the Dem leadership did not frame and fight the "Dictatorship" Act more vigorously and inform the American people what was at stake with this bill, let's not forget who wrote and pushed through this bill. The vast majority of Dems in both the House and Senate opposed it.

Unless we have better Dems and a majority it will get even worse. We haven't seen the extent of depravity the current crop of Repubs can achieve.

We have achieved a lot in this primary cycle. Candidates like Lamont, Tester, Webb, Jerry McNerney won their primary races on the basis of grassroots support against the DC annointed candidates. We have to insure they win. A Dem majority with these candidates will begin to swing the tide. Look at what a primary challenge has done to Jane Harman. We can change the Dem party. We've already demonstrated it. All those that supported the bill yesterday should be challenged again. The primaries are over. We've got a better crop of candidates than in the past. Now we need to work very hard to insure the Dems gain a majority. In future election cycles we can defeat those that do not represent American values. We cannot quit now!

well put, ab initio. We not only have to win more seats, we also have to change the culture of the party and that will take time. The Right worked relentlessly for 40 years to put itself in their current position, so we should not forget that we will need time. Until we rebuild, there will be painful defeats like this, but this should be a call to keep going.

And you mentioned the place where we can maximize our impact in the short run: the primaries. So rather than giving into despair, let's help our side in the next 4-5 weeks and start figuring out how to go forward on Nov. 8th.

There is a factor in the Democrats favor and against the Republicans that you didn't really consider.

The Republicans are in power.
The press is all over the seats of power (mostly Republicans) more than those on the outside (mostly Democrats) looking in.
Scandals will occur.
The bad guys (lobbyists, etc.) are infecting the people that have the ability to grant favors.
etc., ...
Entropy increases, always!!!!!

Ergo! The Republicans will be ousted.

The cycle will then repeat.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad