Sunday Discussion Group

September 17, 2006

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I always thought the best way for a party to approach an election season is to win as many seats as humanly possible. If you’re in the minority, you’re aiming for the majority. If you’re in the majority, you’re aiming for a bigger majority. To want anything less is not only self-defeating, it’s illogical.

Or so I thought. Over the last week or so, with most political observers expecting control of Congress to be, at a minimum, up for grabs, there’s a growing murmur — from both sides — that perhaps maintaining a congressional majority in 2007 and 2008 isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

As Matt Yglesias noted, for example, “more and more conservatives” are writing columns like Jonah Goldberg’s latest, about “how it might be better for the GOP to lose control of the House.” As Goldberg put it, “Conservative Republicans have learned a painful lesson over the last few years. It turns out power isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”

[S]ome of us aren’t contemplating the possible, if not probable, Democratic takeover of the House with too much dread…. [T]he silver lining would be fairly thick. First, as a matter of simple gitchy-goo good government, one has to admit that the executive branch could use an independent audit. Amid the orgy of spending and deal cutting, the GOP-controlled House has largely abdicated its oversight responsibilities. Someone’s got to check the receipts.

Second, as a matter of rank partisanship, letting the Democrats run wild could be good for both the GOP and conservatives, as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out in the New York Times. If you think Americans are itching for change now, wait until they break into hives after two more years of Republican monopoly on power.

But a Pelosi-run House could so horrify voters that it would probably prepare the soil for a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

At first I thought columns like these were pre-election rationalizations. “It’s okay that we lost,” conservatives are saying seven weeks before the election, “because we didn’t really want the majority anymore anyway.”

But the more these arguments are made, the more they appear to be a sincere strategic assessment. As absurd as it may sound, it’s possible some in both parties are looking askance at majority status.

For Republicans, losing the House offers the GOP a new target — namely, the chamber the party has run since 1994. Using Dems as a scapegoat is tough when Dems don’t actually have any real power in Washington. A Democratic House would add substance to Republican whining.

Plus, as Goldberg noted, there’s 2008 to consider. Republican candidates know full well that, as a historical matter, it’s exceedingly difficult for a party to maintain control of the White House for three terms in a row. That task is made more difficult when one party runs the entire government for four election cycles in a row; voters start to feel a strong need for change; and you’re with the in-power party. A Democratic House offers a change in dynamic that could make it a little — not much, but a little — easier for a Republican presidential candidate to represent a voice of change in 2008.

And then, of course, there’s the Dems, who might feel a tinge of concern about taking back the House. Party leaders know full well that every measure passed by a Dem majority would be either a) blocked by a GOP senate; or b) vetoed by Bush. Partisan gridlock going into 2008 offers opponents a chance to say, “A Dem House was supposed to lead to change. Instead it led to more partisan bickering.”

Paul Waldman recently said, “[T]here’s something a little silly about saying that it’ll be good to lose this election because it’ll help us win the next one.” Quite right — there are ample benefits that come with power. Nevertheless, I’ve heard from more than a few Dems lately who think the party might be better off winning, say, 14 House seats and 5 Senate seats — enough to show major gains, and enough to make it easier to block the GOP agenda, but just short of a majority that might hurt the party’s goals in ’08.

Is there something to this, or is it ridiculous? Is there a reasonable strategic argument that not winning the majority is actually good news?

Anything that allows Bush and the Republicans to continue to do whatever they want unchecked is a disaster. I can understand apprehension about having any share of power (and hence responsibility) when the chickens finally come home to roost, but one might as well argue that you should let the other side stay in control forever.

I think the neocons are just trying to put the best possible spin on a possible disaster and Democrats with the same argument for not taking control are trying to come up with a rationalization for losing again (if they do).

  • It’s ridiculous. The only strategic argument for not winning is that you’re not capable of doing the job. Goldberg’s reasoning is based on the assumption that if the Dems gain control, they will behave like the very same drunken frat boys that the repubs have been aping.

    If the Dems win the House, most people will view it as an audition. If they bring some decorum, accountability, and some economic fairness for the beleaguered middles class, they will pass the audition and improve their standing for the ’08 races. If they maintain the ideological sewer the repubs have made of the House, they’ll likely get their hats handed to them next time around.

    There is no downside to winning the House. The only damage that can be done would be self inflicted after gaining the majority.
    But given the record of the repub controlled House, I can understand why repubs like Goldberg see a strategic advantage in cutting and running.

  • The Democrats don’t know how to be a minority party effectively, so that’s not even an option. And there isn’t much to play with either – the Bush Crime Family has already stolen it all. Win and win big at the polls, and quit looking over our shoulders to see what the other guy is up to. If we have only the House, we’re not going to get anything done, for the reasons you mentioned., but it means we have two years in which to make life absolutely miserable for the Bush Crime Family (hearings, for starters). Our two years should be used to prepare for le déluge in ’08.

  • About this:

    And then, of course, there’s the Dems, who might feel a tinge of concern about taking back the House. Party leaders know full well that every measure passed by a Dem majority would be either a) blocked by a GOP senate; or b) vetoed by Bush. Partisan gridlock going into 2008 offers opponents a chance to say, “A Dem House was supposed to lead to change. Instead it led to more partisan bickering.”

    With a Democratic majority in the House, why couldn’t the Democrats say (in the event of gridlocks or Bush vetoes) “See what the Republicans are doing? They aren’t interested in the welfare of America.”

    If they handled it right, with an electorate already disgusted with the Bush administration’s manipulations, it might contribute to that Democratic deluge in 2006, not create more problems for the Democrats.

  • Think ahead to 2008, which, strategically is a much bigger enchilada than 2006 because control of the executive branch is at stake. If everything stays Republican, then the ONLY targets are Republicans and a certain amount of jockeying on the Republican side among the dissatisfied will have to anti-Bush, which would split the base and tarnish the inheritancy. Give the Democrats a share of power now, and they instantly become the main target in 2008, firing up and uniting the base and allowing the campaign to go forward without any strong anti-Bush sentiment or reckoning on the GOP side. The Republicans always need an enemy and function best as a opposition – the Democrats need to win in 2006 to provide them with that.

  • Try the argument on from the other side of the balance beam:

    Seen with a certain lens it certainly appears the empire is self-destructing.

    Two more years of Republican rule is necessary to hie it along…

    Think about it:

    Can you think of anything more destructive to a modern empire than the continual rule of a party that does not honor science and public education?

  • Even if a Democrat-controlled House can’t pass major legislation against the opposition of the White House and a Republican Senate, they can just by pushing it show the voters what would be possible in 2008.

    They can also keep some at least of the worst egregiosities (I know it’s not a word, I’m just feeling creative) that the administration and the hard-core Republicans will push when they don’t have an election hanging over their heads.

    Of course that will require the House leadership to really emphasize party discipline: push a progessive agenda, and most of all don’t get greedy, at least for two years: no pork, no playing footsie with K Street (who will be gathering like vultures if the Dems manage to win one chamber), don’t support seemingly innocuous “bipartisan” measures until you can find the hidden mousetraps, and so on.

  • Bush’s grandstanding push for legislation to grant the executive branch increased surveillance powers and the like shows a taste for megalomania. Bush’s power must be checked for the sake of the republic. Would conservatives want a Democratic president using unchecked power (campaign issue?)like Bush does now? I don’t think so. Then, there Iraq and assorted foreign policy failures.

  • For most ordinary Americans, the fact that a congress switches from Republican to Democrat control, doesn’t make it any better. “Throw the bums out” may be good politics, but it completely neglects good policy.

    The lack of good policy is exactly what Republicans are hoping for, because it allows them to motivate both elements of the electorate. They can horrify their base with the image of “Speaker Pelosi”, and also advance to the larger public time tested conservative standards such as: Democrats don’t have a plan, they put the US at greater risk, gay marriage, abortion, partisan deadlock, etc. etc.

  • it’s really quite simple: we need the House for two reasons:

    1. As Lucianne Goldberg’s favorite pear-shaped nearsighted offspring noted, the executive branch is in need of an “audit.” The Conyer hearings alone, not to mention the investigations of all their other crimes will expose the Republicans as the, well, criminals they are.

    2. So what if a Republican Senate kills good legislation – or we get both houses and Bush vetoes good legislation? That doesn’t make us losers, it makes the Republicans in either case obstructionists for legislation designed to help the American people out of the hole the Republicans cast them into.

    And then there’s number three, which hopefully would be a non-issue as soon as the election results were announced, but with these guys you never can be sure till you drive a stake through their head (notice I didn’t say heart – you can’t kill something they don’t have). That is the coming war with Iran that all the signs keep pointing to. If necessary, you tell Georgie-porgie-pudd’n’n’pie that he won’t get the money to fly the B-2s to their targets. The House does control that. It took the House cutting Nixon off at the financial spigot to finally shut down Vietnam. if at least one part of the government resists the war drums – knowing the American people do not want a war with Iraq no matter how these bastards try to re-run their 2002 game plan – it’s going to be tough for Dickhead Cheney to get his next war. The House Intelligence Committee would be able to expose the lies of manucher Gorbanifar and the Mujahideen Khalq for the Chalabi-and-the-INC style bullshit they are.

    Taking the House is even more important than taking the Senate.

  • Arguing that it’s just fine for the Republicans to hve two more years of control so we can “get ’em good” is like arguing that electing Hitler and the Nazis in 1933 would insure the revolution broke out in 1935. The German communists discovered that idea didn’t work, and letting the Republicans continue for two more years will be as bad for us. Talking about letting them drive themselves off the cliff demonstrates a level of political naivete that is so stunningly moronic it could only be said be lefties. Remember: we’re along for the ride over the cliff!!

    If you’re riding along and you realize the driver is much more drunk than you thought when you got in, do you let that person maintain control of the wheel as they head for a cliff??????

  • How many republicans are ready for their leaders to be subjected to war criminal investigations? I suspect Goldsberg sees the obvious, and is simply trying to move towards the back of the room, when the explosion hits!

  • We may be overanalyzing it. It’s a reaction to the possibility that they will lose the House, or to talk that they will lose the House.

  • I think if the Democrats get control we will have so many investigations going on, by the time 2008 comes around nobody will want to vote for Republicans at all. This is the thing that the Republicans fear most: John Conyers, chairman of the judiciary committee. Having the ability to call hearings and subpoena administration officials will change everything.

    On the other hand, Iraq will still be going on and it will still be going badly, and after a couple of years the Republicans will be able to fool some people into blaming the Democrats for screwing it up when “the Republicans were just about to win it”.

    But perhaps the most important thing about Democratic wins would be that the media will have to play at least somewhat fair to both sides, because they won’t know who’s going to win. Lately it’s been all Republican talking points all the time, and I’m getting really really sick of it.

  • The right thing for Democrats to do is to take responsibility for the mess the Republicans have made, and do it ASAP.

  • To a large extent, American voters make reactionary choices (e.g., Nixon to Carter to Reagan, Bush to Clinton to Bush). because neither party is very good at governing. Sometimes, events beyond one’s control also factor in . So being in power does carry some risk of being deposed in upcoming elections.

    However, as we’ve seen for the past six years, you can’t play if you aren’t in the game, and the only way to get in the game is to win control of something.

    The answer, of course, is to behave yourself and do a responsible, respectable job when you’re in the majority. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, politics seems to attract people who are unable do that.

  • jg has been wrong about everything so far and extends the streak here. a big dem win fractures the publicans in a profound way. and, who knows? people may decide speaker pelosi – or whoever – may be the best thing to happen to have happened to the house since, oh, speaker rayburn.

  • I remember hearing similar garbage during the 2000 recount. “Oh, whoever wins this is going to wish they hadn’t, all the controversy makes the prize not worth having.” And the Nader-backers thought that getting Bush in office would be a great thing since everyone would hate him so much by 2004 that liberals would sweep back into power. Remember how well that worked out?

    We want AND need to win. Any argument to the contrary is utter BS.

    Likewise, worrying that having dems running the House will give the GOP a target is just silly. The right will run against “liberals” no matter what party runs congress, because that is what they do. Whether their attacks make any sense is beside the point; their base eats them up regardless. If there were only one Democrat in the entire legislative branch, the GOP noise machine would on about how responsible that dem was for everything bad.

    Stop worrying about what they will do to us and start making them worry about what we will do to them.

    Whatever noises there are coming from the pantload or others about it being good for the GOP to lose the midterms is preemptive rationalization and attempted head-fake. Go ask Ken Mehlman if he’s trying to throw the game. They aren’t; they’re dumping buckets of money anyplace they can to try to stave off defeat.

  • Jonah Goldbrick said, ” letting the Democrats run wild ”

    Interesting characterization. A version of Reagon’s “there you go again”. The stupid Repugs still think they’re the “adults”.

  • Kind of symbolic of where we are now in so many no win scenarios.

    But, I think that the Democrats could use a majority in the House as a springboard to a greater majority in the House plus winning the WH and Senate in 2008 if:
    1. They can truly reform their own party and reduce corruption.
    2. They can craft simple, straight forward legislation that is free of poison pills and loopholes.
    3. They can garner the support of moderate Republicans.
    4. Their leadership can avoid grandstanding in front of the cameras and microphones and making sniping so easy for their foes.
    5. They can gain some message discipline.
    6. They can responsibly help to tailor a way out of Iraq that both parties can support.
    7. They can avoid the obstructionist label while putting the brakes on the Bush administration.
    8. They can demonstrate competence.

  • “people may decide speaker pelosi – or whoever – may be the best thing to happen to have happened to the house since, oh, speaker rayburn.”

    jag makes a good point. It seems to me that Repubs are making a mistake when they think that the spectre of “Speaker Pelosi” is going to scare independents, since her views and manner aren’t particularly weird. Plus, she’s been barely a blip on the media radar screen, probabaly due to the fact that she refuses to take shit from lazy journalists,

  • “It turns out power isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” J. Goldberg

    It sure as hell isn’t if it’s used as crassly and bluntly as RepubCo has, though the top of the heap has accumulated plenty of self serving debris to show for RepubCo efforts. The opportunities for Dems go far beyond the horizon if we can show some imagination, perseverance and most of all, a willingness for Dem politicians to administer non-corruption oaths to themselves and then stick themselves to those oaths with fly tape. ShrubCo/RebubCo has been very, very bad. They are dirtier than even the most knowledgeable among us knows. Do the Dems have the guts or even the moral position themselves to go after RepubCo with enthusiasm and no fear of blowback?

    The years between ’06 and ’08 shouldn’t be an exercise in self congratulatory chair warming with Dems doing nothing more than gloating about the ability to claim a number of seats. And at the same time wondering how long the other side is going to let “us” keep them.

    Do something. It’s why the third party concept, no matter how unrealistic, is never far away. I constantly feel like we need a whole new team. A team of John Conyers’. Does either party have an idea of what it means to govern honestly and with the American people’s best interests at the absolute forefront? Does either party know how to gather it’s energy and project a future that doesn’t motivate people with anything beyond lie induced fear and the promise of endless vistas of crap lovingly presented on a platinum card?

    Anything that slows the juggernaut of RepubCo stupidity and self dealing is good. But having gotten the seats, what the hell are we going to do with them? Power is fantastic. It just needs to used correctly, (how’s that for an understatement). Is that possible considering the current state of human evolution? The answer, whatever it may be, is becoming quite relevant.

  • I am with Tom Cleaver and Racerx. Democrats once they have control of one branch of congress can open investigations. The result of these investigations will ruin most people’s taste for a Republican president in 2008. How would this be bad for Democrats?

    BushCo. must not only be investigated for past crimes, they must be prevented from creating any more crimes. Democrats in control of at least one branch of congress, and preferably the senate where they can stop judical nominations, will put the breaks on BushCo. How would this be bad for country?

  • I’m in agreement that the country can’t afford another two years of Republican dominance, but to not acknowledge that there will be a downside to Democratic control of the house is shortsighted in my book. The Republicans will lash back with a vengeance, they can’t help it, it’s what they do.

    The Republicans may be reading the economic tea leaves. A lot of economists are predicting a recession after the first of the year. If Democrats are in power while we are simultaneously in a recession the argument might be made against us that if only we had more tax breaks a recession wouldn’t have occured.

  • Americans don’t like political parties and they don’t like ideology. The Founding Fathers constructed a system in which virtually all politics (except the presidential) is local. They will react as a group, however, when things have gotten really, really bad for us as a nation: Harding’s scandals, Hoover’s depression, L. Johnson’s Vietnam (and the whole “politically correct”-business up through McGovern and beyond). This is such a time.

    With two years of subpoena power we should, at long last, be able to reveal to the American public how bad things are: the Quagmire in Iraq, the Halliburton theft there (plus insisting on loyalty to the GOP even to work in reconstruction), FEMA’s boondoggles, corrupting the election process, bankrupting the future by stealing for the obscenely rich, the K-street project, off-year gerrymandering, the many linked criminal conspiracies of the Abramoff gang, the truth behind the Enron (and similar) energy scandals, and so on — a veritable smorgasbord of crimes, scandals, treasons, corruptions and failures, all laid at the doorstep of the Grand Old Party (which is still steadfastly refusing to do its self-policing duty).

    The Democrats haven’t been handed such a golden opportunity since November, 1929. And, having worked with the original San Francisco ({Phil) Burton machine, where Nancy Pelosi learned her politics, I have no fear of her taking the Speakership. I look forward to it. It’ll be great fun, trust me.

  • I am with Tom Cleaver and Racerx. Democrats once they have control of one branch of congress can open investigations.

    Rege… et al.

    Keep your ears open to this and you will hear Big media actually questioning whether that is a good thing.

    Put another way: MSM actually debates whether our government should have any oversight from one branch to the other!

    Of course they know their civics, so their position isn’t based on ignorance. Rather, this is just one more bright example of how the right wing has managed to shift the debate away from the needs of a vibrant democracy, to the needs of their own mendacious party.

    Knowing and seeing this…
    Whom do you fear more?
    The terrorists outside or the Republicans inside?

  • “Whom do you fear more?
    The terrorists outside or the Republicans inside? “

    That’s easy. The terrorists destroyed a few buildings in NYC, and killed 3,000 people. The republicans destroyed an entire American city, a foreign country of 25 million, and have killed tens of thousands of people.

    This isn’t a game. The republicans must be reined in in November. The country and the world can’t afford 2 more years of this crowd running amok, no matter what political price the democrats may or may not have to face in 2008 for trying to clean up the mess.

    We need to put country above party too. I don’t care what happens to the democrats in 2008 – we are in a crisis right now.

  • It is the job of politicians to clean up messes and fix problems. Any politician who doesn’t think that they can fix a problem and who wants to let the opponents either clean up their own messes or enmire themselves further doesn’t deserve to be elected and shouldn’t be in the business. Problems are opportunities, because voters tend to reward people who clean up difficult problems, and they will also tend to vote for winners. Also, whoever is in charge gets to control the whole conversation. So, yes, winning is always the only worthwhile result.

  • IMO we cannot afford another two years of unobstructed Repub rule. The war & related issues, the humongous deficit, environmental degradation, continued abuse of the middle class and the poor, cronyism, etc., etc. I’d love to see Conyers chair the Judiciary Committee. Pelosi isn’t my fav, but she’s more than up to the task; I’ve seen her in action. I think the R’s are shaking in their boots at the very thought of a Dem takeover of the House. Getting the Senate closer, if not 50-50, and if the moderate R’s would vote with the Dems, would definitely help. Bush/Cheney/Rummy are like the plague at this point.

    #22 Lou: good list. The Dems have got to prove that they are the party that can get things done, with integrity. Boot all wrong-doers out to prove that point. (ie the opposite of how the Rs treated DeLay)

    To me the biggest question is: will the votes be counted correctly on November 7th?

  • This has all the markings of a nuclear detonation—and it’s got “Dem” written all over it.

    First, taking the Senate will not stop Herr Bush’s myriad appointments; he’ll just make “recess appointments. They’re good for one year. He’ll get three major opportunities to do this, being December 2006, December 2007, and December 2008. remember—the snivelling little schwein is in office until January, 2009. Beginning with this year, look for a lot of those appointments to be made, especially if he loses the Senate.

    Second, losing either (or both) Houses of Congress on November 7 gives these fanatics until January 3 to screw things up as badly as is possible; everything broken beyond the point of meaningful repair, and just in time for Dems to inherit the entire mess.

    Third, I’m expecting that Herr Bush might try something before the midterms now. In order to win, one must campaign. One cannot campaign if one is called into special session. All Herr Bush has to do is to convene the Congress during the recess, throw something into the works that the two Houses cannot agree on, and then—“Adjourn the Congress until a time that he sees fit.” Go back and read your Constitution, and tell me if that power is specifically limited to a unique “term” of the Congress

    Fourth, the “plot” of item 3 (above) also works if we only take 1 of the 2 Houses. If Herr Bush summarily adjourns Congress, there can be no investigations.

    Fifth, there is also a huge “fog” outside the Beltway right now. A lot of the more wingnutty Theofascists have stopped hurling their “scream-preach” tirades at the People. The common thought is that they’re beginning to draw in their tentacles, preparing for at least a short-term hibernation of sorts, due to losing power in Washington. But their silence might also suggest that these hateful freaks are shifting from “talk” to “walk.” The Ann Coulters of the world will always “suggest” openly that so-and-so needs to die—but they’re not stupid enough to come right out in front of cameras and microphones to tell their jackboot-groupies to start the next “Nacht der Langen Messer.”

    Sixth, the Dem power structure has demonstrated, for several years now, a timidity that can only be labelled “McClellandism.” As with President Lincoln’s infamous General Gallop-in-Place, Dems have demonstrated a willingness to hunker down when any true form of action requires actually engaging the opposing force. The Senate Dems have developed this into an art form. If there’s any indication that they don’t fully understand all of the intricacies of an issue, they’ll sit on their paws and mew for more information—like kittens mewing for their supper. Republikanners going on about “we really don’t want this “power” any more has the potential to make Harry and his gang sit up, wonder WTF is going on that they don’t know enough about—and then go into another of their renowned do-little-to-nothing acts.

    Finally, openly promoting an idea that makes people think that the GOP is voluntarily relinquishing power could cause a lot of pro-Dem/anti-GOP folks to stay home on Election Day. “Why bother?” they’ll say. “It’s in the bag; I can sleep in. I can go golfing. I can watch a movie. I can spend time with the kids.” And they won’t know that it’s blowing up in their faces, until after the polls are closed….

  • Why worry about buying legislators when you can buy judges? The prevailing myth is that judges make the law so just bypass Congress altogether. The National Chamber of Commerce (in the flow chart, it’s the header above Republican Party) is actively trying to “place” business-friendly judges in state courts. Check out the race between Judge Hunstein and Wiggins for the Georgia Supreme Court. Hunstein is targeted because she is a woman with a jewish sounding name and is ergo a liberal. She isn’t but truth never stopped a good attack ad.

  • I think the reason the Fundamentalists may not be as out there now is, the right is bothered and puzzled by, for example, Fox viewership being down, etc.

    Looking for an explanation, maybe they’ve found indicators that in-your-face stuff like the ultra-religious stuff is what’s turning people off. So they’re stepping off it for a minute to keep people from turning away from getting real turned off before the elections.

  • Goldberg’s logic reminds me of the (most likely apocryphal) story of Hall of Fame baseball player Frankie Frisch. Late in his career, Frisch was a player-manager, and one day he started a rookie in centerfield who proceeded to make a bunch of errors. Frustrated, Frisch pulled the rookie and inserted himself at center, then proceeded to flub the first ball hit his way. He threw down his glove, glared at the rookie and said, “You’ve got centerfield so screwed up nobody can play it!”

    Conservatives would love to convince everyone that government is so inherently inefficient that there’s no way it can ever do any good. I even believed it once. Although I voted for Clinton in ’92, I didn’t think he could actually do anything about the deficit. And yet he eliminated it in just a few years. Granted, the mess Bush has left this country in is far worse than anything Reagan ever did, but I still believe that we’ll climb our way out of this crater eventually.

    The other part of Goldberg’s argument that doesn’t make sense is the idea that, because governing hasn’t been good to the GOP, they should lose this election, which would position them well to win in 2008, when … they would have to govern again. Maybe the GOP plan should just be to forever aim to be in the loyal opposition. Now that’s an idea I could get behind.

  • The Conservatives are just like a cat that accidently falls off something to the great embarrassment of its dignity, flirts its tail and strolls off as if to say “I meant to do that”.

    So they figure they are going to lose control of the house in 2006 and they want to say “We meant to do that so we can win in 2008. Aren’t we clever” (as opposed to being absolutely pathetic).

  • Many good comments, but I probably most agree w/ semper fubar. The Republic IS ON FIRE, as in burning to the ground. The Dems have a duty to try to win control of or increase their influence over as much of the government as possible – if they care about their country more than any political “fall out” they might have to deal with upon being awarded by the voters with a greater voice in governing this nation.

    Jonah Goldberg has just admitted that his side does not know how to govern. So, what else has he got except his vile, thin hope that the Dems will prove to be equally dismal and ineffective that Republicans will continue to hold the WH and drive the nation further into the ground? In my best imitation of a Ken Mehlman email: Why is the future of the Republican party more important to Jonah Goldberg than the future of America? Why does Jonah Goldberg hate America? Why does he hope for continuing, deepening failure by the federal governement on the chance that it will bring his party success in holding the WH in 2008?

    Am I the only one who thinks she is stuck in an episode of the “Twilight Zone,” because this fool Goldberg is given a platform from which to spew his lame-ass postulations?

  • There was a certain logic to the downside of winning for the 2004 election. Kerry as president with a republican congress would have meant monumental gridlock and ceasless attacks, with Dems possibly taking the fall for “losing” Iraq.

    But a 2006 House win for the Dems now is essential to rescue the nation. But revenge and punishment as first priorities will sour the victory. Investigate as necessary but we must work across the aisle to some extent fashion strong legislation to save health care, education, the environment, etc.

    Responsible, effective leadership of the House will extend the gains in 2008.

  • Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead. Or as someone once said (in an Alex Guiness movie, I think), kick up your heels, and blow it out your ass. We’ve got the best opportunity we’ve had in a very long. Let’s make the most of it. Doesn’t do any good to worry anyway.

  • Have been reading the comments on and off all day (come up to the puter for a smoke break) and, throughout them all, one thought comes foremost: *if only* our representatives (those incumbent and those about to be annointed. Erm. Elected) had as much fire in their bellies ass we do. And stiff pokers up their butts to keep them from wilting when a K-Street fox comes a-temptin’ with a package of “lettuce” to stick into one’s freezer…

    What a wonnerful world it would be!

  • Gain a house, use real power to investigate, and 2008 will not be a problem. Look at what we *know*. Imagine what we can find under the rocks.

    -jjf

  • I think the Repub commentators don’t want to appear disloyal, by actually admitting that the Dems would do a better job, but that some of them are actually thinking that yes, the Dems would do a better job.

  • Libra — Just from casual observation over at DailyKos there are about 15 Dems running for Congress who are Iraqi war veterans. If you’re looking for reps with fire in their bellies these might be the ones that have it.

    And to Ed. Aye, aye, captain.

  • Democrat, Republican, Silly Party. I don’t care who wins as long as they use their position to block that fucking wind-up monkey and defend the Constitution!

    Sorry for the blasphemy but watching the bastion of freedom become the bastion of bastards makes me a bit cranky.

    • Comments are closed.