EC-Bills Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 linky How could this perception even be possible?!?
KRC Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 linky How could this perception even be possible?!? 551971[/snapback] Congressional representatives corrupt? Never happen.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 linky How could this perception even be possible?!? 551971[/snapback] Their approval rating's still higher than the president's...
EC-Bills Posted January 4, 2006 Author Posted January 4, 2006 Congressional representatives corrupt? Never happen. 551978[/snapback] What's next? Partisan politics?!? <shudder>
KRC Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 What's next? Partisan politics?!? <shudder> 552033[/snapback] Now you are just talking crazy.
callemasiseesem Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 Now you are just talking crazy. 552045[/snapback] In 2004 401 of the 435 House members ran for reelection. 396 of them won. 25 of the 26 Senators up for reelection won. I don't expect 2006 to be any different.
KRC Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 In 2004 401 of the 435 House members ran for reelection. 396 of them won. 25 of the 26 Senators up for reelection won. I don't expect 2006 to be any different. 552082[/snapback] I tend to agree. There will be a few switching hands, but I do not see whole-sale changes. I think that you will see more activity than 2004, however. It is the normal political cycle. Republicans have been in power for a while, so things will start to shift towards the Dems. It is not that the Dems are better, just that people want a change. Now, if the Dems could actually get their shiite together, they may actually be able to do something significant. Their main problem is themselves. Until they fix that, they will continue to struggle and only make minimal changes.
Mickey Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 I tend to agree. There will be a few switching hands, but I do not see whole-sale changes. I think that you will see more activity than 2004, however. It is the normal political cycle. Republicans have been in power for a while, so things will start to shift towards the Dems. It is not that the Dems are better, just that people want a change. Now, if the Dems could actually get their shiite together, they may actually be able to do something significant. Their main problem is themselves. Until they fix that, they will continue to struggle and only make minimal changes. 552129[/snapback] I think the democrats have a losing hand that will be hard to play. The issue that will overshadow all others no matter what happens with Abramoff and all these corruption charges is the war. As for the war, what position is a winning one, politically, for the democrats? Any kind of pull out will be easily painted as a surrender, retreat, defeat, whatever. Whether or not it is the wisest course won't really matter, that is what it will be painted as and that is not a winning posture for the democrats at all. They could try and argue that the war is winnable with new leadership, that the Republicans have lied about it and screwed it up, etc., etc. But that argument really ends up being another version of "stay the course", which is the same argument the Republicans are relying on. That will not really offer the voters much of an alternative, certainly not enough for them to toss out their favorite pork barrel carrier. I just don't see a winning position for them on the war and I have my doubts that come November, the election is going to turn on who has been indicted the most on corruption charges as opposed to the war. Its what the democrats have to try and accomplish because if the war is the issue, they don't have a winning card to play. If they can make corruption the issue, which I highly, highly, doubt, they have a chance. I just don't see it happening, the war is the issue.
OGTEleven Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 I think the democrats have a losing hand that will be hard to play. The issue that will overshadow all others no matter what happens with Abramoff and all these corruption charges is the war. As for the war, what position is a winning one, politically, for the democrats? Any kind of pull out will be easily painted as a surrender, retreat, defeat, whatever. Whether or not it is the wisest course won't really matter, that is what it will be painted as and that is not a winning posture for the democrats at all. They could try and argue that the war is winnable with new leadership, that the Republicans have lied about it and screwed it up, etc., etc. But that argument really ends up being another version of "stay the course", which is the same argument the Republicans are relying on. That will not really offer the voters much of an alternative, certainly not enough for them to toss out their favorite pork barrel carrier. I just don't see a winning position for them on the war and I have my doubts that come November, the election is going to turn on who has been indicted the most on corruption charges as opposed to the war. Its what the democrats have to try and accomplish because if the war is the issue, they don't have a winning card to play. If they can make corruption the issue, which I highly, highly, doubt, they have a chance. I just don't see it happening, the war is the issue. 552432[/snapback] Incumbency will be hard to overcome but I don't agree about the war/Abramoff. Anything can happen between now and November in the war. To me, the most likely scenario(s) probably would favor the Republicans or at least not leave the Dems many good options. With that said, I think the war itself may diminish in importance as an election issue. I do think that the Abramoff thing will get bigger. It has to. The war may become a "neutral" issue thus elevating Abramoff's importance. It may turn out the JA influenced members of both parties but most will be repubs. That can't help. It may not translate to a bunch of seats thanks to districting, but it will surely mean a few incumbents have to leave. It will likely mean more freshman congressman (via primary and general elections). Doubt about incumbents may not help the dems, but it can't hurt.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 I do think that the Abramoff thing will get bigger. 552494[/snapback] As do I. It's one thing to think most everyone in Washington is corrupt but it's quite another thing to have evidence to confirm it. People are going to get very pissed off and the media will play it for all it's worth...
GG Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 Too bad K Street wasn't seen by anyone on HBO. Talk about exposing the uncomfortable underbelly of DC, and having it disappear quicker than Dick Cheney in a bunker.
KRC Posted January 4, 2006 Posted January 4, 2006 I think the democrats have a losing hand that will be hard to play. The issue that will overshadow all others no matter what happens with Abramoff and all these corruption charges is the war. As for the war, what position is a winning one, politically, for the democrats? Any kind of pull out will be easily painted as a surrender, retreat, defeat, whatever. Whether or not it is the wisest course won't really matter, that is what it will be painted as and that is not a winning posture for the democrats at all. They could try and argue that the war is winnable with new leadership, that the Republicans have lied about it and screwed it up, etc., etc. But that argument really ends up being another version of "stay the course", which is the same argument the Republicans are relying on. That will not really offer the voters much of an alternative, certainly not enough for them to toss out their favorite pork barrel carrier. I just don't see a winning position for them on the war and I have my doubts that come November, the election is going to turn on who has been indicted the most on corruption charges as opposed to the war. Its what the democrats have to try and accomplish because if the war is the issue, they don't have a winning card to play. If they can make corruption the issue, which I highly, highly, doubt, they have a chance. I just don't see it happening, the war is the issue. 552432[/snapback] There is no question the Dems are fighting an uphill battle, mainly due to their inability to vocalize their stance on anything prior to this point. You cannot win elections by just saying "yeah, well the opposite of what he/she said." The Dems have also not done themselves any favors by just opposing anything put forth by the Republicans. When there is a problem, you need to take a stance on a solution. It might not be the best solution, but you have to at least put something forward for the electorate to chew on. The Dems have not done that. They just say, "Republicans are wrong" and leave it at that. If you want more Dems in power, the Dems need to show that they have ideas and solutions to the problems. Then, you campaign on those solutions stating that "We could not impliment these solutions because the Republicans blocked them. Help us get more Dems in office so that we can get these ideas enacted." Of course, once elected they will probably ignore these solutions, but at least they provided something for the electorate to vote for, not "vote for me because Republicans Bad." As OGT mentioned, there is no way to tell the impact of the war on the election. If the Dems do not take a specific side, then they have muted the effect of the war on the election. You need differing views in order to make it a focal point. Dems should stick to domestic issues. What is their plan for Social Security? It is broken, what are they going to do to fix it and how quickly? What about Medicare? Welfare reform? Tax relief? I haven't heard anything on these types of issues from the Dems. Just opposing whatever the Reps put forward.
EC-Bills Posted January 4, 2006 Author Posted January 4, 2006 Now you are just talking crazy. 552045[/snapback] Sorry about that. Please don't kick me out of the sandbox
Recommended Posts