Gitmo for some! Democracy-reaffirming hugs for others!
Now why couldn't the DNC use that as its national message?
Dear FBI,
Please note that he's the skinny, pointy-headed one.
Love,
FL
5 to 4? -- 4 is more the Republican platform.
I don't think a message goes well with meth. I would rather have a message and some weed.
Or a democracy affirming hug. Either way.
What's happened to your self-image as the reasonable, not especially partisan middle-grounder?
even if we'd killed a million Iraqis
If 100 million innocent muslims had to die to prevent the another 9/11, what percentage of the american public would respond, "sucks to be them"?
It depresses me that I actually found myself wondering yesterday if it would be better in the long run to have a republican win tomorrow ... and in two years.
Better in the sense of giving enough extra rope to well and truly hang themselves (and the country with them, unfortunately). I have a real fear that the democrats are going to end up in the white house with deadlocked houses and a horrendous mess on their hands. It could let the republicans off the hook.
I'd love to see this branch of the republican tree unfeasable for generations. I'm worried we're not there yet.
I don't think it is nearly as effective for democrats beat the Bush/Cheney/Rove republicans as it would be for republicans to run them out of town; and the lunatic fringe of the evangelicals along with them.
15 -- Well, but, what about FDR's presidency? He came into office with a Republican-devised catastrophe of greater proportions than what we see today, and left one of the best-beloved presidents of our time.
I don't think it is nearly as effective for democrats beat the Bush/Cheney/Rove republicans as it would be for republicans to run them out of town; and the lunatic fringe of the evangelicals along with them.
The lunatic fringe is the base, and cannot be run out of town; that strikes me as the big change over the last fifteen to twenty years.
I don't think it is nearly as effective for democrats beat the Bush/Cheney/Rove republicans as it would be for republicans to run them out of town; and the lunatic fringe of the evangelicals along with them.
Once you take out the evangelical fringe and the B/C/R Republicans, you'd be left with a party of about a dozen people. So I wouldn't hold out much hope for that strategy.
ogged is right:
it would be better if people were less selfish, racist, xenophobic, and all around vicious than they are.
16: do you see an FDR in the wings? The economic effects of all this nonsense haven't been felt yet, either.
17: It's a base, sure. Is it the only one? I'm particularly thinking of the fringe though, are the evangelicals *all* given over to apocalyptic nonsense etc.? Is there no way to split the base? It's a shame the system is so entrenched as two-party, in that respect.
18: If you are right, that doesn't help the depression issue at all. Regardless, I'm not convinced it's a plausible strategy. That, in itself, is terribly depressing because it suggests there is no place in US politics for principled conservatives anymore.
17: It's a base, sure. Is it the only one?
It's massive and the most important one; it's the one with the infrastructure. Anyone who thinks Rove is going away is crazy, and the "crazy" base is the part of the Republican Party from which he draws his strength. And it's not just the evangelicals who are crazy.
do you see an FDR in the wings?
Well, Edwards is not wheelchair-bound...
21: I doubt anyone knew that FDR was going to be FDR before-the-fact, either.
I've actually been having the opposite thoughts as 15 has been having.
The essence of Republican rule has been to push problems out of sight, force them on future generations, shove them on people who don't have as much voice, and to simply manipulate the media into ignoring them.
There little likelihood of complete, undeniable catastrophe following another Republican victory. No matter how bad the economic policy, the dollar is unlikely to collapse. No matter how much we are disgraced abroad, NATO is unlikely to break apart. Nothing will happen that will let us run the Republicans out on a rail.
Instead, protracted Republican rule will just make the suffering of the voiceless that much worse, and that much harder to fix when responsible people come to office. Sure a Republican victory might hasten the end of the American empire by a decade or so, but since no one can predict well how the American empire will end, there is no way to get a “big disgraceful loss for Republicans” out of it.
Every year the Republicans are in power, every aspect of the American government will get worse, and more people will be convinced that Republican governance is a bad idea. However, they will also become more convinced that there is no other option.
26: I'm more concerned about voter apathy. In the sense that a slight margin victory for D's now will leave them fairly impotent. You get a term out of it, but the R's come back both stronger and able try and pin blame for all sorts of crap on that ineffective term. The D's need to do better than just win, they need enough majority to actually get things accomplished.
I guess I didn't articulate it well, but I'm thinking that a slight victory for D's now set the stage for another two or more R terms afterward, for pretty much the reasons you give.
As far as FDR being predictable, no, I don't think so either. But the D's bench isn't looking particularly impressive, to abuse a metaphor.
I guess part of it comes down to this: We know the lunatic fringe base of the R's is organized and going to show up. Are liberals in the US worried enough about this yet to combat it effectively? I'm not convinced.
Oh, and also to 26: I'm not so sure about the economy being that stable. I can see plausible scenarios where a housing collapse (which is overdue to many's thinking) triggers a general slump which isn't recoverable given the debt load. A little outside leaning from creditors and things could get genuinely tight.
No matter how bad the economic policy, the dollar is unlikely to collapse.
All it takes is the Chinese deciding it's time for the dollar to collapse. We really are at their mercy on that front.
30: for `creditors' in 29, read `China' in particular
30: Right now the Chinese couldn't collapse the dollar without hurting themselves as much as they hurt the US. I don't see them making any strong moves against the dollar until they develop their high end manufacturing, quell internal unrest, and in general finish the transition to first world status. (Of course, I am not an international monetary policy analyst [IANAIMPA])
I don't really understand why some measurement of my seething hatred can't be used to decide elections and apportion Congressional seats.
30: Well that's sort of the point isn't it? The reason they don't is because they are deriving benefit from holding US debt. On the other hand, there is no reason to expect them to play nice if this balance is upset --- by, say, an economic slump. Which is why I said there are plausible scenarios for major economic pain in the US, and this is one of them. Like you, though, I don't know enough about monetary policy etc. to understand what is probable; I'm just saying this certainly seems plausible from my limited data.
25:FDR was not only not predictable, he did not have it at all easy, or really was that successful until WWII. During the 30s a very activist and even violent (in Detroit) labor movement helped motivate ownership toward concessions. An active left helped in other ways and overseas threats helped. Yet he was still only moderately successful.
As with WWI in much of Europe, (check England during WWI) the labor movement achieved hegemony with existential blackmail during time of war. WWII was the key. After a brief period of attempted Republican reaction, after WWII, with war debt, a devastated overseas market, and another enemy, business was again willing to compromise.
The consensus fell apart during the 70s, all over the world. I am still working out why.
But A) Americans just love war, as long as they win.
B) Politics is war by other means. If labor, or the poor, or the left want to win, they have to be willing and able to burn the whole fucking place down to the ground, with massive collateral damage.
Being willing usually is enough to get to the table.
On a related (sadly) note, anyone watched `Jesus Camp' ?
Being willing usually is enough to get to the table.
But there's a problem when two at the table are playing "One of us is going to be reasonable and it ain't going to be me."
The consensus fell apart during the 70s...
Too many people in the middle class trying diligently (with the help of Madison Ave) to identify up instead of down?
I just can't get behind "we should let them win so they're the ones stuck with this shit" arguments. Being Not The Republicans is hardly a strong identity for the Democratic Party; being, in turn, Not The Party In Charge is hardly any way to find opportunities for leadership. Figuring that if the Republicans rule long enough they'll piss off everyone, including their base, is like letting Charles Manson go on the theory he'll sooner or later kill everyone and then he'll have to off himself for one last hurrah.
I don't really buy that we've got a shot at the Senate, and I don't buy that we're going to have an overwhelming majority in the House or that even if we did the Democrats would be able to turn things around, end the war and prosecute everyone from the White House dishwasher on up, but I do see potential, IF there's enough of a majority and Pelosi can hold the reins with a firm hand, for the House to put the barely-Republican senate and the Bush White House in some very tight spots, PR-wise. Make the Senate vote down a minimum wage increase. Subpoena some officials and put the screws to them on camera. Get Cheney in there and force him to refuse to talk about his energy policy meetings. Force Bush to veto something uncontroversially good for the people but bad for those to whom he's so thoroughly beholden. Start asking Halliburton where the money's gone. Start letting the cameras into some meetings so the Republicans have to pull their tricks on the record. To those who fear a Democratic majority but deadlock, I say that a deadlock where the Democrats get to ask a question or two beats eight kinds of hell out of more of what we've got now: Republicans who can do whatever they like for whatever reason. No amount of rope will be enough to hang the party leadership somewhere the crazy-ass religious base will ever care. These are not people who care about fiscal policy or principled conservatism or small government, they are people who want a bully with a Bible and no amount of other evil on the part of BushCo will ever make these people just go away.
On the FDR tip, let's not forget the length of his Presidency. If he'd been limited to eight years in office, would things have looked that different when he left than they did when he started? I am neither a historian nor an economist, so I honestly don't know. My point is, let's not bank on anymore FDR's on either side, ever again. It's a situation that simply can't be applied realistically to any contemporary or future scenario simply because of his longevity, it seems to me.
I don't really buy that we've got a shot at the Senate, and I don't buy that we're going to have an overwhelming majority in the House
I think we'll end up with about the same majority that Republicans now have (which would be about a 30-seat pickup), and that we either end up with a 51-49 majority (if we take Missouri) or a 50-50 tie.
But I've had my optimism crushed before.
Figuring that if the Republicans rule long enough they'll piss off everyone, including their base, is like letting Charles Manson go on the theory he'll sooner or later kill everyone and then he'll have to off himself for one last hurrah.
Or that maybe it'll confuse the rabbit if we run away more.
37:But there's a problem when two at the table are playing "One of us is going to be reasonable and it ain't going to be me."
Business usually blinks, in a fair fight. Carnegie has less at stake, he can afford to give a little. That is why there is gov't, to provide army and police power to the rich, to unbalance the fight.
...
I will not predict the election results. For one thing, I doubt we will really know til February. There are many shenanigans available.
I think we'll end up with about the same majority that Republicans now have (which would be about a 30-seat pickup), and that we either end up with a 51-49 majority (if we take Missouri) or a 50-50 tie.
But I've had my optimism crushed before.
This would make me so deliriously happy that I think I'd wind up singing to a chipmunk in the front yard at 3am, unfiltered alcohol gushing from every other orifice in my body.
RMP, if your can manage to spin on your hands while doing that, you can be a sprinkler, too!
My optimism, and pessimism, currently reside in a series of bottles which will be opened as the evening progresses. A clean sweep and I might even break out the '75 Port Ellen.
Let us all post Becks-style tomorrow.
Let us all post Becks-style tomorrow.
except me.
Best of luck, guys. If the fix is in, it's been in for a month, so there's nothing you could have done. It'll probably be OK, but if the worst happens, remember this advice from a great left wing American.