Off-topic: You have the best 'change font size' icon I've ever seen!

Posted by Mr. Snitch! at September 5, 2006 08:23 PM

The only thing that keeps me from that is that the Democrats would be a disaster if they controlled the congress for two years.--GMR

It's a disaster that they even exist as an organized Party, given their lack of , well just about anything remotely resembling a policy. But the Republicans DESERVE TO LOSE.

The ruling Republican elites are not worthy of any further support. They don't get it. They didn't get it yesterday. And they won't get it tomorrow.

Ted Stevens is THEM. Corruption coupled with stupidity and seasoned with institutional arrogance.

I had this discussion elsewhere and was excoriated for heresy, but because I am nothing if not persistent in my lunacies, why care if the Democrats win this year?

The economy is perhaps due for a serious downshifting. Soon.

The War in Iraq is (let's be honest, folks) a cluster**** of monumental proportions with the only stability in sight being the theocratic rule of people we would disdain if they were not the best of a bad lot. Does anyone still think things are going well there? Really?

Immigration is not being addressed in any meaningful manner. It's too 'difficult'.

There is no Energy Policy worth the name.

Let's say for the sake of argument that things are objectively likely to get WORSE than they are to get BETTER over the next few years. Just for the sake of argument.

Why not let the Democrats wear the bad news when things begin to hit that proverbial fan ? It's not as if the current Republicans will ever muster the intellect or will to do anything about anything.

Better to lose in 2006 and then be able to have someone else to blame than to be the only player at the table in 2008 when all the hands are Aces & Eights. Presidential Elections are important. Congress is ---not so much. One self-important poltroon is very much like another, as we are seeing more clearly every day.

Yeah yeah, I know that the Democrats are run by loonies, but based upon how the Congress actually works(works used very very very loosely in this context), does anyone see them really doing anything profound other than running around aimlessly making fools of themselves? I surely can't.

Frankly the whole system looks to be broken beyond repair. The US is just damn fortunate that it has assets to burn. It's bankrupt political class is now incapable of doing anything much other than protecting itself. The World is spinning faster(figuatively), and yet the political system in place is dysfunctional for even 1906, never mind 2006.

Normally the saying is that things have to get worse before they get better. Perhaps in this case they just have to get worse.

Period.

Just saying----

Posted by dougf at September 5, 2006 08:50 PM

They say of Chicago politics, "Vote early, vote often".

Perhaps you're saying that the Republican cry should be: "Vote Twice. . . Once in November, once in March."?

After all, most Republican candidates were _nominated_ before you could hold your nose in order to vote for 'em. Incumbents hardly fear November. Maybe they should begin to fear March(the primary/nominating process)?

Or perhaps an incumbent evaluation month in the lead-in October or January or both? It would make time for newcomers to solidify plans and incumbents time to explain themselves thoroughly. One week local, one week state, one week national, and one week explaining their meek servitude to the Constution and its owners. And the party voters would know to check in once a week to keep up.

Posted by james at September 5, 2006 09:21 PM

Why not target 1or 2 of the most undesirable of the Republican congresscritters from each House and go after them in a concentrated national campaign in each election even if it means handing over that race to a Democrat. That way we can send a strong message to the national party while minimizing Republican losses.

Posted by nick at September 6, 2006 01:13 AM

"a "Vote The Bastards Out" Party"

Or a vote the bastards out election. Rather than vote "for" someone only because you don't want the other guy to win (which is what we're doing) - let's have a vote "against" someone election. Those who get the least votes win!

Yes, a dumb idea, but is what we're doing now any better?

It is just incomprehensible to me that they would willfully seek to hide information that A) has nothing to do with national security and 2) is completely antithetical to their own claims and demands for government transparency.

I can only come to the conclusion that their bloated self-images and the fact that they are totally convinced of their intellectual superiority has truly gotten in the way of seeing that we are rapidly becoming an well informed public.

While the Democrats are so fond of using the analogy of the Emperor's New Clothes in relation to Bush, they AND their Republican counterparts in the Congress have yet to notice that they themsleves are naked.

Posted by Oyster at September 6, 2006 07:44 AM

Top 10 Republican Campaign Themes For 2006

10) The Democrats would be even worse than us. No, really, I mean it. Hey, stop laughing.

9) Domestic oil production? We don't need no stinking domestic oil production.

8) It's the flag burning, stupid.

7) Republicanos son por imagracion reforma.

6) Reelect Republicans, you extremist knuckle-dragging neo-con Christian Neanderthals, because we will stand up for your interests. And we really mean it this time.

5) Keep Conservative Judges Off The Bench: Reelect Republicans to the Senate. (I'm Arlen Specter and I approved this message.)

4) Our unfettered pork spending is conservative unfettered pork spending.

3) Reelect the Party of McCain because free speech is highly overrated anyway.

2) Vote Republican because there are still a few uninhabited islands that don't have bridges to them yet.

1) We were for smaller government before we were against it.

Posted by Disgusted With Them All at September 6, 2006 09:29 AM

1) The unpleasant truth is that neither conservatives nor liberals have a reliable working majority in Congress. In the absence of a coherent ideology/program, politicians have no motivation to act other than in their own self-interest - self preservation.

2) Divided governement & stalemate historically is the only thing that will rein in government spending. However, given the behavior of Congress over the past six years, it may well be that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans will agree on is to spend money, and worse, that spending will increase because people from both parties will have to be bought off.

3) Meanwhile, the rest of the conservative agenda will go down the drain (especially regarding judges), although it may be headed there in any event.

4) A Republican defeat in one or both houses of Congress is the only thing that could reform the party. However, (see #1), the more likely impact is that cowardice will set in and Republicans will try to tack leftward, which will only further alienate the base and fragment the party. Since the Democrats are already fragmented, and since our system is not designed for multi-party rule, Congress will effectively devolve into a set of shifting alliances ruled by politicians' perception of how they can keep in office. Coherence of policy and national interest will take a back seat.

In other words, the "show them a lesson in 2006" will probably lead to further disarray in 2008 rather than a successful regrouping of forces.

5) With divided government, on foreign policy, we will abdicate our world leadership and leave ourselves vulnerable to attacks from jihadists. The scenarios range from dangerous to catastrophic, of which the greatest threats are (a) nuclear conflict in the Middle East (involving Iran and their surrogates versus their declared target [possibly with technical and material assistance from North Korea]); and (b)a major terror attack on U.S. soil. The latter will test our civic institutions to a degree unprecedented since the War Between the States.

6) On the other hand, if our elected officials do not change their ways, 2008 could produce an even larger electoral explosion as the "vote against" element becomes dominant.

The great dilemma is mediating between (a) it's worth enduring short-term pain in 2006 in order to create the conditions conducive to long-term benefit versus (b) we may not survive the short-term complications of the operation.

GM, in balance, I agree with your endpoint because I lean towards (b). However, if the Republican party stays in power and if its leadership doesn't get the message and reform itself (which unfortunately it may not be able to), then the consequences will be even worse in 2008.

The tragic consequence of our politicans' continuing to fiddle away like Nero is that millions (or even billions) will die horrible deaths, deaths that could have been avoided with genuine leadership.

Posted by civil truth at September 6, 2006 10:39 AM

What has to happen is, Republicans that are not happy with their elected officials need to get active in the primary season. If a strong GOP candidate can unseat the incumbent early, there will be no need to worry about the Dems taking control of anything. Until the Deaniac wing is expelled for the Democratic party, there will not be any other choice, except bad and worse.

The only other choice is to have a third party, but doing that splits the vote and would probably result in a Dem victory.

Posted by LASunsett at September 6, 2006 04:05 PM

Messages sent by the party faithful in a general election are usually garbled and ambiguous. Messages are much clearer in primaries. In a general election, the politician wonders "Did they agree, but I'm uninspiring? Have I gone too far Right and lost the moderate voter? Was my opponent's base sending a message to him? Was it voter turnout organization? Was it my speech in the last week?"

In a primary, the truth is harder to evade.

dougf - those sorts of "let's strategically lose this one to take advantage of events" always sounds so tempting, but events seldom line up as neatly as we would hope. Don't let's be too clever by half and outwit ourselves.

I'm the Assistant Village Idiot, that's my role. Keep it simple. Vote for who you like most or hate least.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at September 6, 2006 05:05 PM

Keep it simple. Vote for who you like most or hate least.--TVI

No, you are more than correct. The 'strategic approach' seldom really works out in practise as neatly as it does in theory, but what is happening now is not working either.

As a child of the 60ties, I remember that famous phrase by Dylan about it being merely a choice between one unpleasant thing and another unpleasant thing. Sometimes it really is.

And when the situation determines that environment, that is a false choice because it represents no real choice at all.

" The Democrats would be even worse than us. No, really, I mean it. Hey, stop laughing." --DWTA

That hurts because it is so glaringly true. The operative definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting to achieve completely different results.

Since Plan "A" is failing miserably, why not put the money down on Plan "B". The 'worst' thing for Republicans would be if they lost and the Democrats actually managed to do a good job. But paradoxically that would be absolutely the best thing for the country. But seriously who thinks that is likely to happen ?

The probable outcome is just more or the same deadlock where NOTHING gets done, but 'different' people use stalling procedures to bog everything down, in the unlikely event that someone actually comes up with a 'good' idea. And I repeat, who should care which group of cretins is nominally in charge of the train-wreck ? It's still going to be a train-wreck. Putting a " R" or a "D" before the noun does not alter the fact that the train is burning alongside the tracks. The argument that it is OUR train-wreck, seems rather dubious to me.

If it's going to be lemon season anyway( and this is what the discussion should be about)--- the wise course is to trot out those lemonade recipes.

Staying The Course ---- Not so good in Iraq; Not much better in Washington.

Posted by dougf at September 6, 2006 06:11 PM

Great Texas blog! Now we see how the Democrats have to pressure ABC to change the script on their docudrama brodcasting this Sunday and Monday.

I'm a bit scared at how much control they have still. Imagine if they were back in power? See my blog at http://sadbastards.wordpress.com.

Albright: 'The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory'...
ABC Terrorism Drama Stirs Controversy...
UPDATE: Clinton Administration Officials Assail 'The Path to 9/11'...
Clinton demanded network 'pull the drama' if no changes...

ABC ALTERS 9/11 FILM DUE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE

Posted by Greg Michael at September 7, 2006 05:08 PM

Time to take away the right of the House to set its own size. A 1:30,000 House to end the era of Landed Aristocrats and give the People back their House.

And end this era of featherbedding and sinecured seats and turn being a Representative back into a JOB that someone actually has to DO.

Posted by ajacksonian at September 10, 2006 12:11 PM