Why Republicans Don’t Have to Worry About November

In a word: Democrats.

They can’t be this stupid, can they?

*CAN THEY–?!?*

20 Responses to “Why Republicans Don’t Have to Worry About November”

  1. gordon Says:

    Well, in addition to this, another issue is the whole torture issue. I believe the democrats thought the republicans couldn’t come up with anything. But McCain, Graham and Warner managed to come up with a wimpy little compromise. However, it looks like the White House is trying to wriggle out of the one actual concession they came up — no secret evidence. So, this gives the democrats another chance to stand up and be counted… will they? Will enough of them stand up?

  2. Scott Koblish Says:

    Of course they can be that stupid, but my suspicion is that Congresss is in for a bit of a change, and the nature of the new Democratic caucus will change with the addition of the new freshmen and freshwomen. Once either house has to choose new leadership we’ll hopefully see Pelosi and Reid replaced by others – one would expect Rohm Emanuelle to get something for his efforts… I know that the Republicans are already in the midst of their shake up – they’ve lost Ney and Delay, and if Boehner loses too many seats, he’s out too. Just a series of guesses on my part though.

    I’m hoping that we won’t be in any of the binds we’ve been in the past 6 years – where the balance of powers rests on the practical applications of the Constitution (i.e control of the Senate flips depending on which Independent (there will most likely be 2 of them in January) caucuses with either party, or the Vice President continuuing to break a 50/50 tie) I’m frankly a little tired of checking which Article of which Amendment enables which party to seize power…


  3. Forrest Says:

    It might not be a disastrous strategy:


  4. Dwight Williams Says:

    Steve, they’re humans. Of course they can.

    Doesn’t mean that they will, but the chance is sadly always there…

  5. Stephen Payne Says:

    Ah, sweet, wonderful politics. Is it just me, or has Sideshow Bob from “The Simpsons” made the best observations about both of America’s major parties?

    “Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!”

    “You can’t keep the Democrats out of the White House forever! And then I’m back on the street, with all my criminal buddies!”

    So, off topic for this discussion, but I think we needed some levity.

    Okay, the problem with Democrats is they really don’t have a consistant message to run on. Right now, the party is basically a hodge-podge of various special interests that frequently disagree or contradict each other. The only thing Democrats really have in common is that they’re not Republicans. If the Democrats want to start winning elections, they need to focus on issues where the Republicans typically drop the ball, like education, environment and international relations. That last one is key — Democrats need to remind the country that right now, the rest of the world HATES US! Some of that hate isn’t Bush’s fault (radical Muslims are going to hate America no matter who in charge, and many third world countries are going to be jealous of our wealth and prosperity), but Bush hasn’t been a bridge builder between nations.

    Democrats need to tell the people that Bush’s policies are screwed up, and what’s more, the Republicans in Congress are complicit in those screw-ups by voting in favor of his initiatives. If they can prove that, they should be on their way.

  6. Brian Spence Says:

    God, they just need to run over two facts: 1) Republicans control everything and 2) our country is now doomed because of fact #1.

  7. Charles Bryan Says:

    Well, quoting Debbie Stabenow doesn’t lend the best support to the main theory, because here in Michigan, the economy IS the number one issue as we watch Ford and GM wither, and as we contend with some of the nation’s highest unemployment.

    Speaking as someone who usually votes for Democrats, I say to you Mr. Payne that your analysis of the Democratic Party is spot on.

    However, there is one thing that I would add — the Democratic Party needs to be willing to fight dirty, and if it means filthy sneaky dirty, so be it. If it means smear tactics and whisper campaigns, so be it.

    They can’t do anything if they don’t win, and they can always apologize for their bad behavior later, if ever, just like Karl Rove.

  8. Fred Chamberlain Says:

    The Democratic Party has put itself in the unfortunate position of whiner. It is one thing to point out what is screwed up about the party in power and another to point it out with a clear map of how it can and will, if we win, be resolved. The biggest shortcoming of the D party is that they scream out the former without expressing the latter. I honestly believe that it is the sole reason that Kerry was beaten by a moron 2 years ago.

  9. A.L. Baroza Says:

    Yes, they can. You can add “craven” to that, too.

    And Arnold’s going to get re-elected.

  10. Bart Lidofsky Says:

    One major problem for both parties, especially since the late 1960’s, is the fact that most people wait until the big elections to vote. This means that the most heavily motivated, in other words, the extremists, tend to be more heavily represented in the primary elections. But people tend to vote towards the center in national elections. Reagan managed to grab the center in 1980 and 1984, Bush Sr. did in 1986. Clinton very effectively grabbed the center while the religious right grabbed the Republicans in 1992 and 1996 (hell, even I voted for him both times, and I’m definitely right of center). And, if you were following things closely, you will see that the more centrist Republicans tried to shut out the religious right in the 2000 election, but John McCain’s performance caused Bush Jr. to bring them in (it’s a shame that, with two first rate candidates running in 2000 like McCain and Bradley, we ended up with two second-raters like Bush and Gore). Essentially, there was no real center in 2000. In 2004, there was no center, either, although Kerry managed to push more to the left than Bush pushed towards the right.

    In the current elections, there is some hard pushing to the left, especially from Internet-based groups like Dailykos and Huffingtonpost. They’ve already skewed at least one election (Connecticut, where the Republican candidate for Senator is so incompetent that he cheats at gambling and STILL loses; what’s worse, I mean that literally). If the Republicans can grab the center, they will maintain control of the Senate and House.

    The extreme left is already screwing up what chance Hillary Clinton had of becoming President; the major hope in 2008 for the Democrats is that the extreme right will similarly screw up the Republicans.

  11. Nat Gertler Says:

    The only problem I have with getting the Republicans out of office is it gets the Democrats in.
    I love democracy, in theory.

  12. gordon Says:

    Hey, Mr. Gertler… out of curiousity, what do you love, in fact?

  13. Bart Lidofsky Says:

    Well, Nat IS re-releasing Gerber’s Stewart the Rat (well, SOMEBODY here had to plug it!!!).

  14. Nat Gertler Says:

    In fact, I love my wife, and am unduly fond of those Shamrock Shakes McDonalds puts out around St. Patty’s Day.

    The Stewart The Rat rerelease was years back. Coming next year is Destroyer Duck.

  15. gordon Says:

    Good “no answer” answer.

  16. Nat Gertler Says:

    If there was a real question there, I couldn’t see it.
    If you’re trying to ask if there’s some form of government extant that I prefer, the answer is no. But that doesn’t mean that democracy as practiced isn’t an ugly thing.

  17. gordon Says:

    That was a better answer.

    So here’s another question: Are you saying that the democracy practiced by the current republican administration is ugly, or are you saying it’s better than the form of democracy practiced by the previous democratic administration?

  18. Bart Lidofsky Says:

    I looked at your website, and thought that you were RE-releasing it. Oh, well.

  19. Nat Gertler Says:

    I’m not saying either of those. I may agree with the supposed goals of one of the two big political teams more than the other, but more than that I disagree with there being two big political teams. The proportion of legislative effort that is focused on making the other party look bad is disgraceful. I would prefer a system where legislators felt primary duty to the American people, rather than to their party.

  20. gordon Says:

    Well, I would, too. But right now we really only have a choice between two parties… As it is now, I’d say we have one party running the whole show with no input whatsoever from the other party. The republicans can pretty much do what they want. But the traditional goal of republicans is not this administration’s goal. In fact, I really don’t know what the goal of this administration is since nothing they say is ever backed by anything they do.