Maybe the dems should NOT gain control of either chamber!

aps · May 16, 2006

In yesterday's New York Times, there was a great article about why it may not be a bad thing for the dems to NOT gain control of the house or senate. I am paraphrasing what the author (Adam Nagourney) said. If the Dems take control of one of the houses, we will likely run into problems. Look at what happened in 1995/1996--Clinton and Congress were at a deadlock over the budget, and the government was forced to shut down. If the dems cause situations like that, the republicans will be able to say that the democrats are part of the problem. However, if the dems are still the minority, it may help the Dems win the presidency. Tony Coelho (former House Democratic whip) said: "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything."

Hmmmm, that could work. So I think I will be okay if the dems just gain a couple of seats here and there this fall, but stay the minority party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/weekinreview/14nagourney.html

BubbaBob · May 16, 2006

aps...I'm really glad you are OK with the dems staying out of power because that is what is going to happen...and we can't have you unhappy, now can we?

BubbaBob

aps · May 16, 2006

BubbaBob said:
aps...I'm really glad you are OK with the dems staying out of power because that is what is going to happen...and we can't have you unhappy, now can we?

BubbaBob

No we can't! I might be starting to like you, BubbaBob.

BubbaBob · May 16, 2006

aps said:
I might be starting to like you, BubbaBob.

Careful...you know how easy rumors get started...

BubbaBob

Pacridge · May 16, 2006

This sounds very similar to some logic and reasoning I read read about nine months ago. On this site. Written by SW Moon. I'll see if I can't go find the posts(s). Kind of a "they made this mess, let them clean it up" logic.

aps · May 16, 2006

Pacridge said:
This sounds very similar to some logic and reasoning I read read about nine months ago. On this site. Written by SW Moon. I'll see if I can't go find the posts(s). Kind of a "they made this mess, let them clean it up" logic.

This article came out in October 2004 on this subject. It was published in the Los Angeles Times, but I found it on this website.

He's So Bad, He Might Be Perfect
Under an odd logic, Bush deserves another term. Shouldn't he suffer for his blunders?
Jonathan Chait
Los angeles Times

October 9, 2004

An editor at the paper suggested that I use this week's column to try to make the most honest and persuasive case I could for President Bush's reelection. At first I was skeptical. To say that I consider Bush a "bad" president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word "bad." I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my "bad" category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as "good." There's also the fact that, on a personal level, I despise him with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. What I'm saying is, advocating Bush is kind of tricky.

But then I thought, what the heck. Why not try it for the sake of intellectual experimentation? After all, lawyers often defend some pretty repugnant clients, right? In keeping with that, I won't attempt to deny that my client has done some awful things. What I'll argue instead is that his very awfulness is the reason he deserves reelection. Begin with the premise that a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse. First of all, domestically, GOP moderates and deficit hawks have finally begun to wake up and realize that they have to rein in Bush's reckless fiscal policies. At the same time, if John F. Kerry is elected and tries to raise taxes or rein in spending, he'll probably suffer substantial political damage, as Bill Clinton did in 1994. But, unlike Clinton, he'll not enjoy Democratic majorities in both Houses, which means he stands a good chance of failing. That would be the worst of all worlds: Democrats would suffer the political costs of demanding sacrifice from the public, without the corresponding benefit of making the country better. . . .

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/lat-10-9-04d.html

Pacridge · May 16, 2006

aps said:
This article came out in October 2004 on this subject. It was published in the Los Angeles Times, but I found it on this website.

Almost makes some sense. I know when my daughter was still here she cleaned up her own messes. Of course treating national issues and agenda's the same way you would a teenager might not be the best idea.

scottyz · May 18, 2006

The Republicans still blame the Democrats or Clinton for everything that goes wrong even though it's the Republicans who are in control of all three branches of Government. They would probably ratchet up the rhetoric if the Democrats won, but other than that I don't see a difference?

tecoyah · May 18, 2006

Partisan Politics aside....there is a far more important issue here, Our Country Is In Trouble!!! I really don't care who fixes it, as long as SOMEONE starts paying attention to what seems obvious to me, at least. If the Republicans cannot reverse direction and begin the repairs, then I hope the Dems can (though I seriously doubt it). Honestly, who gives a sh!t which "Party" has the power, as long as they can turn this sinking ship around, head back to port, and fix the Gaping holes in our collective Hull.
As it is, the Democratic Party shows no signs whatsoever of a capability to change what is happening, Added to this is the likely infighting within government should they gain some leverage in descisions. It seems unlikely to me that a change is in the offing until we wake up as a people, and hold them both accountable for what they are doing to our country.
Dont get me wrong, I find the bulk of the decline of America falls onto a republican lap, but there is no "One" place to lay the blame. If indeed the Democrats can bring about a new direction, I will give my vote to them in a heartbeat, if only to keep my fading hope for this country alive, but as it is, they fail to inspire my confidence. In my view the ONLY thing Dems have going for them at this point, is that they are not Republican.

ptsdkid · May 18, 2006

Decline of America?

tecoyah said:
Dont get me wrong, I find the bulk of the decline of America falls onto a republican lap, but there is no "One" place to lay the blame.

***Its the naysayers and doom and gloomers like yourself, i.e. the liberals that believe America is in decline. Last time I checked, we were still the most powerful country on earth. That goes both for our military and economic standing. And its the Republicans that have made sure that we're still #1 in both cases.

MSgt · May 18, 2006

BubbaBob said:
Careful...you know how easy rumors get started...

BubbaBob

aps likes BubbaBob

Iriemon · May 18, 2006

aps said:
This article came out in October 2004 on this subject. It was published in the Los Angeles Times, but I found it on this website.

... a second-term Bush administration is unlikely to make things a whole lot worse. First of all, domestically, GOP moderates and deficit hawks have finally begun to wake up and realize that they have to rein in Bush's reckless fiscal policies.

Well we haven't seen that happening, have we? The pass the buck Republicans just past another $70 billion in tax cuts, which will put this country ever further in hoc.

aps · May 18, 2006

GySgt said:
aps likes BubbaBobView attachment 2127

LOL Here I was thinking that GySgt was going to say something substantive.

aps + BubbaBob sittin' in a tree . . . .

Goobieman · May 18, 2006

Ok, so...

The US is in trouble on several levels because the GOP, since taking power in 1994, has moved to the left and has acted accordingly, especially over the last 6 years.

How is it, exactly, that the Democrats are going to make things better?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 28, 2006

aps said:
In yesterday's New York Times, there was a great article about why it may not be a bad thing for the dems to NOT gain control of the house or senate. I am paraphrasing what the author (Adam Nagourney) said. If the Dems take control of one of the houses, we will likely run into problems. Look at what happened in 1995/1996--Clinton and Congress were at a deadlock over the budget, and the government was forced to shut down.

What? That was one of the best things the Congress has done in decades. Centuries, even.

The only mistake was promising the federal employees they'd continue to be paid no matter what. They should never have been paid for not working.

Frankly, I liked the lack of congestion on the freeways, and I can't think of anything bad that happened because my nanny was napping.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 28, 2006

Actually, wouldn't a better question be "why should we want the Democrats to gain control of the House, the Senate, or the dog pound?"

I mean, right now, if the Dems get the House, so what? What's the big problems facing this country today?

Broadly speaking, these are high taxes, even higher spending, Mexicans, energy, and towelheads.

Will the Democrats lower taxes? No, they'll raise them.

Will the Demcorats lower spending? No, I don't expect so.

Between these two, cutting spending is absolutely necessary.

Will the Democrats send the Mexicans back home? No.

Wil the Democrats do anything sensible about domestic energy problems? No.

Will they do anything intelligent about terroristic towelheads? Only if you consider anal osculation a sign of intelligence.

Will the Republicans do anything effective? No, because they're no different from the Democrats.

So the argument appears to be if the presence of an (R) or (D) after the candidates' names will sway one set of voter more than another, even though the net change in practice in the House or Senate is negligible.

FallingPianos · May 29, 2006

aps said:
If the dems cause situations like that, the republicans will be able to say that the democrats are part of the problem.

and the dems will be able to say that the republicans are the problem, it makes no difference.

I'm not going to hold my breath hoping that a dem gets the presidency next time around.

FallingPianos · May 29, 2006

Re: Decline of America?

ptsdkid said:
Its the naysayers and doom and gloomers like yourself, i.e. the liberals that believe America is in decline. Last time I checked, we were still the most powerful country on earth. That goes both for our military and economic standing. And its the Republicans that have made sure that we're still #1 in both cases.

there are more important things than being powerful.

Maybe the dems should NOT gain control of either chamber!

aps

Passionate

BubbaBob

Active member

aps

Passionate

BubbaBob

Active member

Pacridge

aps

Passionate

Pacridge

scottyz

tecoyah

Illusionary

ptsdkid

MSgt

Read Some Books

Iriemon

aps

Passionate

Goobieman

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

FallingPianos

FallingPianos

Maybe the dems should NOT gain control of either chamber!

Passionate

Active member

Passionate

Active member

Passionate

Illusionary

Read Some Books

Passionate

FallingPianos

FallingPianos

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency