Forums | MacLife

I think we need to be very careful in how we interpret it.
It seems to me that Iraq was the biggest issue. I don't think though that this was a "we were lied to" vote - some seem rather dis-satisfied with how it is being run, IE they hear about us having to retake cities we took several times before, etc.

But in all honesty, I think a bigger issue - contract with america, moral clarity, etc. - yet an inability to keep their own house clean with all the scandals that have recently come to light. Preaching one thing yet having numerous fairly prominent republicans caught demonstrating a distinctive lack of moral clarity.

Well to me, privatizing Social Security and banning stem cell research are pretty extreme positions. Opposing them does not make someone a liberal. Oh, sorry, you used the word "progressive."

Tetrachloride wrote:

A steady stream of investigations is likely  http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Waxma … _1030.html

If there is a steady stream of investigations, it may look like a vindictive act on the part of the dems - who have already opened their mouths and promised to be non partisan and work with republicans.

vindictive partisan motivated investigations would show the voters that like many of the republicans that got ousted, they say one thing to get elected yet do another once elected.

resedit wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

A steady stream of investigations is likely  http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Waxma … _1030.html

If there is a steady stream of investigations, it may look like a vindictive act on the part of the dems - who have already opened their mouths and promised to be non partisan and work with republicans.

vindictive partisan motivated investigations would show the voters that like many of the republicans that got ousted, they say one thing to get elected yet do another once elected.

I suspect it will depend on if the investigations are substantive or not.  That is, if the investigations start with something like war profiteering in Iraq, but only uncover that the president of the company did pot in college, it will backfire on the democrats.  However, if they uncover prewar agreements to shovel money into these companies, plus hint that the WH made up prewar estimates, then that will trigger another substantive investigation.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

What's it all mean? What lessons are there in this, if any?

This was a classic example of "voting against" rather than "voting for".  I bet, after the analysis is done, it will also be revealed to be an example of "not voting", i.e., the base staying home.

If the Donkeys actually want to build on this in '08, they need to keep the GOP on the ropes.  That can be accomplished by a combination of keeping their opponents off balance AND actually doing something constructive with the next two years.

Make that the next one year.  Year two of their mandate will be taken up with presidential primaries, etc.

Basically, they have to have a plan NOW, and they must implement it YESTERDAY.  Otherwise, the best they can hope for is to maintain this victory, not build on it.  And the worst case scenario, if they don't get their act together, will be to lose all that they gained in this midterm.

I'm sure the Republicans would love to lose control of the House yet get off scot-free without any investigations.

Accusing Democrats of merely being vengeful is a likely tactic to try to gain sympathy for their stonewalling efforts.

Just what the hell was that long investigation of Bill Clinton, looking for ANYTHING to pin on him?

Last edited by user (2006-11-08 10:47 am)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Does anyone think there will be an effort by both sides to build bridges? To aim for a friendly, cooperative working relationship, as Reagan had with Tip O'Neil? Or is that pretty much impossible in this partisan age?

I think the bipartisan efforts were a bizarre artifact from a different time.  Its quite clear that bipartisanship means different things to the two sides, nor do I see much evidence that bipartisan efforts are better than partisan ones.

Oh, and one more thing. The US economy is about to take a steep nosedive into recession.  It's already on the brink.

Guess who'll be getting much of the blame over the next couple of years?  The GOP will say "look, we did our best to stave this off, and things were OK with us around... now you elect the D'Rats, and look at what you got... let this be a lesson to you!"

So, the 'Rats had better get onto that file toot sweet, or they won't be smelling too sweet in '08.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In that sense, I don't expect America to chance course much, if at all, after this election.

Any other takers?

On the big picture, I do see some changes in course for the country.  First, a genuine progressive finally has a bully pulpit and some power to direct legislation.  Those are big deals.  Second, I expect an era of competent legislation being passed for a while going forward.  The Republican party had a lot invested in legislation not being scrutinized before being passed, with compromise being a dirty word.  With some divided government, everyone has a vested interest in looking at legislation for obvious problems to pin on the other side, which will get rid of the worst crap that keeps getting slipped in.

I bet Huffy has the answers for us.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Oh, and one more thing. The US economy is about to take a steep nosedive into recession.  It's already on the brink.

Guess who'll be getting much of the blame over the next couple of years?  The GOP will say "look, we did our best to stave this off, and things were OK with us around... now you elect the D'Rats, and look at what you got... let this be a lesson to you!"

So, the 'Rats had better get onto that file toot sweet, or they won't be smelling too sweet in '08.

actually, it's pretty apparent that the last 6 years have been one big repug spending spree. . . wage war and cut taxes. This simply cannot go on.

If the dems allow themselves to get backed into a corner on that issue, they are, indeed, idiots.

What is the democrat party position on same sex marriage?