This is not a timely post, but I finally got around to watching the 60 Minutes that featured Nancy Pelosi. Good heavens amighty, this is one scary broad. As most of you know, I'm pretty indifferent about Dem v. Republican arguments, given the marginal differences. But in this case, this woman is scary. Beyond her ability to fake expressions like a spitting frog trying to fend off would-be predators, she's probably the most openly partisan politician I can recall. That's quite an accomplishment. She seemed far more concerned with spiting the Republicans than SERVING OUR GREAT COUNTRY AND GREAT CITIZENS. This is a special breed of politician that engenders a unique degree of detest from me. I am not a fan of having the White House and Congress controlled by the same party, but in this case, I think I can wait a couple of years to get some sanity in DC. She certainly isn't bringing it. How on Earth is she one of the best the Dems have to offer? Even beyond Kerry, how low have they sunk? In the interests of America, get your act together already. This broad should not be in a leadership position.
That's exactly why I feel that a Democrat victory today ensures a GOP win in 2008. Throw in 2 years of prominence for Teddy, Dean and Gore and it's not even close.
unfortunately the dems gave themselves over to special interests years ago, i.e. soros, et al; (as republicans have as well) and they have become a shadow of their former selves. what happened to the party of kennedy? when you have some time, listen to the economic speech given by kennedy to the new york press club (i think) sounds like a died in the wool conservative republican....it is a sad day in american politics and neither party have much to hold their heads up about.
Pelosi was the bulldog that the democrats needed to counter the partisan politics of the Rove camp. That is why she is combative and why she is minority leader. She may get the Speaker job as a reward, but I don't thinkk the democrats are going to go far to the left. That cost them the last two elections. Pelosi may not he be best Democratic leader for phase two, but she may be just right to take the political heat and keep it off the democratic candidates in 2008. If the democrats are serious about taking the presidency and the senate in 2008, they need too capture the moderates who will be even more disenchanted with two more years of the Bush administration. To do democrats need to lean towards the center and above all, not appear to be bickering partisans trying to derail Bush for the next two years. They will take the house today, but they want the big prize, so I don't expect to see the democrats being loud obstructionists in the next two years. Thier winning bet is to simply allow the Bush administration to stay its disasterous course and to not give the swing voters any issues to consider other than policies of the current admnistration. They want the voters to recognize that a democratic House won't be able to change things . . . it will take a clean sweep in 2008. Of course the democrats have blown it before. They thought the only counter to extreme right wing politics was to go extreme left in 2004. Bad mistake. A moderate democrat won the presidency in '92 and '96 and another won the popular vote in '00. The leftist had their shot and they blew it. Republicans will wave their arms and cry "Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean!", but the Democratic candidates must be smarter than that and more centrist than its more left wing elements to win in 2008. Republican moderates like McCain and Giuliani will take the broad middle if they don't. Both parties will lean to the middle in 2008 and winning candidates will run to it.
need to, but I just don't see that happening. I do, unfortunately. Good analysis, but I think you are wishful thinking. It would be nice if the Dems did what you are saying, but my prediction is that nothing will ever change in DC. Ever. No matter who is in charge.:nope:
We need a third party right between the republicans and democrats. Extremism practiced by both parties is the cause of the partisan bickering. As right-wing as Ronald Reagan was as a candidate, he was a moderate president and understood the need for involving the other party in his plans. But this is no longer Ronald Reagan's Republican party. I think the GOP is going to screw up worse than the democrats in the next two years. There certainly aren't going to be any changes from the White House. George Will thinks they will lose another 70 seats in 2008.
both parties are terrible. this is like saying you dont like to eat poo or acid, so you favor a poo-acid milkshake, so you can get a little of each. you do not want to vote between the two parties, you want to be different than both of them. more extreme than one party on one issue, more extreme than the other on another. more free market than republicans, more secular than democrats. more serious about terrorism than republicans, more pro-choice than democrats. more marijuana/gambling friendly than democrats, more tax cutting than republicans. the solutions are not in between the parties, but outside of them. bickering is not a negative. often the inaction it creates is good.
that was generic "you", it didnt mean you. i mean "one" should want to be different than the parties. you dont, you apprently think the area between them is the golden zone.
