They ignore how hard left the neocoms are going with the moonbats in the drivers seat. They're also assuming smooth sailing in foreign affairs, especially with the Islamists.
bump for later read
—Center For American Progress—
Better known (courtesy of Mark Levin) as Center For Regressive American Progress (CRAP).
Smooth sailing with the Islamists... ? Oookk. Apparently they’re doing their analysis in some other, alternate dimension of the universe.
—Lacking such favorable social conditions, Democrats have found it difficult to pass major legislation even when they have controlled the White House and Congress. Jimmy Carter failed in 1977–1978, and Bill Clinton failed in 1993–1994, to pass any major social legislation—
Translation: Most people still don’t buy Utopian Socialism.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Lots of numbers. Lots of wishful thinking.
The most striking thing is the frequent mention of the “Democratic majority” of the 1990s. That would be the majority that voted Republicans into power?
When will Democrats learn that LSD does not improve analytical skills?
Yet, this entire analysis avoids mentioning the ONE THING that could insure a Democrat rout in 2008....
HILLARY CLINTON....
From what I can see, the electorate isn’t much happier with the Dem congress than it’s been with the republicans.
—bflr—
As conservative Republicans tell the tale, the 2006 election was merely a referendum on the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans and on the Republican congressional scandals.
Conservative Republicans understand that the fiasco in New Orleans was directly attributable to the idiot politicians (Dems) in Louisiana. They also know that, while some Repubs were involved in scandals, far more Dems were involved, but nobody went after them.
Too bad the Bush tax cuts expire after the 2008 election.
It may have been a good thing to have them rolled back soon after the 2006 elections to give the people an idea of what they voted for.
The article did not explain why most of the new democrats in congress had to pretend to be Ronald Reagan’s ghost in order to win. In fact, the article promotes so many wrong assumptions it really is worth reading.
I can’t imagine why the article assumes decent folks upset with President will run to vote for socialist/democrats because President Bush is acting like a socialist/democrat. It is absurd.
Sure. That why the Democrat Congress has an approval rating half of President Bush’s.
Simple fact of the matter is the Democrats lied their way into power in 2006. They said little to nothing about Iraq. They ran on “cleaning up a Republican Culture of Corruption”.
Then they went to DC and morped into John Kerry Jr. So it seems not only do Democrats routely lie to the voters, they even lie to themselves.
Throughout the 1960s, women voters had been disproportionately Republican; but in 1980 (partly in reaction to the Republican identification with the religious right) single, working, and college-educated women began voting disproportionately Democratic.
Yeah, Reagan won handily in '80 and '84 (landslide) despite the fact that single, working and college educated women voted Democrat. Guys, I guess you weren't aware you had so much power to influence the electorate.
“We take a different view: that this election signals the end of a fleeting Republican revival, prompted by the Bush administration’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the return to political and demographic trends that were leading to a Democratic and center-left majority in the United States.”
I only got this far. Clinton never received a majority vote in either election. However, there is a trend where people are becoming more independent because the base of both parties are too extreme for some. I think that was more indicative in 92-96.
If you are Marx but support lower taxes you are not a Democrat. If you are Falwell but don’t support the war in Iraq you aren’t a Republican.
Each base is pretty much their own party, coopting the Democrat and Republican label. The middle is where the votes are coming from and the RATS have a better mechanism in place for getting those votes. Basically, they lie. We call them RINOS. They call them voters.
Yes, a 14% approval rating IS a harbinger of good things to come for the rat, yes of course it is.
Absolute and total B.S. The Democrat party is bought and paid for and run by Soros et.al. Ask him! He calls the tune and they play it. The Democrat party coalition consists of the Hate-America-and-destroy-it Marxists; the mind-numbed robots with their hands out, who have been voting Democrat since the lefties dug them up, registered them, and hauled them to vote; gays and lesbians, their families and friends; the "open-minded, enlightened," uninformed, unable to think for themselves but sure in touch with their "feelings;" the dead, comatose and assorted fraudulent who never miss voting in any election; the illegals (soon to become a MAJOR player in the coalition;) the unionized; and the too young or too dumb to know better, plus the gullible and easily frightened.
We've Replaced Rushdie In Hiding (Mark Steyn On Western Dhimmitude Submission Alert)
Back to Basics (Fred Thompson Alert!)
FWIW, I had an iTunesSetup icon on my desktop, but it seems I never finished installing it for podcasts. I pasted the URL for "Back to Basics"
http://podcasts.nytimes.com/podcasts/2007/06/01/01brooks-pod.mp3
into my browser, but nothing happened. I learned that I already had iTunesSetup, finished installing it, and listened to the podcast on Windows Media Player. Duh! That iraqwarit.blogspot.com website in comment# 2 of the last link looks interesting.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
I’ll read all this cr*p a bit later, but having read the intro, I think I know where they’re going and I’ll insert just a couple of points:
#1: The Democrats policies and solutions HAVE NEVER WORKED and no one should expect them to work any time in the future (what’s the definition of insantity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?).
#2: The last successful Democrat was Bill Clinton, thanks to a split electorate (Ross Perot) and an exceptionally out-of-touch President G.H.W. Bush, who really didn’t want a second term, I’m convinced. How was Clinton successful? By raising taxes as we were coming out of a slowdown (the rate of growth was squelched but it at least didn’t throw us into a recession) and by exploiting the peace dividend served up by Presidents Reagan and Bush. He also benefited from the GOP takeover in Congress that imposed spending discipline when it was needed and pressing on Welfare Reform which Clinton didn’t want but took credit from when it proved to be successful.
#3: The Democrats benefited from when they were last in power: during the tech boom which grew out of the Reagan tax-cuts and great investment era of the 1980’s, those technologies bore fruit in the 1990’s. Also give Clinton credit for embracing free trade and globalization — those have contributed greatly to world growth and prosperity... But no Democrats support those principals today, so they are running away from the few things that have worked for them in the past. a
#4: Timing... This new crop of Demos face a far more challenging set of policies given the timing of the coming elections. Their sacred Social Security and Medicare are both bankrupt and failing but they are unwilling to even think about (much less propose) any kinds of reforms that might actually saved these dinosaurs. And whether they like it or not, we ARE in a continuing Global War on Radical Islam and Terrorism (agree with the terms or not) thanks in large measure to the retreat they mounted in the 1990’s and the weakness it revealed then and is more magnified now.
Summary: I can see the Dems winning in 2008 and maybe having unified government in the aftermath. It just isn’t going to work to their benefit other than giving them power for one or two terms in office. Their ideas just don’t work and the result will be awful for the US — the stupid public just doesn’t understand and realize the peril they face if/when they elect these bozos into office (apologies to all bozo’s out there!).