Big chance: what the dems shoud but won't do now

I've got to give credit to the Dems for knowing better (or at least having the common sense to pretend they know better) than to impeach Bush first thing out of the gate. They wouldn't have the votes for a conviction and they know it. Furthermore they should realize that angry Republicans and moderates gave them this election, and looking like hardliners would be a bad note to start on.

Strategically speaking though, the Democrats SHOULD go for an impeachment eventually, but even if they are planning to, I doubt they'll do it right.

Hate him as they might, the dems have learned the hardway in the 3 elections prior to this most recent one that what they need is their own Karl Rove. If I were it, here's what I'd tell them:

You've FINALLY managed to make a meaningful dent in the Republican armor. You came into 2006 as favorites and you didn't blow it. You can't count on that to carry you through 2008 though. The Republicans are going to play ball and create an exit strategy from Iraq in the next two years and there's nothing you can do to foil that without looking stupid, so your number one issue is going to be a dead horse when it's time to run someone for president. Add the price of energy, the slowing of the economy, and the fact that Republicans have put you in a position where the only responsible thing you can do is either raise taxes or cut spending (both of which upset some voters) and you're not looking at major gains in 2008: you actually stand to lose seats in the House as the Republicans field better candidates to retake red districts that were pulled down by Iraq/Bush.

That in turn means real trouble in the first 2 years of a Democratic presidency unless there is strict party discipline, and worse still it could mean a hostile senate in 2010. That could stand in the way of pushing an agenda for 4 solid years and cinching a second term.

All of this must be preempted in the 110th congress if the Democratic party is to establish lasting power in the coming decades: although we're feeling pretty good right now, don't forget that your party has only enjoyed full run of the government for 2 years in the last 28 (counting up to 2008), compared to 6 years for the Republicans.

You can fix this by preempting the Republican Presidential Primary for 2008 and installing an unelectable Republican incumbent against whom to run, enhancing your coat-tails.

You bide your time, then find our create something NEW to impeach CHENEY for; make sure it's legit and cut a deal with a powerful Republican to confirm his as Vice President.

The Republican Vice President who isn't named Cheney is the heir apparent to the nomination, much better able to ward off a more electable challenger in the primary, and voila, you can run Obama or whomsoever you please against the devil himself.


Am I way off?

No you aren't too far off, but I believe if Democrats do things about immigration, the trade deficit, outsourcing, and quickly try and pass things to move the Iraqi mess along, they will easily be able to say what that they did do some things which the Republican congress did NOT.

EVEN IF IT DOESN'T WORK. Even if Bush vetos, or what not. I think they can really make a difference, and I think if they do a great job at issues that are important to the US, they can secure success in the future.

Even if Bush does something for Iraq and Democrats and don't, it will still look good for the Democrats.

I describe the Democrats now having enormous potential energy.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by RetinoidReceptor]

The Democrats should probably go hardcore on Iraq, if not much else. They should make themselves intractable so that Bush has to veto a few proposals- I won't go so far as to say that they should attempt to save Iraq for 2008, because first of all that's just evil and second the Republicans will figure it out and withdraw. They do however need to be seen forcing the issue down the throat of the Republicans so that the Republicans can't fall back on the cooperation thing. The democrats have done a great job at looking like the aggressors and they need to press that advantage now so that the Democrat Congress is seen as chasing the Republicans out of Iraq when Bush was trying desperately to stay in, even though the truth will be that there was no way around beginning to pull down in the next 2 years, politically speaking.


I'd be shocked to see either party walk the talk on immigration. The other day I heard the phrase "one element of comprehensive reform that we can certainly pass". OK, pardon my ignorance, but if you start severing things from a comprehensive plan, doesn't it cease to be comprehensive and become just one thing? Maybe a little amnesty, maybe some funding, maybe a wall and maybe not, but don't think for one minute that the Dems are going to stop a demographic shift that favors them, or that the Republicans will suddenly get off their butts now that they no longer have the means to do so.

Economics are definately the issue when it comes to backing up the dirty tricks with actually being electable. We're in economic trouble, and the window of time when that works in the favor of democrats is rapidly closing. If the cycle doesn't boom again before 2010, the Democrats are going to start to falter. Problem for the dems is that I'm not so sure we're at the half-way point yet... the stock market looks good but in some areas a dollar just doesn't go as far- in gold the stockmarket is nowhere near a record- only in dollars. So the dems have got to help create a bottom to the cycle right where we are and get things trending upwards so that around 2008/9 the average citizen starts to at least feel as prosperous as he did a few years ago when his house was worth more than he paid for it and 2.50 seemed like a lot to pay for gas.

Personally I'd think about home buying incentives for the high end of the working class and the lower middle class, throwing a few bones towards organized labor in construction, and making sure the construction companies get hit a bit extra on taxes- home building will slow a bit and construction costs there will go up a bit and this is gonna pull on the home market from the supply side a little bit, hopefully resulting in Democratic constituents buying homes and seeing them hold their value or maybe even appreciate a tad.

There is almost no way the Democrats are going to wage an effective campaign to reduce energy prices in 2 years, so I think that's a battle they want to save until they run the government. It's going to take them 8 years of control to push through a comprehensive energy policy. They're better off playing tricks on this subject- play hide the pricetag by lowering excise taxes and maybe even subsidizing it with tax rebates for the working class and jacking it up on corporations who will just hand the tax right back to us at the register, then fix it for real later. That might sound cynical but let's face it, the average voter is a little on the stupid side and if you tell them the truth (we need 8 years to give you results) they're gonna vote for whoever is unscrupulous enough to do what you refused to do.
I'm not saying they can't do ANYTHING ligit on energy prices- they can tug on the demand side a little bit if they're willing to shell out big bucks in incentives for carpooling, public transportation, etc, but that just amounts to a subsidy until you build the good habit enough that you can reduce the benefits and hope that the good behavior continues.

Long story short, they are up against some seriously tough issues. They don't have to play them smart to win because the average voter wont know the difference, but they'll win bigger if they play it smart... as long as they know when to suppliment good government with good public relations, ie: lying your butt off.