Democrats' failure to address the central issues that swept them to power left even the most partisan of them dissatisfied and Congress mired at a historic low in public esteem.Republicans aren't the only ones committed to dumbing government down until it sucks as much their expectations say it does.
Should it be of concern that the Democratic frontrunners for President are from the very same do-nothing, Bush-lite Congress? And what is the problem here: that Democrats do not listen to the people who elected them to office or that the voters who elected Democrats to office do not hammer home their wishes hard enough between elections (meaning that Republican voters organize to influence policy better than Democratic voters don't have the will to organize beyond election-year popularity contests)?
Besides Christopher Dodd coming back from the campaign trail to fight telecom immunity, I cannot think of one legislative reason that any current Democratic Senator running for President would give me to say, "This candidate is the best antidote to 8 years of George W. Bush malaise." I look at the current crop of favorites and what I actually see the total powerlessness of the 110 Congress. Oprah cannot redeem that perception.
So why should I even vote for a Democrat if s/he is only going to warm over Bush 43? If I decide to help re-elect Republicans, at least that gives me the satisfaction of having clear-cut, unambiguous, unequivocating opponents mismanaging government instead of a Party who claims to share my values even as they sell those values down the river in their failure to govern.
All I can say in response is, if that's your attitude, you'll deserve what you get. It won't surprise me in the least if we wind up with four more years of Republican rule, and that the reason will be rule-or-ruin sabotage of the Democrats by the lefty blogosphere.ReplyDelete
Given the results of the 110th Congress, I'd say that we are in for 4 more years of Republican rule whether Democrats win the White House and maintain congressional majorities or not.ReplyDelete
The idea is not just to rule, which is precisely what you project on to the left. The mainstream and blue dog Democrats want to rule rather than govern, which is why they sell their principles down river and cow to Bush and to the Republicans rather than legislate according to the '06 election results.
This progressive would like to see Democrats stand for and operate according to Democratic values. That includes compromise when necessary without total abdication to get more power, which is precisely what people of your ilk seem to favor in your chastisement of any critic or dissenter.
You are free to complain all you like about what costs Democrats what. But the fact of the matter is that they have been in power in Congress for a time now, and they have nothing deviating from the Bush domestic and foreign doctrines (in the midst of one of the most unpopular presidencies in history) to show for it. And all I get from the most vocal mainstream supporters of Clinton and Obama is downplaying the importance of SCHIP or health care reform or net neutrality or privacy/civil rights or bringing troops home. If that minimization is our only option to Bush neglect, then I got to tell you it is a different option in name only.
I have to agree with S-Town.ReplyDelete
Why aren't the Democrats paying attention to us?
I'm not getting it.
Thanks Mike.I'm really worried we are looking to four more years of a Republican president.
The Democratic candidates are downplaying the big issues as well.