Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Dems, NYT prefer some lag time on their memos [Karl]

Today’s New York Times has a “Political Memo” from Carl Hulse explaining that it’s hard to be a Democrat:

While much of the Congressional political focus has been on the declining fortunes and numbers of House Republicans, House Democrats have their own problem: They are winning too many elections.

By prevailing in conservative districts where they ordinarily would not have a chance, Democrats are widening the ideological divide in their own ranks and complicating their ability to find internal consensus. It is a nice problem to have, but it is one that can bedevil party leaders.

This was apparent on last year’s top issue of Iraq… last year.  Indeed, as the Democratic leadership watered down their efforts on Iraq to irrelevance, I noted the spin of the Leftosphere:

The Commissar tried to sell his Kossacks on the idea that this was all about the next election.  The Wanker told his minions that “you go to vote with the Democrats you have,” sounding for all the world like Donald Rumsfeld—except that Rumsfeld never said that the Army “sucked” as the Wanker did about the Dems.  (BTW, House Appropriations Cmte Chairman David Obey, who also harangued his own base over the bill, defended it in Rumsfeldian terms.)

As that next election draws nearer, the New York Times is happy to relay that same spin:

…Democrats figure if they can keep winning, they can enlarge their majority to a point where it does not matter if lawmakers on the ideological edges stray.

That fact was not lost on Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as he pondered the ramifications of bringing more conservative Democrats to Capitol Hill.

“Each of these wins,” he said, “expands our majority.”

There is a nugget of truth in that, but Hulse fails to report that on key issues like Iraq, healthcare and taxes, Democratic leaders, presidential candidates — and even the NYT editorial board — are quietly saying that the Democratic rank-and-file should not be getting their hopes up, even if a Democrat wins the White House.  That “Political Memo” — excusing Democratic failures and suggesting that the answer is electing more Democrats — will arrive in time for the 2010 midterms, much as every autumn brings Lucy Van Pelt holding her football for Charlie Brown.

10 Replies to “Dems, NYT prefer some lag time on their memos [Karl]”

  1. B Moe says:

    …Democrats figure if they can keep winning, they can enlarge their majority to a point where it does not matter if lawmakers on the ideological edges stray.

    What about if the leaders start to stray?

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020541.php

  2. JD says:

    Eventually they will learn that electing R-lites will not enable them to implement all of their socialist programs, much like their promised surrender in Iraq.

  3. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – The dirty little “not so secret” thats behind all this hand wringing is the total disappointment in what they’ve been able to accomplish since the “win” in 2006. Basically nothing. And they have not because the majority of those won seats went to blue dogs, that same “pack” that told Pelosi to STFU on several occasions. Many of those blue dogs are closer to being independents than true Democrats, and light years away from the positions of the hard left.

    – If the Dems, the smarter ones anyway, are wringing their hands over even more seats filled with blue dogs, they have good reason, because on a local level “fuck both parties” has a lot of momentum these days, and there is some evidence that voters are looking for moderate candidates who will exact a “real” change rather than oratory and hand waving, followed by business as usual. Moreover the “change” people are looking for is simply doing what the majority wants them to, not dramatically lurching to the Left into all out Socialism. That in fact is diametrically opposed to what the majority wants, for instance in immigration enforcement and border control.

    – Maybe, in a round about way, the electorate is catching on to the way they can implement workable changiness, the kind you can love. There must be some plausible reason that approval of Congress is at an alltime record low, even lower than Bush.

    – the Dems may think they have won the pissing contest, with the 8 year name calling, and bad mouthing campaign they have waged against the Bush administration, but they might find themselves getting passed by a third entry at the last few feet from the finish line.

    – I see the American electorate assuming the role of the Teacher in this falls elections, when they just might punish both of the unruly students.

  4. The Lost Dog says:

    It seems as if both parties have molted, and become comically absurd caricatures of themselves, instead of the butterflies they envisioned themselves to be.

    BBH, I am with you, but I think this tendency to “fuck both parties” is still nascent, and will need a while to develop. Having Obama as president would do more to encourage the “third party” thing than anything else I can think of.

    The only question is: If Obama and the Democratic majority have four years to do their kindergarden act, unrestrained, will this country be hurt beyond repair?

    Anyone with half a brain knows that it is nearly impossible to get the government to backtrack from anything it has already done. it is sort of like telling a bad rock band to turn down.

  5. The Lost Dog says:

    oh.

    And a little OT, but BBH, is your handle a pun, or are you involved with astro-whatever stuff (-nomy. -physics, etc)?

    Just asking. Either way, your name has always aroused my curiosity.

  6. At some point I’d like to believe that conservative “blue dog” Democrats will eventually get enough of a coalition to make things happen but the Democratic Party leadership is so powerful and so brutal I don’t have much hope.

  7. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – TLD – Just a little ‘ole Physicist from transylvania West, (aka Cal)

  8. B Moe says:

    it is sort of like telling a bad rock band to turn down.

    What? What did you say?

  9. The Lost Dog says:

    Well, here’s my take on the left.

    How about if we just face reality, and call them “Dorkocrats”?

    Am I too out of line here?

  10. The Lost Dog says:

    BBH –

    Cool.

    I am jealous in a way, because mathematics have always been something I loved.

    Unfortunately, I loved the puppies of the girl who sat beside me more than I loved algebra, and without algebra, even four shots at calculus were useless.

    Keep on. What you do is amazing to me, and many a day, I wish my hormones had been a little less insistent back in that algebra class.

    Isn’t PW beyond explanation? Almost all the people here are pretty much above the “bar” – especially mine!

    Best, BBH.

Comments are closed.