This is, I think, a bad move by Democrats. Getting lots of stories in the press about what they plan to do if they take over one or both houses of Congress. A while back I criticized Nancy Pelosi for what has come to be known as her "victory lap". The same reasoning applies here. Crowing too soon may actually work against them in the fall. Laying out detailed agendas is doubly stupid, I think.
If Democrats win one or both houses of Congress in November's elections, as polls suggest is increasingly likely, President Bush's Washington will change dramatically.
Democrats will press to get out of Iraq. They'll mount investigations into the Bush administration's record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon in Watergate and Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
They'll push a boatload of social-welfare legislation, such as raising the minimum wage, that reflects their pent-up priorities, while blocking the Republican agenda on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and religion.
Those are some of the top plans that Democrats would pursue if they won power, according to interviews with Democratic lawmakers, strategists, staff aides and lobbyists.
The tone and temper of the Democrats were reflected well by Rep. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, in a conference call in late August. He'll become the panel's chairman if Democrats take the House.
"The Republican-controlled Congress has worked with the White House to shield them and the government from any scrutiny of corruption and abuse," Waxman said. Democrats "plan to expose the truth about billions of taxpayers' dollars."
The problem with crowing too soon is that it may backfire and energize the opposition. If Speaker Pelosi isn't scary enough.
And of course, if the Democrats refrain from talking about their plan if they regain control, then they will be criticized for “not having a plan,” and “just being opposed to Bush,” etc. Yes, yes, we’ve heard it all before- no matter what happens, and no matter what the Democrats say or do, it’s a good thing for Republicans. Yada yada yada.
Is there anything you wouldn’t consider to be a losing proposition for Democrats?
I suppose this is pointless, but I’ll try. The “plan” they are advancing is going after the Republicans. It is an agenda that stinks of revenge, not of anything constructive. They are running against not for. The list of what they were pushing as a social agenda is a pathetically weak laundry list of talking points. To paraphrase their own line, they could do a lot better than this strategy.
Having a well publicized plan is a good thing. It details what you believe in and what you hope to accomplish. Weather voters agree with your goals is an entirely different matter.
Just because you disagree with the agenda doesn’t make it a bad move for the Democrats, gaius. After all, there is a significant majority that wants a timetable to get out of Iraq, a vast majority that wants to raise the minimum wage, and another significant majority that wants universal health care. Politically speaking, those are not “pathetically weak talking points”- those are issues that a large group of Americans care about.
And besides, once again, you ducked my question: is there anything you wouldn’t consider a losing proposition for Democrats?
I didn’t “duck” anything. I remind you that I am not obligated to drop everything and answer everything you throw out (or up, as the case may be). Watch the tone, you’re getting close to annoying me.
Well, it depends on what your goals are for this blog- are you aiming to persuade people, or are you just looking to talk at people?
See, if you’re looking to persuade people, then you should feel obligated to answer questions that poke holes in your opinions. It’s a sign of intellectual strength if you’re willing to answer tough, sometimes critical questions.
If, on the other hand, you’re just looking to broadcast, then you can say whatever you want and you don’t have to back up anything. You can say the sky is green, grass is blue, up is down, down is up, only whacko lefties want to get out of Iraq- you get the idea.
Given that I have to “watch my tone,” I think I’m starting to get the sense of what you want from your blog…
On the other hand, maybe I’m wrong, so enlighten me: how is it “pathetically weak” to want to secure a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, raise the minimum wage, and implement universal health care?
Given that a large majority of Americans support these things, does that mean a large majority of Americans are “pathetically weak?”
Misrepresenting polls is another sign of a propagandist. The last poll I saw said a majority wanted the troops out eventually. less than a third wanted them out now.