Text 6802, 93 rader
Skriven 2006-08-23 16:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7299.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <9IednVXLSIrRTnHZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C105E6BD0053FA6EF0284530@news.verizon.net><MPG.1f4b2f2e98


"Greg Bryant" <gabryant@fuse.net> wrote in message 
news:C112411B.D421%gabryant@fuse.net...

> That's where Vorlonagent's argument falls apart. We've had one party rule
> for about the past four years and look where it's got us.

Really?  All that talk about "judicial filibusters" and "nuclear options" 
was just for show, then?

It's very hard to get unbridled power in the US--intentionally.


> The same thing happened from 1992 to 1994, when Democrats had both 
> chambers
> plus the White House then. There was a big backlash against the Democrats
> for going to far to the left.

True.  The backlash here, if it emerges, will be against rank Republican 
hypocrisy.  The party of limited government was happy to raid the piggy bank 
once they had majorities and control of the pursestrings.  Ewwwwwww.

The question is how well the Democrats are positioned to take advanatge of 
this failure.  IMHO poorly.  Presenting no major alternatives, the Democrats 
have no self-defintion save as not-Republicans.  The shrillness and rancor 
with which they have gone after Bush and Republicans in general (also 
"impure" moderates in their own party) gives them no clear voice to rally 
behind.

By contrast, the Republicans in 1994 drew sharp policy divisions between 
themselves and the Democrats in quantitative, not qualitative, terms.  They 
told you exactly what they would do if elected and the values they'd bring 
with them.  Where's the Democrat equivalent of the Contract With America? 
All the D's have is hate-bush.  And if that doesn't grab you, they'll hate 
Bush some more just to make the point.  Look at the special elections and 
such that have occurred since 2004.  The ousing of Joe Lieberman is (I 
think) just about the only victory that hard-left purists can claim.  They 
have lost every other contest they touched.

"Vote for us and we'll impeach the president in time of war!" isn't going to 
bring in moderates and undecideds.  The best one can expect is a maximized 
turnout among those already comitted to the Democrat cause.

That's why I expect a deadlock.  Massive voter disgust with both parties. 
Local politics will determine the results.  Perhaps this is the Democrat 
strategy: capitalize on the disgust (end expected low turnout) to get their 
people out to vote.  The Republicans have yet to register a coherent 
strategy, which may be their downfall.


> I personally prefer that one or both chambers be controlled by one party
> while the White House be in the hands of the other. That does lead to more
> compromise and cooperation. Not what we've had for the past four years.

You liked gridlock, then?


> I would also like to see a credible third party add some pressure to the
> whole system. Unfortunately, we don't have a credible third party that 
> holds
> any sort of popular support or has meaningful ideas that a significant
> portion of the population might embrace.

In this we agree.  A third party based out of the center would be very 
welcome.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                                                                               
          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)