Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Democrats in November '06

So, I guess the political buzz is all about how Bush and the Republicans have gotten themselves into such a mess that the upcoming Congressional election in November is a prime opportunity for the Democrats to take back Congress, like the Republicans did in 1994. I wish them luck and hate to rain on their parade, but if they can't come up with any more compelling reasons for people to vote for them than this, they aren't gonna win control of squat.

In the article, Harry Reid belittles the "Contract with America" by saying that it "didn't change the election at all" and then presents his own "Six for '06" plan. Here it is:
National security
Jobs and wages
Energy independence
health care
Retirement security
College access for all

Wow, that's sure to influence the election more than the Contract with America. Thanks for taking that bold step to show America that there's a good reason to vote for the Democrats besides "we're not George Bush."

Man, that's sad. Can't the Democrats find somebody with a modicum of charisma or strong ideas? My prediction: the Dems pick up a few seats here and there, but nowhere near enough to control either the House or the Senate. Zzzzzz.


At Friday, July 28, 2006 at 4:17:00 PM PDT, Blogger Arb said...

It makes me think of all those organizations out there named things like "XXX Against Cancer." Is anyone *for* cancer?

I mean, none of these ideas (except maybe one) is really all that controversial. The problem's that the Dems still seem a little short on details (funny, they love to level that charge against the GOP when they can -- and usually with justification -- but they do the same thing :) Jobs and wages? Great. The minimum wage needs to at least stay stable in real terms, and it hasn't lately. But at the same time, raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs -- and especially the number of jobs available to those near the minimum wage, the people who struggle the most with employment in the first place.

Security in retirement? Count me in on that too. Now, about paying for it... Oh, wait, if they say anything about that, well, someone's gonna lose out, and there go those votes. :)

And I really hope they don't literally mean "college access for all." College isn't an entitlement, and we've got way too many students who take a consumerist attitude to college already. If they mean "anyone who's going to take college seriously, we'll find a way to get you there," then they've sold me. Otherwise, meh, not buying it.

If one doesn't care for Bush -- and, boy, there are plenty of reasons not to care for him -- one has to remember that it's in part because the Democrats not once but twice couldn't find someone who could beat him. (And even if you're one who insists that one or both elections were stolen -- man, if you can't find someone who can't *easily* beat Bush, you've still got problems.)

This is why the only vote I'm planning to cast this year is for Kinky. The rest of 'em can all go to heck.

At Friday, July 28, 2006 at 8:36:00 PM PDT, Blogger Adam Villani said...

That reminds me of one time I overheard two women talking about a candidate (I forget who). One asked the other, "What about education--- is he for it?"

Well, duh. Everybody's for it. Show us your plan. Show us your *good* plan. Explain your plan simply. Make the details available for those who want it. Defend it against your political opponents, who will trash your plan in public not because they care about the details, but just because they're your opponents and trashing your plans is what they do. Let us know what we should expect out of this plan, and what you might do if situations change. Is that too much to ask?

At Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 5:57:00 PM PDT, Blogger Arb said...

The current political culture seems to be that parties think that "ideas" win votes, but details on how they'll be implemented lose them. Once you start giving details, voters will find out that not every proposal favors them -- in fact, some are going to cost them, and cost them more than other people. Everyone thinks schools should be better, but noone wants to pay for it. Everyone thinks retirees deserve security, but noone lines up to donate money to Social Security. Paying people "a living wage," as some advocate, is a wonderful principle of social justice -- but this means that everyone else has to have a slightly smaller piece of the pie to make up for it.

Once voters realize there's no free lunch here -- that to really attack these issues will require at least a modest sacrifice by everyone -- they tend to start getting turned off. That's what parties fear.

Far, far safer for Democrats to run on the "at least we're not the Repulicans" platform.

At Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 7:01:00 PM PDT, Blogger Donna B. said...

Re: nobody's against education -- To my students, I call those "All babies should eat" arguments. (I probably stole that line from Noel.)

At Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:38:00 AM PDT, Blogger Adam Villani said...

I fear you may be right, arb. Everybody wants something for nothing. But if the flipside to that is the uninspiring generalities of "Six for '06," then where's the happy medium?

At Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:50:00 AM PDT, Anonymous doafy said...

donna, that's a good one. I have some who insist on writing papers about, say, child abuse, without giving me a solution. You can't just "expose" that child abuse is a horrible thing. You must have a solution if you're going to choose a topic like that.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home