Moderate or Liberal?
Our friend Delta Mike has a post over at Virginia Prosgressive showcasing Jim Webb's editorial in the WSJ. He talks about the class system that is developing and how we need to try and change the course of this (although I didn't see a proposal to fix it).
Anyway, DM was using this to downplay thoughts that Webb may be a moderate or even a conservative in the Senate. He pointed out that usually liberals are the ones pointing to class warfare, etc as a political issue.
I have had the same opinion as he about these "moderate" candidates who the dems ran this time around. Everyone is talking about how the democratic party will be changed due to all these new moderate members. First off, it is unclear how moderate they will stay once they arrive in Washington. Second, even if they are; with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid they will have a tough time getting anywhere without some serious changes to their beliefs.
This leads into my question about how long the dem majority can last. I am a firm believer in local politics over national ones; but there is a correlation. More and more I think the parties will use divisive members of the opposite party to showcase why you should vote for them (i.e. saying Jim Webb is ok but a vote for him is a vote for Ted Kennedy; and you don't want that). I expected more of that this cycle, especially in the Montana race, but it didn't happen.
Some of these "moderate/conservative" dems who were elected this year, especially in the House, will have big targets on their backs to see how they perform in their first 2 years. I think some of these seats will be lost anyway as a result of the presidential race having coattail effects in deep red districts like the IN-8, FL-16 and TX-22. Various others may be surrendered by the dems b/c the people don't live up to what they said, or that they just end up being more liberal than the voters thought.
Don't forget folks, most dems this year were elected on a "GOP sucks" mantra; not a plan for anything. I think we could see a 1994 for the GOP again in 2008 due to the base realizing what a mistake was made in the past and being able to turn it around.
I'm not saying the GOP will do this, but I think they will have the opportunity. They have to seize upon it in 2008; or we may find ourselves out of power for the next 40 years.
Anyway, DM was using this to downplay thoughts that Webb may be a moderate or even a conservative in the Senate. He pointed out that usually liberals are the ones pointing to class warfare, etc as a political issue.
I have had the same opinion as he about these "moderate" candidates who the dems ran this time around. Everyone is talking about how the democratic party will be changed due to all these new moderate members. First off, it is unclear how moderate they will stay once they arrive in Washington. Second, even if they are; with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid they will have a tough time getting anywhere without some serious changes to their beliefs.
This leads into my question about how long the dem majority can last. I am a firm believer in local politics over national ones; but there is a correlation. More and more I think the parties will use divisive members of the opposite party to showcase why you should vote for them (i.e. saying Jim Webb is ok but a vote for him is a vote for Ted Kennedy; and you don't want that). I expected more of that this cycle, especially in the Montana race, but it didn't happen.
Some of these "moderate/conservative" dems who were elected this year, especially in the House, will have big targets on their backs to see how they perform in their first 2 years. I think some of these seats will be lost anyway as a result of the presidential race having coattail effects in deep red districts like the IN-8, FL-16 and TX-22. Various others may be surrendered by the dems b/c the people don't live up to what they said, or that they just end up being more liberal than the voters thought.
Don't forget folks, most dems this year were elected on a "GOP sucks" mantra; not a plan for anything. I think we could see a 1994 for the GOP again in 2008 due to the base realizing what a mistake was made in the past and being able to turn it around.
I'm not saying the GOP will do this, but I think they will have the opportunity. They have to seize upon it in 2008; or we may find ourselves out of power for the next 40 years.
posted by GOPHokie @ 9:22 PM
4 Comments:
At 11/18/2006 10:32 AM,
Anonymous said…
Whether they're sincere or not, they have shaken off the cobwebs enough to know it's productive to target the center of the electorate. I'm not sure the GOP has figured out how threatening such a strategy is. 2008 is not looking good at all actuarially for Republicans on the US Senate side. Most of the seats up are held by Republicans, and the lesser number of Democratic seats seem pretty secure.
At 11/19/2006 5:28 PM,
GOPHokie said…
Scout, I am not sure "running to the middle" is all that effective when you dont run on anything.
The only basic difference btw the "old dems" and the "new dems" is their social issue stances; which the liberals have been saying shouldnt be political issues anyway.
The problem for the GOP is that our message has become pretty hollow as well.
How can we argue being the party of limited government when the budget rises 40% under a GOP dominated federal government?
At 11/21/2006 8:04 AM,
Mosquito said…
What might be bert for America is for folks to stop labeling and choosing Republicans or Democrats...Neither party is doing the average American citizen justice.....Maybe we need to concentrate on electing folks who are HONEST and cannot be bought out by the corporate special interest lobbyists?
Maybe the Republicans should try to find a candidate who can fit this criteria....I for sure haven't seen anyone.
Buzz...Buzz....Mosquito (an "independent" not a party person).....
At 11/21/2006 2:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
gophokie-in response to your post at New Dominion:
Let me explain how judge Ginsberg got on the supreme court. President Clinton invited the head of the judiciary committee, Sen Hatch(R-UT) to propose some names of who would make acceptable choices to the Republicans. Sen. Hatch responded with 2 names: Ginsberg and Breyer.
That's why they were nominated and confirmed so easily. Would you like President Bush to follow this bipartisan model?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002
Post a Comment
<< Home