Why the Democrats lose in 2008
By Smith2028
@Smith2028 (797)
United States
March 31, 2007 7:06am CST
Yes, it is a bold prediction, but the Democrats will lose the congress in 2008. Why?
During their campaigining in 2006, the Democrats promised to clean up Congress. Yet, when faced with the biggest decision to date of their new reign of power, they decide to only fund our troops if and only if they get their special pork projects funded also. With over 20 Billion in pork spending, they are doing little to actually curb unnecessary spending.
Furthermore, they are doing nothing to stop the war in Iraq like they promised. They are coming to realize that they have no constitutional power to do anything. Once they voted for the authority they turned over power to the Commander in Chief.
Vacation time isn't being curbed either. They House and Senate have taken the same amount of days off as the previous congresses.
In the end, they are going to come up empty on their promises, nothing is going to be accomplished and the American people are going to want a change, which will lead to a Republican take over.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@skydancer (2101)
• United States
7 Apr 07
Well, as a republican, I for one hope this prediction is correct, and pray nightly that it is. I wish I could be more confident. I, too, am slightly worried about the current lack of a solid presidential candidate for the Republican party for 2008, and also how the nation as a whole will compare them to the democrat candidate. Both parties have said some pretty awful things about the other, however, I have always found it to be especially vicious on the democrat side. Some people (even some self-proclaimed republicans from some of what I read) had a hard time differentiating between Bush and Kerry in '04 as to who was the more conservative, which seems to suggest that some democrats will pretend they're not liberals to get elected and if they don't pretend, they will attempt through judicial activism what they didn't win at the ballot box. Also, some seem to have gotten elected (not necessarily into presidential office but into any office) simply by making a lot of noise and by bashing the hell out of their opponent rather than stating in a civilized way what needs to be accomplished and how it would work. That is especially unacceptable to me and why anyone would trust somebody who competes using these tactics is beyond me (but each to their own I guess...). This even makes the attitude of the republican party a little disturbing to me sometimes because they have a tendency to be a little too passive towards the hostility coming from the democrat side (again, this doesn't apply to all of their politicians). Also, many confuse those who tell people what they want to hear versus those who tell people what they *need* to hear.
But I digress... I really do pray for a republican take-over. Thanks for this very thought-provoking analysis.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
4 Apr 07
You are right, so far Speaker Pelosi has thumbed her nose at almost every promise she made during her campaign. I guess the 100 hours thing wasn't meant to be 100 hours straight. ;~D
The thing is, I don't think the democrats have the guts to think for themselves long enough to notice anything passed the D after the names.
Republicans have been willing to call politicians to task for everything from "misdeeds" to forgetting who sent them there. Pelosi and Reid all but OWE their leadership seats to the conseratives who sat out the last election. I just don't see that kind of backbone in the democrat party. In fact, I'm trying to remember the last time democrats stood up to their representatives in disgust.
Heck, I'd be happy if they just questioned the ones who are blatantly on the take.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
5 Apr 07
Hi Smith2028,
Nice to visit with you again.
In all honesty, it is far more important to me that the 2008 victors are represented by their ideology rather than the animal icons ... elephants or as*es, I mean donkeys.
The socialists cannot be allowed to further erode the capitalist foundation of our nation. It's as simple as that.
The U.S.A. was not founded on socialist principles! And, every person who is wise enough to understand that socialism leads to an unmotivated, unproductive society needs to educate others on that point.
Conservative principles preserve capitalism and socialist principles preserve the communist model. Communism has never been successful!!! History exemplifies this time and time again!
So, if a Dem is truly conservative ... well then that's ok by me. Of course, I don't believe there's even one example in D.C. today. Lieberman comes closer than most, but he is still socially liberal.
In the case of R.I.N.O's, they should be expelled from the party. The waters have become so muddied that one cannot rely on party affiliation to indicate ideology anymore.
I wish that it weren't so, but it is! For example: last weekend I was at a county political party meeting. And, one RINO suggested deviating from the national party platform to make the county party more appealing to independents.
Go figure?
-Ladyluna
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
6 Apr 07
Hi Paratek,
You're right. For far too long all Americans have been given electoral choices that equate to less than ideal.
For example: in my state's gubanatorial election of 2002, a fine candidate -- one with astounding name recognition and solid core principles, threw his hat into the mix. Rather than the party rallying behind him, the state party decided it was more important to choose a candidate of a particular race, other than the first candidate's race. The election was lost overwhelmingly because the candidate of choice was not a true conservative. And, the party was so unhelpful to the true conservative, that I'd be surprised if he ever ran for office again.
Understandably, the party wants to win. But, at what cost? I believe that the party underestimates the power of conservatism as a winning ideology, if presented to the constituency.
In the case of the '08 election, the party seems to be woefully silent in regard to fielding candidates that are not only conservative, but who also have the will and ability to to articulate the precepts of conservatism. (Newt Gingrich being the obvious exception.)
I don't know how steadfast Fred Thompson is in his conservative principles, so I can't speak to him personally. However, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are both very solidly conservative. Yet, neither is getting much attention from the party.
Another example is Roger Hedgecock. Why hasn't the party approached dynamic individuals like him for a presidential run? He's sharp as a tack, and has name recognition, electoral experience, and solid core principles.
Sadly, until the party steps up to the plate, and begins to seek out dynamic potential candidates with solid core principles and charisma, I suspect that we'll be left in a position of less than ideal candidates.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
5 Apr 07
I agree with you Ladyluna, but so far I don't see the Conservatives putting a candidate for 2008. Fred Thompson would be the best hope, but he's still hasn't announced anything.
I hear my diehard conservative friends complaining that the major candidates aren't conservative enough, but if no one is willing to throw their hat in the ring, we are left with choosing the "most" conservative from either party.
The last few elections show that it's hard to decide who will be the "most" conservative, since most candidates try to come off as the "most" conservative... even if they are flaming liberals.
1 person likes this
@pinstikfartherin (75)
• United States
2 Apr 07
The Democratic congress is trying to fund out troops and get them out of Iraq by a certain deadline. They are also trying to deal with the mess that this administration has placed on this country; that's a hard enough job as it is. A republican take over is the last thing we need a hopefully most others will agree.
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
2 Apr 07
Once again, I reiterate the fact that the Congress has no constitutional power to pull out troops.
1 person likes this
@lawqota (22)
• United States
31 Mar 07
Dream on my friend. The Democrats are moving more slowly that the public would like on the war, but they are moving in the right direction. Most Republicans, the gutless wonders that they are, are still afraid to stand up to Bush. In 2008, the Republicans will lose even more seats. They are not responding to the public opinion of the war.
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
1 Apr 07
The Democrats have nowhere to move on the war. The war is commanded by the Commander in Chief, which is the President. All congress can do is abondon the troops in a combat zone by not giving them the resources they desperately need.
