.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Two on politics

First, Sounds like a plan to me. I'd vote for that:
Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.

Second, on roughly the same topic from EJ Dionne.
If Rick Santorum wants you to look at his record in a way that makes him a paladin for the poor and if Dennis Hastert wants you to know that he's suspicious of the oil companies, the political weather is changing. When one side starts making the other side's argument, you don't need to be a pollster to know which belief system is in the ascendancy.

Anecdotal evidence way, way, way out in front of the election, but it's far better than bad news.

(Later) While we're talking about the Dems pushing things Americans want, "Democrats on Saturday pressed the U.S. Congress to slash tax breaks for profit-flush oil companies."

(One More) Apparently I'm doing election politics tonight. In one of their "notebook" style articles the WaPo notes that Lance Tarrance a Republican pollster thinks "This administration may be over."

Also, further down in the article is a very complimentary piece on my choice for '08, Clark Kent(Al Gore). "He is the most successful signature on an e-mail that we have ever had," said DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). Do it, Al. We want you to run.

(Of curious interest, three of these four articles showing a pro dem shift are from the WaPo. Different sections of the paper, but it seems to be their newsrooms conventional wisdom. Hmmmm...)

8 Comments:

  • I'd vote for that
    Sounds the way to go. I take it such a move would be window dressing, given Bush's ability to simply ignore (or is it veto) legislation he doesn't like.
    Great politics though, at least showcasing their proposed directions.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 9:45 PM  

  • Either ignor ore veto, but if the measures are popular as I think they might be, he would be a political fool to do so.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:54 PM  

  • Veto? He'll just sign it with great fanfare and then include a signing statement that says he can supercede it in the interest of national security.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:47 PM  

  • Run, Al, run!

    By Blogger Motherlode, at 11:31 AM  

  • Libby, it'll actually be pretty funny if he does veto because after five years that will be treated as such news. It'll make him look bad, and the congress look bad.

    Motherlode, I won't go into the whole Gore rant here. But I think that without saying a word, just standing there, he would offer evidence of the road not taken, a reminder of how good the Clinton presidency was, and what a Gore presidency could have been. It would be an unspoken indictment of the Bush administration. Are you better off than you were before the Republicans took power?

    Also, after the Kerry fiasco, I think all the taint of the 2000 election has washed off Gore.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:46 PM  

  • Bu$hCo bungling aside, the Republican's are a cunning bunch, and the Democrats need to watch their butts w.r.t. getting their agenda co-opted.

    We all need to remember how convinced we were that Kerry was going to win in 2004. The G.O.P. is not dead yet--not by a long shot.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:48 PM  

  • I agree fully. That's why I always couch this stuff. A whole lot can happen to change a campaign in a day, so six months is too long.

    But at the same time, I'd rather have good news now than not.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:46 PM  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 8:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home