and the Zogby poll last week also found that 50% of those polled would "Never" vote for Hillary Clinton for president. I don't think thats an outlier either, Steve. What are the Dems prepared to do if Hillary continues to poll so negatively? Nominate her anyway and hand the country to Rudy?
Posted by T2 at October 22, 2007 09:24 AMPelosi is a gentle grandma. She is not a mean and nasty human being like Delay or Newty. Rethugs wanted to win at all costs unlike Democrats. A republican won in LA this weekend b/c Bush intentionally let the people die so they can drag Governor Blonco down. They knew that the hurricanes would be destructive but they intentionally ignored the warnings.
T2, I'm confident (and praying) that Hillary will fade and Edwards will emerge as the Dems choice. I hate to say it but a white, christian male who will not whip the NASCAR crowd into a frenzy.
Of course I was more confident in my Buffalo pick over Baltimore this week.
BTW, go Rockies!!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 22, 2007 09:43 AMI'm beginning to simply doubt the craven and hapless image of our Congressional Dem leaders that they seem to be pleased to project. They can't be such shrinking violets if they go through the horrifying circus that modern politics has become in order to be elected. Their egos are just fine, thank you.
No, I fail to believe that experienced, lifelong political professionals are so confused by the overwhelming polls and uncertain about the expressed will of the American electorate when they were witness to a historic sweep of both houses of Congress, without a SINGLE loss of incumbent Democrats.
Their dismal, enabling performance is of another order entirely. Either they are subject to regular blackmail from opposition researchers from the "Rove shop", after poring over millions of intercepts of, once thought private communication, OR, they're in it for the money. By that, I mean, of course, the stylized bribery Kabuki we witness every election cycle. The extra $40,000 Jay Rockefeller gleaned from the telcos within the first few months of becoming Committee Chairman is a likely example of how it works.
My main source of disgust is that our Representatives are willing to sell their souls short; for so relatively little money. We need to either stop the extortion or hire more expensive (AND SMARTER) hookers. These guys just aren't that stupid and I'm getting damned tired of being lied to!
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 22, 2007 09:47 AMDeminNewJ - at some point Democratic "incompetence" or "spinelessness" becomes complicity
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 22, 2007 10:04 AMI believe GV is correct. It's as if they're doing on purpose.
Posted by JohnT at October 22, 2007 10:17 AMJosh Marshall has an interesting take on the Dems apparent inability to "bring the troops home".
Posted by snark at October 22, 2007 10:59 AMon the TPM story snark mentioned...Marshall's point was if 25% of the 51% needed to win an election is against you..you cant win. Conversely, if you are guaranteed that 25%, you only gotta get another 26% out of the remaining 75%. That's how Rove put Bush in the WH two terms in a row....by having an unshakable 25% Evangelical Nut turnout for his boy. That's the 25% still hanging with Bush. And that 25% is pure Hate Hillary. All the GOP needs is 26% of the rest and voila! Rudy in the WH. So while the Dems need 51%, all the GOPers need is 26%.
Posted by T2 at October 22, 2007 11:44 AMGuys, the Dem leadership wanted this war. They were not misled by W. They allowed themselves to be "misled." If it went south, they could have plausible deniability. If it went well they could say they were onboard 100%. Further, they illegally delegated their power to declare war to W months before the war during which time the case fell apart.
The sad fact is, the Dem leadership still supports the war. That is why the efforts to end it are channeled into futile timetable legislation. The only way to end it is to de-fund it. You can't veto something that wasn't passed.
Posted by skeptic at October 22, 2007 03:57 PM