RELEVANCE

There is little doubt that the Democrats have usually been their own worst enemies. They have historically done well at the local level, though (which is how Jackson took the fragments of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans and built them into a modern party), and that has assured their survival.

Although the dictum about domestic issues and foreign policy once was true, one begins to doubt that the old "verities" still apply. After all, historically, Democrats have started wars which Republicans have ended. That is not necessarily going to be the case now.

By the way, we might be talking past each other in another regard. I am looking at the national government as the aggregate of the Excutive, and the Congress, [/i]and[/i] the bureaucracy. Even without a spoils system, and new administration can impress its program on the bureaucracy, and those among the bureaucrats who won't play along can be effectively marginalized.

Additionally, "legacy" matters a great deal. Both Gerald Ford and the elder Bush were hampered by bad domestic economies which they did not create, and hadn't the opportunity to ameliorate. It can work the other way, as well. Carter suffered from the continuing economic slump, which had more to do with the end of the Vietnam war than it did with the complexion of any administration or the Congress. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, and although his monetary policies probably lead to the recession of the early 1980s, his long term policy resulted in a rebound in the economy. Reagan wanted to replace him, but his advisers wet their pants and begged Ronnie to leave him in place. In the end, he remained at the Fed all through the Reagan administration.

Whoever takes over from the Shrub, Republican or Democrat, will get the credit for, or take the blame for, the solution of any perceived problems, or the failure to solve them.

The Democrats' biggest task will be to successfully address their lack of power in Congress. Given the power of incumbancy, they have their best shot to make a start in the Senate--i doubt they will capture the House any time soon. The results of this coming mid-term election in the House and Senate may be a signpost for their prospects, if they can make any headway against incumbancy.

The bureaucracy is likely to a problem for an incoming Democratic President, if there is one, because eight years of Republican administration combined with a Republican dominated Congress for longer than that bodes ill for the implementation of new policies.

And we shall see what we shall see.

Set, I think you and I are on the same page. Where are the other commentators here? I hope that the thread will attract many thoughtful responses from across the political spectrum, and that we can post here in a civil, respectful manner. This is a good start, so let the band begin.

Casey would waltz with the strawberry blonde
And the band played on . . .

Yes, let us hope so.

my initial thought is that i would like to see the u.s. spend less time looking backwards at what was and take more time looking forward.

trying to recapture the good old days, whether your g.o.d.s are The Cleaver family or woodstock, is a waste of human energy.

in other words, let's all stop being so damned uptight about everything !

the world is getting smaller, the universe is getting bigger and frankly, it doesn't really matter who's praying (and to what god) and it's even less important who's shagging who.

i'd be way happy if i never heard the words "family/traditional values", abortion, conservative, liberal, heartland, war on terror, "weak on defense" or any of the other wedgey lottle buzz phrases that have consistantly retarded any kind of forward momentum in this country for the last 20 or so years.

i doubt it will happen, but i'd rather hear both parties talk about solving problems that are common to all americans than pandering to "the base".


uuhh-ohhh... mrs. dtom's home. gonna have to come back later...

That is almost exactly my first thought. Things like the environment, the future of our economy as emerging countries take their turn at bat, the healthcare issues, are what I want to hear about. And when will we get out of Iraq? That's a biggie. I want to hear someone who has some ideas about how to proactively address these issues. I want to hear a plan.

Here in Atlanta, we have an excellent mayor who is constantly asking the question, "what kind of city will Atlanta be in 100 years?" I'd like a candidate/party with a 100 year plan.

yep, that would be refreshing.

the concept of red states and blue states is killing this country. if a state has to be any color, it's more accurate to say that their are 50 purple states.

huh... i never thought of it that way before...

guess what we need is a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people leader...

Bwa ha ha ha.

What Republicans can and should offer:

* Resolute support of establishing a democratic presence in the Middle East (Iraq!)

* Resolute resistance to Iran becoming a Nuclear power.

* Resolute resistance to South America returning to a Leftist power.

* Resolute support of and alignment with the foreign policies of Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Taiwan, and Eastern Europe (read: *F the rest of the word), except for those nations that recognize and respond to the fact that America butters their bread.

Power rules in all ways.

Argue (in typical Liberal fashion) that it should not, but it does!

One assumes from that screed that "South America" is alleged to be unitary entity, which was at one time a "Leftist power."

One ought not to make silly assumptions, though.

i will say that i'd like to see the south american countries get their respective shite together. and we best get a move on in helping them with it or they are gonna find new friends. like china.

and it's gonna take more than playing "war on drugs", here.. have some guns, to do it.

The initial question is hard, set. I may not be able to form an opinion.

The #1 most frequently emailed article from the NYTimes has the following title:

"A Preacher's Credo: Eliminate the Negative, Accentuate Prosperity"

That certainly sounds like a good approach for the Republicans to take.

The evidence of discussion at this board of late strongly suggests that immigration is an issue of significant importance to a great many people.

really ?? i hadn't noticed.

Insert appropriate rolly-eyed emoticon here . . .

Jim Wallis is evidently giving a talk around here, I'm thinking of going. He deeply impressed me with commentary after the 2004 elections

(Oh, already happened. Strike that.)

a centrist is really what i think we need. maybe not want, but what we need.

Asherman = "In politics, two weeks is forever." We are still a long way out from the election, and a number of events could drastically change what seem to be important half way through 2006. We speculate at our peril.

What do we expect the world to be like as the next Presidential canvass develops?

War on Terror. The split between support for, and condemnation of the current Administration's policies and means of prosecuting the War on Terror will probably still be hotly pursued by Partisans of both Parties. Probably the Democratic campaign will continue to make political capital out of the risk to civil rights resulting from this Administration's war policies. Civil rights are at risk, as they have been during every war the United States has ever been involved in. Thats a big burden for the Republican Party to carry. If between now and the election there is a major attack on U.S. soil, the balance will tip decidedly toward the Republican stance.

The nature of conflict in Southwest Asia, the cradle of radical Islamic terrorism, as the election nears will quite properly be argued by both Parties in their bid for election victory.

At crunch time Americans will believe they can trust Republicans over Democrats to protect America from terrorists. In order for this trend to reverse, Democrats will have to be seen as tougher on foreign enemies than Republicans (highly unlikely), or the electorate will have to accept a policy of appeasement as the way through (also highly unlikely).

Southwest Asia. I suspect that U.S. troops will still be engaged to some extent in Southwest Asia. I believe that the current administration will work very hard to get an Iraqi government in place. Iraqi forces will become more effective, though terrorist violence in the country will continue. I think that we will see some U.S. troop reductions in Iraq as the Iraqi's become better able to function alone. As in times past, the U.S. will continue to provide monetary and logistical support to a country working to achieve stability.

The UN may issue some very harsh resolutions and restrictions against Iran o0ver their nuclear weapons program. I don't think much will come of it, but it could be a card in voter concerns over threats originating in Southwest Asia. I suspect that tensions between India and Pakistan will not change much, but may continue to cool for a bit. Overthrow of the current Pakistani regime is improbable, but would be regarded as a victory by the radical Islamic movement and would also be viewed, I think, as vindication of this Administration's policies. Any further terrorists attacks on U.S. soil, citizens, or property would strengthen voter support for the policies pursued by the Bush Administration. Overt threats toward Israel from Iran and/or the Palestinians, would probably work in favor of the Republican Party..

Continued armed conflict, whatever the trend, probably would be beneficial, in a voting sense, to conservatives and Republicans. Diminution of conflict would vindicate current policies, and further escalation would underscore the importance of staying the course. Of course, we all … conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats … fervently hope that the violence in Iraq will cease and our soldiers can be used elsewhere to national advantage. I doubt that anything in East Asia will be a major campaign issue directly, though as a secondary issue to trade policies, etc. it might get some play.

Extreme efforts are underway to affect a noticible change in Iraq. Americans, actually, have no real stomach for war (A statement of fact, not a value judgment). We like a high tech ass whipping where the enemy is overwhelmed and destroyed, but the sort of long term action going on in Iraq is not to our liking at all. Republicans have to show progress. Be prepared for major military campaigns against the insurgents between now and the election. Eastablish the notion that we are actually winning in Iraq, and much of the anti-war moderate senitment will dissipate.

The National Economy. By far the largest problem is the mounting National Debt, and I seriously doubt that either Party will have any miraculous solutions to reducing it to less alarming proportions. I don't foresee a major recession between now and the election, and unemployment figures won't probably dramatically change in the time period. Neither Party is likely to change the nation's commitment to Free Trade and Open Borders (in an economic sense).

Voters will, as usual, vote their own pocketbook. The Democrats will argue that the wealthy (whoever they are) should pay more and that the poor (whoever they are) should pay less, but be given more benefits. I don't think that plays well with most middle-class Americans (whoever they are, and most think of themselves as middle-class despite other people's definition). Since I believe many more voters are doing all right than who are falling into despair, the status quo will probably prevail on the economic issues.

Should provide a big boost for Republicans, but one has to appreciate the effectiveness of the Democratic "Big Lie" strategy relative to the economy.

National Political Mood. Liberal Democrats predominate in the large urban areas, and along the coasts of New England, Michigan, and California. The rest of the country is much more conservative, and resent the intellectual snobbery of their coastal/urbane brothers. Folks in the heartland of America aren't in a boom-cycle (which might make them more "liberal"), but they are getting by and are suspicious of political moves that might worsen local conditions. Most Americans still see the world through religious tinted glasses, and distrust those who are perceived as wanting to change "traditional values". This is a largely conservative electorate, and the Democratic Party still doesn't seem to understand why their highly "moral" stance doesn't get more support from those they typify as "bumpkins", "ignorant dupes of the Republican Party", etc. I expect that the Republican Platform will go after those votes just as strongly as it has in the recent past. On the other hand, there isn't anything to suggest that the Democrats have learned that people like Senators Kennedy and Clinton are not vote getters outside of their strongholds.

We can rely upon the Democrats to press any advantage they may stumble upon as a mandate for a leftist agenda. Bill Clinton was a product of Democratic desperation for power. It's not time for that phenomena to repeat itself.

Special Interest Issues. I see the abortion issue as of little consequence in the coming election. The extremists on both sides of the issue cancel one another out. Conservatives may get a tiny edge from the Right to Life Movement that is appealing to the religious voters. This isn't really, so far as I'm concerned, a national issue; it should properly be decided by the people of the various States within the framework of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I expect that both Parties will tilt slightly to placate the extremists most numerous in their existing ranks.

Abortion and same sex marriages will take center stage. These are issues of which a large segment of the Republican constinuency are very passionate. Whether or not the conventional wisdom that Republicans must rally their base has any merit, it will have acceptance within the GOP, and we can expect to see these sort of polarizing issues made prominent in the weeks to come.

Immigration is a much more "national issue". Neither Party has, nor is likely to have, a "solution" that will gain more votes than it will lose. President Bushes "solution" is probably about as good as any, but there isn't enough Republican support to get it into law. Closing off the border to Mexico is a practical impossibility. To further criminalize illegal immigrants would be a bad public policy. I suspect that both Parties will spin the issue to maximize votes, but neither will have a clear-cut policy that will only cost votes.

See above. Immigration is a hot button for conservatives. Republicans will milk the issue for all it is worth.

Campaign Reforms. Everyone will talk about it, but nothing will be done. Both Parties secretly like the way things are … so long as their Party is in power. With few exceptions, only those out of power demand reform. Candidates will promise reform, but only the dim witted will actually expect that anything will be done.

Utterly irrelevant. Delay did the Republicans a huge favor by removing himself to the shadows. Even Democratic faithful have got to gag a bit whenever they hear the hackneyed "Culture of Corruption" line spouting incessantly from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi.


Major issues:

Iraq - No recognizable progress: Advantage Democrats

Iran

They do something really stupid (always a possibility): Advantage Republicans

We take successful pre-emptive action in destroying their nuclear capabilities (Big ass installation bombings with minimal collateral damage and no US casualties): Advantage Republicans.

Terrorists attack America: Advantage Republicans

Terrorists mount spectacular attacks on the rest of the world and particularly Australia or Europe: Advantage Republicans

Economy - No appreciable change: Draw - thanks to the Dem propoganda machine. Health care solutions are fertile ground for either party, but neither are up to the challenge.

Social Issues - Draw - As many zealots on the Left as on the Right.

Change - Show a light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel and this will not be an issue. No change and it will the main issue.

Immigration - 12 million illegal aliens can't vote (yet). Advantage - Republicans