Personally, I counting on more and more people coming to the realization that I have to give the democrat advantage some legs.  That realization is simply that the nature of progressive/liberal minded individuals appears to make them completely unsuited for the type of single-minded, cohesive thought and action required of an effective opposition party.  The republicans, on the other hand, appear to be unsuited, for a number of reasons, to be the party in power however, they do very well in opposition.

It is said that all politics is local and, I doubt that anyone will pull the lever, or not, for a local based on my analysis above however(comma) it could have a tremendous effect on fund raising efforts and in getting the endorsements of groups or organizations.  At the executive level it can go either way (I prefer progressive but apparently I can't win them all) without too much damage as long as the liberals have a clear legislative majority. 

That people, is what it takes to have the America that we want.  Keep it in mind and repeat it frequently in conversation.

CAFKIA 

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

One more heh.

Just after the Republicans lost the House, House Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt spent the weekend hosting a golf outing at Kiawah Island golf resort to thank contributors who had given $5,000 to his leadership PAC, the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund (or the ROYB Fund).

The weekend at the South Carolina resort, described as a “fulfillment,” was attended by about 100 people, including 47 donors, according to Blunt’s office. The contingent also included about 14 Republican congressmen, among them members of tax writing, appropriations, and agriculture committees.

Blunt’s office said the congressman “is proud of the tremendous financial assistance he has given to hundreds of Republican members and candidates and believes that fund-raising is a necessary component of recapturing our majority in 2008, a cause he is 100% committed to.”

 

But seriously. I don't think one can accurately describe any election as an acceptance or rejection of an ideology. Bernie Sanders, an actual, dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, won Vermont's ultra-conservative Northeast Kingdom with something like 60% of the vote.

An ideology is nothing more than a guide to action - or non-action, as the case may be. Republicans can keep saying until they're blue in the face (heh) that the "free market" is eventually going to solve the healthcare crisis. But voters don't give a rat's ass about the free-market or socialized medicine. They want a better health care system.

Elections are about performance and credibility. Sometimes, like Bush in 04, a politician can manage to bluff their way through and convince voters he or she needs more time to reach their goals. But eventually they have to pay the piper. It'll be the same for Democrats.

1/2 option one, 1/2 option two. You can probably figure out which half of which option.

I do not think that the Democratic gains in the House and Senate signal that the Dems are becoming more competitive...they are, but that's not why they won in so many races this year.

I believe that the Dem gains were due to the people waking up to the fact that they had been duped by Republican promises of change that did not materialize and wide-spread corruption within the Republican party that did materialize.

I believe that people finally became aware of just how many falsehoods and misleading "evidence" was used to push the country into a war in Iraq. I think that the people began to become angry that the true war against terrorism that we began fighting in Afghanistan was all but abandoned by the Bush administration when they were finally able to trump up enough "evidence" to justify going into Iraq and finishing what W perceived as his daddy's "failure" to effectively prosecute the first Gulf War. And I think that the people are angry that W did not listen to cooler, wiser heads when it came to the reasoning behind his father's decision to NOT go into Iraq, which ultimately proved to be the right decision as evidenced by our now 3+ years and counting long involvement. And that at home, W's policies have us overspending our means, and underfunding programs he highly touted, and blowing a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit, and engaging in the politics of nastiness for six years, and doing less for people that really need help while spending more and more money on a war that did NOT have to be fought at this time (I do think Saddam Hussein would have to have been dealt with sometime, but now was NOT the time...he was effectively contained and no danger to anyone but himself and his own people).

As for 2008, the Dems would do well to learn a few things very quickly. I think that Dems stand to lose more than they gained in 2006 if they do not show the people substantial change and innovations in governance. They MUST lead better and more productively than the Republicans have or they are DEAD in 2008. And they must include conservatives' opinions and values (inclusion does not necessarily mean caving in by the way) in any legislation they offer, they cannot afford to discount the other half of the country as the Republicans did for so long. And they MUST avoid the kind of corrupting influences that did in the Republican party so quickly.

"You can't fix stupid..." Ron White

One word: fluoridation.

Via Spencer Ackerman, this gem from Rich Lowry:

Liberals cannot count on conservatives being associated with corruption, incompetence or an unpopular war forever.

Note that he didn't mention laughs.  

Some shade of grey in there.

I think it's a coalescence of energetic efforts on the part of the Democratic grassroots combined with a willingness to spend significant dollars on the part of the national organization -- which would have less momentum if Bush's administration was more popular.

____________________________

You can live a batter life, or a butter life. Or both, if you choose.

Where's the edit/delete feature when you need it?

#1 should be "Evidence that the Democratic party is becoming more competitive and should win in '08" 

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.