“solid working majority ” IMO Most Americans would go with majority when talking about Democrat House member numbers, the numbers would decrease rapidly, when using the word solid,
and flatline to nothing when the word working was added.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great points John, but you missed one thing: the American federal system of government is not designed to only work when a single party controls everything. The people who are elected and in power are supposed to work with the minority so that things get passed in a bi-partisan atmosphere rather than the partisan one you point out at the end of your post. To that end, the comments about the Dems only having a working majority are little more than a Democratic Party talking point excuse that translates as, “Give us complete, unchecked power, and then we can do something, but not until we have the unchecked power we want.” That is not how the system is supposed to work. To suggest that Democrats (or Republicans) should have enough seats and control over all 3 branches (ie, unchecked power) is not only wrong, and dangerous, but anti-American. Unity doesn’t come from a single color in the political spectrum outshining everyone. It comes from working together. Democrats have not, will not, and can not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott the American people know that the Democrats DO have a solid working majority in the House of Representatives. They also know that having a 51-49 majority in the Senate is NOT a working majority, more so when the White House is held by the Republican party. The Americans who voted out the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate in 2006 were disappointed that more could not be done to further their agenda, but those Americans also realize that it is much easier to block legislation than to pass it.
But at least you have stated the obvious, American politics is always controlled by the Independents, not the voters who are registered to either party. Doing so reduces partisanship.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Agreed Curt. There were months of wide-eyed, ear-to-ear grins in the msm following the Dems taking Congress. However, bit by bit people started to expect something, and when it didn’t happen the Dems Congress’ poll ratings sank, like stone and went deeper than GWB’s! They’ve been there since, and don’t even bounce. So you and Chris are probably right. There’d be a luvvy dovy, Chris Matthews snugglefest and giggles, but then…they’d ask, “when are the troops coming home?” And Hillary or Barack would say the same thing as McCain…the same thing as GWB: as soon as possible depending on conditions on the ground.

Remember, the DNC has been campaigning for the WH since 1998. What happens when they have to start producing results after 10yrs of promises? I don’t think it will take long before people and the media demand action, and since it’s been so long, I think the Dems will want it even faster. Moreover, in the unlikely event of a Hillary WH…how long before the first Clinton scandal?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The difference in that regards Scott was they didn’t have a Dem in the White House. Watch what will happen with a D in there. As happened with Bill, reporting all changed. The glass was suddenly half full instead of half empty when a R is in there.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I dunno Chris.

On the one hand I agree and would even say that the media narrative would change to one of “Democrats have solved everything. Democrats ordered a withdrawal.” and so forth.

On the other hand, it could get a lot LOT worse. The focus on Iraq could mirror what we saw in Jan/Feb/Mar of 07. Back then media frustration that the war wasn’t magically over was clear. Pressure was put on the Congress to do something, but they couldn’t stomach trading lesser agenda items for votes to end the war. It was partisan policy over patriotism, and the media hit hard. I don’t think it ended until the campaigns really fired up and stole air time. Ahhh, a few weeks where Democrats were held accountable.

…good times….

good times.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott,

My prediction is that if a leftist is elected, reporting on Iraq will dramtically change. No more CNN using the Babel power plant as an “IED”. No more fake stories of police recruitment centers being bombed. No more triple reporting attacks or distorting the effects of a missle/mortar stike on a FOB. I see the media showing the “anti-war” base that everything is “perfect” now that the left is in charge.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

No. I expect them to distort it more than anyone else, BUT the DNC is counting on people being foolish. I’m wondering if the American people in the middle-those who are not beholden to a single party-will ask themselves, “Why should I believe they’re gonna end the war when they promised that before and didn’t, and when their plans are the same as Bush’s current plan or McCain’s future plan?” The real question is will the American people in the middle be fooled again? Will they see the left’s lies?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You expect a liberal to actually see the truth?

Like or Dislike: 0  0