Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The odd thing is, I see the party winning the house being worse of in 2008--for either party. If the Dems win, they'll be expected to try to do something, but they won't, other than investigations. And those will make them look petty. If the R's win, of course they have to do something, but they won't either, and 8 years will go down as the biggest do-nothing admin. of all time, or at least in recent memory.
In other words, that journey may be better taken by getting 217 seats.
|
While there's an element of truth to this, I suspect a Democratic victory this year will be better for the country.
The Dems would have control of committees in the House (I'm not hoping for the Senate at this point), and would have to put together their policies and proposals and get some bills out there. Yes, everything important is likely to get vetoed, but it will provide a better basis for comparing programs in the 2008 election. Though my suspicion is that the Rs will continue to run against McGovern, regardless of what proposals are made, which is what Spanky is doing.
There will also be a check on some of the Republican pork; there has been a strong element over the last six years of looking to buy the continued loyalty of the Red States. Things like moving military bases out of all the Blue States will become much tougher. Compromising over budget resolutions is almost always a good thing.
