March 20, 2006
they can just agree to disagree… forever
With the Republican Party in disarray and seemingly incapable of unifying behind a single message, Democratic hopes of winning back the House and Senate this fall have been dealt a severe blow.
“Opposing Republican policies has always been one of our bread-and-butter issues,” observed one Democratic Party strategist. “If the GOP doesn’t get its act together soon and start coming up with things we can be opposed to, all we’ll have left is abortion and general condescension towards people who don’t live on the coasts. It’s like a three legged stool, remove one of the legs, and the stool becomes unstable. Kind of like Howard Dean.”
Republicans recognize the problem. "That whole uniform bipartisan agreement in Congress over the Dubai ports deal? Okay, that was just embarrasing for everyone involved," admitted one Republican media consultant. "Sure, you could say we accomplished something but that's not what mobilizes the base."
Democrats are particularly dismayed over the diminishing impact of bashing the President. As one senior party member noted, "Look, everybody’s against Bush now. It’s like organizing a campaign around opposition to Ben Affleck. Outside of a few fanatical hardcore supporters, you’ve got everyone on your side already."
Republicans don't expect to reach agreement on a coherent set of policies any time soon. “We’ve got two factions within the party right now,” admitted one GOP insider. “One faction wants to run on our traditional principles of small government and fiscal responsibility while the other faction wants to actually implement those principles.”
“Frankly many of us regard that as just plain reckless."
With internal disagreements over immigration policy, deficit spending, and the war in Iraq, Republicans can at least rely on social issues to help rally supporters. “All I can say,” noted an aide close to Republican Senate leaders, “is thank God for the gay rights movement.”
While Democrats considered coming out strongly against Republicans being against gay marriage, they ultimately decided not to. “Yeah, we thought about that,” remarked a DNC staffer, “but that would be kind of a double-against which could be misinterpreted by some as actually being for something. And that wasn’t a risk we were willing to take.”
This leaves voters with a difficult choice to make: Support the party that isn't for anything, or the party that isn't against anything.
Just try not to get the two confused.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference they can just agree to disagree… forever:
Your insightful analysis has brought clarity to my poltical thinking. It's time to get behind George III.
Posted by: Homo Insapiens | Mar 21, 2006 9:32:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.