randomWalks

The Dems need a real strategy for beating the Republicans, unlike the Kerry campaign of 2004. I pointed out in a letter to Socialist Worker that the Congressional Democrats, amazingly, have a lower approval rating than Bush. Scroll down.

And all this strong talk is nice. But it would be nicer if they actually backed it up. They didn't lift a finger to stop Alito's or Robert's confirmation. They greenlight the military budget. They completely voted down a "Troops Out Now" resolution.

Faced with an unpopular president, they should be on the offensive. Instead, they are retreating. As a result, they are less popular than Bush--which only emboldens the Right further.

They didn't lift a finger to stop Alito's or Robert's confirmation.

This started with the far left claiming the Supreme Court was non-issue during the 2000 issue. Come on Zagg, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As for your approval statistics, I think they're wrong, and everyone knows how easy it is to lie/cheat with statistics. You can come up with a poll to say anything you want. The point is that we need to get Republicans out of power in 2008.

Also, a mea culpa would be nice from all the people who claimed there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

That sounded meaner than I meant it to.

I actually an ready to entertain the idea that Gore would *not* have been different/better than Bush. I just want to see/read evidence, and I think it's a debate we should have this year instead of next year.

Part of the reason we pointed to the Supreme Court as a non-issue is because what (I think) people were really talking about was the Democrats' willingness to actually fight for abortion rights. I think they've showed in the last few years that they either are unwilling and/or unable to actually pose an alternative to the Bush administration. (The other facet is that, ultimately, we can't rely on the Democratic Party to fight for us. That's a big part of what Nader's campaign was about. It was about mobilizing people, although I'll freely admit that organization was derailed.)

As far as Gore v. Bush, if Gore said half of the stuff then that he's saying now, I think he would have fared better. But in my bones I still think the Democrats don't represent a real alternative to the Republicans. It's not so much Bush, the person, vs. Gore, the person. It's about the interests and agenda each represented. And on most of Bush's agenda, the Dems have gone right along with it. What has the party done since 2000 to illustrate that they have an alternate agenda? Just to name one issue, as sentiment has turned further and further against the war (and against Bush), the Democratic Party still maintain a pro-war position. There is more criticism, but is of the weakest kind and it's never been backed up with any kind of legislation.

Lastly, as for the poll numbers, I see no reason to be skeptical of them. It's not like the poll shows a clear bias. Through the years, the approval ratings go up and down for both parties in the Harris Poll.

The fundamental question, to me, is whether the Democrats have been able to capitalize at all on Bush's fall in popularity? I see no indication that they've been able to do that. In 2008, if the Democrats lone strategy is that they are not the Republicans (which is what the 2004 strategy amounted to), they'll probably lose once again. IIRC, Bush was the first president ever re-elected when his approval rating was lower than 50 percent.