Is The Party over?

[Eric R.]

With the continued defeat of the democrats in efforts to regain the congress (4 attempts and 4 failures) and local democrates only continuing to enjoy dominence in traditional areas (Mass. and Cal.) is the party of Jackson on its death bed? It seems they are so divided between their liberal and moderate camps that even a slight effort to present a solid front is a near impossiblity these days. its easy to know where a Republican stands but a democrate seems to be slippery and hard to hold on to. I mean look at Rendell here in PA, when you look at him the he litterally ozzes bodily fluids like Jabba the Hutt.

[RaconteurX]

The Republicans are just as fractured, it just is not as evident. If they attempt to push an ultra-conservative agenda through Congress, they may be facing recall elections in short order. It is the moderates who are carrying the two major parties, these days, and that may work to America's favor.

[CommanderTebok]

I believe the United States electorate has become much more conservatitive following 9/11. The conversative agenda may (hopefully) triumph.

[Eric R.]

Yes We republicans are fractured however there is strong unity within the party the two main camps moderate Conservatives and Ultra Conservatives serve to only controll the other instead of being a road block to further success and progress. However with the democrates they seemed to oppose one another any chance they get look at Minnesota when the Dem got stuck with Mondale when the family and wellstones backers asked him even beofre thparty could organize things and then look at the memorial/rally they staged which no Dem. official could have ever apporved of in there right mind.

btw there is no such thing as a recall election in the US. And the Country has turned Conservative like it or not. I think the whole Democratic party is in need of a session with Doctor Phil to face up to matters.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Eric R.
... And the Country has turned Conservative like it or not. .

Not necessarily...in general, once you get outside of the major metropolitan areas, the country is and has been, by and large, conservative to libertarian. More likely, the governmental creep of the Clinton years, as well as the terrorist attacks, has spured more of these people to actually vote. The moderates may have moved right on some issues, however.

[Sea Tyger]

Overall, I think the country is centrist, but leaning just slightly to the right. Many who call themselves Democrats nowadays would never have been allowed in the party 30, 40, 50+ years ago.

Strategically, I think the Dems have a simple crisis of leadership. In the wake of 9-11, Daschle, Gephardt and DNC leadership were reluctant to strongly challenge the White House for fear of voter backlash in 2002. Of course, their reluctance created a sense that the Dems had no platform, which ultimately led to Tuesday's results.

The Democratic Party leaders will probably step down in the next few months (Dick has apparently already done so today), and give way for new leadership and fresh ideals to get over this Clinton-Gore hangover. However, I don't think they'll recover until, at least, 2006.

Gore is probably their best candidate, and it's uncertain if he -- or anyone, for that matter -- would be able to useat President Bush given even the status quo. (IMO, it would take a major catastrophe...major economic collapse or a military loss to Iraq...to unseat Bush in '04). Even Hillary's advisors are thinking Senator Clinton won't be a viable candidate until 2008.

On a side note, it appears (for now) that VP Cheney will remain on the ticket in '04. Personally, I'd like to see a fresh face...a younger someone who is very presidential...to replace the VP for the next election. I know that Fox News was talking about this idea yesterday, but I'd like to hear from everyone who they think would be the best Republican to be the VP in '04?

[First of Two]

Is there still an age limit for VP's as there is for president? If not, I'm available. And then I can run as a young, but of-age Presidential candidate in 2008 (I turn 35 in 2006).

I'd be a great VP. VP's get to push for the Space Program.

Youngest president. First Pres. from PA since James Buchanan. Big space buff. Enough clout to make sure Decipher supplements get priority at the printer's... or else. Definite plans (you've heard some of them already - I have more.)

With your help, we can make it happen!

I just need a good slogan. "Resistance is Futile" probably won't go over well.

Bush/Farquhar in 2004. Farquhar/Querlin in 2008...?

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I'd say its a combination of 9/11 events and that Gore ran on a populist platform the last time he ran. The Democrats just don't have anything special about them, the republicans have Bush and his 9/11 crisis which he dealt with.

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by First of Two
Is there still an age limit for VP's as there is for president? If not, I'm available. And then I can run as a young, but of-age Presidential candidate in 2008 (I turn 35 in 2006).

Unfortunately, you must qualify to be president before you can become VP, since you are the first in line to take over if s/he is unable to perform his duties (meaning, you have to turn 35 before Inaguration Day and be a natural-born citizen of the United States...plus a resident for the last 14 years, IIRC), so you have to wait 'til the 2008 election. Sorry.

Now, see, I would qualify for the 2004 election, but I just have too many skeletons in the old closet.

Rule #1 of entering politics: If you've done something that you would never tell your wife about, don't run for election. In anything. Your opponent, or your opponent's supporters, will find out.

It's bad enough my wife will learn of all of my mistakes in the Hereafter. She doesn't need to find out now.

[whoami]

The moderates in power.

Yeah, both of them.

Of course, a large meaure of the blame lies with the democrats for lacking the spine to bear forth with the anti war position that held such promise with an increasingly leery populace.

We dems brought this on ourselves, fearing that all pervasive label, "Unamerican" or. worse, "unpatriotic".

I will await 2004 with a worm on my tongue (Baited breath).

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by whoami
Of course, a large meaure of the blame lies with the democrats for lacking the spine to bear forth with the anti war position that held such promise with an increasingly leery populace.

We dems brought this on ourselves, fearing that all pervasive label, "Unamerican" or. worse, "unpatriotic".

You & Pelosi go right on believing that. The anti-war line that served the left well from the '60s to the '80s just isn't going to play well at all in the US right now. Had the Taliban held out a bit longer and inflicted more American casualties, you might have had a leg to stand on. (Still, they did hold out longer than the French did in WWII when the Germans attacked. Then again, so did the Warsaw Ghetto...) I say, "might", because that could well have pissed the public off even more at the Talibs instead of at Bush. I've studied history, and I know what we're capible of if we get ticked off too badly. A pair of cities in southern Japan come to mind....

[RaconteurX]

Originally posted by Eric R.
There is no such thing as a recall election in the US.

Yes there is. It is the election held to replace a previous-elected official recalled due to public disapproval by the populace which elected him or her in the first place. It is part of what makes politicians answerable to their constituents 100% of the time, rather than whenever there are impending elections. If an official screws up, he or she can be removed from office.

[Eric R.]

What??? I repeat outside of a pissed off electorate dumping a canadiate/incumbatant in a primary/election or if they resigned/die in their seat/position which would then see thier position/seat filled with an appoinment until the next regular election or out and out fruad in an election occures there is NO way to recall an elected official in the US. the yearly pace of US elections makes such endeavors useless and redundant.

Until you can cite me one example or election rule that is my position.

[Dan Stack]

There is no such thing as a recall election for members of the US Congress. Courts have ruled that members of Congress, as federal constitutional officers, are not subject to recall under the authority of a state law. Congress has the power to expel its own members however.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week184.asp

As for Members of Congress, rather than impeachment, the Constitution provides the remedy of “expulsion” in Article I, section 5: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” Only one chamber determines the fate of its own Members, with a 2/3 vote. Concurrence of the other body is not needed, so there is no trial.

Expulsions have been rare in congressional history because Members prefer to let constituents decide whether or not to remove a sitting Member by simply not re-electing him/her. In the Senate, 15 Senators have been expelled: 1 in 1797 and 14 for treason during the Civil War. In the House, 4 Representatives have been expelled - 3 for treason during the Civil War and 1 [Rep. Ozzie Meyers, D-PA] in 1980 for bribery [cash transfer caught on videotape by the FBI].

Some states have enacted “recall” election laws aimed at state level officials and legislators. Court rulings have established that Members of Congress, as federal constitutional officers, are not subject to recall under the authority of a state law. Nor is a recall special election procedure provided for in the U.S. Constitution for federal officials. Recall remains a state remedy. The removal of Members of the U.S. Congress is left to the expulsion clause of the Constitution, or to the wish of voters to hold them accountable for their actions by refusing to re-elect them in the next regular election.

[EDIT - Since the time the above was was written, one more member of the House has been expelled - Traficant - for accepting bribes and illegal gifts, obstructing justice, and racketeering. Conviction of these felonies, including theft from the government in the form of staff salary kick-backs). Also working on learning how to spell Confress vs. Congress. ]

[Jabara Eris]

From what I read in the papers, a lot of close Congressional races went to the Republicans this time because Bush is popular, and a lot of people just voted for the person who happened to be in Bush's party.

What I can't figure out is -- why is Bush so popular? He's in the back pocket of so many big businesses it's unreal, and as a result he is constantly trying to find new ways to overturn any law (particularly, environmental laws) that corporate officials don't like. He hasn't done anything that has helped the country.

The only reason I can think he's popular is because he happened to be in power during the 9/11 crisis, and a lot of scared people decided to make him a hero because he was the country's leader. If Gore -- or Eminem -- or anybody else had been president at the time, people would have considered them to be great leaders, too, IMHO.

So can somebody please tell me one thing that Bush has done that has been to the benefit of the American people as a whole, and not just to the benefit of big business, ultra-conservative Christians or the military status quo?