"GOP's current position mirrors Democrats' spot in 1993"

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON - Republicans are starting to find themselves in the same kind of political environment that Democrats faced in the summer of 1993 - the year before the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Reverse the party labels and the circumstances are strikingly similar.

Now, as then with the other party, Republicans' ethics are under assault. Their opposition denounces their vicelike control as "arrogant." Their ambitious agenda risks overreach and public backlash. Their popularity is sinking. A unified opposition party is holding off until closer to the next election before offering its own agenda - thus withholding any good target for counterattack.

There's one major difference. Both parties have redrawn House of Representatives district boundaries to make their members safer. That makes it much more difficult than in 1994 to sweep the ruling party out of power in a single wave of voter anger. Also, Republicans have more than a year to improve their standing, plenty of time in politics.

Still, Republicans have cause for concern, and Democrats for optimism.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050519/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_congress_politics_wa

[FloridaPat]

1. Why is it neither party listens to the people? Or is the Silent Majority

real and 80% of the public have nothing to say? There was all this "rform" this year - SS, bankruptcy, courts whatever. But most wasn't real reform for the people but the corporations. With the internet, we no longer need congress. We can vote on everything and single line item it.

[SnowGoose]

3. I used to think that too (direct voting for legislation by the public)

but I'm no longer sure that would be such a good thing. Think about how easy it is to get people up in a tizzy about crazy things, and how little the public at large seems to care about things like air quality standards, or oversight of the military.

Then, all legislation would get decided by who had the slicker ads on TV, and things like protections for minorities or setting aside wilderness land for no development never would have a chance.

Then again, I could be talking out of you-know-where.

'Goose

[SnowGoose]

2. There's more than "one major difference"

The Democrats didn't get us into a long and bloody war, which turned out to be based on lies. Iraq is not going to get better in the near term, which means that by 2006, sadly, there will be more than the current 1,600 dead US soldiers. Additionally, by 2006, we will have spent over 300 billion dollars there, and already a slim majority of Americans say that it wasn't worth it - and that trend is only increasing.

A third important difference is that Democrats didn't try to gamble the public's social security money in the stock market. In a sure sign of our priorities as a society, that will piss people off more than the sinful abomination that is this Iraq-nam war.