At the end of this Karl Rove article about the failure of the Democrat-controlled Congress to tackle any meaningful issues over the past year is a paragraph that reminds us how narrow their margin of victory was:
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.
Unfortunately the Republicans haven't exactly shined recently either.
The margin of victory for the Democrats in 2006 is irrelevant. You're not going to get anything much more than a 51-49% mandate in America these days. The Republicans screwed up, so they lost Congress in 2006. They're saddled by a highly unpopular war and are putting up as their Presidential candidates a bunch of idiots (except McCain and Ron Paul, but neither of them is gonna get the nomination).. so they have next to no chance of keeping the White House in 2008, unless Hillary or Obama is the Democratic candidate.. and even then it just means they're in the game.. not that they're likely to win.
Mark: Do you think there's another likely Dem nominee?
I'd like the Democratic nominee to be Bill Richardson, but as far as who's "likely".. who knows.
I've long liked Bill Richardson, but his (recent?) total opposition to the War on Terror has disqualified him from the presidency in my mind. Otherwise, he isn't particularly objectionable. It's a shame Dianne Feinstein decided not to run.
On what are you basing your conclusion that Bill Richardson is in "total opposition to the War on Terror"?
Everything I've read about his vision for fighting terrorism in the decades ahead is practical and at least as likely to be effective down the road as anything else, especially any neo-conservative ideas.
If you haven't read it, I suggest reading the following: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/articles?id=0226
I'm pretty sure he has said that he doesn't believe there IS a war on terror, and that he wants to withdraw all our troops from Iraq immediately.
He has said, and continues to say, that he wants to withdraw all our troops from Iraq immediately. The semantics about the War on Terror doesn't matter.. what matters is how the next president is going to combat terrorism and terrorists. Richardson rightly believes that what's going to be far more effective in reducing or eliminating terrorism than having troops in Iraq is a combination of things, all of which are outlined in the article I mentioned.
He's not opposed to the War on Terror, he's opposed to the way Bush and the neo-conservatives have chosen to prosecute it.
The definition of the War on Terror and what it means is not something over which Bush or the neo-conservatives have a monopoly.