On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Ok, let's view this as a test: will the Dems be even half as tenacious
> and partisan on Enron as the Repubs were on Clinton's scandals? I bet
> not.
Fair enough. But should they? Did it work for the Republicans? Didn't they lose congressional seats in 1996, 1998 and 2000? Clinton was easily reelected in 1996. And Gore had to really work to lose the election after him. And even then it took crookery. So in retrospect, I'm not sure their partisanship paid dividends. They look like they're on top more because of Gore's dreadful lacks than because of partisanship.
Where their partisanship did seem to pay off was not in going after Clinton all those years so much as in riding Bush's victory for all it was worth as soon as possible after his victory. Which then lost them the Senate. But they still had the all important tax cut to show for their troubles. Arguably Clinton did the same thing just after he was elected -- acted extremely partisan after campaigning in the center -- and got the same backlash. Except that he ended up with nothing to show for it because of the bass-ackward way he approached his big issue, health care, and the small constituency for his choice of a second, gays in the military.
Michael __________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com