Nathan Newman wrote:
>One mistake of the left sometimes is that they assume unitary all-out
>opposition is always the best. But monotone cadences get boring and people
>tune out. A bit of rhetorical strategy, laying low and waiting for the
>whites of the opponents eyes, is not always a bad thing.
-Ok, I'll wait patiently for the Dems to come out shooting at that -whites-of-eyes moment. You think it'll be before 2007?
In a sense, they're doing it right now on domestic issues-- filibustering Estrada, killing ANWR, halving the tax cut in the Senate, restricting Bush's use of funds for the war.
>Your line about the risks of a unitary line is pretty interesting.
>How come the right never works that way? They're absolute monomaniacs
>and never give up - even when they were totally marginal in the
>1970s. And they've got a lot to show for it. So why's it work for
>them and not us?
First, they didn't fight every issue all the time. They actually got very good at picking the winning issue, then harping on that one issue almost solely. They often deliberately ignored unpopular initiatives-- much to the anger of religious right or flat tax folks at points-- in favor of ones they thought could build majority support in the population.
BTW do you even remember Bob Michaels, the House Minority leader before Gingrich? He hardly fits your definition of monomaniacal bulldog. And neither did Howard Baker or even Bob Dole when they ran the Senate.
The relentlessness of the Right came from the grassroots, not from its Congressional leadership. And I am all for a certain relentlessness from the grassroots-- I just wish they could engage in it with a bit more attention to what's actually go on in Congress.
We are currently in one of the longest-running filibusters of any judicial nominee with a promise of multiple others. If it wasn't for the war, this would be a far more epic battle in the press, but per your hope, the Dems are taking full advantage of the situation.
-- Nathan Newman