Quote:
Originally Posted by badnarik
So democrats don't want to inherit the quagmire of Iraq and the negatives of the Bush administration? Does that mean they won't be running a presidential candidate next year? Doesn't that mean they just don't give a , or that they don't have any better ideas, or that they have no real reasons for impeachment? I must be missing something.
|
You're right, you're missing something. If the Democrats inherit the mess right now, they do so without a mandate for change. If they do so after an election, and they clearly win on their platform, they assume power with a directed mandate. The differences are significant. It's like being promoted to an "acting manager" rather than being hired directly into the position because of the ideas you present during the interview. As an acting manager, you are on a very short leash and have no ability to implement change. As a hired manager, you are normally expected to enact change. Again, massive difference.
If the Democrats take power through impeachment they assume power with no mandate. They are on a short leash. If things don't improve prior to the election, they probably do damage to the potential of receiving the mandate that would allow them to make change and take things in a new direction. Politically, it is better to let things to continue the way they are and not do damage to their chances of taking the White house in the next election. They will be able to do more after the election than they could after impeachment.