it is, they were but there was a general "theme" in the election overall. would you say the same about 94? or 2002? not to mention most presidential contests, where the "coat-tails can sometimes be quite long.

i'm not really lookin to have a terminology debate. you can call it whatever ya want daiwa.



lol...funny, just last july the democrats taking the senate was "impossible" and a "pipe dream." now, after they actually pulled off what everyone said couldn't be done, it's minimalized.

yes, various issues played various roles in individual elections. duh... but, there was a few over riding themes that voters were nationally aware of and either being driven to or away from the polls on.

1 was iraq. another was corruption / transparency. and there were a few others that played big roles like stem cells and economic issues.

"meta-issues" play a role in every election. the winner plays em up, and the loser plays em down, usually as well.

take care daiwa:)

i'm not dodging. i'm fine withthe treminology i used. you're the one who questioned it.



that's what i said in my response...the winners play it up, the loser plays it down...that's politics. and like it often is with the "fact" part of that argument, both sides have the proverbial facts on their side at various points.

and i think we agree on a lot here daiwa. i think the problem is that you see me as not being fair to the GOP by bringin up dem. reaction to 00 and 04.

and i do believe that regardless of the side of the political fence one chooses to sit on, that the issues of corruption and transparancy were at the forefront nationally and in many local races in 2006.

and as you might note, i am criticizing both parties for their attempts to control everything and avoid transparancy and properly debating this very important civil liberty. they are using this as a political poker chip in the back room. that tells me that they do not take what the american people said about how they felt about their govt. seriously. that dissapoints me. and it's not a partisan thing.

it might dissapoint me more that more aren't outraged than my dissapointment with congress (both sides). i understand that most don't follow politics and govt. like i do, but out of the ones who do take an interest, most of them are so caught up in either the war funding bill, and who can be pinned with "treason" in some way, or the election and worrying about "their guy (or gal)" getting to be president well over a year from now. meanwhile, this erosion of our rights is potentially taking place right now.

electons are important, for sure. but after the election, it's time to govern, at least for a little while, before ya get all hepped up about the next one. this trend of longer and longer election seasons is getting to be a big problem imho. just like when retailers got out of hand with xmas marketing. except, in this case, unlike xmas, the stakes are much higher.

we are getting to a "no steak and all sizzle" point in politics. longer and longer election cycles are evidence of that, in my view.