E.J. Dionne really paints an optimistic picture for the Democrats in the upcoming elections. Most of the stuff I've seen on to this point has painted the Democrats as being in too much of a mess themselves to fully take advantage of the Republicans' woes. Dionne, however, does not rule out the Dems capturing a majority in the House, or even the Senate. I don't know Dionne too well, and imagine, because he writes for the Washington Post, he has liberal leanings, but nonetheless, this is the first I've seen from even a liberal that was this optimistic. I think a lot of the state race stuff surrounding Bebko-Jones and Good and other incumbents being put on the on hot seat is a positive sign as well. Finally, people are getting fed up with the status quo in government and seem to be doing something about it.
The only troubling thing mentioned in this article, and it's probably water under the bridge now, is that Bush's approval ratings are so low less than two years following he re-election. My question is, what has changed between now and the 2004 elections? Of course, personally, I'll go back to the 2000 Republican primaries when Bush's win drove me to switch parties - to Democrat. But for those who didn't recognize Bush as a fool right away, how could you not see it in 2004? There was never any believable justification for the war, and it was going badly at that time too. How could you approve of him then and not now? Or was it just a lesser of two evils choice, and when Kerry was involved, I can't say I can fully blame you... so, does that mean today that you vote for Bush again if the 2004 elections were held tomorrow?