Dahlia Lithwick has a piece concerning efforts of President Bush and company to "stack" or "pack" the federal courts. As shown at the base of the column, some argue all they are doing is filling slots, helped by their majority status. But, this is not quite true, is it? The judicial nominating process traditionally was not an all or nothing affair. There were ways, such as so-called "blue slip" holds and ABA rankings, which allowed minority party senators to have some assurance that the President would not just try to force nominees down their throats. Also, the habit of President Bush to aggrandize executive power across the board affects this area as well as does the overly partisan way he operates.
So, this is not just a case of the Democrats whining about not having power. Surely, that is part of it -- you need to have power to control things, even if it is just part of Congress, or even having swing Republican senators more willing to not slavishly toe the line. Partly, perhaps, because their constituents simply will not stand for it [Sen. Warner actually mentioned those individuals in remarks during the Hayden hearings.] But, I do not want power alone. In response to someone who suggested this is the way -- Democrats are out of power because they are not willing to do whatever it takes, I replied ....
Not really. First, it would breach the supposed role of Congress. Thus, for instance, if we had a Democratic President and Congress, sure ... they refuse to truly oversee the acts of the executive branch. This will lead to -- as is the case now -- harm to the public good.
Second, somewhat related to the first, it is unclear how long the public will accept the current state of affairs. Those darn real low popularity ratings on in place in part because the people don't trust the competency of and/or agree with the tactics of those in power. They don't like the heavy partisanship and one-sided gov't. In fact, chunks are not single minded individuals, but have diverse views and concerns. It takes a lot of effort, including lots of mudslinging and spinning, to make key voters actually think the alternative to what we have now is dangerous.
Finally, the Democrats lost control of Congress around ten years ago (and gained control of the Senate again for a short time in 2001 just because of the heavyhanded tactics of the President), after decades of control. They did not lose control because they weren't greedy enough with their power. They lost control because of skilled politicizing by the other side and a failure to truly update their message/structures to current concerns.
Being greedy bastards isn't really necessary to win. The cynicism of those in power notwithstanding. [Politics isn't all pretty, but this isn't just naivete either ... principled government is a path to success. Really, it has worked.]