NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646174/

Interesting that such problems are popping up so early. Is this a case of premature salivation by the "liberal press," or a sign that the Republican party is weakening?

Every election cycle, political junkies on both sides think up lists of mythical Dream Candidates. They rarely materialize, and we all get discouraged. "We coulda won with Powell in '96," or "we coulda beat Bush with Gephardt!" It's tradition. :p

Every election cycle, political junkies on both sides think up lists of mythical Dream Candidates. They rarely materialize, and we all get discouraged. "We coulda won with Powell in '96," or "we coulda beat Bush with Gephardt!" It's tradition. :p

Yeah, but with prominent (and not so prominent,) Republicans backing away from running for the Senate, it seems that there is definitely a feeling that the Democrats will pick up some seats in Congress.

its too early to tell if the republicans are in trouble... they are on the defensive, but for all their criticism of the liberal media, they are actually better at spin and damage control than the democrats by a fair bit.

i wouldn't count them out yet, they have alot of time. if it was a football game i'd say the dems got seven points early on a fumble but the republicans have a real strong defensive line and a good passing game and its only three minutes into the first quarter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646174/

Interesting that such problems are popping up so early. Is this a case of premature salivation by the "liberal press," or a sign that the Republican party is weakening?

I'd say it is more the result of the Republicans talking big but not delivering; the US has the most complicated, convoluted tax systems, with taxes left right and centre.

GWB has a majority in the upper and lower houses, and yet, he doesn't use this position to push through much needed reform when it comes to taxes - those in the Republicans who saw this as the ideal opportunity to push reforms are finding that they're now playing second fiddle to the religious nuts and their drive to 'purify the nation'.

Coupled with a president who thinks he has a 800 hotline to the big man upstairs, quite frankly, I would find it rather disturbing that a nation is left up to a person who displays such mental instability in the decisions he makes.

Yeah, but with prominent (and not so prominent,) Republicans backing away from running for the Senate, it seems that there is definitely a feeling that the Democrats will pick up some seats in Congress.

I dunno.. I don't think too many people really expected Rudy Giuliani to run against Hillary.. or Joe Scarborough to run in Florida, or John Hoevel to run again.. Sure, it's nice to think "hey, if only we could get these guys to run, we'd have it made!" but really, it's just a way of saying "we could sit on our asses and win with these guys.. let's promise them the moon and see if they'll do the work for us."

With more than a year to go, it's too early to tell.. but everyone wants options that don't involve shoeleather. That's universal.

If you look at seats up for grabs, the 2006 election is in the Republican favor (in other words, no chance of a lost majority)...but come 2008, all kinds of stuff can happen.

BTW, I don't feel the Democrats are getting extra love recently except from themselves... (in 2006, the American people will say they want a change blah blah)

Well the mood's definitely starting to swing away from the Republicans. People don't like deficits, the shine has come off policies like No Child Left Behind, and the war in Iraq has long since gone from being a gung ho new-victory-every-week war to a rather murky quagmire. Throw in the fact that people have heard War On Terror cliches for too long to just mindlessly accept everything the government does in the name of security, and you're looking at a situation where a lot of middle of the road voters aren't gonna be nearly as keen on the Republican Party as they were in 2000 when the Democrats picked the dullest man in the universe as their candidate, or 2004 where the war was still reasonably popular.

Name one Democratic policy to seal the deal?

War on Terror: Can't pull out, keep up the war
Healthcare Ideas: Spend More
NCLB: Not working, spend more
Social Security: don't privatize it...

They've got no real new ideas. The President can still get things in order, and end 2008 as popular as ever...at the same time, a new view from the Democrats could take advantage of a weak GOP and maybe a 3rd party perot type but more mainstream like McCain (but not him) could elevate the Dems. I still think that you can never count Bush out. I mean we could go into 2006 with a functioning parliament in Iraq, Osama bin Laden blown into a 1000 pieces, popular project on fighting poverty, some knick knacks like nominations (dude, Stevens is old) to get the base of GOP going etc...

Name one Democratic policy to seal the deal?

War on Terror: Can't pull out, keep up the war
Healthcare Ideas: Spend More
NCLB: Not working, spend more
Social Security: don't privatize it...

They've got no real new ideas. The President can still get things in order, and end 2008 as popular as ever...at the same time, a new view from the Democrats could take advantage of a weak GOP and maybe a 3rd party perot type but more mainstream like McCain (but not him).

No, the Democrats actually do have ideas, but the MSM is only interested in broadcasting juicy punditry. You have to, you know, actually READ the icky Democrats websites and press releases instead of depending on Rush to tell you about the Democrats' good ideas.

And as for the Republican Ideas:

War on Terror: Let's attack Iraq, which was the Middle Eastern country least involved in terrorism. Let's spend 100's of billions on it, and when foreign fighter flock there, THEN we can point to it as the focus of the war on terrorism.

Healthcare Ideas: Let's spend more on it, but send the extra $'s to the healthcare industry.

NCLB: Lets spend more money on counter-productive tests that almost all educators oppose.

Social Security: Let's create a false crisis and fuel it by deficit spending.

Energy Policy: Let's give more money to an industry thats already making record profits.

//War on Terror: Let's attack Iraq, which was the Middle Eastern country least involved in terrorism. Let's spend 100's of billions on it, and when foreign fighter flock there, THEN we can point to it as the focus of the war on terrorism.//

I hate to say this but some Democratics went along with this...

//Healthcare Ideas: Let's spend more on it, but send the extra $'s to the healthcare industry.//

I know the Dems never give money to HMOs or stuff like that.

//NCLB: Lets spend more money on counter-productive tests that almost all educators oppose.//

Two words: Ted Kennedy voted yes on NCLB :)

//Social Security: Let's create a false crisis and fuel it by deficit spending.//

Ok, the Dems think it is bad just not in need of dramatic fixings. The issue while the Republicans want to privatize it to get money thru that...the Dems likely wish to raise taxes and get benefits. This might make policy sense but politically no.

//Energy Policy: Let's give more money to an industry thats already making record profits.//

Ok its a few industries not a fews dudes in identical suits, and if the Republicans were the only ones to create pork-filled trash then you can call me Suzy.

EDIT: I don't like Rush Limbaugh. I think he is hypocritical along with Anne Coulter. I mean if you are going to carry the banner of a society of traditional marriage, get married. eh? I also think Bush is not the best thing since sliced bread, but he is a lot nicer and more interesting.

Yeah and 9 Republicans (and only Republicans) voted against the Bill restricting the US from using torture.

Yes, some Democrats went along with Iraq and NCLB. It's as unfair to base one's decisions about ALL Democrats because of this as it is to judge ALL Republicans based on the fact above.

Other than its not. Last time I checked I think we'd all like to say we want to spread love and happiness, but it at times doesn't make sense to put it into legislation. Abu Ghraib (sp?) were a few screwed army officials that acted horrendously, but it wasn't pentagon policy (just stop if you don't believe that). To make legislation one must consider that a conceived violation will hurt the country's standing, enrage the terrorists etc. Not that I wouldn't support the policy and find it somewhat questionable not to, but just because a program is called help the poor, handicapped minority children doesn't mean its worth the paper it was written on...

Also, most democrats voted for the war (in the senate) because they thought it was right. Same with the majority who voted for NCLB... same with the patriot act. Call it politics, pressure etc., but then that means the Dems have no backbone.

Other than its not. Last time I checked I think we'd all like to say we want to spread love and happiness, but it at times doesn't make sense to put it into legislation. Abu Ghraib (sp?) were a few screwed army officials that acted horrendously, but it wasn't pentagon policy (just stop if you don't believe that). To make legislation one must consider that a conceived violation will hurt the country's standing, enrage the terrorists etc. Not that I wouldn't support the policy and find it somewhat questionable not to, but just because a program is called help the poor, handicapped minority children doesn't mean its worth the paper it was written on...

Also, most democrats voted for the war (in the senate) because they thought it was right. Same with the majority who voted for NCLB... same with the patriot act. Call it politics, pressure etc., but then that means the Dems have no backbone.

Considering that Bush threatened to veto the bill (uselessly, since it already had passed by much more than a super-majority,) and had Gonzales write up an opinion that justified torture, I find it hard to believe that it's just "a few officials," who acted poorly. At the very least, the Whitehouse encouraged the thought that they would turn a blind eye to such practices...which they have.

Also, you have to realize that the Senate did not vote for the war. Read the authorization directly and read what some Democratic senators said at the time. Bush broke his promise to Congress, pure and simple. I guess it was naive of them to believe him, I guess...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646174/

Interesting that such problems are popping up so early. Is this a case of premature salivation by the "liberal press," or a sign that the Republican party is weakening?

Controlling interest in every media outlet in the U.S. is owned by a total of SIX companies.

If you think those amazingly rich coroprate executives have a "liberal" slant, then your dreaming. Maybe the media personalities have a slant, but then again true objectivity in journalism is impossible.

The execs in media hate Bush for the same reason that most fiscal conservatives hate him. They see the deregulation and upper-class tax cuts as a good thing, but know that all the defecit spending is only going to hurt them (and everyone else) in the long run.

Thus the "liberal slant", they're certainly not "pro-liberal", they're just "anti-Bush".

Kinda like a lot of Kerry voters. :p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646174/

Interesting that such problems are popping up so early. Is this a case of premature salivation by the "liberal press," or a sign that the Republican party is weakening?
As a group, the Congressional Republicans haven't done anything to earn my respect. I think local office holders are looked on more favorably by their constituents, in general. I'll vote for my Republican Representative, but I'm not sure about the Senators or Governor. Depends on the opposition.

As a group, the Congressional Republicans haven't done anything to earn my respect. I think local office holders are looked on more favorably by their constituents, in general. I'll vote for my Republican Representative, but I'm not sure about the Senators or Governor. Depends on the opposition.

Aww come on now.. you could do worse than Sonny Perdue, and you got Saxby Chambliss! :) Meanwhile, I got Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer representing me.. Arnold's not too bad, but the only way he makes headway is via propositions (yes on 74, 75, 76, 77 btw), and his public speaking offends the ear.. I'd say you got the better deal in Georgia..

Aww come on now.. you could do worse than Sonny Perdue, and you got Saxby Chambliss! :) Meanwhile, I got Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer representing me.. Arnold's not too bad, but the only way he makes headway is via propositions (yes on 74, 75, 76, 77 btw), and his public speaking offends the ear.. I'd say you got the better deal in Georgia..
That's why I don't live in California, anymore. :)

We are pretty well represented, but these goofs still think that they need to go along with the majority when it comes to vote-buying measures like the highway-robbery bill. I'd like to have Sam Nunn back in the Senate, but he wisely retired to protect his health and sanity.

Maybe the repubs are just waiting before making any committments. Waiting and hoping that all the stuff that's been coming out lately and been damaging the Bush admin will die away and be forgotten.

It says a lot when the election of a moderate Republican in 2008 would relieve a leftist like me. Anyway, Democrat foreign policy has historically been at least as murderous, duplicitous and downright sociopathic as its Republican counterpart. I don't like the Libertarians, but at least they wouldn't spend their time plotting the disintegration of Latin America...

*bump*