NationStates Jolt Archive

Read the poll-ey goodness. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/26/bush.poll/index.html)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate in November's congressional elections who opposes President Bush, and 58 percent consider his second term a failure so far, according to a poll released Thursday.

Fewer people consider Bush to be honest and trustworthy now than did a year ago, and 53 percent said they believe his administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's purported weapons program before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found.

There's more, all of it delicious. 58% say Bush's second term has been a failure. His approval rating is at 43%, which is where it has hovered all year since barely rebounding from the mid to high thirties last November. 53% believe the administration deliberately misled the country about whether Iraq had WMDs, and 64% believe the country is worse off than it was five years ago.

Now here's the big question--will Republicans running for re-election or challenging Democrats in 2006 run away from the Bush record, or will they embrace him? Will Bush be the cement shoes for Republicans in close districts where they've been treading water?

Take the poll.

I think what's hurting him a lot is that he's doing a shitty job of promoting one of the few bright spots, the economy. Unfortunately, he seems more satisfied at trying to defend this dumbass spying program and that's going to hurt him since it doesn't look good at all especially since it seems, for all intents and purposes, illegal.

Unless the Democrats really offer something good and go on the offensive with an actual plan (a la Contract with America), I don't think they stand a chance of regaining either house. A few seats, but not enough to take out the Republican majority.

Yikes. Karl Rove, where has your genius gone?

It would be a major victory for the US and for the world if both the House and Senate could shift Democrat in november. That alone would severely limit neoconservative influence in the Bush administration's policy making.
Then just two years more... and we can all finally rid the world of Bush and neoconservative ignorance hopefully for good.

I don't think the Senate will change hands, though the majority will probably be kocked down a few pegs, say 52R, 47D, 1I.

I'm willing to bet that with the current scandals plaguing the House leadership AND Bush, the House will change hands. Instant lame duck president, or at least he'll actually have to start compromising.

I think what's hurting him a lot is that he's doing a shitty job of promoting one of the few bright spots, the economy. Unfortunately, he seems more satisfied at trying to defend this dumbass spying program and that's going to hurt him since it doesn't look good at all especially since it seems, for all intents and purposes, illegal.

Unless the Democrats really offer something good and go on the offensive with an actual plan (a la Contract with America), I don't think they stand a chance of regaining either house. A few seats, but not enough to take out the Republican majority.
Part of the reason he's having trouble touting his eeconomic record is that it's only benefiting a relatively small segment of the country. Investors are doing well, but working class people have seen no real benefit--wages, if they've matched inflation, have only just done that, so people feel like they're treading water. And since inflation figures leave the cost of necessities out of the calculation (energy and food prices, primarily), poorer people are feeling it even more right now, thanks to gas prices that are still higher that they were a year ago and natural gas costs that are at record highs.

The economy is working for some, but not for enough people for there to be a change in attitude by the general population.

I don't trust polls. They make people seem smarter then they actually are.

Don't the majority of Americans care more about domestic stuff, like basic economy issues and the like, as opposed to foreign policy, CIA rendition and how the country is viewed abroad?

Compromise could also be a usefull mechanism. The horror of Neoconservativism can only be succesfull if it has American popular support backing it.

I don't think the Senate will change hands, though the majority will probably be kocked down a few pegs, say 52R, 47D, 1I.

I'm willing to bet that with the current scandals plaguing the House leadership AND Bush, the House will change hands. Instant lame duck president, or at least he'll actually have to start compromising.
Or actually veto a bill.

Sadly, the Republicans may not lose their majority because the Democrats are too disorganized and dumb to capitalize.

Can we look at the over/under on this?? I think there are only a few contested battles where Bush's coattails could hurt a Republican, and those are in the House... In my opinion, the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress, although the lead in The House may be reduced by a few seats... Your thoughts?

It is strange that people view things the way they do... The same people that commented how "great the economy was" when the unemployment rate was at 5.4% under Clinton and the Dow Jones hit 11,000 under Clinton now say the unemployment rate is too high at 5.2% and that the stock market is in shambles when it hit 11,000 what, a week ago?

I would like to hear people's honest opinions on any changes in congress... Not just Canadians saying they feel the world would be a better place... let's make some predictions here...

There's still hope for America

Part of the reason he's having trouble touting his eeconomic record is that it's only benefiting a relatively small segment of the country. Investors are doing well, but working class people have seen no real benefit--wages, if they've matched inflation, have only just done that, so people feel like they're treading water. And since inflation figures leave the cost of necessities out of the calculation (energy and food prices, primarily), poorer people are feeling it even more right now, thanks to gas prices that are still higher that they were a year ago and natural gas costs that are at record highs. The economy is working for some, but not for enough people for there to be a change in attitude by the general population.

It's working for people that can afford the level of education necessary to get the salary and the benefits. But, since not everyone can afford that, they get screwed. Unfortunately, people hear about the problems at GM/Ford/Delphi and blame Bush rather than the incompetent management.

My fear is that people will elect Democrats that are going to impose protectionist legislation and bail out these companies rather than elect DLC/Clinton types whose policies were proven successful in the 1990's. I'd vote for another Bill Clinton Democrat, to say the least.

Gas prices don't help, either. Honestly, I think Bush could really help his approval ratings if he implemented the Democratic plan to boost the CAFE standards...but apparently the fact that efficent automobiles sell very well hasn't hit him yet.

Ironically enough, Bush's sliding ratings coincide with a rise in Clinton's post-office ratings...nostalgia, perhaps?

Or actually veto a bill.
What, and miss out on the chance of being the first president since James Garfield to never have vetoed a bill?

I would like to hear people's honest opinions on any changes in congress... Not just Canadians saying they feel the world would be a better place... let's make some predictions here...
Um... I AM American and I DID make my prediction. Congress's popularity is as low, or lower, as the last time it changed hands. While the Republican National Party keeps trying to spin the "Corruption in Congress isn't news" bit, the GOP was swept to power thanks to corruption scandals with the Democrats last time. I think THAT will taint the House race and knock the GOP off its perch. The Senate is much more entrenched, and not as many senators have to run for re-election at this time. But I think enough discust with the current party in power will reduce the majority. Even if Bush is able to keep a GOP Congress, I see the majority being down to one or two seats. With him being so low in the polls, he's facing being a lame duck as soon as November is over.

The radical right wing isn't going to pull in the votes this time, and the GOP appears to be signling that its going to shift left to get back to the center. In other words, look for more showdowns with McCain, especially as '08 comes closer. Either Bush backs down, or he gets to watch as nothing of his moves through Congress.

What, and miss out on the chance of being the first president since James Garfield to never have vetoed a bill?
Garfield had an excuse, what with getting shot and all. :D

Garfield had an excuse, what with getting shot and all. :D
See? Even more tempting, his legacy and place in histroy would be secured! ;)

I would like to hear people's honest opinions on any changes in congress... Not just Canadians saying they feel the world would be a better place... let's make some predictions here...
Predictions? Okay: If the Democrats are smart, they'll manage to pick up five seats in the Senate. If they're dumb, they'll pick up one or two. Either way, they aren't getting a majority. With luck, they'll just have to call Cheney in more often for the tiebreaker, and guess who he's voting for?

As for the House of Representatives, I see the Republicans keeping a slim majority.

The radical right wing isn't going to pull in the votes this time, and the GOP appears to be signling that its going to shift left to get back to the center. In other words, look for more showdowns with McCain, especially as '08 comes closer. Either Bush backs down, or he gets to watch as nothing of his moves through Congress.
McCain, maybe, but the real tough talker lately is Hagel. If he could get through the primaries, I'd be nervous, speaking as a partisan, but I'd also like to see it happen because I think he's a decent human being, which isn't something I can say about most of the Republican party.

Yikes. Karl Rove, where has your genius gone?
It's in reserve. I honestly think that things like this are part of his genius. All of this is far too far away from November to really matter. Rove I think has scientifically isolated the exact length of public memory and doesn't unleash his magic until it's going to do it's voting good. During times like this, they're allowed to flop around on the counter like a fish gasping for air becuase it doesn't matter-further, when the time comes to say, "Look at all this stupid crap!" the public goes, "Meh, we're tired of hearing about that" and it has no effect.

McCain, maybe, but the real tough talker lately is Hagel. If he could get through the primaries, I'd be nervous, speaking as a partisan, but I'd also like to see it happen because I think he's a decent human being, which isn't something I can say about most of the Republican party.

Plus he's a free trader, which gets my support, but...

Plus he's a free trader, which gets my support, but...

I'd rather support a fair trader.

China is playing us like fools.

Also, I can't agree with your earlier point that the economy is all that bright.

Some, of the overall numbers look okay to good...gdp (until the latest quarter, that is,) employment.

But...the middle class is being squeezed incredibly hard. Health costs are through the roof, which is really really hurting small busines (much more than a modest tax raise would.) Real wages are down.

The current policy of deficit borrowing, the trade deficit, and loss of more and more quality jobs is putting America on a collision course with Depression.

The limited set of cheery economic numbers is merely a bit of spackle on walls whose foundations are crumbling.

I'd rather support a fair trader.

China is playing us like fools.

Also, I can't agree with your earlier point that the economy is all that bright.

Some, of the overall numbers look okay to good...gdp (until the latest quarter, that is,) employment.

But...the middle class is being squeezed incredibly hard. Health costs are through the roof, which is really really hurting small busines (much more than a modest tax raise would.) Real wages are down.

The current policy of deficit borrowing, the trade deficit, and loss of more and more quality jobs is putting America on a collision course with Depression.

The limited set of cheery economic numbers is merely a bit of spackle on walls whose foundations are crumbling.As an economist friend of mine put it, the macro numbers are good, but the micro numbers are weak, which means that the people at the top are doing great, and corporate numbers are good, but workers are feeling it.

I'd rather support a fair trader.

China is playing us like fools.

Also, I can't agree with your earlier point that the economy is all that bright.

Some, of the overall numbers look okay to good...gdp (until the latest quarter, that is,) employment.

But...the middle class is being squeezed incredibly hard. Health costs are through the roof, which is really really hurting small busines (much more than a modest tax raise would.) Real wages are down.

The current policy of deficit borrowing, the trade deficit, and loss of more and more quality jobs is putting America on a collision course with Depression.

The limited set of cheery economic numbers is merely a bit of spackle on walls whose foundations are crumbling.


interesting points... However, please don't read too much into a trade defecit.. Afterall, what is it? Just a number reflecting the fact that Americans have enough money to buy foreign goods at a faster rate than those in other nations buy imports from America. If anything, it shows our economy is still strong.. and that consumer spending really hasn't declined.
I do worry about the cost of healthcare, but am not quite that certain the President can change that in either direction, besides pushing for limits on litigations and/or tort reform....

Predictions? I'm having a hard time reading this one. I have strong expectations, but they're so pessimistic, I think I'm just depressed.

1. These low numbers and all the scandals will not shake the rightwing movement because they have two "bases" -- the uber-rich who are making out like bandits and getting everything their way, and the radical-right bible-nuts who don't vote pragmatically anyway -- they vote on pet issues, and they're getting small victories on abortion and religion. I think they'll be motivated to keep that going, regardless of how crooked their politicians actually are.

2. The anti-neo-con side don't seem to be any more organized in their opposition than they were in 2004. If I see one fucking vote for Nader in 2008, I'll lose it. I swear, I'll go like Krakatoa! :headbang:

2. The Dems are so disorganized, they don't know what to do with themselves. I have a horrible feeling they are going to nominate Hillary Clinton. Fuck, I wouldn't vote for that bitch -- well, I would if she was running against another Bush or a Frist or something, but I wouldn't like it. The national divide is too close -- you have to put up a nominee who will win votes away from the other side. Hillary is likely to chase votes away from her own side.

3. There might be hope if the Republicans nominate McCain, but I think they're likely to put up another religion-pandering neo-con if they get pressure from their bases to do so. And they are already getting pressure.

First of all, it's January. The election is in November. There's a lot of green between here and that hole. Anything can happen.

That being said, unless some crazy stuff happens, there is about a 25% chance that the Republicans lose the Senate and 0% chance that they lose the House. There just aren't enough competitive seats and competitive races in 2006.

One of the many reasons why you had so many turnovers in 1994 was the fact that there were a significantly larger number of Democrats holding seats in Republican districts. Those changes have shaken out. It's rare to find a Congressional district that's solidly R with a Democrat and vice versa. There are a few - like Rob Simmons or Chris Shays in Connecticut. People just voted their party ID and that won a lot of seats.

There are only a handful of races in either House that can be called a toss up.

In the Senate, the only two the I really count are Santorum in PA and Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. If the Republicans lose those two, they go to a 53/47 majority (with Bernie Sanders in VT going with the Democrats even though he's independent).

Even if the Democrats win every open seat that's competitive (3 of them - Colorado 7, Ohio 6 and Iowa 1), and they pick up each of the other toss up seats - Shays in CT 4, Mike Sodrel in Indiana 9, and Jim Gerlach in PA 6 - that still leaves the Republicans with a 226 to 209 majority.

As far as the Presidential race goes, the Republicans need to find a candidate that the entire party can get behind. McCain isn't him. Hagel may be better, but his waffling on the war will annoy some hardliners. I think the Republican candidate won't be someone that we're talking about right now. As for the Democrats, it appears to be Hillary Clinton's nomination to lose, which she probably will, to a candidate that's more solidly left. But again, it's far too early to tell.

Unless the demos stop trying to play republican-lite they will not achieve much.

What's their message?

What's their stance?

They will get some seats but my cynicsm says they will not get a majority.....

interesting points... However, please don't read too much into a trade defecit.. Afterall, what is it? Just a number reflecting the fact that Americans have enough money to buy foreign goods at a faster rate than those in other nations buy imports from America. If anything, it shows our economy is still strong.. and that consumer spending really hasn't declined.
I do worry about the cost of healthcare, but am not quite that certain the President can change that in either direction, besides pushing for limits on litigations and/or tort reform....
What you're saying about trade deficits might have been true once -- partially -- but I don't think we can rely on that model anymore.

First of all, it's one thing not to worry about trade deficits, but it has never been a good idea to plan on running a deficit as part of your economy because they do eventually come back to bite you. The neo-cons run their economy as if they are trying to finance a special project which is not actually the running of the nation. They love this deficit way too much. I think the numbers should be looked at very carefully.

Second, I don't think we can take it for granted that consumer activity is the cause of this deficit. In fact, I think this deficit is mostly based on reckless government spending and the outsourcing of manufacturing so that consumers have no choice but to buy imports. When you put it in the context of federal spending, labor outsourcing, the erasing of the southern US border, and the redefinition of legal worker, I don't think this deficit can be seen as a good sign for our economy. I don't think it has the same meaning that past deficits may have had.

Unless the demos stop trying to play republican-lite they will not achieve much.

What's their message?

What's their stance?

They will get some seats but my cynicsm says they will not get a majority.....

A good step would be visiting the website of the particular persons one might have the choice to vote for.

Vote for good people with good ideas, instead of waiting for the mainstream media to create a Dem soundbite plan.

The "plans" are out there. People just have to not be political couch potatoes. People have to start voting for people, not parties.

A good step would be visiting the website of the particular persons one might have the choice to vote for.

Vote for good people with good ideas, instead of waiting for the mainstream media to create a Dem soundbite plan.

The "plans" are out there. People just have to not be political couch potatoes. People have to start voting for people, not parties.
On one hand, you're completely right.

On the other, see my earlier post re Nader (Krakatoa!!! :mad: ).

The US doesn't run a coalition government (though I wish it would). Is there a Dem whose platform will garner enough popular votes to create a Democrat party stance and nominee at the same time? Or will we once again end up with a useless scattering of votes among minority parties and no clear message to counter the united front of the right wing?

People always say you have to vote for something, not against something, but sometimes it becomes urgent that something be stopped -- and then you have to vote against it, even if you're not in love with the alternative. The Dems have to get votes from fringe parties and from niche groups within the Republican party. The problem is all those people want different things. What we need is a Democrat nominee who can convince them to compromise and unite with each other.

A good step would be visiting the website of the particular persons one might have the choice to vote for.

Vote for good people with good ideas, instead of waiting for the mainstream media to create a Dem soundbite plan.

The "plans" are out there. People just have to not be political couch potatoes. People have to start voting for people, not parties.
You spent the whole of the last election tilting at that windmill. By now you'd have to know that they don't know there is a plan or isn't, they know they're supposed to say that every once in a while.

Having said that, everytime a democrat comes on the Daily Show Stewart practically begs them for what they'd do different-they are going to need to start coming up with an answer that can fit the question. If nothing else then to keep the vien on Stewart's neck from popping. It's sort of ridiculous, ultimately, to think that a governing policy fit in a two or three line quote. We should be ridiculing anyone who thinks that's a good way to govern. But instead we reward it. Somethings just make me sad all the way round the ride.

You spent the whole of the last election tilting at that windmill. By now you'd have to know that they don't know there is a plan or isn't, they know they're supposed to say that every once in a while.

Having said that, everytime a democrat comes on the Daily Show Stewart practically begs them for what they'd do different-they are going to need to start coming up with an answer that can fit the question. If nothing else then to keep the vien on Stewart's neck from popping. It's sort of ridiculous, ultimately, to think that a governing policy fit in a two or three line quote. We should be ridiculing anyone who thinks that's a good way to govern. But instead we reward it. Somethings just make me sad all the way round the ride.

People react to simple certainty.

Simple certainty is almost always wrong.

People react to simple certainty.

Simple certainty is almost always wrong.
Part of the frustration, really. I'm begining to think that it is impossible to govern this many people successfully under one umbrella. But that's for another thread all together.

The direct answer to the question is "Probably not, in either house." In the House, they have gerrymandered those districts down to such an extent that it's a wonder anyone ever loses their seat at all. I believe that the last election had a 98% reelection rate. That right there is one of the major reasons behind the current corruption scandal (if you don't have to worry about not being reelected, you can cater to big business interest with less fear of voter reprisal, and can use your campaign fundraising to benefit the party or political allies in one of the few competitive districts), but as is, Republicans are almost certainly safe. In the Senate, it's harder to see any direct ties to the current Abramoff scandal, so unless people really get a case of "throw the bums out" syndrome, local politics will still trump national sentiment.

The direct answer to the question is "Probably not, in either house." In the House, they have gerrymandered those districts down to such an extent that it's a wonder anyone ever loses their seat at all. I believe that the last election had a 98% reelection rate. That right there is one of the major reasons behind the current corruption scandal (if you don't have to worry about not being reelected, you can cater to big business interest with less fear of voter reprisal, and can use your campaign fundraising to benefit the party or political allies in one of the few competitive districts), but as is, Republicans are almost certainly safe. In the Senate, it's harder to see any direct ties to the current Abramoff scandal, so unless people really get a case of "throw the bums out" syndrome, local politics will still trump national sentiment.
I think most people acknowledge that it'll take a massive anti-incumbent movement for the House to switch hands, and possibly the Senate as well, though I think the odds are higher there, at least for this cycle--the Dems are defending fewer tough seats this time and have better candidates in the places they're challenging.

Is a Republican majority necessarily a carte blanche for Bush, though? Apart from the neocon junta, a lot of Republicans don't appear to be any happier with him than the Democrats are at the moment.

Is a Republican majority necessarily a carte blanche for Bush, though? Apart from the neocon junta, a lot of Republicans don't appear to be any happier with him than the Democrats are at the moment.
It has been thus far, even though there are a handful of Republicans who talk tough on the Sunday Morning talk shows. I mean, for all McCain's tough talk, has he actually voted against anything Bush wanted?

It would be a major victory for the US and for the world if both the House and Senate could shift Democrat in november. That alone would severely limit neoconservative influence in the Bush administration's policy making.
Then just two years more... and we can all finally rid the world of Bush and neoconservative ignorance hopefully for good.

rofl

and watch our taxes skyrocket...

thanks, but no thanks.

Democrats can always rely on the able-bodied, unemployed, welfare-drawing folks as their base (keep promising them other people's money, democrats! That's your ticket to victory!), but I work so I don't fall into that camp.

as for the poll numbers, that's to be expected... probably about one third of the country is republican, about one-third is democrat, and one-third is undecided/moderate. he's getting only about one-third of that center probably because of the way the media negatively portrays him (most of the media that is... major TV media except Fox and maybe MSNBC, most major newspapers, etc.)

rofl

and watch our taxes skyrocket...

thanks, but no thanks.

Democrats can always rely on the able-bodied, unemployed, welfare-drawing folks as their base (keep promising them other people's money, democrats! That's your ticket to victory!), but I work so I don't fall into that camp.

as for the poll numbers, that's to be expected... probably about one third of the country is republican, about one-third is democrat, and one-third is undecided/moderate. he's getting only about one-third of that center probably because of the way the media negatively portrays him (most of the media that is... major TV media except Fox and maybe MSNBC, most major newspapers, etc.)
Thanks for making my case for me. You're a solid brick in the Bush base. Your post supports my argument that it doesn't matter how badly Bush and his gang perform, the base will not turn on them because they're focused on ideaology, not pragmatism. Witness your unprovoked, irrelevant and unrealistic negative portrayal of the Democrat base, and your assumption that the only reason Bush doesn't have 100% of available American love is that two thirds of us are misled by the media (due no doubt to our brains being addled by the drugs we all want legalized for children). It doesn't matter what Bush et al. do or what becomes of the country. The base will never shift. It's that third in the middle we have to win over.

Thanks for making my case for me. You're a solid brick in the Bush base. Your post supports my argument that it doesn't matter how badly Bush and his gang perform, the base will not turn on them because they're focused on ideaology, not pragmatism. Witness your unprovoked, irrelevant and unrealistic negative portrayal of the Democrat base, and your assumption that the only reason Bush doesn't have 100% of available American love is that two thirds of us misled by the media (due no doubt to our brains being addled by the drugs we all want legalized for children). It doesn't matter what Bush et al. do or what becomes of the country. The base will never shift. It's that third in the middle we have to win over.

lol, that's all i can say.

the case i made includes some of the reasoning behind my support for President Bush:

I don't mind paying taxes to help defray the costs for our military protecting us and our interests. I have no problem shelling out dough to stay as protected as possible.

I do not appreciate my hard-earned money feeding the mouths of people who could be working and earning money for themseves.

i do not appreciate democrats pandering to the poor and able-bodied unemployed, telling them that they deserve my hard-earned money. Quite frankly, that pisses me off.

i am not a socialist, nor am I a dove. i will not apologize for believing in free enterprise and American security.

lol, that's all i can say.

the case i made includes some of the reasoning behind my support for President Bush:

I don't mind paying taxes to help defray the costs for our military protecting us and our interests. I have no problem shelling out dough to stay as protected as possible.

I do not appreciate my hard-earned money feeding the mouths of people who could be working and earning money for themseves.

i do not appreciate democrats pandering to the poor and able-bodied unemployed, telling them that they deserve my hard-earned money. Quite frankly, that pisses me off.

i am not a socialist, nor am I a dove. i will not apologize for believing in free enterprise and American security.
Laughter is fun to share. Thanks for this amusing selection from the Neo-con Whole Earth Catalogue of Talking Points. And thanks for showing no disagreement with me -- even though you cannot vote for Bush again, you will not vote against the Bush agenda. So if the Republicans float another neo-con, they're guaranteed your vote. Right?

But what if they float a moderate Republican who opposes some of the Bush agenda and who may dismantle some of Bush's programs -- like warrantless wiretapping or holding terror suspects without charges at Gitmo or expanded oil drilling, etc.? Would you sacrifice your agenda just to keep the Republican party in power?

Laughter is fun to share. Thanks for this amusing selection from the Neo-con Whole Earth Catalogue of Talking Points. And thanks for showing no disagreement with me -- even though you cannot vote for Bush again, you will not vote against the Bush agenda. So if the Republicans float another neo-con, they're guaranteed your vote. Right?

But what if they float a moderate Republican who opposes some of the Bush agenda and who may dismantle some of Bush's programs -- like warrantless wiretapping or holding terror suspects without charges at Gitmo or expanded oil drilling, etc.? Would you sacrifice your agenda just to keep the Republican party in power?

Are you kidding? He just votes how the Conservative sound boxes tell him to vote. When they get new talking points, he'll get new talking points to parrot.

I think what's hurting him a lot is that he's doing a shitty job of promoting one of the few bright spots, the economy.
Wow, if this economy is supposed to be the "bright spot," then you KNOW Bush is really doing a crappy job...

I don't get it.

Do you guys actually want some kind of a debate on the issues? Or are you just waiting to throw around buzzwords like "neo-con" and "Bushevik" out to smear anyone who disagrees with you?

There are plenty of conservatives out there who aren't completely happy with everything Bush has done - I'm one of them. None of those have to do with foreign policy.

The economy, believe it or not, is in a good place for most Americans. Much better than it was in 2000 when the President took office. Unemployment is at record lows. There are, of course, things that need to be fixed, and portions of the country that are in better shape than others (Michigan is in pretty bad shape) but overall things are going well. The President does deserve some of the credit for that.

Wow, if this economy is supposed to be the "bright spot," then you KNOW Bush is really doing a crappy job...

For example, there's this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy;_ylt=AgZ9k72.Dbfb1xorUPD75hCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGI2aDNqBHNlYwM3NDk-

See folks, taxes are just ONE variable that effects how much money you have.

I ask you this, if raising taxes actually let you take more money home, would you support raising taxes?

The Bushbots? Their answer would be "no."

I don't get it.

we know

Do you guys actually want some kind of a debate on the issues? Or are you just waiting to throw around buzzwords like "neo-con" and "Bushevik" out to smear anyone who disagrees with you?

You guys have proven you can't handle anything more complex.


There are plenty of conservatives out there who aren't completely happy with everything Bush has done - I'm one of them. None of those have to do with foreign policy.

Then you need to read more.


The economy, believe it or not, is in a good place for most Americans. Much better than it was in 2000 when the President took office. Unemployment is at record lows. There are, of course, things that need to be fixed, and portions of the country that are in better shape than others (Michigan is in pretty bad shape) but overall things are going well. The President does deserve some of the credit for that.

Again, single variable reasoning. Overall, things are crap. See the article I just posted.

and this too:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ28jan28,1,2460429.story

but then something like this raises the overall average a little so that things look a little better on on paper...but certainly not for the average American.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ28jan28,1,2460429.story

Depends on a few things:
1. The economy. It's apparently doing well. Maybe not for everyone, but for most. As long as gas prices don't go through the roof at election season, it's all good for the Republicans.

2. According to Roll Call, the Democrats are upset that Dean has apparently mismanaged fundraising to the point where the DNC has only 5.5 million dollars to help out Democratic candidates in areas where it might be helpful to do so - while the Republican Party has over seven times that amount and climbing. It would seem that Dean has probably crippled the DNCs ability to "get out the message" in terms of money and ads. 5.5 million isn't enough to do anything useful.

Forgive my being an ignorant Brit, but isn't gerrymandering legal in the House? (I'm pretty sure that I remember reading that it was on some thing on elections in the US). If so, then what real risk is there? Only 30% of people voted for Blair in the UK, but he got 66 seats over a majority. And that's in a country where fiddling with the boundaries isn't a huge (but we know they do it) issue.

All I can say is that anyone with Bushite policy could never get elected in the UK - even our Conservatives don't have "getting a better job" as a part of their social justice policy.

It's obvious that i'm just bored and BSing, no?

Laughter is fun to share. Thanks for this amusing selection from the Neo-con Whole Earth Catalogue of Talking Points. And thanks for showing no disagreement with me -- even though you cannot vote for Bush again, you will not vote against the Bush agenda. So if the Republicans float another neo-con, they're guaranteed your vote. Right?

But what if they float a moderate Republican who opposes some of the Bush agenda and who may dismantle some of Bush's programs -- like warrantless wiretapping or holding terror suspects without charges at Gitmo or expanded oil drilling, etc.? Would you sacrifice your agenda just to keep the Republican party in power?

the problems i have with republicans (most of them) are the death penalty and some social issues.

I've put my safety ahead of my thoughts on gay marriage, DP (state issue anyway), etc... I also do very much enjoy keeping more of the money I earn, to do with as I please. IE, I favor financial freedom. I think that aside from helping those who can't work or, you know, sensible welfare for those who are laid off at no fault of their own, we need to try to reduce people's dependence on the government teat.
----------
to answer your question:

if a republican candidate came along like the one you described... i would have to look at his/her ideas on taxation and spending (most importantly, how to spend the money we give the government).

For right now, i'll vote on security first, economic model second, social/miscellaneous issues third. If we could safely drill to help our supply and bring down prices, then it might not be a bad idea, at least short-term. I realize that developing alternative energy resources needs to become very important to us, and like now.

If your Republican candidate ran against a democrat who wouldn't raise taxes and wouldn't put the country at risk with a laissez-faire attitude toward terrorism, then I'd have a tough time deciding. If the democrat candidate is going to stay at least centrist on economy and continue with the denial of rights to terrorists, i would vote for the democrat, keeping "safety first" in mind.

i might be biased toward most republican ideals, but i'm not going to put voting along historic ideological lines ahead of my safety.

Are you kidding? He just votes how the Conservative sound boxes tell him to vote. When they get new talking points, he'll get new talking points to parrot.
I know that. I just one of those people who like to make parrots talk.

Forgive my being an ignorant Brit, but isn't gerrymandering legal in the House? (I'm pretty sure that I remember reading that it was on some thing on elections in the US). If so, then what real risk is there? Only 30% of people voted for Blair in the UK, but he got 66 seats over a majority. And that's in a country where fiddling with the boundaries isn't a huge (but we know they do it) issue.

All I can say is that anyone with Bushite policy could never get elected in the UK - even our Conservatives don't have "getting a better job" as a part of their social justice policy.

It's obvious that i'm just bored and BSing, no?

Gerrymandering is allowed, but the state legislatures are the ones who do the drawing of the districts.

British and American conservatism are defintely two seperate creatures.

I don't get it.

Do you guys actually want some kind of a debate on the issues? Or are you just waiting to throw around buzzwords like "neo-con" and "Bushevik" out to smear anyone who disagrees with you?

There are plenty of conservatives out there who aren't completely happy with everything Bush has done - I'm one of them. None of those have to do with foreign policy.

The economy, believe it or not, is in a good place for most Americans. Much better than it was in 2000 when the President took office. Unemployment is at record lows. There are, of course, things that need to be fixed, and portions of the country that are in better shape than others (Michigan is in pretty bad shape) but overall things are going well. The President does deserve some of the credit for that.
"Bushevik" is a catchy though unfriendly nickname for people who blindly hero-worship Bush no matter what. You could have called some people JFK-eviks, only that wouldn't be catchy.

"Neo-con" is the name for a particular political movement which was coined by members of that movement. If it's insulting, then maybe they should see a therapist because it's what they call themselves.

Neo-con and conservative are not the same thing. For instance, McCain is a conservative, but he's not a neo-con.

we know

Cute.

You guys have proven you can't handle anything more complex.

Some folks on here may have, but I haven't. Try me.

Then you need to read more.

I read plenty. Just because I disagree with your characterizations doesn't mean I'm not educated. Edcuated people can disagree.

Again, single variable reasoning. Overall, things are crap. See the article I just posted.

and this too:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ28jan28,1,2460429.story

but then something like this raises the overall average a little so that things look a little better on on paper...but certainly not for the average American.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ28jan28,1,2460429.story

For the average American, their house is worth more than they bought it. More of them own their own homes than in any time in history. Unemployment is the lowest its been in quite a long time.

Of course, there are things that aren't great, but the economy is not in as bad a shape as it was in 2000 or 2002.

You may want to broaden your readings to something beyond the LA Times - just a suggestion.

"Bushevik" is a catchy though unfriendly nickname for people who blindly hero-worship Bush no matter what. You could have called some people JFK-eviks, only that wouldn't be catchy.

"Neo-con" is the name for a particular political movement which was coined by members of that movement. If it's insulting, then maybe they should see a therapist because it's what they call themselves.

Not any more. I can't think of anyone I know who calls themselves a neo-con. It's become an exclusively derogatory term.

Neo-con and conservative are not the same thing. For instance, McCain is a conservative, but he's not a neo-con.

I would argue that McCain isn't a conservative either, but that's a topic for another debate.

the problems i have with republicans (most of them) are the death penalty and some social issues.

I've put my safety ahead of my thoughts on gay marriage, DP (state issue anyway), etc... I also do very much enjoy keeping more of the money I earn, to do with as I please. IE, I favor financial freedom. I think that aside from helping those who can't work or, you know, sensible welfare for those who are laid off at no fault of their own, we need to try to reduce people's dependence on the government teat.
----------
to answer your question:

if a republican candidate came along like the one you described... i would have to look at his/her ideas on taxation and spending (most importantly, how to spend the money we give the government).

For right now, i'll vote on security first, economic model second, social/miscellaneous issues third. If we could safely drill to help our supply and bring down prices, then it might not be a bad idea, at least short-term. I realize that developing alternative energy resources needs to become very important to us, and like now.

If your Republican candidate ran against a democrat who wouldn't raise taxes and wouldn't put the country at risk with a laissez-faire attitude toward terrorism, then I'd have a tough time deciding. If the democrat candidate is going to stay at least centrist on economy and continue with the denial of rights to terrorists, i would vote for the democrat, keeping "safety first" in mind.

i might be biased toward most republican ideals, but i'm not going to put voting along historic ideological lines ahead of my safety.
Nicely done but I don't buy it. The lines I highlighted indicate usage of propaganda-speak.

"Laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism" is an indefined term related to the kinds of accusations we hear from the rightwing every day about how Democrats are friends of bin Laden's and would be happy to see bombs exploding in American cities. It's the kind of language Anne Coulter uses when she tries to claim that when she says liberals are traitors she means it in a nice way.

"At least centrist" is also an undefined term. The moving lines of centrism have lately be used to approve of all kinds of rightwing behaviors while disapproving of all kinds of leftwing behaviors.

Both of those phrases indicate that it will be impossible for any Democrat to meet your criteria because your criteria are undefined.

"Continue denial of rights to terrorists" indicates to me that you want warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo, renditioning of prisoners, etc, etc, all to continue because you buy into the idea that you can't be safe without them. Regardless of other conditions, I don't believe you would vote for any candidate who opposed such things, whether Democrat or Republican. If the Republicans floated a candidate that did oppose them, I think you would shout bitterly about having your trust betrayed and you'd vote for the most xenophobic, gun-toting, rightwing libertarian you could find.

Not any more. I can't think of anyone I know who calls themselves a neo-con. It's become an exclusively derogatory term.



I would argue that McCain isn't a conservative either, but that's a topic for another debate.
Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristal, and other founders of the movement have not quite abandoned it yet. It's true that they don't wave it on flags the way they used to, but wait until we see how these mid-term elections -- and their poll numbers -- go. These people are so convinced of their own rightness that, trust me, they won't abandon their own title any more than gay people would.