Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I wonder how you guys can be “fighters” when your ideology is so rigid that your leaders cannot even speak their minds on issues they disagree with that party on. Case in point, I saw Harry Reid in TV yesturday- he was asked point-blank 3 times whether he thought abortion should still be legal. He dodged the issue in so many ways, but eventually had to answer it by saying “I do not even know what legal means” or something that effect. What know what legal means? Well first, Mr. Reid, start with overturning Roe v. Wade (which we all knwo you believe in overturning), and placing at least some real restrictions on abortion- why dont you have teh courage to come out and say it? It seems the party has blow beat Mr. Reid to such an extent that he cannot even answer honestly (but at least I give him credit for not flip-flopping on the issue).

As for the general policy statements- to say the Democrats are now against activist judges who decide based on their views rather than the constitution is almost as hilarious as saying Democrats oppose large bureaucratic growth. I would say that the American people wouldnt buy that nonesense, but i dont think thats true, if the snake-oil salesman is slick enough (see Bill Clinton).

I agree, however, that we need a strong opposition party to fight Bush on spending (Even if I dont seriously believe most democrats care abotu fiscal discipline). After all, Bush has managed to get enough Republicans on the “party line” to the point where saying they are fiscally conservative with a straight face is impossible.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 17, 2005 11:28 AM

Awww Misha. You’ve bought into the GOP hype. That’s a shame. Democrats are against ultra-conservative judges who legislate their fundamentalist beliefs from the bench. That’s why we filibuster ‘em.

Clinton and Robert Rubin strong-armed Republicans into a balanced budget that stimulated the economy and didn’t kill vital social programs. And for the last four years Democrats have been trying to amend GOP spending bills so we don’t have to borrow the money.

Gore’s Reinventing Government program ended the era of big government - until Bush became president, anyway. We can end it again.

All these things have been hallmarks of the Democratic Party for more than a decade now.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 11:49 AM

Let me put it this way, Misha. If your only response is, “Nuh-uh”, that’s pretty weak.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 11:52 AM

And seriously check out the legislation Democrats are proposing. Senate bill S.19 is the fiscal responsibility package. You might like it if you take the time to read it.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 11:55 AM

Misha:
You know the Repugs only pull out that Abortion stuff when they want your Vote right? Same as Gay Marriage, Big Government, Gun Control, etc. Once they get elected it all disappears. Has there been a Ban on Gay Marriage? Nope. Bush won’t do it. How small is the Government today? See any 82 Billion Dollars lately?
The Spin is just for the gullible who live in FantasyLand. By the way, Everything is FINE in Iraq. They just found the WMDs…

Posted by: Aldous at February 17, 2005 12:49 PM

I believe that our losses have not been a matter of not having solid beliefs to proceed from, but from our leadership’s notion of going along to get along.

That had to end sometime. We could not satisfy and bring out our constituents forever cooperating with the Republicans, then turning around and protesting what they did. We must act and speak with the same mind.

I want us to be aggressive in our pursuit of office, but I want something else as well: That we not forget what we fight for. We work for the welfare of the American people. We cannot commit the same mistakes the Republicans have committed over the last few years, using the crisis atmosphere around us as a political bludgeon. We must fulfill the best expectations of a what a government is supposed to do for its people, not the expectations of lobbyists and ideologues.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2005 12:54 PM

Guys, these kinds of slongans may work on daily kos, but they dont really work when someone knows what they are talking about. The liberal supreme court jurisprudence, as exemplified by cases like Roe v. Wade and Miranda, has been all about activism to twist the constitution to fit the policy goals of the liberal justices (with only passing refrence to the text or meaning of the constitution). Now judges who want to turn back this activism are labeled “ideologues”. As for the total myth that the judges who have been blocked are somehow radical-= Miguel Estrada was blocked despite having the highest rating as a judge from the American Bar Association. Which completley undermines your argument.

Aldous, you completely miss the point- I am NOT defending Republicans in any way, shape or form (you should know this about me by now- i am not a republican partisan in the least). In fact, I have gotten so mad at Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility and misleading the american people that I voted libertarian for the first time in my life in 2004. That doesnt mean I have bought into the Democrats’ propoganda about hwo they all of a sudden believe in fiscal conservatism or judicial restraint. You may succeed in fooling the American people by dressing up Hillary as a moderate in 2008, but those who actually know these people’s records wont be misled.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 17, 2005 01:25 PM

We oppose the fiscal irresponsibility and unrestrained bureaucratic growth that has characterized Republican dominance for the last four years. We oppose ultra-conservative judges who legislate their fundamentalist beliefs from the bench.

So we are against big government, for fiscal responsibility and have a problem with “activist” judges. Why does all that sound so familiar and why am I suddenly so confused..?

Posted by: mark at February 17, 2005 01:29 PM

They’re switching from a defensive stance to fighting mode

Huh? You mean the last 4 years of shrill attacks from all democratic fronts, including democrats.com calling for impeachment hearings into Bush before he had even taken office, repeated claims that he was not elected, calling him a liar and comparing him to Hitler over and over and over again was a DEFENSIVE tactic? Wow, this ought to be interesting to watch then, and ensure that Democrats continue losing until they figure it out.

We oppose the fiscal irresponsibility and unrestrained bureaucratic growth that has characterized Republican dominance for the last four years.

Is that why John Kerry is asking for a several billion dollar increase to Bush’s supplemental budget request? Why are democrats SCREAMING about the potential cuts in any programs?

Clinton and Robert Rubin strong-armed Republicans into a balanced budget that stimulated the economy and didn’t kill vital social programs.

And pushed us smack dab into a recession, one that only Bush warned about in the 2000 campaign, Gore bumbled around acting like everything was fine. We now know that it wasn’t, that the numbers were ‘cooked’ and the budget surplus we were told we had was a big lie based on projections that the economic policies in place could not attain. Once the .com bubble burst and then the 9/11 attacks hit, any pretense to a surplus was wiped from existence.

using the crisis atmosphere around us as a political bludgeon.

This would indeed be a welcome change from either party, they have both been guilty of this for decades.

Democrats are against ultra-conservative judges who legislate their fundamentalist beliefs from the bench.

Yes, they prefer ultra-liberal judges who legislate their liberal/socialist beliefs from the bench that destroys anything remaining of our once great constitution and scream when anyone attempts to fillibuster THEIR nominations. Nice hypocricy there.

The problem with the Democratic party is not being fixed here, they think that they just have to organize better and politik better. Unfortunately, the majority in the country are just a smidge right of center and the Democrats continue to run to the far left more and more, leaving the middle of the road and slightly right leaning Americans that make up the majority in the country little choice but to pull the lever for the Republican candidate, however little they can stomach it.

If you want to regain power, move more back to the center, start to understand what the people are asking for and wanting instead of saying that they are just being ‘fooled into voting for the scum currently in office (the ones that they voted for)’ and truly be concerned with their welfare, not in making their decisions on how to live their lives for them.

But, that’s just how I see things. I am torn between wanting to see the Democratic Party return to what it was in the 60s, something that most americans could approve of and vote for and wanting to see it continue to destroy itself from within and a new party form from the ashes to take it’s place that doesn’t have to keep it’s alligences to the more destructive forces in our society.

Let the new leadership give it a try and if they get it, great! If they continue down the path they are currently on, great! One of the two is going to happen eventually…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 17, 2005 01:32 PM

The Democratic Party certainly fought hard against American Democracy when they threw out ethics and fairness to shut Ralph Nader out of the race. Let’s face it, the Democratic Party showed that it is no different than the Republican Party in its desire to create a one party state, one party government, and one voice to represent all Americans.

The Democratic Party has a number one priority, and it ain’t America, the American people, or democracy. It is power. They demonstrated that abundantly in their treatment of Ralph Nader’s campaign in this last election. Scared of Ralph Nader? Scared! That is what the Democratic Party was, and is. Scared of freedom of choice, scared of freedom of third party competition. Scared of losing. And like folks who live their lives scared, the Democratic Party will not lead, it will just react.

The way back to power for the Democratic Party is to reach out and embrace third parties. But, they just don’t get it, because like Bush, et. al, power is all they can see, not principle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 17, 2005 01:44 PM

Great article AP, and very interesting links.

If the Democrats are indeed reborn as fighters, and if they can prove to me they won’t keep abandoning the liberal ideals the party was founded on, but rather returns to them, they just may be able to win me back to the party in short order.
I know everyone must be tired of me bringing this up, but there is one other issue that needs to be dealt with before anyone should take the claim to fight back seriously, namely, Election Reform.
Dems can still lose every opportunity to become the nations leaders now and long into the future - even with the most brilliant and strongly persuasive of platforms - if nothing is ever done to ensure that America has fair and accountable elections.

PS. I’m so damn sick of the whole “Save the Fetus! Yet Screw the Poor!” Idiocy. And the fact that the topic of abortion is forcibly dragged into so many threads in this blog is something I consider inane, ridiculous, and need I say it, a tad obsessive?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2005 01:48 PM

Rhinehold
Your wasting you breath man. No matter how often former dems ask for a less liberal and more moderate platform, we are told we are wrong and should shut-up. We don’t know what we are talking about.

David
Amen brother, amen.

Adrienne
“I’m so damn sick of the whole “Save the Fetus! Yet Screw the Poor!” Idiocy”

So am I, alot.
But I am also sick of the whole “Murder the fetus! Yet work your ass off so others don’t have to! idiocy also.

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2005 02:06 PM

Misha: You doth protest your characterization as a repub too much. Perhaps you aren’t in lockstep (which certainly is refreshing) with their agenda but you tilt your hand quite a bit when you point to the judicial activism of the Supreme Court, which, last I checked, has been dominated by republican appointees for years, yet didn’t see the “twisting of the constitution” that Roe and Miranda represent enough that it warranted overturning. I’ll agree that liberals want liberal judges (whoa!) but when the current administration does even consult the ABA anymore (all potential nominees are now vetted by the Federalist Society), it’s hard to claim that it’s truly tit-for-tat. Besides, isn’t our Constitution supposed to make us the freest most independent people in the world? Since when is reaffirming that core part of the constitution liberal activism?

Rhinehold: While I agree with you to an extent (after all, democrats ARE still politicians haha), I take issue with some of your interpretations.

Huh? You mean the last 4 years of shrill attacks from all democratic fronts, including democrats.com calling for impeachment hearings into Bush before he had even taken office, repeated claims that he was not elected, calling him a liar and comparing him to Hitler over and over and over again was a DEFENSIVE tactic? Wow, this ought to be interesting to watch then, and ensure that Democrats continue losing until they figure it out.

1) Just about everyone of any significance gave up on the 2000 election disaster after Bush vs. Gore 2) In terms of the actual leaders of the party, very few would have been caught dead explicitly calling the president a liar, when he was, in fact, lying. Being aggressive means getting everyone on the same page and finally not just rolling along with whatever the administration puts out there as the truth (hello, social security privatization!)

We oppose the fiscal irresponsibility and unrestrained bureaucratic growth that has characterized Republican dominance for the last four years.

ha, well, it think we’ve seen we can’t really count on either part to reduce the government. It’s just a matter of what gets enlarged. I was with the repubs in 1994 when they called for smaller government and fiscal discipline and I’d be with them again if they were less stupid about their cuts. Dems are complaining because the admin wants to cut vital, and successful, programs such as Headstart and HUD. If you want to cut down on spending, how about we start with not giving huge, profitable corporations such as Wal-Mart massive corporate welfare payments? How about trimming or outright eliminating the Energy department, whose only real purpose seems to be to give the energy industry more money and set policy that forgoes innovation?

And pushed us smack dab into a recession, one that only Bush warned about in the 2000 campaign, Gore bumbled around acting like everything was fine. We now know that it wasn’t, that the numbers were ‘cooked’ and the budget surplus we were told we had was a big lie based on projections that the economic policies in place could not attain. Once the .com bubble burst and then the 9/11 attacks hit, any pretense to a surplus was wiped from existence.

Yes, that damned Clinton with his fiscally responsible policies put us in the recession. The solution was obvious as along…I don’t know why he didn’t see it. Reducing the government’s income and increasing spending…of course! that is the key to long term growth! Guess what, economies go in cycles, Clinton didn’t cause the recession, if anything he lessened its impact. Taking what was a fiscally stable period and turning it into a long term fiscal disaster hardly seems like sound economic policy. Unless you’re rich, and then I guess you don’t really care what happens anyway.

The problem with the Democratic party is not being fixed here, they think that they just have to organize better and politik better. Unfortunately, the majority in the country are just a smidge right of center and the Democrats continue to run to the far left more and more, leaving the middle of the road and slightly right leaning Americans that make up the majority in the country little choice but to pull the lever for the Republican candidate, however little they can stomach it.

I keep hearing about how the Democratic party is “too liberal.” Isn’t that like saying an African-American is “too black”? They are who they are. If Americans right now are slightly right of center, that’s because they have been more convincingly persuased that the republicans represent them. that is certainly debatable, but saying the left is too left is just stupid. Democrats have been almost grotesquely moderate for years now. As has often been said, we don’t need a second republican party, we need an alternative. I think the party is correct that they need to reshape their message to better define themselves and how their polices, in their view, will help the everyday American. Considering how much of Bush’s agenda overwhelmingly helps the affluent, you wouldn’t think it would be that hard.

Anyway, my background has always been that of a moderate, willing to vote either way, depending on the candidate and the policies espoused. Hell, I voted for the first bush in my first election and Dole in my second. Nader in my third if curious. But as an educated person that does care about the rank and file of this country, not just its corporate elite and does care about our long term future, this administration has succeeded in getting me on board with the democratic agenda because I can’t imagine what a “Reverse New Deal” society would be like. Although I’m quickly getting an idea.

Posted by: Zoffa at February 17, 2005 02:26 PM

Speaking of the Dems finally getting their act together, showing a little spine, and acting in unison - check this fun little puppy out:
http://democrats.senate.gov/ss/calc.html#

Posted by: Center Dem at February 17, 2005 06:51 PM

Rhinehold-
I’m not sure what gives you the idea that our opposition to Bush is based on partisan ideology. We rarely use the term conservative as the perjorative work they use liberal as. What you are seeing is outrage at dishonesty, incompetence, and bureaucratic political bullshit. It doesn’t help that Bush tries to present himself in the opposite fashion, and that all his supporters worship him and can’t see him doing any wrong. Bush is a figure in a Greek tragedy in the making, filled with hubris and arrogance.

I mean, how else does somebody take a 52 percent majority and a one state victory and read political capital and mandates into that? The measures of this administration, so often, seem to be relativistic, or colored by promises of a future goal. We are told we didn’t torture people as badly at Abu Ghraib as Saddam did.

We are told that everybody else got it wrong, and that’s why we should tolerate Bush’s error. This despite evidence that much of the intelligence failure in Iraq owed itself to the dumbass behavior of the people working for him, people trying to make a case for war after becoming committed to it, trying to push the facts and the reporting into saying what they wanted to hear. Time and again, it seems we are asked to lower our standards, or just tolerate some offense.

Our crime to you is that we are outraged despite all the wonderful excuses that have been made for Bush, who must be protected from confrontation with his dissenters, despite his status as the leader of the country where free political speech is an enshrined principle of our law. In these dangerous times, with the dangerous mistakes Bush has made, how can you not understand why Democrat have such resistance to calls to keep quiet and out of the way? We believe the future of our nation is at stake.

Is that why John Kerry is asking for a several billion dollar increase to Bush’s supplemental budget request? Why are democrats SCREAMING about the potential cuts in any programs?

Go and research what the circumstances of Kerry voting for the 85 billion before he voted against it. Then tell me why Bush choose to make American Taxpayers fork over more for today’s spending by not covering it under tax revenues.

While you’re at it, elaborate on what Kerry wants that increase for, and tell me what are the programs whose demise the Democrats are screaming about. Also, tell me what congress it has been in charge of all those nice little porkbarrel bills, especially those that ended up depriving our soldiers vehicles of armor and maintenance.

As for the recession, I recall it was the failure in the dot-com and financial sectors, so liberally deregulated by the conservatives that pushed us into that recession.

You do not get to blame this deficit on us. Bush chose tax cuts, medicare drug benefits and a skyrocketing defense bill all at the same time. That’s what kicked our deficit into overdrive. Before that, the troubles were mild at worst.

We have moved as far back to the center as we really can afford to. The Republicans have pushed their agenda relentlessly, have won dominance over nearly every aspect of government. Given what has happened in our policies, what can we profit by failing to call this administration on the issues?

It time to stop being paranoid about Liberal politics being the end of western civilization. Our country grew to prosperity and prominence udner it. And right now, that paranoia is serving as an opiate, dulling us to the pain of the deconstruction of our nation’s core values.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2005 06:52 PM

I’m glad to see Dean taking an important position with the Dems. Although it won’t be his position to advocate a particular issue, I’m hoping he can take advantage of a golden opportunity, and urge the Dems to become the party of fiscal responsibility. Sheesh, given the current boondoggle, it wouldn’t take much! Would anyone-anyone at all- come to the defense of Republican budget management? A raised thumb covered in red ink might be an appropriate symbol.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2005 07:11 PM

there is one other issue that needs to be dealt with before anyone should take the claim to fight back seriously, namely, Election Reform.

Yo Adrienne! Senator Clinton introduced a Count Every Vote Act,

• Verified paper ballots for every vote cast by electronic voting machines;
• Uniform provisional ballots so states will count and treat votes equally; and
• Standards to ensure equal access to voting machines and election personnel.

If you’re talking about campaign finance reform, that’s not even on the map in Congress. Too many other hot button issues are being debated. It needs to be done though.

Center Dem, good call out on the Social Security calculator. Here’s the formula they use,

The Bush privatization plan proposes two benefit cuts:

(1) Price indexing: Several leading administration officials have discussed a switch to “price indexing†starting in 2012. An annual cut in benefits that grows substantially over time, price indexing would result in 50 percent benefit cut for Americans who are born this year. It would result in the same percentage cut in benefits for
everyone born in the same year, regardless of income.

(2) Privatization tax: Specifically, anyone who chooses to contribute to the Bush private accounts would have to effectively repay all their contributions – plus the rate of interest earned by Treasury bonds – via a cut to their traditional Social Security benefit. This further cut in your traditional benefit as a result of the private account is the “privatization tax.†So you will have an individual account that you can keep upon retirement, but it is funded at the expense of your traditional Social Security benefit.

This website illustrates what these two benefit cuts would do to your total annual retirement benefit.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 08:18 PM

those who actually know these people’s records wont be misled.

“These people’s” records are all public. But it’s so much easier to mock and tear down, rather than understand the issues, isn’t it?

Project Vote Smart is a good place to check voting records. On the Issues is pretty good too.

The League of Pissed Off Voters (now The League of EXTREMELY Pissed Off Voters) has a good “Does your Congressperson suck?” rating for all you indy voters.

Also, before you shoot your mouth off about what the GOP has told you the Democratic agenda is, why don’t you go see for yourself. Is anyone really going to argue that authorizing more troops and special forces is “too liberal”? That pay-as-you-go rules and mandatory spending cuts are “too liberal”? Maybe you think a veteran’s Bill of Rights is “too liberal”.

Seriously, if anyone wants to pick apart the Democratic agenda, let’s do it. But don’t start wackin’ out with some secret liberal shadow agenda. Stick to Democrat’s records and the legislation they introduce. Otherwise your just wasting time and being an idiot.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 08:20 PM

Ok, lets clarify some things:

1. When I say “these people” I am referring to national candidates like John Kerry and the new-and-improved Hillary, who are extremely liberal in their RECORDS until it comes near a possible national election, at which point they pitch themselves as “moderates”.

2. I do not dispute that currently Democrats are proposing fiscal discipline. But I believe this is a matter of temporary political expediency than any actual commitment to cutting back spending. After all, where were you guys when actual fiscal conservatives were proposing the balanced budget amendment. Those who proposed that amendment realized a very simple lesson- once the power of congress and president are aligned, fiscal discipline will not occur. It has been fully proven by the last four years (and by the first two years of Clinton, until the American people sent the Democratic Congress packing because they tried to increase the federal government’s spending too much with socialized medicine- thanks Hil!)

3. I did not tilt my hand at all when i called the liberals activist judges who invented the right of abortion and the requirement to read rights to accused out of thin air- this is simply what happen. In my first semester of law school, I had one of the most liberal law professors in the entire country who would have agreed with that statement (of course, he fully supports abortion, affirmative action, and even radical redistribution, but he understands the difference between wanting those policies and whether the court is correct in its reading of the constitution).

4. And yes, I have usually fallen on the side of Republicans, but that is not because they are so right, but that is because the opposition is so wrong. The Democrats have been the party of big government, of affirmative action, of abortion, of larger taxes, and of most everything I oppose. Currently, they are talking about some things I agree with. For example, fiscal discipline. For another example, the rights of prisoners in the war on terror (I am currently working on a case challenging the Bush administration’s attempt to use military tribunals to try prisoners in gitmo- as some people who post here regularly know. But hey, you can continue to paint me as some radical Bush supporter if you want.).

But that does not mean I will be fooled into thinking the Democratic party has truly abandoned its position of more power in the hands of the federal government and less power in the hands of individuals. That core hasn’t change, no matter what clothing you put on it. When people talk about the principles and values of the Party, that’s what they talk about.

Its not about single-issues- its about the overall philosophy of the party. Just read what you wrote in the original post:
“We oppose allowing industries to inflict unrestrained harm on their employees, the environment, and consumers. And we oppose any change to Social Security that involves siphoning off benefits into the stock market.”

Stripped of the misleading statement I disproved about judges, it is the same Democratic party that the majority Americans do not want (and rightfully so). You want the federal government to protect employees even further by limiting their right to contract. You want the federal government to step in and take responsibility for consumer’s choices (which, by the way, is what cause the flu vaccine “crisis”). You want the federal government to save everyone’s retirement, because you think people are too stupid or lazy or irresponsible to do it themselves. While I fully see the American people do not share my freedom-based approaches to these problems, you do not see that they do not support your even-more-statist approach either. The libertarian party is a minority party in this country for a reason, and the Democrats are going to head in that same direction if they do not realize Americans do not want THAT much more federal government (not to say Bush is any better, but its not like the Dems can right to the right of him!)

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 17, 2005 09:04 PM

I am referring to national candidates like John Kerry and the new-and-improved Hillary, who are extremely liberal in their RECORDS

I find their records pretty moderate. See for yourself.

Misha, the rest of your post is mostly paranoia,

I believe this is a matter of temporary political expediency…

But that does not mean I will be fooled…

its about the overall philosophy…

Please. Like I said, if you’re going to rail against some imaginary shadow agenda, you’re just wasting time. If you want to debate the merits of some part of the Democratic Party agenda, let’s do it. Don’t just throw unsubstantiated gobbledygook around.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 09:26 PM

Rhinehold wrote:

Yes, they prefer ultra-liberal judges who legislate their liberal/socialist beliefs from the bench that destroys anything remaining of our once great constitution and scream when anyone attempts to fillibuster THEIR nominations. Nice hypocricy there.

Every debate I’ve had with someone opposing Gay Marriage, never are they willing to debate the merits of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s majority opinion, and the state’s Constitutional provisions they are based on. They’re ranting about how ‘Liberal activist judges’ are usurping the will of the people, their preference over the Bill Of Rights.

The Democratic Party has a number one priority, and it ain’t America, the American people, or democracy. It is power. They demonstrated that abundantly in their treatment of Ralph Nader’s campaign in this last election. Scared of Ralph Nader? Scared! That is what the Democratic Party was, and is. Scared of freedom of choice, scared of freedom of third party competition. Scared of losing. And like folks who live their lives scared, the Democratic Party will not lead, it will just react.

I strongly and respectfully disagree with you here, David. Nader represented a credible, but arrogant political ideology, who would not suffer greatly under the governance of the other two parties. Nader has always had the option to advance his agenda within the Democratic Party, as Howard Dean’s impact has unequivocally proven. Yet, he obstinately preferred to stay on the sidelines shouting at windmills, anticipating the implosion of one of the major parties, due any day.

I doubt very much Dean will consider reaching out to the leadership of third parties, knowing that it would come with intractable agendas, something the GOP knows all too well.

Unfortunately, the majority in the country are just a smidge right of center and the Democrats continue to run to the far left more and more,

This is a perfect example of someone to who came to AP’s post with an agenda and opinion already set about the Democratic Party. I’d like to see this opinion reconciled against the details of the Reid Legislative agenda, and Dean’s aggressive plan for making the Party’s case.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 17, 2005 09:36 PM

Misha,

Yes, the majority of us are either too stupid or don’t have the time or resources to investigate a good security from a bad security. I suppose you thought Margarette Thatcher’s privitization was nothing short of genius….Please, check out what the majority of the English have to say about her privitization plans. Yes, you may have plenty of extra cash to invest in the market. Most folks are looking at $20-60/month. doesn’t sound like a lot does it? In a down market and not having the security reports available that the “big boys” do makes it even harder. Of course, you are a conservative lawyer…I wouldn’t imagine you earn what most folks do (less than $45K/year). Many folks that are making this type of $ voted for GW…why? The supposed “Moral value” issue. It’s much easier to get your agenda moved along when it’s preached from every Southern Baptist pulpit…a very large and captive audience.

At any rate, if you think…like most conservatives…that PURE capitalizism is the answer; then shall I point you to Enron, Health South, Tyco, Firestone,….shall I go on? Capitalizism is not an enemy! But it isn’t the “chummy” friend you may think it is. The government’s role should be to regulate folks that take advantage of “dog eat dog” capitalizism.

Social Security was not meant to provide great returns, but mainly capital preservation to those who have meager means to invest and absolutely little or no time to look into what is a “good” investment and what is a “bad” investment.

As far as fiscal responsibility goes….well, if I recal correctly, Clinton was the first President in eons to actually pay down some of the national debt….not just “balance the budget”,which he also did. Did you know that about 43% of our privately held national debt is held by overseas governments or persons? With Europe united (EU) this could signal great trouble to the United States future (financially).

So, we’ve been borrowing money from foreign entities to finance the Bush agenda….sounds a lot more fiscally responsible than any administration since I’ve been around.

GW is either going to look like a genious years from now (which I seriously doubt), or he’s going to make more Democrats than Ronald Reagan made republicans. Face it! When push comes to shove people vote their pocket books. If GW makes as many Dems as I think he will, it will be because he has hurt middle America where it counts.

Posted by: Tom at February 17, 2005 09:42 PM

Misha-
I think modern democrats, less tied to the New Deal, and it’s style of government, are more pragmatic than you give them credit for. But wishful thinking about the Republicans won’t do you much good. If the Republicans, for the most part, were the fiscal conservatives you claim them to be, We wouldn’t be in this mess. Your problem is that the Republican party has become the part of instant gratification.

Activist judges. God forbid a judge actually tries to interpret the law to deal with unforseen circumstances. God forbid that it be judges involved in the actual cases, and not legislators trying to look tough on crime who decide sentences. God forbid half the country gets it’s views expressed in the judiciary, and a fair hearing of their concerns. All this strict constructionism runs into one major problem: Nobody’s that smart, and the founding fathers knew it.

I don’t mind keeping taxes moderately low. Absurdly low is where I draw the line. Pay as you go. break us even. Overspending and over taxing only matter when we aren’t paying for our goverment on credit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2005 11:18 PM

Stephen, you’re making my point for me.

Instead of dealing with the criticism, accepting it as a genuine possibility that the Democrats have gotten themselves into the situation they are in, you immediately launch into attacks on Republicans and railing against Bush.

Bush is not the Democrat’s problem. The Rebuplicans are not the Democrat’s problem. Nadar, Badnarik, other 3rd party candidates are not the Democrat’s problem.

The Democratic party is the problem. From their shrill voices at every turn as if the world is going to explode tomorrow, claiming old people are going to have money taken from them, keeping alive the anger and frustration of institutionalized racism when all vestiges of it have all but dried up and telling us how the environment is being destroyed by carbon dioxide gas when the newest science tells us that it has little effect (water vapor is the biggest contributor to global warming) and the only way to solve the percieved crisis is to enter into an ECONOMIC treaty with the rest of the world that would cost Americans their jobs with NO positive environmental impact, the party itself is alientating, little by little, the middle of the road voter.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 18, 2005 01:01 AM

Rhinehold, it’s a fact that man-made greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming. Kyoto could have been finessed into something we could all agree with - for example, the EU didn’t like the cap-n-trade system at first, now they love it. But by just abandoning the treaty, we let the rest of the world define Kyoto, and we lost a lot of power and prestige as a result.

Obviously, the world won’t explode, though climate change will bring flooding, disease, and starvation to millions of people around the world. It will only be the end of the world for them. Similarly, the rest of your diatribe is also nonsense.

The Democratic Party doesn’t have the problems you think it does. Kerry only lost the election by less than 120,000 votes in one state. The agenda is sound, and as a moderate I’m very happy with it. The party is shifting focus from holding seats to gaining seats, starting at the local level. It’s a good strategy. We’re fighters.

The Democratic Party is a big tent, and speaks with a libertarian voice on certain issues. But Democrats are not going to give up fighting for our core values. The Democratic Party is the last best hope for regular guys like me.

BTW, I’d love to hear what other Democrats think about the core legislative agenda. I think it’s all good, except for one glaring omission: No energy policy.

Kerry had an excellent energy plan and I hope Democrats will offer it as an alternative to the crappy GOP plan when it comes up again.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 18, 2005 02:13 AM

AP, I see you all replaced attack dog McAuliffe with another attack dog, Dean. I guess some old dogs really can’t learn new tricks. Big mistake, Huge!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2005 02:46 AM

David,
Since you are a super genius, I want to ask you something. How is putting Dean as the head a bad choice? I know that he is the butt of Conservative jokes but still, why do you call that?

Posted by: Leon S. Blythe at February 18, 2005 02:51 AM

Leon, no genius here, just 55 years of staying awake and learning.

I discussed the liability of McAuliffe at length previously in another article. In summary, an attack dog as head of the DNC simply adds fuel the Republican’s spin tactics as well as alienating a lot of independent voters.

Howard Dean to date, does not seem to have grasped the concept that the Democratic Party lost because they were not better than the Republicans in the eyes of centrist and independent voters. To appeal to them, the Dem’s will have to elevate their rhetoric, their vision and goals, and their tactics to a level clearly a head above those of the Republicans.

Example: It occured to me earlier this evening that a powerful Dem message for 2008 would be a policy which embraces the people of the world regardless of the regime they happen to find themselves ruled by. From this policy would come an approach which would reject bombing and killing those we want to save. Yet foster a stern and weighty policy against regimes that abuse their citizens and the citizens of neighboring nations. Such a policy also permits absolute military dominance to come into play when a regime violates the sanctity of any other nation’s borders. A clear and black and white distinction from the current Bush Administration.

The world is ready for leadership that will make the distinction between the people living under regimes and the regimes themselves. A committment to use minimal necessary force against regimes which threaten international peace and preserving the welfare of that society’s people and infrastructure upon which they depend, is a foreign policy that would clearly put the Democrats a head or two above the current Bush doctrine, legally, morally, and especially in terms of World Public Relations for the US.

Of course such a policy would require rules for covert regime change backed by that regime’s people. That would be the hard part, but, not impossible by any means.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 18, 2005 04:39 AM

David, first of all I think you lifted your policy from Bush’s State of the Union Address, “And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.”

Second, you and Bush are using the the kind of liberal imperialist rhetoric that scares the crap out of moderates like myself. I prefer the kind of global engagement through multilateral institutions we had with Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan. A nice conservative foreign policy that doesn’t require fighting al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Iran, North Korea, and China all at the same time without any military help from Europe or Japan.

At least that’s what I think you’re talking about. If it’s not, then it sounds like the kind of namby-pamby talk that made a lot of Democrats nervous about Dean as president.

I like the idea of America being the world’s policeman - we’re the only force capable of taking on that role - but I’m not signing up for a wacko agenda to civilize our little brown brothers, or a crusade to bring God’s gift of liberty to the benighted corners of the world. That’s way to liberal for me.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 18, 2005 07:55 AM

BTW, I really like the Democratic legislation that authorizes 40,000 more Army and Marine Corps troops (many of which would be badly needed state-building troops like MPs and civil affairs officers) and 2,000 more Secial Forces troops for covert strikes against terrorist cells anywhere in the world (Senate bills S.11 and S.12).

I have no idea why Republicans don’t think that’s necessary.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 18, 2005 08:01 AM

Rhinehold-
Shrill? You know who you’re talking to, right? Has it occurred to you that we don’t share your opinion of our dissent? You’ve bought the Republican line that Democrats are merely being whiny children, a line both disrespectful to the considerable evidence of wrongdoing, and to people who come by their opinions honestly.

On Global Warming, I think you underestimate the complexity of water’s role. First, it is a greenhouse gas, and it does contribute to the warming of the planet. You haven’t considered three things:

1) That we’re not starting from a blank slate here. Water Vapor already is warming this planet. Without it, The average global temperature would be freezing. Same thing with CO2. It is additional saturation of the atmosphere with these gases, because of human activities we’re concerned about.

2) Water Vapor levels themselves depend on temperature, so the effects of other greenhouse gases will increase water vapor concentrations in that way. Increased water vapor concentrations can therefore be a product of human activity, despite the fact that the main sources are non-human.

3) Water Vapor is not merely an agent of warming. Walk outside and look at those clouds of condensed water vapor. Like snow (itself condensed and frozen water vapor) it can reflect light and heat back from the surface.

I don’t think you’re working off of good science. I think what you have is the unfortunate combination of junk science and compelling rhetoric. But good debating skills will not allow us to talk our way out of the inundation of major population centers, and the destruction of economically important ports.

You people speak compellingly about the value of keeping taxes low, but you deny to yourselves and others their responsibility in driving us into debt. Again, rhetoric makes us hesitate before the facts.

The Republican party has become the party of inaction. We are given every reason to do nothing, up until the point that the worst does come to past.

We Democrats think its better to confront our problems than talk ourselves out of doing anything about them. That is what we’re doing right now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2005 11:04 AM

AP:

“Yo Adrienne!”
(Groan) I’ve hear this too often, AP.
I’ll give you half a point though, because it is in keeping with the title of your article. ;^]

“Senator Clinton introduced a Count Every Vote Act,”

I just signed on as a “citizen co-sponsor”, although I’m not sure whether people signing on ever makes a real difference when it comes to passing this kind of legislation.

“Verified paper ballots for every vote cast by electronic voting machines;
Uniform provisional ballots so states will count and treat votes equally; and
Standards to ensure equal access to voting machines and election personnel.”

It is long overdue. Let’s hope it passes.

“If you’re talking about campaign finance reform, that’s not even on the map in Congress. Too many other hot button issues are being debated. It needs to be done though.”

It does - and you’re right, there are too many other things boiling away on all four burners at the moment.
There is also the problem of Republican gerrymandering of districts, too. Don’t know whether that will ever garner any attention, either.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 18, 2005 12:24 PM

Zoffa:
“I keep hearing about how the Democratic party is “too liberal.” Isn’t that like saying an African-American is “too black”? They are who they are. If Americans right now are slightly right of center, that’s because they have been more convincingly persuased that the republicans represent them. that is certainly debatable, but saying the left is too left is just stupid. Democrats have been almost grotesquely moderate for years now. As has often been said, we don’t need a second republican party, we need an alternative. I think the party is correct that they need to reshape their message to better define themselves and how their polices, in their view, will help the everyday American. Considering how much of Bush’s agenda overwhelmingly helps the affluent, you wouldn’t think it would be that hard.”

That was well said Zoffa, and I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 18, 2005 12:41 PM

Speaking of Counting Every Vote…

Press Release:
CONYERS AND OTHERS FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN OHIO SUPREME COURT
For Immediate Release: February 14, 2005

Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, will be filing an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court with the support of Senator Russ Feingold and 17 other members of the House of Representatives recommending that the Court not sanction the attorneys who brought Ohio election contest in Moss v. Bush (no.042088).
Mr. Conyers offered the following statement:
“The attorneys in this case had reason to believe that the election results did not reflect the will of the electorate. In good faith, they brought a case based not only on statistical probability but the depositions and affidavits of computer experts, statisticians, and election volunteers. In only a couple months, these attorneys have amassed over 900 pages of evidence.
“While we take no opinion on the underlying case, we firmly support the right of citizens to challenge elections results in court when they have a good faith basis to do so. Truly, Secretary Blackwell’s attempt to sanction these attorneys is meant to send a message to anyone who dare challenge his questionable election administration. For our democracy to work properly, we can’t allow this sort of intimidation by state officials.”

Posted by: Adrienne at February 18, 2005 08:17 PM

Howard Dean to date, does not seem to have grasped the concept that the Democratic Party lost because they were not better than the Republicans in the eyes of centrist and independent voters. To appeal to them, the Dem’s will have to elevate their rhetoric, their vision and goals, and their tactics to a level clearly a head above those of the Republicans.

Once again David, I have to strenuously disagree with your perceptions of the Democrats. As you can see from this CNN election exit polling, Kerry won handily among those identifying themselves as ‘Moderates’, carried the same margin among those who did not vote in 2000, and by 50% percentage points among those who voted third party in 2000. This clearly shows Independents and Centrists rejected the Bush campaign of fear and intolerance, more afraid of four more years of such incompetence.

Your position starts from the assumption that the American electorate made their decision based on a serious and engaged determination of the issues - which is clearly not the case.

Bush won by 8% percent among voters over 60, many of whom are now up in arms over his plan to gut Social Security. He also won handily among Rural voters, many of whom are Farmers upset that deep cuts to their subsidies are in his budget proposal.

The warnings about Bush’s intentions were right there in John Kerry’s message, and detailed on his website. Yes, we were not clear in our message, because we failed to make a personal attempt to see if it would resonate with Red State voters.

Howard Dean is determined to not let us make the same mistake again.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 18, 2005 08:47 PM

AP — Kudos for beginning (and continuing) a nicely energetic thread; this discussion has been more civilized than most. While I disagree with you significantly, your opinions are well articulated.

Tom — Two words: ad hominem.

Misha — Keep clarifying your views. They may eventually understand your true positions, or they may continue to bait you by pigeon-holing you.

All — I have heard it said that the Democrats don’t stand for anything, but are quick to tear down what others stand for. That’s probably true of both parties these days, but more true of the party not in power (at any given time).

Neither party seems to want to admit to its true long-term agenda. Otherwise it might sound like … we’re the Reps and we want to control you socially … we’re the Dems and we want to decide how to spend your money. (Yes I’m mildly libertarian.)

The problem is the Reps are spending way too much, because they’ve figured out that that’s how you get re-elected. And the Dems don’t want to spend less, they want to spend it differently. But first they have to edit the budget of the guys in power, and the first salvo is to cut the Reps pet programs.

Best would be line item veto. That could get rid of much of the real crap in the budget. At least it’s worth a shot.

Oh, and please, stop giving Bill Clinton credit for the 90s business cycle. That’s dumb. Volcker and Greenspan have influenced the economy more than Reagan-Bush-Clinton-&-Bush combined.

Remember: Dems are just good people with bad ideas, but Reps are just bad people. ;-)

Bottom line: Both sides need to stand up for what they truly believe, and stick to it. Unfortunately, we reinforce their short-attention-span political slipperiness instead. A number of you seem to believe that your/their party is well defined. I disagree. I think we are better off discussing specific issues, solutions & priorities, than political party labels. Constructive discourse is difficult, but much more fulfilling than “those guys really suck.”

Posted by: mike at February 18, 2005 09:19 PM

AP et. al. — I’d be more than happy to contribute to threads dedicated to specific issues (e.g., health care, education, etc.). Someone please post links to a few parties’ positions to a single issue, and let’s fix the world!

Posted by: mike at February 18, 2005 09:28 PM

mike:
“Tom — Two words: ad hominem.”

That’s bunk.
Tom, I agreed with every line of your post. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 19, 2005 01:13 AM

Mike said: “Remember: Dems are just good people with bad ideas, but Reps are just bad people. ;-)”

Mike, there are a great many respectable and intelligent Republicans who visit this website and we welcome their input and discussion and debate every bit as much as Democrats.

Therefore, in keeping with our Policy of Critique the Message, Not the Messenger I must ask that you refrain from any further comments like the one above. Failure to comply will result in your loss of posting privileges here at WatchBlog.

Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at February 19, 2005 02:36 AM

AP,

(1) Price indexing: Several leading administration officials have discussed a switch to “price indexing” starting in 2012. An annual cut in benefits that grows substantially over time, price indexing would result in 50 percent benefit cut for Americans who are born this year. It would result in the same percentage cut in benefits for everyone born in the same year, regardless of income.

Are you actually trying to convince us that price indexing will cut benefits annually starting in 2012? Because if that is true, we would eventually reach a point where there would be no benefits especially if your “scare the seniors” 50% is believed.

When will the libs learn that slowing the rate of growth is not a cut. To cut something is to take away something that is already there. Slowing the rate of growth is not a cut and you know it. It is just harder to get people worked up without using emotional terms like “CUT IN BENEFITS”

(2) Privatization tax: Specifically, anyone who chooses to contribute to the Bush private accounts would have to effectively repay all their contributions “ plus the rate of interest earned by Treasury bonds “ via a cut to their traditional Social Security benefit. This further cut in your traditional benefit as a result of the private account is the privatization tax. So you will have an individual account that you can keep upon retirement, but it is funded at the expense of your traditional Social Security benefit.

Reducing future benefits equivalent to the 4% you move into an Individual Account is not a tax. Again you are trying to get people emotionally charged using terminology that is blatantly false. When you tax someone you make them pay money from their earnings. In this case, since a workers 4% would be going into an Individual Account it only makes sense for their future benefits to be reduced an equivalent amount. The growth of the Individual Account will more than make up for the reduction of the standard SS benefits. The Stock Market has historically grown at an annual rate of around 6% dating back to the Great Depression while according to the SS Administration the “Trust Fund” only returns around 2% per year. A 2% rate of return in most years does not even keep place with inflation.

Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 03:23 AM

Stephen,

I don’t mind keeping taxes moderately low. Absurdly low is where I draw the line. Pay as you go. break us even. Overspending and over taxing only matter when we aren’t paying for our goverment on credit.

1) So, what percentage of your income do you think is moderately low and absurdly low? Just want to know so that I am aware of where you are coming from with that statement.

2) When you did your taxes this year did you use the pre-tax cut rates or did you use the post-tax cut rates to determine what you owed the IRS? If you are saying that the tax cuts made taxes absurdly low and that is where you draw the line, I would expect you to use the old rates so that you would move back up into that moderately low bracket.

Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 03:35 AM

Adrienne,

“While we take no opinion on the underlying case, we firmly support the right of citizens to challenge elections results in court when they have a good faith basis to do so. Truly, Secretary Blackwell’s attempt to sanction these attorneys is meant to send a message to anyone who dare challenge his questionable election administration. For our democracy to work properly, we can’t allow this sort of intimidation by state officials.”

Sounds to me like they just took an opinion on the underlying case.

Posted by: Kirk at February 19, 2005 03:48 AM

Bert, I respectfully must disagree and point you back to your own link of polls. More Democrats voted for Bush than did Republicans for Kerry. Also, there was only 1% difference amongst Independent voters. Clearly, the Republicans message had more appeal in sufficient numbers to make the difference.

Look, Democrats throughout Bush’s 1st 4 years called Bush mean-spirited. If mean spirited is disliked by Democrats, why would the DNC want to retain an attack dog like McAuliffe or Dean to project the very mean-spirited rhetoric that Democrats say they so dislike?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 19, 2005 09:03 AM

WB Manager —

I thought the sarcasm of my statement would be clear. I presented it as a truism of political “debate”. To clarify:
— The right tends to represent that the left’s philosophy is suspect.
— The left tends to argue that the right’s moral views are suspect.
— It’s a delicate distinction that is all to prevalent in political discussions/posts, and I find it significantly in evidence here.
— I apologize if the lack of clarity of my post offended anyone. Ironically, my intent was to raise the bar.

Posted by: mike at February 19, 2005 10:41 AM

Tom — On further review, your post did not deserve the attack that I made last last night. I read it too fast, and then typed too fast. I apologize for painting your post with a brush that I should reserve for those more deserving.

Posted by: mike at February 19, 2005 11:05 AM

To all concerned:
I fear for the Democratic Party, but I do not live in fear like so many people in the “middle”.
I grew up as patriotic but never with nationalistic false pride.
Now I hope for an abrupt end (better than a slow train wreck of the present economic conditions)to this madness.
Greedy, overworked, low intentioned, scared people need to see the present corporate complex unravel before they will really fight.
I’ll protect and nurture my kids and hope we come uot of this a better country.
chris

Posted by: chris at February 19, 2005 11:40 AM

Kirk:
“Sounds to me like they just took an opinion on the underlying case.”

Anyone looking at this story has good reason to form an opinion about what went on in Ohio.
From the Free Press:
Ohio Attorney-General’s attack on election protection attorneys draws mountain of documentation on state’s stolen election, including new study on exit polls.

And
Prominent Statisticians Refute ‘Explanation’ of 2004 U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies in New Edison/Mitofsky Report and Urge Investigation of U.S. Presidential Election Results

Posted by: Adrienne at February 19, 2005 12:59 PM

Adrienne,
Good articles! Personally, I believe the election in Florida was even more likely to have been fixed. Although the margin was considerably larger than Ohio, the opportunity for hacking the vote, and the statistical oddities of the Florida results look exactly what a hacked vote would look like. Little or no network security, combined with voting machines with no paper trail, and which could not be inspected- ‘proprietary’ programs is the specious justification- leaves the issue open to question.

It’s amazing how little publicity these stories received in the mainstream media. I can understand how many people might not grasp Access databases and the ease with which numbers can be manipulated, but surely the idea of paperless, computer tabulations would raise suspicions. Let’s hope these issues will be addressed before ‘06.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2005 06:58 PM

Ugh. The last place I wanted this thread to go was whether Bush stole the election - again.

When will the libs learn that slowing the rate of growth is not a cut.

Haha!! That’s just hilarious, Kirk. Weren’t 99% of the “tax hikes” you guys accused Kerry of actually “slowing the rate of growth”? That’s the kind of inconsistent wacko rhetoric I usually only hear on wacko conservative radio. Thanks for the laugh. Keep it up. :)

There is also the problem of Republican gerrymandering of districts, too. Don’t know whether that will ever garner any attention, either.

Adrienne (sorry for the Rocky reference) that’s a great point. DeLay got some redistricting pushed through in Texas and it paid off with 5 more GOP seats in the House. And Schwarzenegger is trying to do it in California, now. The funny thing is, Democrats redistricted in Georgia, and the Supreme Court reversed it - Who’s side are those guys on!!! Oh, right…

Your position starts from the assumption that the American electorate made their decision based on a serious and engaged determination of the issues - which is clearly not the case.

Bert, that is absolutely brilliant and true - and it trumps any claim that the majority of Americans made an informed choice. Dean’s grassroots politicking to get the message out is exactly what Democrats need.

mike, if you want to talk specific Democratic legislation, how about S.11 and S.12, which deal with authorizing more troops and special forces for dealing with terrorist cells wherever they may be, and with making sure our overstretched military is ready for future threats.

Seriously, Iran and North Korea have been emboldened in their nuclear bomb efforts in part because they know the bulk US forces will be bogged down in Iraq for years. Russia is selling missiles to Syria and selling nuclear technology and fuel to Iran because the US is in no position to stop them. And Bush and the Japanese just signed a new treaty to defend Taiwan from China, pissing them off and making it more likely that some yo-yo in Taiwan will provoke China and draw the US into another conflict.

And because he can’t have a strong defense AND tax cuts that disproportionately favor the wealthy, Bush is making cuts in the Navy and Air Force budgets - the only credible deterrents to a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Lets talk about how the Democrats are introducing bills to strengthen the security of this country, while Bush and the GOP are introducing bills to strengthen the security of the wealthy.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 19, 2005 10:15 PM

Bert, I respectfully must disagree and point you back to your own link of polls. More Democrats voted for Bush than did Republicans for Kerry. Also, there was only 1% difference amongst Independent voters. Clearly, the Republicans message had more appeal in sufficient numbers to make the difference.

David,

We can quibble and massage the numbers to our benefit, so let me ask you to expand on one point. And that is, how do you characterize the ‘appeal of the Republican message’?

Of course, I would describe it as rooted in intolerance (gay marriage), fear (the Osama-loving Kerry can’t protect us), and deception (Social Security, budget cuts). Therefore, I am assuming your description of ‘appeal’ has nothing to do with ‘truth’ or ‘hope’?

Look, Democrats throughout Bush’s 1st 4 years called Bush mean-spirited. If mean spirited is disliked by Democrats, why would the DNC want to retain an attack dog like McAuliffe or Dean to project the very mean-spirited rhetoric that Democrats say they so dislike?

Being probably the most cantankerous member of WatchBlog, Mr. Remer, I can say I know a little about ‘mean-spirited’. And sir, I can’t remember such term being in our side’s descriptions of Bush. ‘Incompetent’, ‘liar’, ‘deceitful’ and ‘underhanded’, yes. But, just look at how the White House went after Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke - how would you characterize such behavior?

I will not take exception, however, with your characterization of Terry McCauliffe as an ‘attack dog’, yet I think it a bit early to label Howard Dean as such. Although, now recalling how much I enjoyed watching their appearances on Meet The Press, I can confidently tell you that their demeanor, grasp of facts, articulation and forcefulness in delivering the Party’s message, is exactly what the rank and file wants!

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 20, 2005 03:49 AM

AP —

Running through the main points of S.11:

I like the idea of an increased presence, plus a predefined schedule for (partial) withdrawal of our forces. We have to recognize that we will likely never exit completely, but we should be able to back off as stability increases.

Recognition is important. Why is accurate information on casualties not available? We should know (at least roughly) where our guys & gals are, and in what condition they are. Examine the current approach, and make it better. A new panel may not be the answer.

On the National Guard BoR section, I become apprehensive. Much of this stuff is about efficient delivery systems or the lack thereof. I worry about throwing money at a problem, without doing an appropriate analysis of the waste in current approaches. I cannot assess, from my viewpoint precisely where improvements need to be made, but I am sure there is plenty of opportunity.

I agree that we should do more to get other governments involve in Iraq. What is the right carrot to use, to get that to actually happen?

I know that my philosophical approach is probably annoying, but I recognize my limitations. I cannot know all about the background behind each government program. But neither can the guys who work there (or the press for that matter). I am catiously optimistic about our system of government, but have little faith that these guys & gals know what they are doing day-to-day, in any branch of government.

S.12 in a later post. Ciao.

Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 09:09 AM

Heh heh, mike that’s just a short summary. If you want to know what those guys and gals know, read the full text of the bill. :)

The panel is for finding out why medals aren’t being awarded to the troops. With all the fighting and dying going on, you’d think there’d be some medals getting handed out.

The National Guard part is to make sure the Guard is equipped and trained for sustained deployments. If they’re going to be on the front lines with the regular Army, they shouldn’t be covering those guys backs with hand-me-downs.

I take it you don’t object to strengthening the Army & Marine Corps for flexibility in responding to future threats while the bulk of our forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan…

Here’s the full text of S.12.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2005 09:40 AM

AP:
“Ugh. The last place I wanted this thread to go was whether Bush stole the election - again.”

Well, you’ll notice I held back from unleashing my usual amount outrage on the subject. ;^)
Still, if you’re going to be a reborn fighter, you can’t dodge the fact that a Knockout punch can definitely be delivered when your opponents decide to fight dirty - and all the referee’s have been conveniently bought off.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2005 11:53 AM

phx8:
“Personally, I believe the election in Florida was even more likely to have been fixed.”

I think the election tallies in Ohio and Florida were both fixed, and that there are some serious questions about the numbers in other states as well. But I don’t want to derail AP’s post any further, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2005 11:59 AM

AP — You bypassed my main point: fix what we have (or blow it away and start from stcratch), instead of just busying more ($5 each) band-aids.

The short summary suits me fine; I like to stay philosophical. Neither of us, even if we read all the bills before all of our legislatures, will have a clue of what’s wrong with the current state. Even Congressional staffers are flying somewhat blind, nevermind the guys we actually vote for/against.

Or do you believe that our government programs are close to maximum efficiency … ?

Those who want to discuss conspiracies regarding the last two presidential elections — Big groan.

Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 01:29 PM

AP — Increasing military flexibility seems like a good idea. But at what cost?

The real question is how do we get closer to “in quick, out quick”. It looks like our Risk pieces are getting pretty tied up.

I’m actually a mild isolationist. So, how do we get our guys & gals home?

Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 01:37 PM

AP — My comments/questions on the S.12 summary are basically the same as with the S.11 summary. Are we applying our resources (be they soldiers, weapons, etc.) to maximum effect? Who is best place to make those decisions? If not the DoD/Pentagon, how should that dept be fixed? It seems weird to have Congress back-seat driving the strategy & tactics, a misallocation of governement resources …

Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 01:55 PM

Btw, the debate between Dean & Richard Perle in Portland last Thursday is being televised on C-Span. Dean does a great job of articulating positions on defense. Worth a look!

Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2005 06:56 PM

I think probably all of the states were fixed. Everyone knows Bush is the worst president of ALL TIME, so I refuse to believe he won any state whatsoever. What else do you expect from the Republikkkans?

Sorry, couldnt resist.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 20, 2005 08:40 PM

AP,

That’s the kind of inconsistent wacko rhetoric I usually only hear on wacko conservative radio. Thanks for the laugh. Keep it up. :)

Price indexing would ensure that all future retirees receive the same buying power as those retiring in 2005. The benefit level for 2005 would be used as the base and then adjustments to the benefits for each successive year would be adjusted based on the increase in the cost of living. Therefore, the retirees for each successive year would have the same buying power as those retiring in 2005.

Please explain how that is a cut?

Posted by: Kirk at February 21, 2005 12:47 AM

Adrienne,

I think the election tallies in Ohio and Florida were both fixed

In Ohio, Bush won even following the recount by 118K votes. Is that so hard to believe considering the other candidates who won in Ohio the same night?

US Senate – 1 R, 0 D - Republicans won 100%
US House – 12 R, 6 D – Republicans won 66%
State Senate – 13 R, 3 D – Republicans won 81%
State House – 59R, 40 D – Republicans won 60%

In Florida, Bush won by nearly 381K votes. Is that so hard to believe considering the other candidates who won in Florida the same night?

US Senate – 1 R, 0 D – Republicans won 100%
US House – 15 R, 5 D – Republicans won 75%
State Senate – 7 R, 4 D – Republicans won 64%
State House – 49 R, 16 D – Republicans won 75%

It appears to me that both Ohio and Florida are pretty Republican states, so why is it so hard to believe they would both vote for a Republican president?

Posted by: Kirk at February 21, 2005 02:19 AM

Misha:

“Everyone knows Bush is the worst president of ALL TIME,”

Well, I for one, certainly consider that a true statement…

But just for the hell of it, let’s take a look at his job approval ratings:
The nation is currently split exactly down the middle according to Rassmussen.
Gallup gives him one extra percentage point overall, but also shows his ecconomic confidence ratings are poor.
An Associated Press poll found him slipping after the State of the Union speech - due to his Social Security Scam in the making.

“Republikkkans”

If not for the Moral Values of the Democrat’s, this may well have become the correct spelling.

“Sorry, couldnt resist.”

No doubt a common statement for Libertarian’s - those dog-eat-dog Anarchists with Money.

Kirk:
“It appears to me that both Ohio and Florida are pretty Republican states, so why is it so hard to believe they would both vote for a Republican president?”

No comment. But only because I’m more interested in not pissing off the American Pundit than I am in answering your questions.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2005 11:35 AM

Adrienne- you show a lack of both historical perspective and incorrect estimation of how much money I currently have (none) in your response :)

After all, the KKK was mostly concentrated in the South, which was a very large strong-hold of the Democratic Party (in fact, the center of their power) at the peak of the KKK’s strength. Also, I suggest you look into administrations like Warren Harding, Grant, ect. before you make statements about how bad Bush is compared to other presidents of the past. anyway…

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 21, 2005 02:24 PM

Kirk said: “Therefore, the retirees for each successive year would have the same buying power as those retiring in 2005.

Please explain how that is a cut? “

That is an easy one Kirk. Buying power per wage dollar has been falling for decades. Everytime Congress sets an updated year for price indexing, they effectively lower the quality of life per wage dollar earned.

In the 1950’s and 60’s my father was a welder, and on his blue collar wage he was able to afford a new car, a two story 5 bedroom home, support a wife and 7 kids at a lower middle class standard fo living.

Today that same wage barely gets one into a 2 bedroom apartment with utilities, and used vehicle for about $3500.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2005 03:37 PM

Misha, a little history will show the KKK was huge in (if I recall correctly) Indiana. More recently they were large Michigan in the Flint and Saginaw areas. Yes there were concentrations in the South, and still are today, though many no longer go by the KKK moniker. But some of the largest rallies in history appeared in Indiana; thousands, not hundreds which were more typical in the South.

Note the following from Northern Indiana History Part 7

A majority of people have an already formed image of the Ku Klux Klan in their minds. Men, dressed in white robes and hoods, riding throughout the countryside harassing blacks. Most believe that the Klan is an extinct organization, once comprised of rednecks and racist southerners. However, unfortunately, the Klan is still alive in Indiana. There was a time in Indiana when Klan membership could help an aspiring political career. Leonard Moore from the University of California has carefully analyzed Klan membership documents of Indiana and discovered that 250,000 white men in Indiana (about 30% of the native-born Caucasian men in Indiana) joined the Klan in the early 1920s.[1]

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2005 03:48 PM

Misha:
“Adrienne- you show a lack of both historical perspective”

Just for you, a wee bit of historical perspective contrasted with a our current political perspective.

“After all, the KKK was mostly concentrated in the South, which was a very large strong-hold of the Democratic Party”

I guess we’re all supposed to forget the last 40 years, eh?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2005 05:07 PM

No, Adrienne. Let’s remember how all those kluxers switched to the Republican Party when the Democratic Party began to champion civil rights. Everyone in the South didn’t one day wake up and think they were all Alex P. Keaton Reaganite yuppies. There’s a reason the poor South turned red.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 22, 2005 09:11 AM

David,

Today that same wage barely gets one into a 2 bedroom apartment with utilities, and used vehicle for about $3500.

You are exactly right. If you are making the same wages now that your father made you would definitely loose buying power. However, that is not the way price indexing works. With indexing the benefits for the 2005 retiree would be the base. For illustrative purposes lets say that is $1000 per month. If next year, prices increase 5% then 2006 retirees would get $1050 per month. Therefore they would have the same buying power as the 2005 retirees.

I still ask how is that a cut?

Posted by: Kirk at February 24, 2005 12:14 AM

Adrienne,

No comment. But only because I’m more interested in not pissing off the American Pundit than I am in answering your questions.

Or is it no credible comment?

Posted by: Kirk at February 24, 2005 12:45 AM

Adrienne,

Here is a little history lesson for you.

The civil-rights bill of 1964 was enacted with strong bipartisan and bi-ideological (conservative and liberal) support. But, the credit for the civil-rights victory has gone almost exclusively to liberals and Democrats, particularly to Senator Hubert Humphrey (D, Minn.) in Congress, and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, much of the hard work of advancing the legislation was done by congressional Republicans — conservative stalwarts including Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, and moderates such as Thomas Kuchel of California, Kenneth Keating of New York, and Clark MacGregor of Minnesota. All of these Republicans served as major leaders of the pro-civil-rights coalition either as floor managers or captains for different sections of the bill.

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats’ margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.

However, the single-most-important vote for the legislation was the attempt to cut off the anti-civil-rights filibuster in the Senate. In order for the bill to pass, civil-rights supporters needed two thirds of the Senate to break a filibuster by the opposition. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to break the filibuster by 81.8 percent (27-6), but only 65.7 percent of the Democrats voted to end the filibuster (44-23). Thus, if only Republicans in the Congress had voted, any potential filibuster would easily have been overridden. But, if only Democrats had voted, the pro-civil-rights forces would not have been able to obtain the necessary two/thirds vote to break the filibuster and the civil-rights bill would have died.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5436

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the “southern bloc.” It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The “southern bloc” relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

Not to mention the longest serving Democrat in the Senate Robert KKK Byrd.

Posted by: Kirk at February 24, 2005 01:14 AM

I still ask how is that a cut?

Because the benefits are currently indexed to wage increases, which are higher than inflation. With your plan, retirees get less money any way you want to calculate it.

As for the civil rights stuff Kirk, you make my point. All the southern Democratic legislators jumped ship to the Republican Party after that. Except for Byrd, of course, but he recanted so we let him stay.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 24, 2005 03:03 AM

AP,

Still not a cut. The benefits to retirees will increase every year unless the economy goes into a period of deflation.

As for the civil rights stuff you are using revisionist history.

To say that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans is simply not true. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton’s mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats to the grave.

Most Dixiecrats in fact, did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic party. The swing to a Republican south did not occur until much later when the Democratic Party became much more liberal and Northerners started moving to the south.

Posted by: Kirk at February 24, 2005 02:24 PM

Still not a cut.

As I said when I brought it up, by the standards of the GOP spin machine, if it’s a lower rate of increase then it’s a cut.

And I don’t recall using the word ‘Dixiecrat’. If you’re going to resort to making stuff up so you can refute it, I’m going to stop responding.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 25, 2005 07:44 AM

AP,

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “cut” as reduce the amount or quantity of.

Price indexing of benefits would increase the amount of benefit received by a 2006 retiree compared to a 2005 retiree. Therefore if you are being truthfull you can not call it a cut. Price indexing would increase the amount or quantity of not reduce it.

No you didn’t use the word “Dixiecrat” but that is what the Southern Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act were called. So, I was not making stuff up. Unlike your use of “cuts” when referring to Price Indexing vs Wage Indexing.

Posted by: Kirk at February 25, 2005 05:06 PM

AP,

Since you like Fact Check, here is a link to Fact Check that says Price Indexing is not a cut.

http://www.factcheck.org/article283.html

Posted by: Kirk at February 25, 2005 05:23 PM

HELLO! Earth to Kirk! I’m pointing out the irony that you, like any sane person, would not call it a cut, but the GOP routinely called that type of thing a cut when talking about John Kerry’s tax votes. Never mind. Sheesh!

Posted by: American Pundit at February 26, 2005 09:14 AM

Adrienne, You mean you’re still in the dark about the exit polls?

I can tell you that any self respecting conservative would not give more than a nod and the statement, “read about it in the papers”, to any poll taker.
The pollsters were talking to libs and mods.

Misha, That is a great post.

Tom, you said
Yes, the majority of us are either too stupid or don’t have the time or resources to investigate a good security from a bad security.
You may be right, But it is because of the NEA, the media and hollywood, but that is a post for a different topic.

Why do you suppose the insurance industry advertises “your complete premium returned to you and paid up life”
It’s called compound interest.

How about if you set aside you and your employer’s contribution until the age of 26.
At that time you will be required to fund us old folks as you are doing now.

Posted by: George at February 26, 2005 10:19 PM