Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats Are On a Roll

After the Democrats lost to George Bush in 2004, they were gloomy and depressed. W., however, was on a roll. He was ready to spend his “capital” on his new agenda, on top of which was privatization of Social Security. For months he ran around the country giving speeches to “invited” guests about the urgent need for privatization. His speeches had worked before, why not now? Greatly to his surprise, the more he spoke the less the public liked his ideas. Democrats won big. Saving Social Security was so great a victory that Democrats are now on a roll.

Maybe you think I'm just boasting, a Democrat with a loose screw in the noggin. Well read this from the Nation:

"George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, the centerpiece of his second-term agenda, is dead. Conservative pundit William Kristol argues that this Bush defeat began the unraveling of his presidency: 'The negative effect of the Social Security [campaign] is underestimated,' says Kristol. 'Once you make that kind of mistake, people tend to be less deferential to your decisions.' There was an 'entire Republican agenda, based on the idea that we reform these entitlement programs,' says New York Times columnist David Brooks. 'That's gone now because of the failure of Social Security.' A remarkable progressive mobilization caused Bush's defeat--and progressives can learn much from the anatomy of that victory."

Kristol and Brooks, 2 prominent conservatives, and they agree that Bush lost big. He suffered this tremendous loss because ALL Democrats perceived his actions as bad for the country. They thought that a Bush win would destroy the most effective accomplishment of FDR. They were upset that without Social Security or with a diminished Social Security, millions of elderly would suffer unnecessarily. Democrats of all stripes worked assiduously to counter the administration's misrepresentations and to demonstrate that no good would come of the president's proposals.

Now Democrats see more clearly how to win against Republicans. Before we left too many false and misleading Republican statements and ridiculous Republican charges unanswered. So Republicans won. In the Social Security fight, though, Democrats answered each false statement soon after it was made. They retorted immediately to all charges and smears. Above all, because Democrats realized how important this fight was, we all worked together.

Democratic unity, I believe, was an important reason why AARP, the organization that had previously worked with Republicans to get the Medicare drug bill passed, this time decided to fight Social Security privatization.

Ever since Democrats won to keep the Social Security system alive, we have had the president and the Republicans on the run while the Democrats are on a roll. And we're going to roll right into Congress next year. Democratic morale is up, and after the 2006 Congressional elections the morale of the people will be up as well.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 2, 2005 5:40 PM
Comments
Comment #98006

WHAT I HAVE BEEN READING AND SEEING OF THE REPUBLICANS IS A BIG MESS OF POOR JUDGEMENT, MISCHIEVIOUS BEHAVIER AND ALL ARE THIEVES, ESPECIALLY THE V.P. AND HIS ASSOCIATES….IF BUSH SPENT AS MUCH TIME IN HIS OFFICE AS HE DOES AT HIS SO CALLED RANCH…WE MIGHT NOT BE IN THE MESS WE ARE NOW!!!!! HOW A PERSON THAT NEVER ACHIEVED ANYTHING IN HIS LIFE, BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES…BAFFLES ME! SOMEONE SO UNCOMPLISHED WAS GIVEN OUR COUNTRY TO RUN?????? THOSE THAT VOTED FOR HIM MUST HAVE AIR BETWEEN THEIR EARS….IT BRINGS TEARS TO SEE ALL THE YOUNG MEN DYING BECAUSE BUSH AND CHENNY WERE HUNGRY FOR THE OIL….THEY NEVER GOT IT … THE ONLY THING THEY SUCEEDED IN WAS LEAVING THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES WITHOUT BOTH PARENTS…

Posted by: LINDA HAZELWOOD at December 2, 2005 6:22 PM
Comment #98044

Paul,
Don’t start your victory dance too soon! The last thing we need now is this kind of crowing. Bush’s Social Security proposals didn’t succeed because they were defeated by Democrats - but because people just saw through all the smoke and mirrors.

Let’s start offering better alternatives based upon our values, instead of patting ourselves on the back for defeating the other guy’s programs and proposals.

Posted by: DemYankee at December 2, 2005 7:12 PM
Comment #98049

Bush lost it, Democrats didn’t win anything. What is their plan to save social security, how about Medicare. Hell, they don’t even have a plan as to how to pull the factions of their own party together. All they have is an incompetent President in the Whitehouse failing, thanks to the Democratic Party’s losses and failures to impress the American public in previous elections.

Replacing the attack dog McAuliffe, with the attack dog, Dean, is an example of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Einstein had a word for that. When will Democrats get around to putting together a platform which a majority of Americans can rally behind? Certainly not in 2006. The DNC is so busy trying to capitalize on Bush’s failures, they once again are forgetting population they will look to for votes.

If the Dem. Party wants to win the favor of a clear American plurality, I can tell them how. Present a plan for secure borders. Present a plan that BOTH raises taxes and CUTS government spending with real numbers that have a real potential for balancing the budget in 5 years. Present a plan national education standards that will be competitive in the world. Present a plan to save Soc. Sec. in a manner that is both sustainable and affordable, now and later. Present a concrete plan for diminishing terrorism in the world, and no, pulling out of Iraq is not the answer to world terrorism. Call for lowering the barriers to third party candidates and demonstrate the Democratic Party actually believes in democracy instead of suppressing it, and functionally disenfranchising millions and millions of third party supporters. Present a plan and legislation that would revamp the Federal Elections Commission and Commission for Presidential Debates to open our politcal process in true democratic form allowing the people’s voices and candidates to be heard. Present a plan for moving elections to weekends, and spreading them out at least over two days, to make our right to vote freely available and end its competition and conflicts with with our jobs and weekday schedules. Present a plan to end the Culture of Bribery In Congress as the Christain Science Monitor calls it.

This is how the Democratic Party can achieve a majority in America again. Have they got the plans? Have they got the guts? Have they got the common sense? Apparently NOT!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2005 7:18 PM
Comment #98055

The Democratic party is about to fold up it’s tent’s. Given the fact that John Kery can’t figure out what he needs to say today to fool the American Public. Then you have Democratic voters in a (I think a NBC poll) saying that Democrat’s talking bad about soldiers is hurting the troops, this looks very bad for Democrat’s please keep following McGoverns way andthe results will be more of the same. Next Hillary is SILENT on all issues except violent videos. After that you have Murtha and Pelosi saying we should cut and run like cowards. Wrong again , the only Democrat who even has a consistent position thinks we should stay the course is Lieberman But Liberals hate him because in reality he closer to a Reagan Democrat or a Democrat of the 60’s.

Linda
You obviously live in a vaccuum and forgot all about all those Democrat’s who voted for the very war you seem to hate. All those Democrat’s who stood up and proclaimed on the floor of both houses of Congress how Saddam Hussien possessed WMD and that it was a matter of time before he used them AGAIN! IT is plainly obvious by the obtuse comments you state that you don’t remember 9\11,the Kohl, Kobay towers, Bali. but that is typical knee jerk reaction from a LIBERAL.

Posted by: CAD at December 2, 2005 7:27 PM
Comment #98073

Paul,

I think the Democrats could be on a roll, but their not there now. I still don’t see the unity and strength that should be happening right now. The Republican party has had some serious failings lately, which I believe has resulted in a slight rise in Democrat popularity by default, and that hasn’t been what it should be. The Repubs are free falling, but the Dems aren’t exactly shooting up in the polls like you might expect.

If the Dems really want to win the majority in 2006 they must come up with a unified voice. Look at the situation on Iraq. I have now heard 4 different positions from the Dems on how we should proceed. 1)Immediately redeploy troops 2) stay the course with Bush 3)Increase troops 4) set a timetable for withdrawal over the next year. Dems need to come up with a position on Iraq, then stick to it. Then they need to come up with an agenda period, and stick to that.

The Bush Administration has put the country in an awkward and dangerous position. First, the administration lost credibility with nations that should be our allies. Then they lost credibility domestically. Now they have lost credibility in Iraq with their paid news stories. This worldwide loss of credibility makes the U.S. vulnerable to retaliation, and less able to lead effectively or find support in the worldwide community. This weakening should be enough to impeach President Bush, he has become a dangerous leader.

It is well past time that the Democrats come together and forward as the leaders the Republicans have failed to be. There will be much healing and repair to be done post-Bush, now is a good time for the Dems to prove they are the party that will be able to do that. That has not happend. If the Dems don’t change course and unify soon and they do pick up seats in 2006, it will be because people voted against Repubs, not because they voted for Dems.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 2, 2005 7:56 PM
Comment #98080

David,

You are quite right about election reforms. I have never understood how our current system is constitutional? In fact, it only leads to what we see now. Pure corruption.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 2, 2005 8:06 PM
Comment #98083

The Dems won social security at the expense of us all. It will be harder to solve the problem later. YOu will rediscover this problem in a couple of years. I have thousands of little pine trees for my retirement. Those of you who really need SS had better plant some trees too.

The low point for GWB was a couple weeks ago. Things are looking up now. The problem is not that Republicans are doing so well, but the Dems just can’t do very much right. You can sometimes wreck, but you can’t build. Looking at your current leadership (Reid is okay, but Dean and Pelosi are real liabilities) I am not worried.

Posted by: Jack at December 2, 2005 8:17 PM
Comment #98086
Paul Siegal wrote: Ever since Democrats won to keep the Social Security system alive, we have had the president and the Republicans on the run while the Democrats are on a roll. And we’re going to roll right into Congress next year. Democratic morale is up, and after the 2006 Congressional elections the morale of the people will be up as well.

Paul,
I think you’re right about the Democrats chances.
However, I’m very doubtful about the good (if any) it will do.
That’s because both main parties just take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

In fact, when one party is in power, the other party tries to sabotage everything the opposite party is trying to accomplish. They try to make everything the opposite party is doing look bad. Take fiscal irresponsibility for example. Both Democrats and Republicans went a a spending spree that last 5 years. The Democrats too. But, Democrats blame Republicans, because they have a majority. But, the fact is, both are corrupt, vote for pork-barrel, graft, and waste. There’s actually a level of collusion to do it.

I wonder when voters will wise up and see what’s going on.
I wonder when voters will begin to suspect that they have all been cleverly seduced into a circular pattern of petty partisan warfare, and ironically duped into empowering the incumbents to use and abuse the voters, by perpetually voting for both main parties, and allowing the voters to be divided so that a majority can never exist to oust the corrupt, greedy, irresponsible, and unaccountable politicians?

No, unfortunately, Democrats winning back a majority will just be more of the same-old-status-quo, which is the real foe.
That’s why voters should vote out all incumbents.
That’s the price bought-and-paid-for incumbent$ should pay for always looking the other way.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2005 8:23 PM
Comment #98095

d.a.n.

Sadly, you are right about the collusion and the corruption. Neither party is going to spoil the fun. If we killed all the pork we might get some real reform, and representatives that are voting with their hearts and mind, rather than their wallets.

Posted by: Bruce at December 2, 2005 9:14 PM
Comment #98096

jack,
” …the problem is not that the republicans are doing so well, but the dems can’t do very much right”

apparently you have transposed the words republicans and dems and it should have read “… but the republicans can’t do very much right.” i’m still searching for something this administration has done right. i having a hard time. maybe you could help me out. that they have done nothing right and i will use a universal here is self evident.

Posted by: ec at December 2, 2005 9:18 PM
Comment #98104

jack,
“the dems won social security at the expense of us all”

the dems didn’t win social security, gw lost social security with his privitization. a bad plan which he himself admitted wouldn’t solve social security’s alleged solvency problem. the people of this country, rightfully didn’t buy it.

alleged because the administration has been working at framing social security as seriously insolvent. the insolvency is a matter of degree.

in 2042 when the social security bank account (trust fund) is used up the only money available to pay claims, without any adjustments, will be the amounts taken in. however, the money taken in will be enough to pay 75% of all claims for the standard 75 year horizon.

the insolvency that this administration is claiming is based on an infinite horizon. using that base everthing is insolvent.

the big problem lies in 2018 when the claims exceed the monies taken in and s.s. will start to withdraw from its trust fund. of course, our elected officials starting with pres johnson, have spent this money. at that point they will have to replace that money or default on government notes. that would be political suicide nationally and have serious consequences internationally.


Posted by: ec at December 2, 2005 9:47 PM
Comment #98106

ec

Go to the local grocery store. Offer to pay them 75 cents for every dollar you buy. See if solvency is so flexible. Or maybe pay only 75% of your mortgage. Or maybe let your employer pay you 25% less. It is amazing what Dems consider solvent.

And as you point out, there ain’t really any money in the fund even after 2018. In order to be optimitic about this, you have to believe that the people of 2018 and the politicans will not only be more thrifty than anyone has been since the Great Depression, but that they will also be more virtuous and generous than any generation in history.

Buy some forest land and grow some trees. Plan to retire without SS or plan to be poor in your old age. YOu can take solance in the fact that you beat GW Bush in your better days.

Posted by: Jack at December 2, 2005 9:54 PM
Comment #98108

One thing I have found interesting is that at least 10 Iraq & Afghanistan vetrans are running for the House of Representatives. 9 of those are running as Democrats. All 9 say that US policy needs an overhaul. These vets seem to have a much more unified voice than the rest of the national party together.

Bryan Lentz (D), 41, a major in the 416th Civil Affairs Battalion during his Iraq tour, is seeking to unseat 10-term Republican Curt Weldon in the Seventh Congressional District outside Philadelphia.

Mr. Lentz states: “You either have to buy into the rhetoric or stand up. I am standing up.”

Tim Dunn (D), a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel and a Deomcrat who served in Iraq and is now running in North Carolina’s Eighth District, a seat held by four-term Republican Robin Hayes.

Mr. Dunn states: “We will have a very strong voice and instant credibility. We bring to the table the experience and the knowledge gained through our service, whether active duty or Reserve, so that when these decisions are made in the future we have people who can stand up and ask the right questions. People will listen to us.”

David Ashe (D), 36, a major in the Marine Corps Reserve in Iraq, is running in a three-way Democratic primary in Virginia’s heavily military Second District. The seat is now held by a first-term Republican, Thelma Drake.

Mr. Ashe states: “We were paying Iraqis 20,000 dinars a month and the looters were paying them 20,000 dinars a night. I had a street-level view of the failures of postwar planning. We failed in setting up a bureaucracy, let alone a democracy.”

Patrick Murphy (D), a 32-year-old former Army captain who helped train the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, he is running in Pennsylvania’s Eighth District, in the Philadelphia suburbs, a seat now held by freshman Republican Michael Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Murphy states: “Those in power are arrogant and don’t want to listen to the experts, We can speak truth to power.”

Andrew Duck (D), 43, is running in rural Maryland’s Sixth District, a seat held by seven-term Republican Roscoe Bartlett.

Mr. Duck states: “I am very proud I helped get rid of Saddam Hussein, but I am also embarrassed at how badly we have messed it up since then.”

“People say there wasn’t a plan. I know there was a plan, Our problem was we were told by Pentagon leaders we can’t use it.” he said what “broke the camel’s back” was seeing firsthand the failure to provide adequate armor to protect US troops from insurgent attacks.

Chris Carney (D), a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve and a senior Pentagon counterterrorism adviser, is running in Pennsylvania’s 10th District to unseat four-term Republican Don Sherwood.

Mr. Carney states: “I have come to realize our country is no safer than it was before 9/11. We need to be spending far more resources in homeland security than we have been.” He said said he has seen leaders mismanage the war on terror. Both parties have pursued policies of division, and there is this gaping whole in the middle where I think most Americans reside. Those people need to be represented, I don’t know how we go from a country as united as it was on Sept. 12, 2001, to one as divided as we are today. That is what is propelling me in this race.”

Tim Walz (D), 41, a 24-year veteran of the National Guard who was called up to active duty after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, will run in Minnesota’s First District, a seat held by six-term Republican Gil Gutknecht.

Mr. Walz states he decided to run because of “the politicization of the military and politicians using them as a backdrop.”

Van Taylor (R),33, a Marine Corps major who led reconnaissance missions during the invasion of Iraq, is running in the GOP primary in Texas’s 17th Congressional District, now filled by an eight-term Democrat, Chet Edwards.

Mr. Taylor states: “It can only help to send people to Washington who have firsthand experience in the war on terror.”

Paul Hackett (D), 43, a Major in the United States Marine Corps will run in Ohio against
Opponent two term Republican Mike DeWine & Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown.

Eric Massa (D), 46, is 24-year veteran and Commander in the United States Navy is running in for the New York 29th congressional seat held by one term Incumbent Republican Randy Kuhl.

After retiring from the Navy, he became a staff member to the House Armed Services Committee, where he expressed grave concerns about the administration’s plans to invade Iraq, and wrote several dissenting documents to Republican lawmakers. When Congress voted to invade Iraq – Massa decided to campaign for real change in Washington

In 1974 when Murtha was first elected, 80% of members of Congress had served in the military.
Today that number is less than 30%. I really think even more important than voting Democrat or Republican, we need to increase the number of veterans in congress regardless of party affiliation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 2, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #98114

jack,
one point is that ss is not as insolvent as it is made out to be. will it need adjustments to maintain its current payouts? yes. can you invest in a stock portfolio for yourself and just let it ride. doesn’t it require periodic adjustments. ss is no different, it is subject to changes, albeit of a different kind, than a porfolio.

my main point is gw’s privitization plan would have cost trillions to implement and would have done nothing for ss solvency and this by his own admission. the dems didn’t win, the dems didn’t lose. bush lost, he tried to sell an illconcevied program. he tried to scuttle ss under the guise of saving it. it didn’t work.

i didn’t beat gw, he beat himself as he has done in everthing he has ever tried.

i don’t need to buy land or buy trees, nor do i need ss in my old age nor will i retire poor.

Posted by: ec at December 2, 2005 10:21 PM
Comment #98119

Pity some want to minimize the great accomplishment of Democrats, progressives and liberals winning (yes, winning) on Social Security, but the fact is that is what happened. If someone loses, that means someone else wins.

It wasn’t just that the public suddenly wised-up three months after voting for Bush and suddenly “saw through the smoke and mirrors.” Sorry, but what has gone on from the GOP the past year is no different than what went on before. We’ve seen the same lies, the same miscalculations, the same song-and-dance.

The difference is that instead of folding their tent and listening to all the people (liars) who insisted and still are insisting they were dead, Dems, progressives and liberals are speaking up to counter the lies, louder than ever, and that’s why they are winning. The lies the neocons told this past years are the same lies they’d been telling before. The public isn’t buying them because now someone else is pointing out that they are, indeed, lies, not because the public suddenly did an about face.

The Democratic party had a bad habit of overestimating the ability of the public to distinguish between fact and fiction. Based on what happened to John Kerry, they woke up. A ridiculous scheme (like “privitization” of Social Security) cannot be ignored simply because its ridiculous. It would be nice if everybody could see how ridiculous it was and ignore it, but these days you have to point out vigorously how ridiculous it is to get people to open their eyes. You have to do this because a lie told enough times becomes the truth. Bush’s opponents didn’t allow that to happen, and that’s why they won on the issue.

By the way, to whomever wrote that the Democratic candidates who are military veterans have a more unified voice than the national Democratic party, please note that this strategy was created by the national party, and those candidates were recruited by the national party.

Posted by: David Kelsey at December 2, 2005 10:36 PM
Comment #98125

jc

Adjusting the SS portfolio means raising taxes on the younger generation. That is not really the kind of adjustment most people have in mind when they say adjustment. I guess if you can get someone else to kick in money into your portfolio and call it an adjustment it would be a good thing.

I would prefer that the younger generation not have to pay so much for us old farts. I think it is was really a masterful piece of PR to sell oppostion to SS reform as something other than a greedy grad by today’s seniors and baby boomers at the resouces of GenX Y and the Millenial generation.

Posted by: Jack at December 2, 2005 10:49 PM
Comment #98126
By the way, to whomever wrote that the Democratic candidates who are military veterans have a more unified voice than the national Democratic party, please note that this strategy was created by the national party, and those candidates were recruited by the national party.

David,

Simma don na! I realize this. However, the message comming from these 10 voices is the same: our leaders in Washington fucked it up. The national Democratic party as I pointed out do not have that kind of unity. 4 different plans for Iraq. How many do the Republicans have? Two, Duncan Hunter’s “cut and run” plan and President Bush’s “stay the course” no matter how idiotic plan.

I think the democrats in Washington need to join the voice of the 10 and say yes, we/I fucked it up. I would have more respect for a politician that admits their mistakes and offers a plan to fix them, then one who just continues to support stupidity.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 2, 2005 10:51 PM
Comment #98128

When S.S was started the life exp was in the mid 60s People are living longer before long we as a nation are going to half to do something. For a lot of people S.S is a real life blood. I dident think the pres plan was all that bad, young people could have some real money in their when they get older. The older folks could have chose to keep the same program. I just wonder why people in the government want to tell me what to do with my money. And make no mistake ist my money , i work for it, and i would like to have a say where its going. I doent care who has a plan dem or rep. Lets do something now before its to late.

Posted by: philipz at December 2, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #98129

JayJay Snowman,

I think that is an excellent idea.
I hope they get on the ballots.
I hope we get a lot more on the ballots too.

Voters need more choices, so that we can
oust the irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents from the cu$hy, coveted seats.

As it is now, government is FOR SALE.
That’s why it doesn’t matter which party you vote for.
The thing to do is vote out incumbents, because they are corrupt, and bought-and-paid-for.

Government should not be FOR SALE.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2005 10:53 PM
Comment #98132

Jack,

Although I don’t agree with many of your political views, I certainly respect your opinion…at least for the most part. You tend to discuss most items logically and with as many facts as possible. I agree with ec on this one. GW’s plan had a cash flow problem, like his budget deficit reduction plan. Folks paying in to SS are providing funds that are needed now….not for their own retirement. Allowing them to put their funds into private accounts would mean we (the people) would have to come up with money due in the future at the present. This is money we don’t have. In fact, if one examines the budget deficit and the federal deficit it is plainly seen.

GW is not, alone, responsible for the problems we have with ss. He definately has his share of teh responsibilty but memebers of congress going back to the Reagan era all share fault for blowing the ss funds. When we did have budget surpluses we should have been placing funds in “lock boxes”….sounds “Gore-like”, I know. Never the less, it should have occurred.

SS wasn’t meant for large gains or losses that goes with the market. It was meant for capital preservation. So folks would have at least “something”. It’s hard for many of us to see its purpose. Then again, most of us didn’t suffer through the Great Depression.

GW didn’t do a good job “selling” his plan. However, the democrats did do a good job at shiningZ a light on the truths of his plan. Yes, ec is correct when he states that this plan didn’t solve the solvency issue. It merely moved the burden to us now…rather than later. That wouldn’t be a “bad thing” if we could pay for such a thing now. But unlike previous times, we are no longer running budget surpluses. In fact, our federal deficit is growing at astronmical rates. Thus, moving the problem to “now” is akin to financing the problem for our children and grand children to pay. What makes matters worse is that much of the money we (the US) are borrowing now is financed by countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern counties.

Posted by: Tom L at December 2, 2005 11:01 PM
Comment #98134

d.a.n,

We do need to get all incumbents out. I don’t think that will be feasible unless we get some serious election reforms as David pointed out. The current system strongly favors the two major parties. We need an independent commission to reform the entire election cycle. We need to make it easier for 3rd parties to get on ballots. We need to open up the Presidential debates to all candidates. Currently a candidate must have 19% public support to be included in the debates. That is why Ross Perot was included in 1992. This doesn’t make sense to me. A lot of your support could come as a result of the debates.

Congress should not have the authority to redraw congressional districts. This should be done by an independent commission that draws districts using strict guidelines.

Voting should be made much more convenient for voters. I think election day should coincide with tax day. Anyone in this country that must pay income taxes should be automatically registered to vote. Others would still have to register by other means. The ballot should be mailed to the voter along with their income tax forms, and ballot stations should be setup at post offices so ballots could be cast when mailing your tax return. The ballots stations could be run by the post office from February till April 15th. I would even be willing to pay more for postage to pay for such a program. This would eliminate the need to find election workers. (I’m sure there are good reasons this cannot be done that will be pointed out, but I think we need to start thinking outside the box and demanding change to fix the mess in Washington.)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 2, 2005 11:19 PM
Comment #98135

jack,
i get you point. what do you suggest we do?

Posted by: ec at December 2, 2005 11:37 PM
Comment #98136
…but I think we need to start thinking outside the box and demanding change to fix the mess in Washington.

JayJay Snowman,
Very good. I agree with all of that.
But, reform can’t happen without force.
The voters can provide the force peacefully (or not so peacefully).
I advocate that voters peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable.

It can happen. It’s happened before in 1958, 1980, and 1994, etc.

Also, only a few million votes nationwide would be a good start to tip the results in a few elections. The more the better. We can do it now, or wait until it’s harder and more painful.

And, voters shouldn’t lose any sleep worring about the chances of voting out any good politicians. That chances of voting for someone more corrupt and lacking in common sense is about as likely as government reforming itself.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 2, 2005 11:38 PM
Comment #98138

david,
on reflection , your right. the dems, progressives, liberals, etc did win. maybe i was just hoping that a lot of americans of all pusuasions just woke up. good point that dems, etc. did fight the battle which may have been lost without them.

Posted by: ec at December 2, 2005 11:43 PM
Comment #98147

If George Bush tried to put out a house fire and Democrats stopped him, they would crow with pride and dance in the ashes to celebrate their “victory.” This is exactly what happened with Social Security.

This is something that Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of—trying to stop the competition from doing things which are good for the country in order to prevent the cooperation for getting any credit for fixing a known problem.

Bush made a proposal, and when the proposal ran into resistance, he said, “Well, let’s at least have a national debate about this,” and the Democrats refused to have that debate.

But you know what? George Bush is never going to depend on his social security checks, and when the system collapses it isn’t going to be him that suffers. How is this a victory for anyone?


Posted by: sanger at December 3, 2005 12:30 AM
Comment #98148

philipz
10:52 pm

right on, man

Posted by: rick at December 3, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #98150

jc

I do believe in personal accounts. I think they should be expanded to allow lower paid wage earners to get a tax credit so that they can do so too. I also believe that we should weight the benefits to favor low earners. It already is to some extent. I would make it more so. I also believe in letting all wage earners participate in a program like the Thrift Savings Plan (www.tsp.org) that government employees now enjoy.

SS is a myth. A lot of it goes to people who don’t need it because we have to pretend it is an insurance policy.

There is also a value judgment to be made and it could be a hard one. Old people suffer very little poverty (thanks to SS and indexing). This is good. But I would rather put resources into young families and children. We just can’t afford to give everything to everybody. The demographics are just against us. Individuals need to save more. Those who don’t save will suffer more.

I don’t like this outcome. The golden age for the golden agers is NOW because most of the boomers are working. The baby boom is followed by much smaller generations. This is the best situation we are going to have as long as any of us are alive. It will only get worse. If we don’t mitigate it, a lot worse.

Posted by: Jack at December 3, 2005 12:57 AM
Comment #98154

Reasons why CAD is an idiot:
From the looks of our government, they are taking cues from CAD. They do not understand how to express themselves in the English language, and even if they could, they still wouldn’t make sense. to delineate on CAD’s Case:
Line 1: it’s,tent’s So the line meant to say: “fold up it is tent is” ? That’s stupid. What is this illiterate idiot trying to say?
Line 2: Kery. Who is that? I don’t know, and I’ve voted Democrat for the last 20 years.
Line 4: “I think NBC” If you don’t know, you don’t know. You do not know anything.
Lines 12,13: “closer to a Reagan Democrat or a Democrat of the 60’s.” Are the two even remotely similar? I think not.

Postscript to Linda: Democrat’s or Democrats? Cad doesn’t know the difference.

Okay, so CAD is an idiot who doesn’t know English very well, maybe (s)he can still have a coherent thought… But no. Let’s talk about the (il)logic of CAD’s arguments.
“Talking bad about our soldiers hurts our soldiers.” So Cad thinks that reporting about sending untrained soldiers into jobs they can’t possibly do is bad? I would think that this would help the the military tighten up their program. I guess they don’t want to do that.
Of course the soldiers don’t realize the differences of our different cultures, but shouldn’t they? Our weakness is our ignorance, not the fact that ignorance is defined.
CAD thinks that Murtha said we should be cowards. Not true. Murtha said we shouldn’t kill our sodiers for no reason. Is CAD a decorated veteran of any conflict than Grenada? If not. (S)he has nothing to say.
CAD claims that Lieberman is similar to Democrats of the Sixties. With the way boundaries have shifted since then, it’s fair to say that Lieberman would be more like a REBUBLICAN of the 60’s.

In the Postscript:
“Democrats voted for this war”
No Democrats in fact did vote for this war. they voted for a war based on “intelligence” of a possible nuclear threat from Nigeria, WMD, and non-adherence to UN mandates. Ultimatelely all of these were false, so the war that Democrats voted for is not the same war we have now. CAD’s final point is that standing up for this fraudulant war equals approval of 9-11. CAD, how stupid are you? There never was any correlation between Bin Laden and 9-11. By making this link, you look like an ignoramous.

So CAD is an idiot, that’s clear to see, but what are we as Democrats going to do to reach people that might have similar beliefs? This is the question we all need to be working on right now.

Posted by: Christian at December 3, 2005 1:13 AM
Comment #98194

“Individuals need to save more. Those who don’t save will suffer more.”

Jack: I’ve finally read something from yout that I can agree with. One of the best things that Americans can do right now is to get out of debt, and adhere to a savings plan as though it were a religion. Most of the middle class is trapped in a cylce of impulse puchasing and debting all of their material belongings. It’s understandable to debt emergency expendatures such as hospital stays and disaster recovery costs, but people have to end their belief that they can run up debts in a wise, responsible manner. President Bush is undeniably included.

I also think that Americans should shed the instinct of turning to the government for all the answers. Socal Security is just a piece of paper with alot of numbers on it; there is no money in a vault. Both parties have continuously robbed it to pay for their agendas, and IOU’s coming from a ring of corrupt politicians cannot be an acceptable form of a trust fund. It’s ridiculous.

Paul: I’m sorry, but I just don’t see Democrats on a roll. The only thing that is indisputably on a roll is the two-party-one-agenda dogma.

These are the two parties: Government and Citizens. Get to know them. Here is how it works:

The government is the ruling elite of our populace, and they rule under the deceitful projection of freedom and security for the Citizen party, who believes that they are the ruling party. This tightrope structure of lies and peace is maintained by “the media”, which is a part of the corporate world. Both the government and citizen parties are slaves to the corporate world, which is dependant upon the tightrope of lies and peace for the satisfaction of its greed. Yet, it can only satisfy this greed so long as the citizens are willing to keep their head down and return to work, and the government is successfully utilizing the media to propagate the ideology of the globalist corporatism as a means of continued “prosperity”.

We are led to believe that a global economy is the utopia of civilization, when in reality, it is the pinnicle of centralized control. The ultimate goal is that you are either an apparatus of the dictatorship, or you are a farm animal.

I really hate to sound so dismal, but I can’t resist voicing against what seems to be a political debate, but is nothing more than a puppet show.

Posted by: Bill Courtney at December 3, 2005 4:52 AM
Comment #98238

Let’s keep this in perspective more than us winning this round was the Bush regime losing.

Posted by: longthought at December 3, 2005 8:56 AM
Comment #98239
Then you have Democratic voters in a (I think a NBC poll) saying that Democrats talking bad about soldiers is hurting the troops, this looks very bad for Democrats please keep following McGoverns way andthe results will be more of the same.

I should be probably keep my mouth shut and let you maintain your delusion, but that is about the only favorable poll that Republicans can cite. The truth is, most polls show voters favoring the Democratic Party. (I know it isn’t fashionable to say this, and I am personally disenchanted with a lot of things about the current Dems, but it is an objective fact.)

The poll about Democrats hurting the troops is also a loaded question. It would be easy to come up with similar questions about the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 3, 2005 9:05 AM
Comment #98248

Paul:

Democrat victories are being discribed in negagive terms as in stopping President Bush. I hope some day they again will be the party of ideas with a clear positive agenda. Until then the only unifying factor I can see is Bush hatred.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 3, 2005 9:22 AM
Comment #98280
Jack wtote: This is the best situation we are going to have as long as any of us are alive. It will only get worse. If we don’t mitigate it, a lot worse.

Jack,
You are more correct about this than most people realize. Why? Because:
[01] America has a large aging population;
[02] 77 million baby boomers will soon be retiring;
[03] baby boomers will earn less;
[04] baby boomers will pay less taxes;
[05] baby boomers will spend less;
[06] some baby boomers will down-size;
[07] baby boomers will start drawing on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid;
[08] some baby boomers will draw on welfare as many discover they haven’t prepared for old age;
[09] many baby boomers will become a burden on their children and families and decreasing ration of taxpayers;
[10] older Americans vote;
[11] government will be forced to raise taxes during a period when U.S. incomes are falling due to loss of manufacturing and jobs to increasingly competitive nations with very cheap labor;
[12] generational differences will create resentments as the ratio of entitlement recipients per working tax payer increases larger and larger;
[13] Americans are living much longer, which will burden entitlement systems and some retirees will run out of money; some will compete with younger Americans for the few jobs left;

Then, throw in the following too, and try to make your own predictions of the impact of each or several culminating simultaneously:
___________________________________________
[01] there’s an $8 trillion National Debt (that would take 127 years to pay down by paying $1 billion per day; that’s the daily interest);
[02] Social Security and Medicare are still being plundered;
[03] entitlements are facing future shortfalls;
[04] we are facing energy vulnerabilities, and possibly energy shortages;
[05] pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole (which tax payers will get the bill for; just like the S&L bail-out);
[06] falling wages due to globalization (or global pillage);
[07] a ridiculous tax system that wastes hundreds of billions in paperwork alone, and neither party wants to fix it because they like the way they’ve perverted it because it benefits them mostly; and there’s nothing transparent about this tax system; the complexity was by design to hide the abuses;
[08] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable healthcare;
[09] declining quality and increasing cost of public eduction;
[10] government is arrogant and alienates our allies;
[11] government started a war on bad information;
[12] an arrogant President that has the gall to call the “Minute Men” vigilantes, and pretends to care about security while Al Qaeda and thousands of illegal aliens cross the borders daily;
[13] pandering and promising more and more entitlements, creating a population that is increasingly and pathetically dependent on government;
[14] Corporatism, Corpocrisy, and insufficient and/or selective law enforcement to discourage investment/stock fraud;
[15] legal plunder: perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent (e.g. selective application of the law, abuse of eminent domain laws, arresting and executing innocent people, repeated release of repeat offenders of violent crimes and child molestation crimes, pardons for felons, etc.);
[16] both main parties won’t address election reform and election fraud; hell, we’ve got illegal aliens voting in our elections;
[17] both main parties are blocking access of 3rd parties and independents to ballots, debates, and the democratic process;
[18] both main parties refuse to be transparent and above board; they both refuse to stop being sneaky; otherwise both would pass a “ONE PURPOSE PER BILL” law and a “BALANCED BUDGET” law; instead, they like to hide huge amounts of pork, graft, bribes, and waste in BILLs that are thousands of pages long, and nobody can figure why anyone voted for or against any BILL;
[19] and an irresponsible and unaccountable government, that doles out pardons even when the politicians are caught and convicted of fraud, theft, and other miscellaneous felonies (even when some of them pled guilty);
[20] constant over-complication (by design) to reduce transparency and accountability;
[21] fiscal irresponsibility that is going to lead to inflation and more economic instability; especially if countries buying that debt (which is turning into a catch-22) start getting nervous about all that debt, and the falling dollar;
[22] fiscal & moral irresponsibility that is endangering the future and security of the nation;
____________________________________________


I’m trying hard to keep a positive outlook and try to get people to see the need to (soon) address the problem of irresponsible and unaccountable government. I’m not sure we can withstand another decade of fiscal & moral bankruptcy.

My suspicions are that we will all have to learn the hard way (again), but I refuse to resign to the futility and despair to give up.

There’s a lot of naysayers. There always is. But, none of them have a better way. They simply offer: that won’t work.

Well, the simple fact of the matter is, whether it can work or not, voting out irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents is the most simple, logical, smart, patriotic, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing voters can do to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too !.
It’s simply the responsible thing voters should have been doing all along to avoid the situation we have now. Americans must learn that they can never ignore government, because by virtue of the power government officials wield, they are always tempted to abuse that power, and government, if ignored, will always grow corrupt, lazy, abusive, irresponsible, unaccountable, morally, and fiscally bankrupt.

Force is required. Peaceful force is preferrable. Government will not reform itself. All reforms contain some element of force and consequences. Currently, Congress enjoys a 95% re-election rate, which has resulted in a lazy, worthless, arrogant, bunch of parasites that need to go.

And, before anyone (as usual) says, “but they’re not all bad”, please give me a list of names, and I’ll give you a list of voting records and actions that show they all are irresponsible, unaccountable, vote on pork-barrel, and look the other way.

That’s the price incumbents should pay for looking the other way.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #98310

Paul, Everyone should take comfort at defeating any chnage in the social security system. As the democratic leadership has said, there isn’t any problem that needs to be fixed. So said Reid, Kerry and Kennedy. In fact Reid was so insightfull when he called Greenspan a hack for suggesting there are problems and that the private accounts were a great idea. Yep that statement alone displays the profound party.That will certainly help us feel more than comfortable with the Mayor of New Orleans getting his hand on $30.+ B for repairs. Then too the La Gov will be getting around 230 B, should the senate follow the lead of their senators. Yep, I sure fell happy about that too.

able easy

Posted by: able easy at December 3, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #98311

Democrats/liberals/progressives have begun their climb back to power. It is a critical mass that will not stop unless Bushco allows for another horrible terrorist attack and again successfully exploits it. (Scary, but entirely within the realm of possiblity - I put nothing past that asshole and his administration).

This is inevitable. Americans are fair, ingenious and decent people, NOT the selfish, scared morons that the Republican/conservatives have taken them for and manipulated for the past twenty-five years (particularly the last five). They realize that despite the fact that they liked Reagan personally, they know that his message: “the government is not the solution to the problem, goverment is the problem” is a big line of dangerous horseshit and that the exact opposite is true. They realize that the current “booming” economy is not benefiting the average person or family in the slightest and that our national wealth is being pillaged by the upper castes by virtue of their Republican puppets. Americans are smart enough to know that their fundamental rights are being abridged. They know that foolish, corrupt and downright evil things are being done around the world in their name and are embarassed at how we/they are made to look to the rest of the world. They do not want Bush, DeLay, Frist and the rest of them undermining their social safety net any further. They do not want distorted, fucked up versions of far-right christianity to cause any further harm than they already have to America and our way of life.

Jack, slightly intelligently, CAD, idiotically, and the rest of you from the apologist right can spew all you want, but it’s nothing more than (to paraphrase Dickhead Cheney) modern conservatism in its death throes.

Posted by: roger at December 3, 2005 12:56 PM
Comment #98312
Democrat victories are being discribed in negagive terms as in stopping President Bush.

Craig, stopping Bush is a positive thing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 3, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #98317

Jay Jay, it doesn’t matter to the Republocrats, if our election laws fail to serve democracy, they aren’t for democracy in the first place. Their goals are preservation of their incumbents and major party status, hence the laws they pass are designed to protect those ends, not democracy. They subverty democracy for power every day of the year in their Climate of Bribery in Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 3, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #98324

David Remer, I’ve had this discussion with d.a.n.

The blame does not necessarily rest with the parties themselves for the shackles of incumbency, etc. The parties are merely America’s expression of its democracy. It is the public to which the final blame must be assigned, period. Most don’t vote at all. Most of those who do vote don’t bother with primaries adn off year elections. Most of them don’t get too far past the soundbites or else vote against intelligence and reason as effete snobbery or elitism. A little while ago I lauded the public’s intelligence and reason but we/they are not perfect.

The government exists for the people and despite efforts to manipulate the electoral process ie. (Illinois 1960, Florida 2000, Ohio 2004), or the toothlessness of the minority party and the fourth estate since 9/11 and since Eldridge Gerry, gerrymandering, the people still hold the ultimate choices and therefore the guilt.

Americans often do not appreciate the democracy that they have. They do not always recognized the fragility of that democracy and of freedom itself, but eventually they wisen up. I think my generation (late boomer) and the GenXers have fucked a lot of things up and I think it’s clear that Reagan was the root cause by making it safe to be intolerant and selfish. But I have a lot of faith in the up and coming generations who have witnessed the wholesale looting of the American treasure and the American dream (they are after all, the ones who will bear most of the burden) and the complicity of their forbears.

Government, even democracies, will always have warts and will always be plagued by those who wish to consolidate and abuse that power. Just getting rid of incumbents, while currently a nice thought, is merely a band aid.

Posted by: roger at December 3, 2005 1:46 PM
Comment #98325

Roger
“This is inevitable. Americans are fair, ingenious and decent people, NOT the selfish, scared morons that the Republican/conservatives have taken them for and manipulated for the past twenty-five years (particularly the last five)”

If I understand Roger, real Americans are very intelligent people who have in the past decade been completely fooled in congressional and presidential elections. An oxymoron?

But further thanks to Roger I now know the real problems facing the US, it isnt terrorism it’s the government. We need more of it not less! Makes me think of that old Karl Marx’s quote; peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

ableeasy

Posted by: able easy at December 3, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #98326

Able, by virtue of your posts, I’m not at all surprised that this discussion went so far over your head.

Another dumbass.

Posted by: roger at December 3, 2005 1:53 PM
Comment #98335


roger,

I agree that we’re all to blame.
But I place the blame slightly different:
(a) Politicians: 51%
(b) Voters: 49%

I disagree that it is a band-aid.
Education is the what is needed.
The People must learn that they can never ignore government. That’s something a lot of voters don’t truly realize. Government, without sufficient transparency, is always growing corrupt. That’s simply human nature. Voters are mistaken in believing they can simply vote for people, and hope they’ll do the right thing. Because, they won’t. We have let it go on far to long now. Now, the reform will be painful. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

Even if it is just a band-aid, that would be better than nothing, or doing what we’ve been doing.

What would you recommend that has a better chance?

I believe education is the key.
People must learn something important about human nature and psychology.

Power breeds corruption, laziness, abuse, and eventually chaos.
That is why bought-and-paid-for incumbents pay little attention to voters, and answer primarily to their big-money-puppeteers. There’s a reason incumbents so highly prize their cu$hy, coveted seats in government. Government is FOR SALE. How do you suggest that be corrected? Do you want to do nothing and do what we been doing, repeat history, and wait for things to run their course (again) ?

Don’t you think it is worthwhile to educate the voters, and teach them to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too?
Isn’t that what voters were supposed to be doing all along? Voting out irresponsible and unaccountable government? As for it being a band-aid, it wouldn’t be if voters learn to never ignore government, because that allows incumbents to start growing corrupt again.

Also, we might get a better calibre of politicians when the parasites realize it’s hard to be a cheater-parasite within the U.S. government. As it is now, the FOR SALE U.$. government is FOR SALE, and all it’s incumbents are bought-and-paid-for, and perpetuate the circular pattern of brainwashing that distracts the voters from what is really going on.

If I had a new idea for a solution offered up by every person that says “that won’t work”, “that’s stupid”, “that’s a bandaid”, etc., we might not be where we are today. Do you know how many people discouraged famous inventors and scientists? It’s a good thing those famous inventors and scientists ignored the naysayers. Otherwise, we may not have ever learned to sail the oceans, fly, cure disease, go to the moon, or explore the universe. I don’t mind naysayers so much if they have good reasons. But, I haven’t heard any.

But, roger, you are right about one thing. If the people fail to peacefully force government to be responsible now, it will be much worse later. Why wait for the worst outcome? Do you have so little faith? If so, or even if you are right, isn’t the cause worthy of endeavor?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2005 2:35 PM
Comment #98342

Roger, Alas, another stinging rebuke. Well Done!!

able easy

Posted by: able easy at December 3, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #98349


roger:

Democrats/liberals/progressives have begun their climb back to power. It is a critical mass that will not stop unless Bushco allows for another horrible terrorist attack and again successfully exploits it. (Scary, but entirely within the realm of possiblity - I put nothing past that asshole and his administration).

Lots of paranoia there. I don’t see any evidence that the democrats/liberals/progressives have started to “climb back to power”. Liberals have a lower birthrate than conservatives. I think the future is pretty much a conservative future. It is hard to be the standard bearer for abortion and gay marriage and win on a fifty or sixty year basis. Gay couples have fewer children, and so do liberals!!

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 3, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #98353

Roger, your flagrant violation of our policy has resulted in your privileges to post here being lost.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 3, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #98364

Christian, your flagrant violation of our policy has resulted in your privileges to post here being lost.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at December 3, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #98372

There are problems with the SS system, i.e. the raiding of SS funds to pay for other programs. The entire system does not need to be scrapped and redone. We simply need to protect those funds from the raiding hands of our leaders. When Bush ran in 2000 one of the things he said he would do to fix SS was to protect the funds from raiders. Five years of Bush raiding the fund and all of a sudden it’s a top priority to fix.

Wrong, what Bush proposed was nothing more than another way to take money from the working class and hand it over to his wealthy corporate supporters. He had no intention of fixing the system. If he had he would have protected the funds already there. Now, I’m no mathematician, but to spend 1 trillion to fix an under funded program doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

Roger said:

Americans often do not appreciate the democracy that they have. They do not always recognized the fragility of that democracy and of freedom itself, but eventually they wise up. I think my generation (late boomer) and the GenXers have fucked a lot of things up

I agree completely. The GenX voters had the most to lose in the 2004 election and will be the ones responsible for cleaning up Bush’s messes, but they were the least likely to vote. They will see their rights curbed & will pay higher taxes to pay back down the deficit, among others. It boggles my mind that these voters didn’t come out in force in 2004. Bushco was successful at getting out the fundamental Christian vote, the Dems need to follow that lead and work hard to get out the GenX vote.

It is the public to which the final blame must be assigned, period.

There is some truth to this; voters need to become hawks when it comes to our governance. However, not all the blame can be assigned to voters. Our leaders have become quite efficient at swaying the vote through, imo, unethical means. The corruption in Washington is astounding. Nothing seems to be out of bounds when it comes to winning. They redraw congressional districts to favor one party over the other. They work hard to keep third parties suppressed. They spend millions to get reelected, often using illegal campaign contributions and accepting bribes to sway legislation. As these things come to light more and more, and if voters continue to support corrupt incumbents then I will agree the voters bear the brunt of the responsibility.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 3, 2005 4:11 PM
Comment #98381
I think the future is pretty much a conservative future.

Craig,

God help us all.

It is hard to be the standard bearer for abortion and gay marriage and win on a fifty or sixty year basis. Gay couples have fewer children, and so do liberals!!

Huh? What does this have to do with anything?
Maybe if it were easier for Gay couples to form tight knit families, they could help raise societies throwaway children.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 3, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #98382

Jay Jay states
“Wrong, what Bush proposed was nothing more than another way to take money from the working class and hand it over to his wealthy corporate supporters. He had no intention of fixing the system. If he had he would have protected the funds already there. Now, I’m no mathematician, but to spend 1 trillion to fix an under funded program doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.”

I believe that if you check the Trillions (1 to 3 have been quoted) it resulted from ending the borrowing of the funds and segregatiing them in personal acounts. That is they would no longer be available for borrowing by the government as they have (since 1964 Johnson?) Lost was the opportunity to really review the problem. Now I happen to blame the democratic demonizing discussion of the Social Security program. However, all people will suffer. Those trying to survive on SS alone will hurt more. The workers between ages 21 to 60 will not only pay more and more to fund the system ( moving from +90 K to well past +125 K) but their actual benefit calculation will suffer too. Social Security is a serious problem and it deserved serious discussions with all option on the table.

Able easy

Posted by: able easy at December 3, 2005 4:34 PM
Comment #98393

JayJay:

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Maybe if it were easier for Gay couples to form tight knit families, they could help raise societies throwaway children.

Children tend to vote like their parents. Not exactly like their parents but close. My remarks were not intended to bring up the “gay issue”, simply to say that when Gays and proabortionalists are in one party, it drives down their birth rate and is not good for the long term success of a political institution.

It means we conservatives have more children.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 3, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #98420

Abortion kills innocent babies. Period. Go look at pictures of aborted babies. How can liberals accuse Bush of murder when murder is a major part of the liberal thinking. I used to support abortion. I undsrstand the thinking. My wife became pregnant and I thought - How can a person kill their own child. This is insane thinking. No way would my child have a thought like that be in it’s parent’s mind. Let the child live it’s life. Who are you to deside a babies life should be terminated. you gave the child life, and then you take it away. How did the child feel about this dicison? Oh, the childs soul didn’t have feelings. didn’t have life. sure doesn’t have a future. Life begins at conception.period. Oh, the period’s stop so there is no life in there. How many babies are aborted each day in comparison to how many deaths are from the war in Iraq? The Iraq deaths don’t even compare to the amount of abortions in this country every day. Who know’s, one of those murdered babies could have been your next Clinton.

Posted by: rick at December 3, 2005 6:42 PM
Comment #98425

It seems to me that the reason GWB’s privatization plan for SS did not go over well is because it did not address the solvency problem which this admin used as the reason for doing something with SS. It left many people saying, “Huh?”
If they had presented a plan which resolved the shortfall, they probably could have sold the private accounts along with it.
The general population is smarter than they are given credit for by politicians. The people recognize SS as being something good, and they want it fixed, not replaced with an unknown.
So it was not so much that the dems “won” in this case, but that GWB failed to present something acceptable to the people. The problem with solvency still exists and that is not going to be addressed any time soon, unfortunately.
It will be the next admin’s job to sell a plan to the people which will fix the problem. Let’s hope they do.

Posted by: Cole at December 3, 2005 7:14 PM
Comment #98451

a good book to read on the ss situation is ” saving social security by peter diamond and peter orszag.the book describes the history, the roblems, and a number of solutions. it also deals with the pro’s and cons of private accounts.

Posted by: ec at December 3, 2005 8:42 PM
Comment #98477
Children tend to vote like their parents. Not exactly like their parents but close. My remarks were not intended to bring up the “gay issue”, simply to say that when Gays and proabortionalists are in one party, it drives down their birth rate and is not good for the long term success of a political institution.

It means we conservatives have more children.

Craig,

Say what? That makes no sense. Just because someone believes in the freedom of choice or equality in marriage doesn’t mean they practice these things. A lot of people who support gay rights are not gay themselves. Do abortion clinics ask women if they are conservative or liberal?

Personally, I think abortion is wrong and it would not be an option for me. However, I do not feel that the government should have the right to choose what’s right or wrong for someone else. The government should not be regulating morality. People need to take personal responsibility for themselves. Even God gave us the right to free will.

I also don’t believe that your statement “Children tend to vote like their parents.” is true. The democrats lost in every age group in 2004, except the under 30 group. If they voted like their parents shouldn’t they have lost this group as well? Besides most Americans don’t fit neatly along a liberal to conservative continuum. I come from a very large family and both my parents are diehard liberals. My views however are more along Libertarian lines. Go figure.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 3, 2005 10:13 PM
Comment #98481
I believe that if you check the Trillions (1 to 3 have been quoted) it resulted from ending the borrowing of the funds and segregating them in personal accounts. That is they would no longer be available for borrowing by the government as they have (since 1964 Johnson?)

able easy,

This practice should be stopped anyway. Besides that doesn’t change fact that Bush’s plan would not have done much to make SS more stable but was just a plan for the working class to subsidize big business.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 3, 2005 10:22 PM
Comment #98512

Linda,

“BUSH AND CHENNY WERE HUNGRY FOR THE OIL….THEY NEVER GOT IT … ” don’t be so sure; just because America never saw any profit doesn’t mean that the manufacturers of this war did not. New scandals are uncovered every day.

David Kelsey,

“Pity some want to minimize the great accomplishment of Democrats, progressives and liberals winning (yes, winning) on Social Security, but the fact is that is what happened. If someone loses, that means someone else wins.”

I’m sorry, but you are categorically wrong. Regardless of whether you think the Dem’s had a role in Bush’s failure or not, they did not win; America is far worse off now than pre-Bush, and through past and present incompetence, the Dem’s have been all but helpless to stop him. As for your assertion that ‘if someone loses, that means someone else wins’…wrong again. When Bush wins…and he has with every tax break to the super-rich, and his declaration of war on Iraq and ‘Terror’, among other insidious victories - America loses.

Thus, if Democrats consider themselves to be Americans, one paltry, negligible ‘win’ amongst a see of victories does not constitute anything but a shame.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2005 12:10 AM
Comment #98513

“…of victories…”

sorry, read “of losses”…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2005 12:12 AM
Comment #98518

Linda, Not only has Bush not ever acomplished anything but everything he touched was likely a failure!
And you are so correct about their war! But they have absolutely no intention of backing down or changing course! Even if it takes the next 20 years. And with the voting system rigged, they will remain in power doing whatever they want.
DemYankee, well said!
David, I agree mostly except I believe the election was corrupted. They would have won anyway.
Then again David R. I agree completely with everything you said. Bravo!
CAD said, ” IT is plainly obvious by the obtuse comments you state that you don’t remember 9\11,the Kohl, Kobay towers, Bali. but that is typical knee jerk reaction from a LIBERAL.”
Well CAD, it’s painfully obvious that you’ve forgotten a few things also. That this great country was founded by liberals for one, and that Jesus was a LIBERAL also.
Jack, Jack, When will you admit that Bush’s schemes for SS would only make it go broke sooner than it will and he had no plan to fix the solvency issue which is the problem anyway? More sophistry.
Dean and Polosi real laibilities? You mean like Delay, Abramoff , and Cunning Ham? Give us a break Jack!

Posted by: WildBill at December 4, 2005 12:25 AM
Comment #98530

Jay Jay, exactly how was big busines to benefit? Demonizing the agrument by class war doesn’t solve the problem. What was accopmplished was the problem was not solved or, sadly, even seriously discussed. And the cost for this means that the future will be incredibly expensive to everyone. Have you never heard someone say’all I have is my social security”and I can’t make ends meet. Big business has nothing to do with the problem. It is a matter of helping to poor become a little better off. I and perhaps you too have a supplamental IRA or 401K or someother savings plan. In fact I’m retired and have no problems at all with the current SS plan. My benefits are set and will be forthcoming, no matter what. My son, daughter and others (perhaps you too) will be paying not only the cost of my benefits, but also the coming baby boomers who will be retiring in record numbers. Soon 2 of each wage earner will be paying for the benfits of one retiree. Thats $24,000 a year for just me and my wife. Hate Bush, me or whoever, but I believe your simply cutting off your nose to spite yourself.

Sincerely, I wish you Good luck.

able easy

Posted by: able easy at December 4, 2005 12:58 AM
Comment #98536

JayJay:

Craig,

Say what? That makes no sense. Just because someone believes in the freedom of choice or equality in marriage doesn’t mean they practice these things. A lot of people who support gay rights are not gay themselves. Do abortion clinics ask women if they are conservative or liberal?

I didn’t say it made any sense, I just said it was true. Now you are going to make me dig and find the statistics aren’t you?

I actually think there are some statistics that show that democratic women are more likely to abort than republican women. I also think it is true that red states have higher birth rates than blue states.

craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 4, 2005 1:08 AM
Comment #98538

JayJay:

Just Google “Democrats Republicans Birth rates”. You should get plenty of information.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 4, 2005 1:12 AM
Comment #98562

“I actually think there are some statistics that show that democratic women are more likely to abort than republican women. I also think it is true that red states have higher birth rates than blue states.”

this should be easy enough to dismiss…

…(surveys/polls are crap for the most part)…

republican women are more likely to consider getting an abortion to be morally wrong and socially unacceptable, thus they are less likely to report having had one (i know a good many who have…)

red states have higher populations of religious women…catholics, mormons, christians, all tend to have more children than the rest of us, and by a very large amount. catholics don’t believe in birth control, mormons don’t believe in monogamy, and christians don’t believe in sex ed.

in conclusion, facts are often misleading, and sometimes not facts at all. statistics are rarely ever based on facts (find me an academic poll that confirms or even supports your baseless claims, and you might actually have something worth saying)

try not to be so ignorant.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2005 2:56 AM
Comment #98643

Response to Rick
Unless you have adopted an unwanted child you have absolutly no moral authority on the subject of abortion. If you have,God bless you. If you have considered it but decided there were good reasons not too please respect others peoples reasons for not having children.

Posted by: Bill at December 4, 2005 11:14 AM
Comment #98651

Democrats are on a roll alright. On a roll to the bottom of the poll numbers amongst American voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 4, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #98661
Jay Jay, exactly how was big business to benefit?

able easy,

Bush’s plan would take Social Security and hand it over to big business in the way of private sector investment.

Have you never heard someone say’all I have is my social security”and I can’t make ends meet.

Personally, no I have never heard anyone say this. Most people I know do not rely on SS for retirement. While I realize many do, I am not planning to have this benefit when I retire. Personally, I would rather people had the choice of opting out of SS. I would much rather manage my own money and retirement than to trust government to do it.

I wouldn’t even be opposed to phasing out SS after the baby boomer generation depletes it. I am a strong believer that people need to take personal responsibility for their own welfare.

I consider SS to be a form of welfare. While I am not opposed to welfare, I believe it should be very temporary and limited. I have a real problem with welfare esp. when the Bush administration wants to allow immigrants into this country to take jobs “Americans don’t want”. That is ridiculous. If you have to work then you will want those jobs.

What was accomplished was the problem was not solved or, sadly, even seriously discussed.

I absolutely agree. Bush put out one plan that would have done little to make SS viable over the long run. The issue was then just dropped by all parties. If SS is in such trouble then other plans should have been brought forward. But to just drop the issue because you want to “stay the course” without being flexible is a failure on the part of this administration.

Craig,

actually think there are some statistics that show that democratic women are more likely to abort than republican women. I also think it is true that red states have higher birth rates than blue states

Again I ask, do abortion clinics ask their clients if they are conservative or liberal? What possible statistic on the subject would be accurate? I think conservative women would be much less likely to admit to it than a liberal one. So no please do not dig and find the statistics. Imo, they are worthless.

Your argument is baseless, as people grow older their political views change. I don’t believe for a moment that people will stick to political views just because their parents had them. Political views are shaped much more by personal experience.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 4, 2005 12:43 PM
Comment #98662

Democrats are on a roll alright. On a roll to the bottom of the poll numbers amongst American voters.

David,

And they are rolling in a race to the bottom with the Republicans, with the Repubs slightly ahead. If both parties bottom out and people start to look to alternative parties, I think that would be the best possible thing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 4, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #98668

Craig,

BTW, it’s interesting to look at the red/blue map. There are far more states that are red than blue. Yet, Kerry won 48% of the popular vote. If your theory was correct, shouldn’t Bush have won the popular vote by a landslide with carrying so many states? If you look back at 2000, Bush didn’t win the popular vote that year, but won because less densely populated states voted red.

Whites in red states have on average 1.8 children; whites in blue states have on average 1.5 children. The only exception to this is blue Michigan, which is where I’m from. Michigan has a high birthrate but still reliably votes Democrat. This trend also only rings true for whites. So, if you take the birthrate of 1.8 children of a less densely populated red state and compare it to 1.5 children of a more densely populated blue state, which one is actually having more children?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 4, 2005 1:45 PM
Comment #98672

diogenes,
“..America is worse off now than pre bush…”

really! How so?

Posted by: ec at December 4, 2005 1:58 PM
Comment #98673

Craig is CORRECT! And I’m in a fightin’ mood

The republican problem is just like the Islamic fundamentalism problem or even the Palestinian one. Where they breed more nihilistic ideologues to follow their regeim plans. Like an army of whackos bent on destroying the country all the while waving the flag like they do anything more than make it a piece of empty cloth. Like their religion is something more than worship of the state and corporation as it’s undergird. Like their faith is anything more than Straussian shill.

Most republicans think that the national motto is “In God we trust”, they do. These are not by and large smart folks. It’s actually scary that these people that they are breeding will be the death of America and turn our nation into their laissez fairist theocracy with no economy to speak of which is what they want to create through blind adherance to a stolid load of hoakum fed to them by the corporately paid off politicians they support. Such as Tom Delay hailing him like a hero fresh from the battlefields of Nam. Or Ollie North or Liddy or Frist. Crooks as the wonderful heroes or republican bizarro-land.

They are so imbicilic to believe that the foundations of our laws came from the Ten Commandments. They did not. They think the founding fathers were all Christians, they were freemasons and deists largely. the entire revolt against the British was Masonic even down to the Liberty tree and the green dragon inn.

But now these Tories are back and call themselves republicans and throw the burden of the state whoppingly right on the middle classes backs. What a vulgar uninsightful brood they breed. Yes we all want tax cuts but the tax cuts Bush sent down are deferrals that those who got them at the top 5% DO NOT have to pay down but we do, For what? To give us higher gas prices? To destroy wages and raise the CLI? What reason is there not to hate a republicanism? We Bush bash because we know what’s behind they lies they praise. And conservative bash because we see the effects.

I’m all for streamlining bureaucracy but they want to nihilistically destroy everything but corporate welfare and defense. That’s a fact, that’s their agenda like termites eating the very foundations that support the nation and eat away the fence that guards us so we have no recourse. That is the true definition of a conservative, not a smart conscientous intellectual but a seditious termite that gnaws daily at his very surroundings in search of more places to eat and gnaw and crap. I’m sick of placating them, really gloves off!

Why treat them like they’ve earned any right to speak have you not seen their past work? The sloppy construction the loopy wiring? The lies and deciet as they try to turn us all in this country into mill workers for their cotton gins, and pay us next to nothing in return. they are nihilists undermining our very consumerism. Like the industrialists of the nineteenth century but without the knowledge that if you set up the protocols of outsourcing you destroy the populace economically for what?

Then they are just shocked and agasped that there is hate towards them, like they never did anything to earn it. They’ve earned it down to every last pebble and chunk of gravel thrown. And yet they are surprised by it like, gee why are they doing that? We do that because everything you do leaves us worse off, everything republican.

If failure is an orphan than you have a hell of an orphanage going you smart devils!

think I’m wrong republicans? Name for me a republican success story. Just one.

Posted by: Novenge at December 4, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #98674

Craig,

Not to keep nagging, but another thing that blows your theory is the fact that 12 of the states that voted red in 2004, voted blue as recently as 1996. It doesn’t seem to me that parents, from these states at least, influence their children’s voting habits that much.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 4, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #98678

I do think Democrats are on a roll.
Unfortunately, I doubt that will change the status quo.
I sense a growing dissatisfaction of Congress in general.
Also, there’s a strong likelihood that our economic situation is headed for big trouble.
That spells big trouble for both main parties.
And rightfully so, it should.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 4, 2005 2:26 PM
Comment #98704

Abortion is an American topic, not just a selected few that adopt. Adopt is the word. If the baby isn’t wanted, let someone that want’s to adopt have their dream of a child. Do people kill the unwanted pets from their animals? No, they sell them or give them away. Life doesn’t begin at birth. Why kill the baby? Let the baby have it’s life to live. The baby’s life belongs to the baby, not the parent. Did you’re life ever belong to your parent’s? You’re parents do not own you, they raise to be your own person. That was you’re right as an American. You’re parent’s chose to let you have you’re right to life. And now, you are here comunicating on this blog.

There are so many parent’s that can’t have a baby. Some don’t have the money to adopt. Just maybe, if there were less abortions, the overall cost of adopting would be less, so more unfortunate, loving couples could afford them.

Posted by: rick at December 4, 2005 3:58 PM
Comment #98706

A valid third party is what this country needs. Competition helps keep poople honest. However honest politisions can be.

Posted by: rick at December 4, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #98710

Do people kill the unwanted pets from their animals? No, they sell them or give them away.

Rick,

You have obviously never lived in the country or visited an animal control pound. Animals are euthanized every day.

A valid third party is what this country needs. Competition helps keep poople honest. However honest politisions can be.

I couldn’t agree more. How do we make that happen?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 4, 2005 4:37 PM
Comment #98736

Jay Jay, the only way to make that happen is to get a few million voters who previously didn’t vote, to show up again and again in growing numbers to vote out Republican and Democratic Incumbents until the Republocrats reform the Federal Elections Commission and Commission on Presidential Debates, and State ballot requirements to provide a political voice to all Americans at election time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 4, 2005 5:55 PM
Comment #98743

Rick,

Less abortions=lower cost to adopt? So it’s the bluebook value? Hmm whoever said republicans were off their rockers I guess were mistaken. The more you have the more you have being raised in orphanages essentially. The number of adoptive and or foster parents would still be the same there-abouts but the problem would be largely insurmountable as adoptive parents would be harder to find after the usual ratio is dissolved.

The number of foster parents would actually be the same. There are classes to be a foster parent and people do abuse the system to get at the paycheck so it has it’s own problems too. So you would actually have to offer higher incentives and that would not only cost the states more but it would lead to more system abuse problems that have to be monitored by more state agency employees. there’s alot more to it.

Posted by: Novenge at December 4, 2005 6:33 PM
Comment #98748

Yourself as a republican (I’m guessing) you know the red state approach to foster care which is highly unguarded by state agency which during Jeb Bush’s governor there have been numerous cases of kids being starved, physically and sexually abused and even worse. Your idea could never work under a republican state ever because it’s not in their ethos to regulate even where there really needs too be regulation. Sometimes in red states there aren’t even courses in how to be a foster home or caregiver.

Granted there are alot of people who do it for all the right reasons but there are alot that just do it for the monthly state check too.

Posted by: Novenge at December 4, 2005 6:52 PM
Comment #98774
I’m sorry, but you are categorically wrong. Regardless of whether you think the Dem’s had a role in Bush’s failure or not, they did not win; America is far worse off now than pre-Bush, and through past and present incompetence, the Dem’s have been all but helpless to stop him. As for your assertion that ‘if someone loses, that means someone else wins’…wrong again. When Bush wins…and he has with every tax break to the super-rich, and his declaration of war on Iraq and ‘Terror’, among other insidious victories - America loses.

Thus, if Democrats consider themselves to be Americans, one paltry, negligible ‘win’ amongst a see of victories does not constitute anything but a shame.

Diogenes,

Not only am I right, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. To begin, please let’s stop the apocalyptic “far worse” BS. Unquestionably, things are not as good as they would have been had Gore been elected. But for for land’s sake, it’s not Sudan here.

Secondly, things are certainly not as bad as they would be were there no opposition party in Washington. If you think the Democrats have been helpless in thwarting the GOP machine here and there, and in pushing their own agenda in addition to maintaining some of their past victories, you are completely wrong. Your assertions do not match reality. The reality is that GOP has not been able to effectively push their agenda, especially since the last elections. Again, that is not simply because they gave up. It IS however, because the Democrats have countered with a competing vision. Were the entire Congress composed of Republicans, the “far worse” world that you imagine would be a reality. As it stands, clearly the Democrats were able to do something.

By your own logic, when Bush loses, the rest of America, including Democrats, win. So what was your point anyway?

Posted by: David Kelsey at December 4, 2005 8:37 PM
Comment #98797

If Republicans retain control of congress, it will be because of those Third Party Wannabees weakening the DNC. The Republicans LOVE all this Third Party crap since mostly Democrats will defect to them. Lay the blame where it belongs. Third Parties put Bush in Power.

Posted by: Aldous at December 4, 2005 10:43 PM
Comment #98818

That’s it guys. Get real excited. Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who was @ 38% not too long before he won his landslide victory and took 49 of 50 states? We ought not get too cocky too soon.

Posted by: scottie at December 5, 2005 1:01 AM
Comment #98819

Aldous,

You hit the nail on the head. It never ceases to amaze me the defeatest attitude of the people left of the GOP who complain about the Democrats while simultaneously weaking them with their own defeatism. Do I like Democratic policies? Is there one Democrat in Congress who shares my views? The answer to both questions is that it doesn’t matter, because it is in the best interest of me and my country to build the opposition party up, not to tear it down with defeatism.

The thing conservatives have realized that liberals don’t is that given a choice between a rock and hard place, it is better to be in power and argue with each other, than be out of power and argue with everybody. Do all conservatives agree with or even like the Republican party? No. Do all conservatives agree that, for better or worse, the Republicans are their most powerful voice and lobby in Washington and that they have a better chance changing the GOP for the better by ensuring the GOP stays in power? Yes.

Though they still refuse to admit it, the fact remains that leftwing defeatists created the monster known as George W. Bush by voting for Ralph Nader in the first place. The percentage points prove it.

All their current defeatism in regards to the Democratic Party is going to do is ensure the monster THEY CREATED lives on forever.

Posted by: David Kelsey at December 5, 2005 1:03 AM
Comment #98820

And Aldous,

Third party politics had a much higher percent of influence on the Clinton elections. And they had so little influence on the last election. Remember Clinton never had a mandate. He won by 43% and what 47%.

Posted by: scottie at December 5, 2005 1:05 AM
Comment #98858
Remember Clinton never had a mandate. He won by 43% and what 47%.

Conservative radio would go on and on about how Clinton was President with less than 50% of the vote. They changed their tune when Bush was president with less of the popular vote than his opponent.

I do not believe that Republicans would have allowed Gore to be president had he won the electoral college and lost the popular - as was much predicted. In fact, that is why Bush was campaigning in California where he had no chance, just before the election - to try to win the popular and challenge the results.

That is the difference between the parties. Republicans are cheaters.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 5, 2005 8:26 AM
Comment #98879

Democrats dominated local elections in Allentown in 2005. I’m not sure if this followed a national trend, did anyone else have local elections in 2005? Republicans were so loathed in Allentown, that Democratic corruption was basically ignored, and had sweeping victories in a district that’s had both Republican U.S. Congressmen and State Senators for quite some time now. Allentown’s Democratic mayor allowed the police officers to retire with a full pension after as little as 16 years of service and to based their salary based on their highest paid month from their last calendar year, including overtime. It caused massive early retirement. It was more than they were even asking for.

It was a minor local issue that I’m sure I’d have been chastised whether or not I bring it up, but the point is that Republicans are so corrupt on the national level that they’ve allowed corrupt Allentown Democrats to retain control. Hey, Jack, did you hear that? I just gave you another talking point to use. Clean it up, and it’s all yours. I mean, sure 25% of Allentown’s police force was just flushed out with no consequences, but as long as Jack can blame Democrats, he’s happy.

I’m not blaming Republicans, I obviously voted Republican this time around. All that I’m doing is giving an example of how the Role that the National Democrats are on translated into an election victory. Also, that Jack is more concerned with playing semantics and twisting facts than he is acknowledging anything that resembles something relevant, but I think that everyone who’s capable of figuring that out has already figured that out.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #98916

“There never was any correlation between Bin Laden and 9-11. By making this link, you look like an ignoramous.”

There wasn’t a correlation between Bin Laden and 9-11? Who is the idiot? I’m guessing you meant Iraq under Hussain. If you are going to use such condecending rhetoric please at least get it right.

“So CAD is an idiot, that’s clear to see, but what are we as Democrats going to do to reach people that might have similar beliefs? This is the question we all need to be working on right now.”

A good start might be to make your points without calling someone an idiot. I think the time has past to attack others. That has worked in the past but, IMHO, it’s shelf life has expired. It hasn’t been working for the Rove, Cheney crowd against Murtha. I say this because of how Cheney backed away from attacking Murtha a day after he started his attack on him. For the democratic party to regain power they need to define the new era of politics. Not just follow the trail of negative campaigning and fear mongering carved by the neocons. In short be pioneers of positive messages and rhetoric. The people are wising up to the politics of this adminstration and the neocons. Then again I’m an optimist so it may just be me.

Posted by: zakquiet at December 5, 2005 12:19 PM
Comment #98935

Bush’s problem is that he sought a second term at all. Bush never really formed a solid policy foundation in his first term. Without the policy successes that would undergird a mainly positive campaign, Bush’s basis for winning the 2004 election was making people fear the consequences of replacing himself with Kerry.

Unfortunately for Bush, instead of thanking his lucky stars, and attempting to smooth over the shear nasty of the campaign and playing it safe on policy, Bush decided that his single digit popular vote and one-state electoral college victory constituted a mandate.

But his support was the softer than he was willing to credit. When he started trying to push every bit of agenda he had in mind, people started balking. Then his policies from the last term came back to haunt him.

The Iraqi war violence escalated, the budget deficit persisted, and Katrina finally put the nail in the coffin by demonstrating how out of touch the Bush adminstration was from the situation outside the Beltway. The price gouging from the big oil companies added to that, becoming the last straw on Bush’s laissez faire economics for many people, with no response from the Bush administration in sight.

The Social security problem was only a symptom of the greater disease: that the Bush administration is an image-based political success story, without the substance in the Policy department to shore it up when events shattered the illusions that had been carefully constructed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #98944

Kelsey,

“If you think the Democrats have been helpless in thwarting the GOP machine here and there, and in pushing their own agenda in addition to maintaining some of their past victories, you are completely wrong.”

While I thoroughly appreciate your biased, mindless banter, either you haven’t been paying attention, or are just unable to recognize the truth. It has been the moderate republicans in congress which have made the difference. Granted, the democrats did as they were predicted and expected to do: side against the republicans. But it is the votes of the moderate republicans which have prevented the uncontested success of the republican agenda. They do in fact control congress, whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, you entirely misinterpretted my argument concerning the *loss* of all American’s. By my argument, we all win or lose together, regardless of your political horse-race politics. The democrats may feel that they have won something, but until they can *agree* on an agenda, they don’t *have* one, and the (minor) failures on the part of the Republicans to push through their *entire* agenda do not constitute victories on your own behalf. Furthermore, with the next election still a ways off, there’s always time for them to rectify their mistakes, regroup, and do whatever they wish (and with the moderates on *their* side, it won’t matter *what* the democrats think).

America is *far* worse off now than before Bush, and to deny this is to defend all that has been done. As a Democrat (sounds like you are), you are the last person I would expect to defend recent political events. If America loses, *all* Americans lose. If you want to debate the current status of America, look to Louisiana, Iraq (and all our soldiers stationed there, dying every day), and the unprecedented level of debt (a majority of which is owed to foreign interests), etc…. the list goes on. If you want to persist in believing that things are just ‘fine and dandy’, then hey, why not elect Bush for a 3rd term?

So perhaps intead of basking in your perceived victories, you could get together with the democrats and come up with an actual *plan*. As it stands, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a political leg to stand on, in my estimation. I would as soon stay at home on election day than waste another minute listening to these two parties bicker over the most effective way to screw America.

“Though they still refuse to admit it, the fact remains that leftwing defeatists created the monster known as George W. Bush by voting for Ralph Nader in the first place”

You have no right to blame anyone but yourselves for electing Bush (I did in fact vote against him - both times - against my better judgement). If you can’t offer any better than the ‘lesser of two evils’, don’t expect anything more than a close defeat. Next time, I will either be voting for the candidate that represents my interests, or none at all. Get it together or go home.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 1:53 PM
Comment #98946

Lets get down to brass tacks: People will vote according to their interests.

Is it in people’s interests to vote for an economic policy which doesn’t stand in the way of their paychecks remaining stagnant while their employers give themselves raise after raise?

Is it in their interests to put their Social Security interests into a stock market so recently rocked by corruption, fraud, and the volatile environment of stock speculation?

Is it in their interest to lend their sons and daughters to a military cause when their leaders were not straight with them about the causes to begin with, and can’t seem to manage the war right?

Is it in their interest to support a president whose national security policy includes responding to a disaster with such tardiness, apathy, and bureaucratic incompetence that even the conservative media blasted the response?

Is it in their interest to continue the absurd legalistic nightmare of a system heavy on litigation (which can end up with all kinds of results) but light on regulation (which can be specifically defined)?

The Republican Party is failing because the American people are sensing that government under it is no longer capable of governing, of keeping the interests of all the different factions in this country balanced, and the brushfires managed. The ideological right is pushing their points in government too hard, and people are finding themselves scared at the implications of what these people are doing.

I think the Democratic party will succeed to the extent it can prove that it’s not a lighter version of the Republican party. So let me make a dangerous suggestion to all you Democrats out there: Let’s kick out the Democrats who continue to act as if you win elections by being light versions of the Republicans. What we need are Democrats willing to stand up for liberal beliefs, in spite of what those incompetent consultants tell them. There’s no more going along to get along here. At the very least, we need to make our stand here, and start turning this country around.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #98952

Dems; ‘the republicans are evil!’

Reps; ‘at least we have a plan!’

Dems; ‘ya, a plan to fail!’

Reps; ‘better than no plan at all!’

me; ‘stfu’.

(again, no consensus = no plan)

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 2:06 PM
Comment #98953

Stephen:

Allow me to respond:

I’ll support a President who creates an economy that performs the way the US economy has over the past couple years. Considering that he inherited a dropping economy that was subsequently jarred by 911 and Katrina, among other things, he has done a good job with it. Those who disagree typically do so without pointing to the factual statistics that determine how an economy is faring.

I’d gladly put some of my Social Security money into the market. Let’s not misrepresent Bush’s plan as putting ALL or even MOST of people’s money into the market. Lets not even forget that Bush’s plan allowed people to choose to opt out of the market. Putting a small amount of money into the market isnt the recipe for disaster that so many pretend it is.

I have a son of whom I am immensely proud who is beginning a life in the military. Though in school currently, he will end up as an officer, honorably and willingly serving his country. I can think of little that would make me prouder of him than his choice to do so.

I agree with getting rid of the legalisic and litigious areas of society, but I’d also suggest that its the lawyers who create this atmosphere. And the lawyers by and large support the Democratic party, or perhaps its vice versa.

Stephen, the Republican party is not dying, any more than it was in 2002 when it was going to lose the mid term elections, or in 2004 when Bush was going to lose the Presidential elections, or when Dan Rather provided documents proving Bush was AWOL, or when…..well, or any of the times over the past 5 years that people from the left have made that claim.

Eventually, you are bound to be right—Democrats will win something. But your ratio of right to wrong will still be hopelessly lopsided.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 5, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #98965
What we need are Democrats willing to stand up for liberal beliefs, in spite of what those incompetent consultants tell them.

Exactly. This is why the Dems poll numbers are so low. There is no one in congress representing the majority of Americans. Dems need to do what they were put there to do, be the opposition party.

Those who disagree typically do so without pointing to the factual statistics that determine how an economy is faring.

Well, which statistics are factual? It seems to me you can find statistics to support either position. Statistics are worthless. How people judge how the economy is faring is by looking at what is going on all around them. I see a lot of corporate bankruptcy. Lots of layoffs in the auto industry. Lots of concessions in labor contracts. Lots of people having to work for less than half of what they made previously. These are factual. Statistics are not.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 5, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #98969

Joe-
The President did not create this economy. No president does. The question can be fairly asked, given the uncertainty of things, whether this growth rate is all America’s capable of. Additionally, he may have inherited a failing economy, but his Congress and House of Representatives did not.

As for your money and your son, that is your choice and his. Others have chosen differently, and that was my point on both counts.

As far as the litigious atmosphere, the lawyers bear responsibility, but in part they are simply taking the opportunities a free market provides when the lack of government regulation allows businesses, healthcare organizations, insurance companies and others to do outrageous things that inflame anxieties in the general public. If the Government had done its job on Vioxx and other drugs, there would be less of a need for our legal avengers to come in and right wrongs on behalf of the people it killed and crippled.

I don’t believe the GOP is dying, but I do believe that this is the time in which your party’s hold on the majority is at its greatest risk. Your party is losing its nerve on a lot of issues, playing things more cautiously. It was perhaps great, in the beginning, when people thought they were getting out from under the East Coast Establishment, but now the red state interests are seeing that the Gulf Coast Establishment is no kinder an elite.

Don’t ignore the signs, if you value the power and influence of your party. You can’t combat the problems you refuse to acknowledge. Push for what reforms there need to be to take the crosshairs of public anger off your party, or else watch the balance tip.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 5, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #98974

Aww! I really wish Roger hadn’t broken the cardinal rule of this blog. I’m going to miss that guy, because he made so many good points.

Paul, nice article. But…
“Now Democrats see more clearly how to win against Republicans.”

Unfortunately, Democrats might do everything right, and yet, still not win — because we’ve had no serious reform to assure us that our elections are fair and accountable.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 5, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #98997

Stephen:

We both know that no President controls the economy. However, I think its eminently fair to say that Democrats and liberals, both in politics and those in here, have blamed Bush for the economy. Democrats first blamed Bush before he even took office by saying he was ‘talking down’ the economy during the ‘00 election. Then it was a ‘jobless recovery’. Then it was the myth that the jobs were not good enough ones.

Now…..Democrats say the President has little or nothing to do with the economy. Interesting how much he had to do with causing a poor economy, and how little credit he gets for a good one. Interesting also that almost all the economic indicators are up after the tax cut policies were enacted, which I think is safe to say is a Bush policy.

The conversation that David Remer would have with that is that Bush is mortgaging the future by putting the tax cuts through on “credit card” only to have others pay the bill later. And he might have a point there. But to now NOT give credit to Bush when for years the Dems have excoriated him for the economy is simply partisan silliness. I’m not claiming that you have done so, but rather that Dems and libs have done so.

You claimed in your earlier post that the Republican party is failing, with the result being that Dems will be taking over control. That sounds like “dying” to me. Pardon if I used the wrong word to summarize your thoughts.

I agree its a dangerous time for Republicans. They do seem to have lost their nerve a bit, but I see signs of change as well. The economic news is a boon, but only if they can get the country to realize it. Too many people are so innured to the idea that the economy is bad that they are not seeing the facts. The GDP has been great, the stock market is surging strongly, jobs are created, unemployment is down etc.

Iraq has been improving….slowly to be sure, but steadily. If it continues to do so, Dems will have little to talk about. Politics changes fast, and just when you think the other side is dead, they rise back to life. Ask Bill Clinton about that- he was the master.

I’m comfortable about the 06 elections. I see no major change, though I won’t be surprised if Dems pick up a few seats. That would be the historical norm, though I expect the media will trumpet it as a major event.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 5, 2005 3:40 PM
Comment #99047
While I thoroughly appreciate your biased, mindless banter, either you haven’t been paying attention, or are just unable to recognize the truth. It has been the moderate republicans in congress which have made the difference. Granted, the democrats did as they were predicted and expected to do: side against the republicans. But it is the votes of the moderate republicans which have prevented the uncontested success of the republican agenda. They do in fact control congress, whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, you entirely misinterpretted my argument concerning the *loss* of all American’s. By my argument, we all win or lose together, regardless of your political horse-race politics. The democrats may feel that they have won something, but until they can *agree* on an agenda, they don’t *have* one, and the (minor) failures on the part of the Republicans to push through their *entire* agenda do not constitute victories on your own behalf. Furthermore, with the next election still a ways off, there’s always time for them to rectify their mistakes, regroup, and do whatever they wish (and with the moderates on *their* side, it won’t matter *what* the democrats think).

America is *far* worse off now than before Bush, and to deny this is to defend all that has been done. As a Democrat (sounds like you are), you are the last person I would expect to defend recent political events. If America loses, *all* Americans lose. If you want to debate the current status of America, look to Louisiana, Iraq (and all our soldiers stationed there, dying every day), and the unprecedented level of debt (a majority of which is owed to foreign interests), etc…. the list goes on. If you want to persist in believing that things are just ‘fine and dandy’, then hey, why not elect Bush for a 3rd term?

So perhaps intead of basking in your perceived victories, you could get together with the democrats and come up with an actual *plan*. As it stands, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a political leg to stand on, in my estimation. I would as soon stay at home on election day than waste another minute listening to these two parties bicker over the most effective way to screw America.

“Though they still refuse to admit it, the fact remains that leftwing defeatists created the monster known as George W. Bush by voting for Ralph Nader in the first place”

You have no right to blame anyone but yourselves for electing Bush (I did in fact vote against him - both times - against my better judgement). If you can’t offer any better than the ‘lesser of two evils’, don’t expect anything more than a close defeat. Next time, I will either be voting for the candidate that represents my interests, or none at all. Get it together or go home.

While I am flattered that you have enjoyed my mindless banter, I regret to say that I cannot say the same about your asinine, rote, Karl-Rove-talking-point-list responses.

Again, your weak conclusions simply do not match reality. If moderates were indeed running things, we would not be having this conversation, and Republicans — not to mention the country — would be in a much better place than it is now. If you feel that a dozen men and women are all that’s preventing the disaster that is the new neoconservative world order from coming to fruition, and that Democrats, progressives and liberals have had nothing to do with it, I can only crown you the King of Oversimplification and wish you luck at making through the rest of your life.

You, of course, are completely wrong.

The implication until a group of people can agree on an agenda they lack one is amazingly foolish, and untrue besides. I don’t know of a single organization in which everybody agrees. Not the GOP, not the DNC, not a household, or a church, or a school, or a business or anything other group that is recognizably organized.

The breakdown in democracy which we saw in 2000 is a result of the same kind of thinking: you don’t have to agree with every single position a party holds to support that party. Both parties have a general platform. The Democratic position is delineated in no uncertain terms on their website, on most issues of importance. Their general position is written there in plain English for anyone with even a remedial grasp of the language to read and digest. So when you imply that you do not know the DNC’s agenda, I can only assume you watch too much Fox News or are illiterate.

Not every Democrat agrees with the general agenda on every position. Nor do they have to. Nor should they: this is a democracy.

I don’t know what you mean when you erroneously claim “the moderates” are on the side of Republicans. What moderates are you talking about? Hillary Clinton and John Kerry?

I also don’t know what you mean when you falsely imply that I think things are “fine and dandy.” Again, if that were the case why would we be having this debate in the first place? I do, however, stick by my implication that things are much better here than in many places around the world, and that while things would have been better were Gore election, it would not automatically be a perfect utopia as opposed to the 9th Level of Hell you seem to thing Bush Inc. has sunk us down to.

Vote for whomever you like and twist the facts however you like. The simple FACT is that had not liberal defeatists broke rank to vote for Nader, George W. Bush would be a footnote in history. Those are the facts. I voted for a good candidate and a good person who would have been a good President. I have zero shame about that vote, and I don’t blame myself for other peoples’ lack of foresight.

Congratulations on sticking to your black and white, either/or, my-way-or-the-highway “principles” no matter what. Since so many of the people who should be helping build the opposition party are instead insiting to ripping it to pieces share this bleak and selfish view of the election process, you’re right, I don’t expect more than a close defeat the next time around. But don’t expect me to cry about it: I’m not the one who thinks Bush’s America is the modern equivalent of pre-Revolution France, am I?

Bush is the worst President in this country’s history. I wouldn’t dare support a third term for him.

Posted by: David Kelsey at December 5, 2005 6:10 PM
Comment #99051

“Bush is mortgaging the future by putting the tax cuts through on “credit card” only to have others pay the bill later. And he might have a point there. But to now NOT give credit to Bush when for years the Dems have excoriated him for the economy is simply partisan silliness”

bush *is* mortgaging the future…that *will* be a cause of future economic strife. as for the past, i feel quite certain that both democrats and republicans have an equal part in that. Therefore, I don’t necessarily blame Bush for the past, but I certainly credit him and congress for *all* the current artificial economic boon (though my children and grandchildren will likely have to foot the bill - let’s hope it stops there).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #99054

“I regret to say that I cannot say the same about your asinine…”

…that was uncalled for.

please refrain from quoting my *entire* previous posting. it’s really quite annoying.

“If moderates were indeed running things, we would not be having this conversation, “

please, try to pay attention (instead of flying off the handle). if you *had* been paying attention, you would know that it was the moderate *republicans* whom i was referring to, and insofar as their is a swing vote in the congress, it belongs to *them*. the democrats can vote unanimously against anything they want, and *lose* everytime, if they don’t have the support of these moderates. get it?? (read it over slowly several times).

try to avoid sticking words in my mouth (if i wanted them there, i could do a much better job with their formation). many of the points which you made have absolutely nothing to do with anything i said, so congratulations at tearing them down so efficiently (though i’m not entirely sure whom you’re arguing with).

“I do, however, stick by my implication that things are much better here than in many places around the world, and that while things would have been better were Gore election”

again, i never even so much as hinted that there was a better place. as for Gore’s fairytale presidency - mere speculation. but thanks for wasting my time with it.

“The simple FACT is that had not liberal defeatists broke rank to vote for Nader”

To suggest that they “broke rank” (i was not among them *those* times, however i will be *next time*) is patently inane. you partisans always with the same lines; to vote for anyone else is unpatriotic!! blah blah blah! there is no ‘rank’ to break. my vote (no matter how much it may vex you) is mine to give, freely. i don’t owe it to anyone.

and your agenda? hardly. there is so much bickering within your party, you can’t openly agree on anything, except that the republicans are doing it (whatever ‘it’ happens to be) wrong. (so i don’t give a **** what the website says, until they can pretend for a second to agree on *anything*)

as for the rest of your poorly constructed argument, i didn’t bother to read it, nor shall i read your next(i have much more adept and intelligible arguments to dissect and destroy).
now, then, please abstain from any further defamations on my character, and I shall do my damndest to do likewise (though it may be a struggle).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 6:51 PM
Comment #99060

Stephen:

I think the Democratic party will succeed to the extent it can prove that it’s not a lighter version of the Republican party. So let me make a dangerous suggestion to all you Democrats out there: Let’s kick out the Democrats who continue to act as if you win elections by being light versions of the Republicans. What we need are Democrats willing to stand up for liberal beliefs, in spite of what those incompetent consultants tell them. There’s no more going along to get along here. At the very least, we need to make our stand here, and start turning this country around.

As a Republican I hope the Democratic party adopts this philosophy. There are fewer liberals in America and Conservatives. Generally America is a bit right of center.

I think the party that wins moderates rules the country. It takes a coalition of either Liberals and Moderates (Clinton) or Conservatives and Moderates (Bush) to win the presidency, or Congress.

Republicans have an advantages as there are more conservatives than liberals.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 5, 2005 7:01 PM
Comment #99063

as a pointer to the democrats,
when a person inquires as to why one should invest their sacred trust in your candidate (in the form of a vote), it is unwise to reply with a response that amounts to, “because you would be stupid not to”. a lesser person might be inclined to vote against you, out of spite.

this is in reference to multiple posts i have made on all three forums.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 7:11 PM
Comment #99077

D.A.N. and Bruce,
The only way we will see less corruption in the Government is
1. A full audit of the White House, Pentagon, and both Houses.

2. Forcing our represenatives to give up their precious riders, and making them vote on a single purpose bill.

3. Convincing the voters that THEY can live without the pork.

4. Attempt to elect non-law-breaking persons to Office. And if they mess up, they’re out of there.

Anyone who could accompolish the above things will never get elected, but it’s a nice dream.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 5, 2005 8:09 PM
Comment #99081

Craig

“As a Republican I hope the Democratic party adopts this philosophy. “

as neither, so do i.

however, while i agree with the ‘coalition’ theory, the republicans have hardly been making any sacrifices towards the center, though they make promises across the board. the democrats similarly promise what they can’t deliver, yet at least they ostensibly have the intention to do so. with a solid agenda, i think that they would have little difficulty coalescing with the moderates, now that we have all seen the true objectives of the far right.

“Republicans have an advantages as there are more conservatives than liberals.”

oh really? on what do you base this assumption?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 8:18 PM
Comment #99094

Diogenes,

You are a flaming hypocrite. If it was uncalled for me to point out the asininity of your arguments, it was uncalled for you to dismiss everything I said as mindless banter. This isn’t a GOP controlled Congress — you can’t start a fire and then play innocent when you get burned. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don’t want name-calling, don’t start it. But if you sink, I am more than equipped to follow you there.

Same with sticking words in your mouth. If you don’t want it done, please extend to me the same courtesy. Although, at least I had the decency to use the word “implication” in reference to what you wrote, and not make a flagrantly false statement like the one you made about me thinking everything was “fine and dandy.” Again, if you don’t want an in-kind response, don’t go there.

Your wrote that the moderates were with the Republicans. That is not true. Republican moderates often vote with the Democrats, and there are Democratic moderates. Which is why I did not understand what you mean, and why I said so. You should have clarified (and read slowly) before you posted such a ridiculous assertion.

You seem to be under the (also erroneous) assertion that the only way Democrats can defeat the GOP agenda is by their votes in Congress. This is a moot point as to the beginning of this discussion, which was Bush’s Social Security reform, which to my recollection was never voted on (please correct me if I’m wrong). At any rate, the reason that plan was defeated had squat to do with Republican moderates in Congress. It was the unified opposition of liberals, progressives and Democrats in countering every foolish assertion put forth by the White House in order to protect an important social contract.

As for the nonexistent unpatriotism of people who don’t vote with their brains, this is simply for fantasy and hypocrisy from you. Since you are so against words being put in one’s mouth, you will no doubt note I never mentioned anything about patriotism in any of my posts. I DID say that those who broke rank lacked foresight and voted selfishly. And I stick by that comment. As for their patriotism, I did not comment on it and don’t intend to, as it is a moot point.

Again, your vote does not vex me. You can vote however you want. It just amuses me when people help create a monster and then complain about it. That’s all. Vex me, no. Makes me laugh, yes.

You have made it quite clear that you are hell-bent on sticking to the untrue point that the Democrats have no agenda. I have already pointed out to you that the agenda is readily available for you to read and consider, but, unsurprisingly, you don’t care about the truth, just being right. But that does not change the fact that the platform and the agenda certainly exists, and though we don’t all agree on every point, most people who vote Democrat don’t stray too far from its principles if not its actual words. Although Democratic politicians refuse to be the unthinking stick-to-the-talking-points sheep you want them to be, I commend them, rather than chide them, for having their own opinions.

Sorry about quoting your whole post: you’re right, it annoyed even me!

Posted by: David Kelsey at December 5, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #99102

While I very much would have liked to have dropped this while you were behind,
your inflammatory and inciting comments simply cannot stand uncontested.

i believe it was you who made the first stoop;

“Not only am I right, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. To begin, please let’s stop the apocalyptic “far worse” BS. ” While I very much would have liked to have dropped this while you were behind,
your inflammatory and inciting comments simply cannot stand uncontested.

i believe it was you who made the first stoop;

“Not only am I right, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. To begin, please let’s stop the apocalyptic “far worse” BS. ” While I very much would have liked to have dropped this while you were behind,
your inflammatory and inciting comments simply cannot stand uncontested.

i believe it was you who made the first stoop;

“Not only am I right, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. To begin, please let’s stop the apocalyptic “far worse” BS. ” While I very much would have liked to have dropped this while you were behind,
your inflammatory and inciting comments simply cannot stand uncontested.

i believe it was you who made the first stoop;

“Not only am I right, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. To begin, please let’s stop the apocalyptic “far worse” BS. ”

= now, correct me if i’m wrong, but you seem to be referring to my statements as “Bull Shit”. two attacks in the first two sentences.

such rudeness is the last respite of a man with nothing meaningful left to say… only you led with it, hmmmm.

I would hope that the editors soon take notice, because i quickly grow weary of your uninspired regurgitation of leftist propaganda.

so ‘goose’, if you insist on continuing, allow me to educate you a bit further.
to anyone reading, i’m sure it was quite apparent to which moderates i was referring…furthermore, it was they, not you, who led Bush to drop his SS initiative precisely because Bush knew he did not have their support. I guarantee you that Bush, the Reps, and, in fact, the entire world knew that the dem’s would not support such legislation (so it is in fact *your* point that is moot)

you are quite correct, in that this was our original disagreement, and despite however you might perceive it, no part of it has changed. without the moderate republicans, the dem’s have nothing in congress currently, except perhaps a place to sit.

i’m sorry if this offends you; however, unlike your remarks, it is not directed at the poster, merely the party. Again, unless you would like to be further brow beaten, stop addressing or directing posts at me. You haven’t made one valid point this entire time, and so I must assume that your entire intent is to pester me! (Lest we be forced to bring this to the direct attention of an editor, let it go.)

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 9:56 PM
Comment #99105

Diogenes:

“Republicans have an advantages as there are more conservatives than liberals.”

oh really? on what do you base this assumption?

Not assumptions, just polling data.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/politics/a/conlibdemo.htm

More people call themselves conservative than liberal — 35 percent to 22 percent — but a plurality of Americans say they’re a moderate, 43 percent.

Even if you don’t accept the sourse because it is conservative, my premise still stands. Liberals can’t “win” anything unless part of a coalition.
The battle is over who provides the best option for moderates.

It isn’t about compromising values, it’s about pramatism. Liberals will need a leader more like Clinton than like Howard Dean.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 5, 2005 9:58 PM
Comment #99106

not really sure why that repeated so many times in the same post, (sorry to whoever has to scroll through it all), but it needed to be said - so lets just consider it emphasis.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #99110

Craig

Not only do i accept your premise (confined to the ‘coalition theory’ section, thereof) it bares much resemblance to what I have been arguing about with ….someone else.

The moderates (in this case, the Republican moderates) are all that stands between the Republicans and the realization of their entire agenda.

I do call into question the polling data from any source that isn’t an academic one (often the statistics from any other kind are highly dubious, and in general, should not be trusted).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 10:05 PM
Comment #99111

Rick,
You picked a very sensative topic for your blog today. Please understand I am not trying to critize you, but because of the topic it may appear so. I merely wish to challenge your ideas.

You wrote:

Life doesn’t begin at birth. Why kill the baby? Let the baby have it’s life to live. The baby’s life belongs to the baby, not the parent. Did you’re life ever belong to your parent’s? You’re parents do not own you, they raise to be your own person. That was you’re right as an American.

The laws actually do convey a bit of ownership of kids by their parents. If a child detroys something, the law comes after the parents, not the child. Going to School is manitory, either home schooled, public or private schools. Parents have the final say regarding their children, except when it comes to neglect, abuse, criminal issues, and many other exceptions. Unforuntely there are too many parents who have no idea how to raise a child, how to discinpline correctly, how not to moneitarily spoil their children, let alone make enough money to feed, clothe, and keep their children safe.

You’re parent’s chose to let you have you’re right to life.
Most of the parents of the people writing here were pregnant in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which if you’ll recall was a time of backrooms and coathangers. OUR parents did not have a choice.

There are many alive today that have gone though hell because our parents had no choice. There are also hundreds of children who grew up with no mothers, because of backroom abortions which took their mothers’ lives.
I know - I was raised in both situations.

There are so many parents’ that can’t have a baby. Some don’t have the money to adopt. Just maybe, if there were less abortions, the overall cost of adopting would be less, so more unfortunate, loving couples could afford them.

Novenge:
I don’t really believe that Rick meant to place a price on abortion or adoption. I suspect he is still quiet young.

Rick,
Re-read Bill’s comment please.
It appears that you have not visited an orphange, been a foster parent, or adopted a child. More importantly it is a shame that you have not spent time in Family Court when custody battles rage, or more frequently, cases of Domestic Violence.

Yes, I agree that adoption is best, but until you have carried a child inside you for nine months, you can not begin to understand how hard it is to give up a child. As a new father, you are experiencing the emotions of parenthood.I imagine,just like myself, that you would be unable to give up your child for adoption.

And yes sometimes it is up to the mother to raise the child,frequently without help from the father. There are many times when the desire is there, but the ability isn’t. Many times those are the babies you hear about that are found dead, left in garbage cans, occasionaly left at hospitals, or if they are truly unfortuanted, are raised by a parnet who mis-treats them. Most people want nothing to do with a crack baby or one that has AIDS.

I also assume you are probably not 14, with no education, no parental support, no job, and what would appear as no future.

I ask that you please take these things into consideration before you judge someone. Unless you have walked in someone’s else’s shoes, you really have no idea what life is like for them.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 5, 2005 10:07 PM
Comment #99119

Diogenes:

I do call into question the polling data from any source that isn’t an academic one (often the statistics from any other kind are highly dubious, and in general, should not be trusted).

agreed. But I was too lazy to get the kind I was looking for. I believe they are accurate in that I have seen others like them.

To win Democrats need to not talk like this:

Saying the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Instead they need to talk like this:

“Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq,” she said. “Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their ‘last throes,’ this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq. … It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor.” Hillary Clinton

Dean’s remarks feed into stereotypes about liberals, that they are pantiwaste, weakings and soft of defense.

As much as I compliment Hillary on her message as being one that will help her in 2008, I still don’t think she can win because she is from a Blue state, although these kind of words are making me rethink a bit. You have to consider why a red state would change to blue. She has to look good in Ohio.


Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 5, 2005 10:16 PM
Comment #99123

Diogenes:

I think Hillary is being very well coached. The war in Iraq should be over by 2008 and we will be arguing about something else. Think of the positioning she has done by taking on the left. When the lest doesn’t have the Iraq war (or so the calculation goes) to fight against there is Hillary lining up with her liberal views on nondefence matters. Then when the right trys to paint her into the “liberal” soft on crime, soft on defense mold, BAM we hear over and over again her taking on the left. I am certain we will see something like this quote in 2008 provided by the Hillary Campaign:

Mrs. Clinton was also slammed last night in a speech by Cindy Sheehan, the so-called “Peace Mom” who previously labeled the senator a “war hawk.” “I’m not a carpetbagger like someone else we know,” Sheehan said at the State University College at Oneonta, N.Y. “I think she really needs to represent the state of New York.”

When asked about a possible Clinton run for the presidency in 2008, Sheehan said, “I am not going to make the mistake of supporting a pro-war candidate even if she is a Democrat.”

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 5, 2005 10:21 PM
Comment #99136

I would need to know far more about Hillary before I could judge her candidacy potential.
…and let’s hope, one way or the other, that the war doesn’t take that long.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #99161

Linda, It’s nice to see someone else has considered the ONE PURPOSE PER BILL idea. That would make it clear who voted for or against a bill and why. It may not be a dream. There is historical precedent for large anti-incumbent movements (1952-1958, 1976-1980, and 1992-1994). The only mistake voters made is to not insist on changes to ensure transparency to discourage politicians from quickly reverting back to the status quo. And, voters must carry through, and keep doing it until politicians comply, become transparent, which will yield accountability, which will yield responsibility.
Of course, you may be right, but why not try?
Doing nothing will only guarantee failure.
While history often repeats itself,
new history is sometimes created too.
Perhaps we can eventually learn from, and avoid
learning this lesson again?
It’s certainly a cause worthy of trying.
After all, is what we’ve been doing working?
Isn’t it clear that both main parties have shut-out all 3rd parties, and the two main parties are just taking turns gettin’ theirs, and using and abusing the tax payers?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2005 12:28 AM
Comment #99178

d.a.n.

don’t get me wrong, I would try this idea (anti-incumbent) if I thought it had a chance of working. but rather than re-hash my reasons for believing it to be a lost cause, perhaps you might instead attempt to persuade me (or everyone) of its potential efficacy.

more specifically (for example),
how will you persuade those who have abandoned the party which they may lean towards to actually vote for candidates of a party which is, by all accounts, entirely contrary in its beliefs/values/issue-stances to their own?

(for me, it’s more an issue of utter disgust with both parties; hence, it is hard to stomach the idea of legitimizing members of either of these parties by giving them my vote - but likely, most others still have a ‘lean’ to some extent.)

…if for no other reason, my vote is - at this point - entirely up for grabs.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 6, 2005 1:27 AM
Comment #99248

Craig:

I suspect that given the choice of voting for a Democrat or a Republican, the Cindy Sheehans of the world will vote Democrat, regardless of the Democrats war stance.

They will look at the Democrat as perhaps being misguided or misled on the war issue, but obviously a good person at heart, while the Republican will have been culled from an “uncivil, arrogant, dishonest, scapegoating, left-demonizing, and out-of-control group of people”.
(Description of Republican courtesy of Adrienne from comments made in ‘Iraq War: Reflections’)

Hard core Democrats will vote Democrat; hard core Republicans will vote Republican. Its the middle ground the candidates are after, and Hillary is doing a good job of positioning herself there. I don’t believe its where she really belongs, but its the most pragmatic place to be at the moment.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at December 6, 2005 8:09 AM
Comment #99268

Diogenes,

It has a very good chance, and I will present many concrete reasons why.
First, think about the math for a moment. Not many votes are needed to change the political landscape. That’s due to flaws (spoiler effect and wasted vote syndrome) in the current voting system that can work to the advantage of 3rd parties, if utilized correctly. First of all, most races are already close. A few votes to a 3rd party can tip the results and oust an incumbent. And, it isn’t as important which gets elected, as long as voters have the power to oust the irresponsible incumbents, because that will not go unnoticed by their replacements. This is a simple, but important fact many voters often overlook. Voters need to understand the math. Many elections are won by a small percentage. Also, as the anti-incumbent sentiment grows, the chances of a 3rd party being elected increases. An anti-incumbent strategy doesn’t need a lot of votes to be effective. Don’t believe the assertions by main parties and their loyalists that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. It’s not true. There’s a very good reason why the two main parties absolutely hate 3rd party candidates. It’s because they understand the math, and understand it can alter the final results.

The strategy is also simply the right, and responsible thing voters should have been doing all along. Vote out people that don’t deserve to hold office. That’s 99% of them. That’s why no one can give me names of 10, 20, 50, 100, much less 268 (half) of the 535 in Congress that deserve to keep their cu$hy, coveted seats of power. And we all know the reason why these seats of power are so coveted. Money. Money in politics makes it rotten to the core. Why tolerate that unnecessarily.

Joebagodonuts just made a good point.
Hardcore partisan voters will remain loyal to their party. They are all too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare that cleverly distracts them from the fact that politicians have tricked them into a circular pattern of thought and behavior that benefits the incumbents, and tricks voters into believing their best choice is to re-elect the very persons that are using and abusing the voters. I too used to be brainwashed that way, but like you, I am wise to the game now, and I’m not going to play that game any more.

Thus, you yourself, just provided one very good reason to vote non-incumbent.
There are many reasons, which is why there is a growing anti-incumbency sentiment.

My hope though this time, is that voters follow through after doing the hard part of voting out incumbents, by also demanding transparency so that voters can see which politicians are responsible, and which are not.

I realize at the root of our problems is laziness. People seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain. And, positions of power, without transparency, will breed corruption. That’s just a simple fact of human nature. Laziness is a human tendency, but it is immoral to surrender to it completely.

Thus, voters must learn that government, by virtue of the power voters grant it, there will be abuse unless voters also insist on transparency, which yields accountability, which yields responsibility. And, it would also yield peer-pressure amongst politicians to police their own ranks. Imagine that?

So, how do you get transperency?
It’s not complicated at all.
None of it is as complicated as politicians like to pretend.
Transparency really only requires a little common sense and simplification of processes that have been unnecessarily over-complicated (by design) in order to be abused.
And voters must understand that power corrupts without sufficient transparency. Voters merely need to follow through this time, and learn that they can never ignore government, because it always leads to corruption. The longer corruption is allowed to grow, the harder and more painful it will be to reform. It can, and occassionally, even leads to civil unrest (or worse).

So voters should also provide a To-Do list to Congress, and promise politicians will voted out or recalled if they refuse to the simple, no-brainer, common-sense things on the list.

EXAMPLES of TRANSPARENCY:
__________________________________________
[1]Here’s an obvious simplification to reduce corruption, waste, and graft.
ONE PURPOSE PER BILL: Start simplifying government by allowing ONLY ONE PURPOSE PER BILL (i.e. only one or more items that are necessary for the one purpose of the one bill). This will cut out the pork-barrel and graft that sneak into huge bills, in which pork-barrel consisting of numerous unrelated items is hidden within thousands of pages that few (if anyone, much less voters) reads or scrutinizes. This will allow voters to easily see how politicians voted. This will increase transparency, which will lead to more accountability, and responsibility. Currently, it’s nearly impossible to know why a politician voted for or against a bill. Perhaps, this lack-of-transparency is by design? It’s certainly become a popular vehicle for hiding excessive pork-barrel, graft, bribes, and waste.

[2] CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:
Government should not be FOR SALE. Simply place limits (e.g. limit contributions to 10% of average American annual income). For details, see this.

[3] CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:

[4] END LEGAL PLUNDER:
Stop plundering Social Security and Medicare. Those system wouldn’t be in trouble had politicians not been allowed to plunder them.
Also, end the special, cu$hy, multi-million dollar retirement benefits for members of Congress and the Executive branch. Eliminate Congress’ right to vote themselves a raise. Only voters should determine when Congress should get a raise. Perhaps Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement systems would not be in trouble, and perhaps over $8 trillion dollar National Debt would not exist, had Congress been limited to the same Social Security system they plundered and mismanaged.
Stop stealing from the Social Security funds, and stop stealing the surpluses.
Stop creating and growing costly entitlement programs.
Stop over-complicating things unnecessarily in order to hide abuses and plunder.
Stop legal plunder, which perverts the law to legalize the very thing the law should oppose. Stop abuses of eminent domain to steal people’s property. Stop perpetuating the “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else” — by Frederic Bastiat 1848 .

[5] TAX REFORM:
This a no brainer. For details, see this.

[6] BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT:
Fiscal irresponsibility is one of the first signs of an irresponsible government. Introduce and pass a “BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT” bill. Make it the LAW. Also, place limits on borrowing, and the ONLY exception allowed for over-spending is for national emergencies, and those funds are limited ONLY for national emergencies. Stop over-spending. Stop pork-barrel spending. Prosecute those that violate this law. And, the Federal government must begin (now) paying $1 billion per day to pay down the debt, which could take about 120 years to pay off completely. The daily debt payment must slightly exceed the daily interest (currently now about $1 billion dollars per day for interest ONLY); otherwise the $8 trillion dollar national debt will continue to grow larger forever. Many will argue that this is impossible, but it is not. The Federal government can obtain the $365 billion needed annually by cutting pork-barrel spending and waste and unnecessary offices, departments, committees, services, agencies, etc.

So, who could argue with any of that?

There are numerous benefits and reasons.
Too many to list here.

Also, this is a great opportunity for all 3rd parties. I already know for a fact that this has not escaped them. They plan to capitilize on this movement. This could provide an unusual chance for 3rd parties to finally have a voice in government, and provide many better choices to the people. And, they will understand the goal to instill transparency and peer-pressure to police their own ranks. They will already understand the consequences that current incumbents arrogantly scoff and ignore.
But, watch. As the momentum grows, there will be some in both main parties that start to grow concerned, and they will try to dream up all sorts of reasons why voters shouldn’t vote out incumbents. They’ll point to their experience. I’d answer, what good is you experience if you are corrupt and look the other way. That’s the price incumbents should pay for looking the other way.
Incumbents will allege that nothing can get accomplished without the support and power of a single party. I’d answer that is exactly part of the problem. They have been corrupted by their power, and the two main parties just take turns using and abusing the people, and try to block access to ballots, debates, and the democratic process for all 3rd parties and independents, effectively only leaving the voters with two crummy choices between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.
The incumbents will allege that newcomers to Congress won’t have any power and can’t be effective because they will be outsiders to the two main parties. I’d answer again, that it precisely the problem. Should voters simply resign to the corruption and abuse of power? That is essentially an admission of guilt, and an abuse of power by both main parties.
The incumbents will tell not to waste your vote on a 3rd party, because no 3rd party has any hope of winning. I’d answer again, that such a statement demonstrates the unmitigated gall and corruption of the two main parties, their nasty attempts to shut out 3rd parties, and ignores the fact that continuing to vote for incumbents isn’t working is it?

Diogenes wrote: …more specifically (for example), how will you persuade those who have abandoned the party which they may lean towards to actually vote for candidates of a party which is, by all accounts, entirely contrary in its beliefs/values/issue-stances to their own?

That’s a good question. And the answer is this:
(1) It is the most simple, honest, safe, non-partisan, peaceful, inexpensive, logical, fair, and responsible way to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too. Government should not be FOR SALE. Voters should simply oust irresponsible incumbents. It’s what voters should have been doing all along.
(2) It has the necessary peaceful force required. No other peaceful plan does.
(3) It can peacefully force a restoration of the balance of power between government and The People, with out merely shifting power, or stripping all power from government to accomplish anything.
(4) We are running out of time. History repeats itself. If we ignore it, we will be doomed to repeat it (again). This plan can yield results faster than what we’re doing now. What we’re doing now ain’t workin’ is it? The nation may not be able to weather another decade of fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Americans seem to think we have all the time in the world, or that we are invincible. They are wrong. They have not learned from history.
(5) Change has historically always required some disruption. This plan promotes a peaceful solution. But, if it fails, the final solution may be a repeat of history anyway, which will be harder and more painful.

Diogenes,
So, I’ve tried to answer your question. Please don’t discard the idea too quickly. Think about the simple honesty and logic of it. We don’t need some vast, tricky scheme or consipiracy to solve the problem of corrupt, irresponsible, and unaccountable government. It’s not really that complicated. All we really need is for voters to do what they should have been doing all along. Simply vote out irresponsible incumbents. But, next time, also follow through, and insist on the To-Do List to instill transparency, and provide a easy test to determine who is responsible, and who isn’t and should be voted out or recalled.

But, I admit, education of the voters is needed. The voters must learn that they can never ignore government. Voters must learn that government will always grow corrupt if allowed. If we are to have a government Of / By / For The People, the Voters must be responsible too, insist on transparency, which yields accountability, which yields responsibility. I wish I could leave my rose colored glasses on, and tell you that transparency is not necessary, but the fact of human nature requires it. The best governments and psychologists around the world understand this. The voters must also understand this simple fact of human nature, or they will continue to repeat the mistake of letting corruption grow, then be forced to reform, and then start all over again.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2005 10:33 AM
Comment #99271

[3] above should have been….

[3] FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Then, cut spending and waste, eliminate duplicate, overlapping, and unnecessary departments, agencies, commissions, committees, etc., reduce the waste, and start reducing the Federal government to only the few things that it is best suited to do. Do we really need all of these offices, departments, agencies, etc. ? Initially, the Federal government was only supposed to provide for a National Defense. Perhaps we should try to get back to the few original responsibilities? In 2005, the Executive Branch employed about 2 million people, and the Congress employed several hundred thousand people, and many of them get paid a lot of money to do what? The nation could be headed for a Fiscal/Financial meltdown due to a potential, simultaneous culmination of several of the following to create the perfect storm:
[X] spending in excess of $2 trillion per year
[X] over $8 trillion National Debt, 28% of each tax $dollar required for interest on the National Debt
[X] $32 trillion in personal debt (people, companies, some financial institutions)
[X] plundered pensions going bankrupt ($1.6 trillion in the hole)
[X] looming bankruptcy of the Government Pension Benefit Guaranty Group ($400 billion in the hole)
[X] looming shortfalls in Social Security
[X] looming shortfalls in Medicare/Medicaid
[X] the race to the bottom, globalization & outsourcing, falling incomes, declined manufacturing (will we remember how to make anything?)
[X] rising cost and declining quality of health care
[X] rising cost and declining quality of public education
[X] corporate/investor fraud; cooking the books; stock fraud; failure of the SEC to regulate and prosecute violators
[X] rising cost of fuel and energy; energy vulnerability
[X] rising cost of the war on terror, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. ($money and lives)
[X] rising cost of illegal trespassers, burdening public schools, hospitals, health-care systems, crime prevention (unsecured borders; governments that will not enforce the laws and prosecute those that illegally employ illegal trespassers)
[X] waste, pork-barrel, big $money in rotten elections and politics, limited access for 3rd parties on voting ballots, government growing & growing
[X] a ridiculous and increasingly stupid, costly, unfair, and abused tax system;

Posted by: d.a.n at December 6, 2005 10:47 AM
Comment #99304

Linda H.’

Thank you for the comments. You are a verry cencere, and passionate person. As I am also.
All of your comments are verry notable.
I have thought about different situations that families, and children go through. I have had several friends with serious problems at home. Including incest. I’m not perfect but I try to look as much into every situation as I can.

I know from friends that not all children are wanted by the parents that raised them anyway. I lived half of my life wishing I had not been born. I have made the best of it, and now I have a good life. Verry difficult. But I made it happen. I am uneducated, add, dislexic in the 70’s , My school refused to even try to help me pass my classes. Problems at home. Church problems were much worse. Then came rebellion, alchol, drugs, vandelism against authority, and dying inside because all I wanted was to be happy. I am now 47, with a 4 yr old, just bought a new grand marque, a new 1800 sq.foot house, and still trying to find my place in this world. I have seen, and understand alot. I love my occupation of remodeling houses. I see things in the house that most educated people don’t know anything about. So we all have our talents that make the world go around.

My position on abortion is moral. I supported abortion until my wife became pregnant. We were not married. The thought of her aborting my child hit me like a ton of bricks. I still believe that all children can survive in America. So what if we have to pay extra to support some of these kids. Some of them will live their life as criminals. So do edcutated people .I’m just saying let the child have it’s life to live. All of my miserable years have been worth the rewards of survival.

My child didn’t live it’s life inside of me, but his life came out of me. A man and woman have a differen’t perspective of the child being inside the woman. Nothing can compare to the child being inside of a woman. That is why I have allways cherrished the ground that women walk on. But for a man. there is nothing like knowing that the child came out of him. If my child had been aborted, I would have died and might not ever come back to life.My boy is my fathers only namesake grandchild. Too often, I think about how would I survive if my child were to pass on to heaven. I would only have faith that I would see him there .

I believe that every child has the right to live their life regardless of the problems they will have to survive.

Posted by: rick at December 6, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #99312

ps.

I think all topics in these blogs are sensitive. the more sensitive the topic, the more it should be talked about. I appoligize for hitting a hurtful emotion for some people. This topic is a hurtful emotion for me.

Posted by: rick at December 6, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #99443

d.a.n.

I must have misunderstood, to some degree, the campaign which you mention (vote out the incumbents). From postings elsewhere, i inferred that the objective was to vote out the incumbents by voting *for the opposing party*, whichever it might be. I did not, and do not have confidence in the utility of *that* strategy for various reasons which I have posted elsewhere. (That is precisely why I countered with the “Shut Out the Vote” proposition which was, arguably, equally implausible). The idea, as you present it, is far more rational.

“A few votes to a 3rd party can tip the results and oust an incumbent.”

Yes, I definitely agree - it has happened many times, and most assuredly distresses whomever loses as a result.

“Don’t believe the assertions by main parties and their loyalists that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote.”

I don’t; I believe that this contention is in fact propaganda, conveyed by both parties in order to secure their death grip on our government.

So my only question would be, how sure are you that this is the plan? Because, to encourage partisans whom are displeased with their party to vote for the opposition is indubitably a losing proposition. To persuade them to vote for a third party which more accurately represents them is far more probable.

But what if no such third party exists in their location? Perhaps, borrowing an
idea from my own proposal, here we should encourage citizens in this particular circumstance to abstain from voting at all. Just a suggestion… yet the message which is delivered by the ever decreasing number of citizens who cast a vote is undeniable - and it has the parties worried. Hence their entire “Get Out the Vote” campaign. [Again, i believe that anyone proponing such a radical and unpopular idea as not voting, in protest - this alone would gain media attention.]

Regardless, if the plan is as you have outlined, count me in. Neither party has made any effort to convince me that they are worthy of my vote - merely that the alternative is far inferior.

…and thank you for the clarification.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 6, 2005 7:40 PM
Comment #99451

Reviewing the Democratic SS Victory Question

The answer one receives is highly dependent on the question that one asks. The question of whether the Democrats can claim Bush’s failure to implement his SS iniative as a victory is quite vague in this regard; if the implication is that the victory belongs to all Americans (they being included in this number), then I wholly concur, and without demur. However, if the implication is that the victory is due exclusively (or even mostly) to the actions of the Democrats, I feel that the evidence is far from compelling, for the very reasons which I have previously (and repeatedly) stated.

Of course, this is just my own opinion, and it matters little what one individual thinks in this regard. It is not I whom the democrats most need to convince, yet nor is it their devoted following (as it would matter little to them, one way or the other). It is in fact the moderate and independent portion of the American electorate which needs persuading, of which I am only one. But perhaps, as I remain unconvinced, the democrats should take the opportunity to refine their argument on this matter, in order that they may be all the more effective the next time.

just a suggestion.

:)

Posted by: Diogenes at December 6, 2005 8:01 PM
Comment #99783

I’m an old guy on SS. I want to draw my SS check from the PEOPLE. WHO. PRINT. THE. MONEY.
Nuf said?

Posted by: cheviteau at December 7, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #100219

^^^…which is a perfectly understandable, entirely reasonable request.
unfortunately, it seems that the tradition of respecting one’s elders is one that has been widely abandoned by America’s youth-oriented culture.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 8, 2005 1:15 PM
Post a comment