Democrats & Liberals Archives

Back In The Cellar

There’s no denying it. Bush is in trouble again. Six polls have been taken since 2/22, and five of them show his approval rating in the 30’s. (The other one has 40%.) And before you cry “Liberal media conspiracy!”, note that one of those polls is from Fox.

Alas, Bush isn’t going anywhere for three years, but we can still look at this with awe. He may be remembered for single-handedly reversing the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. Republicans can’t say that weren’t warned though — we told you he was incompetent!

Some more good news for the Dems -- they are completing cleaning the GOP's clock on the generic congressional ballot. There is a big caveat here: Voters vote for politicians, not parties, and is hard to kick out incumbents these days. Still, this is looking like a good year for the donkeys.

Posted by Woody Mena at March 3, 2006 7:46 AM
Comment #131024

phfffttt that’s not the only one here is another one.

Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low

NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2006

(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush’s approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they’re opposed to the agreement.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Mr. Bush’s overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn’t care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he’s handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

In a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident.

More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story.

Still, the incident appears to have made the public’s already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.

Americans were evenly split on whether or not Cheney’s explanation of why there was a delay in reporting the accident was satisfactory.

©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

CBS link to article


Posted by: einghf at March 3, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #131025

A psychic vision for you: GOP leaders are telling Bush to think of a face-saving way to kill the Dubai deal, because it is D-E-A-D.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 3, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #131026

President Bush is not a liberal Democrat, therefore he doesn’t live and die by the poll numbers. Can you imagine if someone took a poll in 1862 and President Lincoln paid attention to it. There would still be a confederacy. Why is it that when the people overwhelmingly reelected Bush, you guys said they were all a bunch of ignorant, backward, Bible thumping rednecks, and now the people are suddenly all geniuses. Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents who should be added to Mt. Rushmore and replace the Democratic murderer of Natvive Americans on our $20 bill, had some horrendous poll numbers during his presidency. He left office with over a 65% approval rating. All great leaders are unpopular at some point. I would love to see a poll on MLK taken in the 60’s. Don’t get your hopes up too high about November. Until you guys distance yourselves from the ACLU and people like Michael Moorefoodplease, “middle America” will still vote for the incompetent Republicans to avoid communist rule.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #131027

I would suggest all right-wingers - who would like to conveniently shrug off these latest rounds of polling with an argument founded on some fantasy that Republicans don’t rely on polls - do some research about the guy who got Bush elected and serves as the Republican-media-whore-in-chief, Karl Rove. You’ll find the basis for your arguments wholly unfounded.

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #131030

If Bush is so interested in polls, why does he continue to do unpopular things(Iraq war, ports deal, etc.)? At some point you guys have to decide whether Bush is an incompetent, bumbling idiot or an evil genius because he can’t be both.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #131031

So this Administration doesn’t pay attention to polls…?


Just trying to let that sink in. Wow. Seriously, what a great strategy! I’m truly impressed. It’s really close to my strategy of driving. Personally, I don’t pay attention to the road signs - I feel that there are more important issues when driving.

Posted by: tony at March 3, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #131032


Weak. Your driving cliche says that polls tell you what is going to happen up ahead. I didn’t know pollsters only called psycics. If that’s the case maybe Bush should just wait for the latest poll to come out to decide what to do next. Too bad there wasn’t a pre-Katrina poll.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #131033

“President Bush is not a liberal Democrat, therefore he doesn’t live and die by the poll numbers. Can you imagine if someone took a poll in 1862 and President Lincoln paid attention to it. There would still be a confederacy. Why is it that when the people overwhelmingly reelected Bush, you guys said they were all a bunch of ignorant, backward, Bible thumping rednecks, and now the people are suddenly all geniuses. Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents who should be added to Mt. Rushmore and replace the Democratic murderer of Natvive Americans on our $20 bill, had some horrendous poll numbers during his presidency. He left office with over a 65% approval rating. All great leaders are unpopular at some point. I would love to see a poll on MLK taken in the 60’s. Don’t get your hopes up too high about November. Until you guys distance yourselves from the ACLU and people like Michael Moorefoodplease, “middle America” will still vote for the incompetent Republicans to avoid communist rule.”

Just a little thing, i find it somewhat ironic that you mention adding Regan to Mt. Rushmore and taking Andrew Jackson off the 20 because he was a murderer of native americans, since technically speaking we dont own Mt Rushmore. We are in violation of a treaty we made with the Sioux many years ago, and Mt. Rushmore was essentialy a fuck-you to their holy ground. They have been in courts for as long as we’ve occupied the land, but of course they will never get it back. Its kind of pathetic that we treat our native population that way, but hey, we have the guns, so why not.

In other matters, the poll numbers are relevant to Bush and the congressional republicans, because whether or not they claim to be interested in public opinion, every member of the House of Representatives is going to be facing an election this fall, meaning the numbers do matter to them. I’m not saying theyre going to go in step with every poll, but the next 8 months are going to be placate placate placate.

doesnt matter what party youre in, if the people dislike what youre doing, youre going to be out of office. and if a different party takes control of the house, even the senate, what ever is there for Bush to do? He’s been extremely ineffective with his party in every branch of government, what will happen when he has a divided government?

should be fun to watch.

Posted by: iandanger at March 3, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #131034

All politicians look at polls, and the latest approval polls for Bush are pretty dismal. That having been said, they are not catastrophic, especially since he is a second term President.

Polls sometimes give a snapshot impression of events. In this case, the snapshot is affected to some degree by the closeness of the Dubai ports deal. The numbers will most likely soften a bit in the next few weeks as the deal shakes out.

Even before the 2004 election, people claimed that Bush was unelectable due to low approval numbers. What we learned was that the numbers either are not the true arbiter of things, or perhaps are swayed in some manner. Time will tell, but its once again premature to sound the death knell for the Republican party. Sounding it often will ultimately mean you are correct, but your overall record might be 1 for 15.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 3, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #131035

okay, lemme break it down for ya. The polls help people get ELECTED. Or, when already hoding office, they help gauge the public’s feeling on a particular issue. Or, in the case of Hillary Clinton (whom I am no fan of, either), seemingly everything she does is dependent on polls because in her case, even though she’s already holding office, she’s definitely trying to figure out where to stand on certain issues (the Dubai Ports World deal, war in Iraq, Immigration reform, etc.) that will put her in a better position to win a future election, possibly for higher office.

Once you are in office, especially in your final term (see: Bush), you may do what you wish (especially when you hold the highest elected office in the land) at your own peril. Sure, Bush’s policies are unpopular. On referendum, the following would fail miserably:

keeping troops in Iraq
social security reform in the form of personal stock accounts
not enacting single-payer health care
not raising the minimum wage
making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
not enacting a windfall profits tax for big oil
not reducing the deficit by either raising taxes or reducing the Pentagon budget
not doing “whatever it takes” to protect the environment

But he’s the guy in charge, and he damn sure doesn’t have to answer to anyone, certainly not in a reelection campaign. So now take another look at his policies. Does he just think he knows better than the majority of Americans? Or does he have some friends in high places who need favors that don’t really jibe with the majority of Americans’ wishes?

You decide. Either way, he’s wrong.

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #131036

“Weak. Your driving cliche says that polls tell you what is going to happen up ahead. I didn’t know pollsters only called psycics. If that’s the case maybe Bush should just wait for the latest poll to come out to decide what to do next. Too bad there wasn’t a pre-Katrina poll.”

Have you even considered what signs are for? They’re warning devices to help you get to your destination safer. I mean, with the unbelieveable failure of this Administration, I think you probably have a point - they don’t head wanring very well (I think your Katrina examples works well here.)

Besides, I think taking in public concerns and opinions has no real place in politics - I mean, look at the recent UAE Ports deal. Who the hell looked at the polls during that fiasco?

Posted by: tony at March 3, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #131037

I hope you realize that your talking to a Native American, and by the way there is no such thing as “holy ground” among native peoples. You are right that “Indians” have been screwed by this government from the very beginning, but let me ask you this. Do you believe the Jews deserve the land of ancient Israel (palestine)? They have an ancient claim to that land just as the tribe of my birth has an ancient claim to parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. “Zionism” is tantamount to giving the American land back to its original inhabitants. If Bush follows polls like you say he does, he’s done a pretty crappy job of it so far. The polls are against almost everything he does, yet he persists in spite of them.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #131038
President Bush is not a liberal Democrat, therefore he doesn’t live and die by the poll numbers.

Of course he does, but the official story, to keep up the cowboy persona, is that polls don’t matter.

He may not care about polls, but his team and every other GOPer in Washington sure does, so he is not free to ignore them.

He backed off the ports deal because of polls. He went to India because of polls.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 3, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #131039

“Why is it that when the people overwhelmingly reelected Bush…”——-Duano

Why do the Republicans think they when by an overwhelming majority? Do they forget they barely won in both elections. I may not have the numbers exactly right, but wasn’t it maybe 52% to 48%. Thats pretty close if you ask me, not overwhelming at all.

Overwhelming, would be 60% or better. Not a few hundred thousand votes compared to the millions who voted.

Fuzzy math again, eh eh eh

Posted by: mjbiv at March 3, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #131043

Wow, great to bring up the Palestinian situation, ill get to that in a moment.

look into the Black Hills. This is considered the center of the earth and the birth place of all life to the Sioux, so you tell me if thats “holy.” more importantly, we made a legal treaty with them guaranteeing the land. The treaty was ignored, but it still exists, we legally owe them the land, which is why they refuse to take any financial restitution for it, the Black Hills are native property which is illegally occupied, period.

Palestine and Israel are a completely different situation, since the palestinians were displaced by the incomming jews. I absolutely believe there should be a state in Israel, but I believe if the British hadnt cluster fucked the entire situation there would have been ONE state. Ask a Jew or a Muslim, there should be no divide over the holy land. Of course youre dealing with religion there, which is a pretty tricky subject, since many muslims believe that if they abandon the Holy Land they lose God’s favor.

I think our situation with the Black Hills demonstrates that we have NO authority to tell them to make peace and develop a sollution, since we just ignore our destitue native population. The Black Hills are legally theirs, this is not an ancient claim, it is in fact a binding treaty.

I believe we can have a secure Israel and a free Palestine, but both sides have to change their way of dealing with the situation.

Posted by: iandanger at March 3, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #131044

Yoy can lead a consevative to lodgic but you can not make them think.

Sadly proven true by the failure of this administration to see its failure to the
American people. Also proven by the diehard
denial of its faithful followers to acknowledge
the leaders they have chosen may have made

Posted by: Honey P at March 3, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #131045


Right on with the ports deal example. This administration looks more at what each decision (fiasco) will mean for Bush’s legacy than what the public thinks about it at the time. I submit to you this. I guess I consider myself a Republican because the Reps are closer to what I believe at this point in time, and I voted for Bush twice. If a pollster called me today to ask about what I thought of Bush’s job performance, I would give GW the big thumbs down because he fails to secure our land borders and then sells our seaports to a terrorist enabling country. Come November, however don’t expect me to vote for Dems because I fear the radical liberal whackos running our country more than the incompetent conservative fiasco artists. Yes the lesser of two evils. This shows how polls don’t necessarily reflect how people will vote.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #131046

“Yoy can lead a consevative to lodgic but you can not make them think.”


Bush. Conservative. HA.

Bush is a Christian liberal, a very odd breed indeed. Neo-Conservatives are a joke. Conservativism is currently dead in the Republican Party, BUT might make a come back in the comming years, because as Francis Fukuyama defects, so will many others.
The experiment failed, and god willingly, the age of big government Republicans will be a tiny blip on the history of this country.

Posted by: iandanger at March 3, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #131047


I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If Bush’s 3% margin in 2004 was an “overwhelming” victory, then Clinton and Reagan were gods when they were re-elected. Reagan won by 18%, and Clinton won by 9%. Nixon, 23%. Johnson, 23%.

Those are the last four presidents who were re-elected before Bush. So don’t give me this “overwhelming” victory nonsense. It makes the word meaningless.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 3, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #131049


I for one, am not saying that the GOP is dead. Not by a long shot. I think after this election it will be pretty clear that the GOP is not the “majority party” that they claim to be. On the flip side, the Democrats won’t be either (even if they command a narrow majority in one or both houses of Congress). It will be a stalemate.

Another data point, the Dems have 22 governorships right now. If you look at Charlie Cook’s ratings, they could easily have 30 next year. I think that’s pretty huge. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, those governors may be the last bulwark against anti-abortion laws.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 3, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #131050

Bush actually won with a majority of voters. Clinton didn’t get a majority either time he was elected, merely a plurality. Bush also got more votes, by the numbers than Clinton or Reagan. Clinton was reelected in a landslide over Bob Viagra, and his legacy, I believe, will be alongside that of Bush. Not terrible presidents, but by no means great presidents. Mediocrity is the new greatness.

Katrina=Bungled every way you look at it.
Iraq war=Spiraling out of control
Border inforcement=National disgrace
Dubai ports deal=WTF?
My vote in November=Republican
It will stay that way until the Dems actally come up with a better agenda instead of the WE HATE BUSH AND ARE AGAINST EVERYTHING HE DOES mantra. In a basketball game, to block a shot is a good defensive play but it doesn’t give you any points. The Dems have been blocking shots left and right, but the ball hasn’t gotten off this side of the court.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #131051

“Conservativism is currently dead in the Republican Party”

Oh so very true, well said.
But liberalism currently has a stranglehold on the Democratic party and the people have already shown us, twice, which of the two they prefer.
Instead of being so concerned with Bush and rejoicing over his failures, maybe the Democratic party should be re-evaluating their own agenda and figuring out why the people haven’t been voting for them.

Posted by: kctim at March 3, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #131053


That was a pretty funny comment. You accuse the Democrats have blinding hating Bush, but you agree with most of the criticisms. Apparently it is possible to disagree with Bush without hating him. Unless you consider yourself a hater.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 3, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #131054

Just as a little F.Y.I. …this morning on MSNBC, there was a small piece with a film clip, and…the story that the government of Dubai contacted Bill Clinton asking for his help or intervention in the “port deal”. Result of that was that he was the one to suggest the backing off in order to let the 45 day investigation run its’ course. I’m sure that there will be a number of posters that will jump on this with each their own opinions , but what I find interesting is that Bush is plummeting from grace and there are those who will try to avoid him if and when possible. I don’t mean in any way that Clinton is a straw to be grasped for, but I think it shows that many still respect him, his intelligence and ability to communicate. Perhaps it’s just as simple as cooler heads prevailing.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 3, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #131055

>>If Bush is so interested in polls, why does he continue to do unpopular things(Iraq war, ports deal, etc.)?


There may be several reasons, i.e., Cheney/Bush is incompetant; Cheney/Bush is Pat Robertson in disguise; Cheney/Bush is a rascal and just wants to push peoples buttons; Cheney/Bush is trying to remaove all traces of America from the world scene, etc., etc., etc…but, you can bet on one thing; Cheney/Bush is BAD news for America.

That’s just my opinion (JMO?) of course…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 3, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #131056

Dems know how to stack a poll in their favor,but the election is the real poll that counts and the Dems are still loosing and will continue to loose because the American public can read and the news is better than most papers will print because they are run by Democrats who hate anything that does not reek of Socialism.People don’t want the Feds running their life and the Repubs are about giving back our rights not taking them away as is reported and history shows we have lost control of our lives under the Dems control over the last 60 years.I WAS a Dem and I WAS part of the problem and now I am part of the solution and so are the Repubs.All is not perfect but seizing on elements that are wrong when so many things are better creates a false sense of how things really are.The Dems and Repubs are wrong in earmarking so much tax dollars for things the states or private people should be doing in an attempt to get things done that really don’t need to be done and benefit only a few special interest groups and both sides should stop.Special Interest groups such as unions are running this country into the dirt while private enterprise is being forced to pay for sub standard work and companies are leaving America to go where there are no unions and the products are better and last longer and are less problematic.For years the unions have demanded we ‘Buy American’until products from outside the country appeared and were more costly but better,so, we bought them.The Dems blame the President for outsourcing when the real blame is the unions sub standard products were not worth their price and the foreign products were.The Dems have been in the pocket of the unions since the 30’s and THEY have ruined America.I believed their bunk for years until I saw the prices were high for defective American products and the prices were higher foe good foreign products so I bought the good ones.Unions are bad for America,they hurt all of us under the false pretense of being good.I’ve been on both sides of unions and the anti-union side is better!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at March 3, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #131057

I think it’s OK if you guys hate Bush, but just hating him isn’t enough. Why aren’t there any Dem leaders telling us what they would do about the debacles that I listed above. Your approach is to tell people “Just hate Bush and everything will get better”.
I am not a Clinton basher. There were a lot of things he did that were helpful to the country,(welfare reform) but also some that hurt(selling military tech to China for campaign cash). The many good things he did are overshadowed by his few stupid things. I think Bush will have a similar fate.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #131058

First, correct me if I’m wrong, but Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000.

Secondly, it seems like a high number of posters on this thread are either:

a) right-leaning moderates

or b) left-leaning moderates

which is, including those glued to the center stripe in the middle of the road, where a vast majority of Americans are, should be, and certainly profess themselves to be, no?

WHY then, is the prevailing notion of either party that the other has been overtaken by those on its fringes? Is it true? Should it be true?

This link is a great piece in this months’ Atlantic about centrist politics. I loved it and I hope you do, too.

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #131062


I must admit your post had my head spinning before I was done with the first sentence. Are you suggesting that current Republicans are actively supporting an agenda that increases individual civil rights and liberties? Care to give an example? Are you suggesting that union memberships are strong, numerous and effective in national politics currently? That they hold sway against the interests of, say, big business? Are you suggesting that imported products like, oh - I don’t know - Japanese cars in the late ’70s were actually MORE expensive than their made-in-USA counterparts?

I have no idea where you’ve been learning your history and political science, but I must tell you that Fox News is NOT an accredited institution of higher learning.

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #131063

Speaking of mediocrity, Reagan a great President? Where the hell do you get such a stupid idea? I love the way Republicans get all weak kneed and woozy when they hear his name. It reminds me of Blazing Saddles when they speak of Randolph Scott.
The most memorable thing to his presidency is, I don’t recall.

Posted by: sndyrmony at March 3, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #131065


I had trouble with your link.

Is this the article:
Where the Missing Middle Went


Posted by: KansasDem at March 3, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #131066

How about ending a five decade cold war with the Soviets, in which we were the victors. Are you an FDR fan? I bet since he introduced socialism and big gov’t to the nation. That ought to stir up some libs on this thread.

Yes, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and I would support an amendment to abolish the electoral college.Gore should have won in 2000, but I feel a lot safer after 9/11 with a redneck cowboy than a tree-hugging fruitcake.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #131067

“Dems know how to stack a poll in their favor,but the election is the real poll that counts and the Dems are still loosing and will continue to loose because the American public can read and the news is better than most papers will print because they are run by Democrats who hate anything that does not reek of Socialism.”

What about the Fox News poll? Why is it you paint the picture that the polls are biased, do you have any evidence to back this up or are you just making a broad generalization about them because there is absolutely no evidence that the polls are actually somehow biased?
And why is it you claim the papers are run by Democrats? In actuality, while more reporters are liberal than conservative, the Editors are VASTLY more conservative than the average american, and the owners of the papers are large corporate conglomerates (im speaking of the larger semi-national papers, since the local papers are a different story). So how are they owned by democrats? News papers are businesses, they print what sells, thats all there is to it. There are major flaws to our news system, but i would hardly count its political slant among them.

“Unions are bad for America,they hurt all of us under the false pretense of being good.I’ve been on both sides of unions and the anti-union side is better!”
Of course there are major issues with corruption in the unions, but are you suggesting we go back to what existed before? Are you aware of the conditions of workers pre-unionization. Our country is better off with higher labor standards, and lets not forget, every other major industrialized nation has labor unions as well. Japan has unions, China is a freaking communist country for god’s sake, and europe? its the same. what we are dealing with now is an inability to compete with the cheap labor which is lower quality, and simultaneously having to pay major legacy costs because we dont have a national healthcare system the way the social democracies do.
Changes have to be made, but i find your reaction completely illogical.

Posted by: iandanger at March 3, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #131070

Something I found very interesting:

Israeli shipper endorses DB World

Such an endosement certainly can’t harm DPW’s bid to operate our ports. I think the jury’s still out on this deal.

As polls go any single event can change the numbers. Dubya could still come out on top of this deal.


Posted by: KansasDem at March 3, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #131073

Oh yea, the Soviet Union finally crumbled while Reagan was in office. That couldn’t be because it drowned under the weight of their own bureaucracy. Perhaps the Iran / Contra was another high point. The only thing that saved his presidency was the way he gutted the upper levels of his staff. Something the current clown doesn’t have the sense to do. Perhaps his greatness hinges on the way he aided Pakistan in the development of nuclear weapons. Now pres. empty hat is going to help India with nuclear power generation.
Or perhaps it was his keen economic policy of “trickle down”? Some thing Dumya is emulating with his tax cut to spur investment.
But then great intellect has never been the hallmark of republican leadership.
Does this bother you neonazis, er ah neocons?

Posted by: sndyrmony at March 3, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #131078

“Learn about the fall of the Soviet Union. On Christmas Day of 1991, the Soviet Union officially ended its own existence, marking the end of over 70 years of repression and 45 years of Soviet-American conflict.”

I was under the impression that they went away under Bush 1.

Posted by: tony at March 3, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #131086

Control of either house of Congress will not change hands next year, if anything the Reps will pick up seats. Bottom line.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #131087

Yeah, I’m sold, let’s just shut down gov’t and if an issue comes up, we’ll just make the call via a weekly poll. It doesn’t matter that the media completely over-emphasizes some parts of an issue and completely ignores others. Hell, by the media’s analysis and news coverage, we haven’t done a single thing for the people and country of Iraq. PLEASE, SOMEONE, ANYONE, tell me about a mainstream news article which discusses primarily good efforts in Iraq. Hmmm, New York Times, about a bazillion reporters dedicated to Iraq. Hell, I think 20 of ‘em camp out at Abu Ghraib in hopes it’ll be re-built and be cause for yet ANOTHER dire Abu Ghraib story. Because LORD KNOWS that’s the only thing we’ve done over there, good or bad.

And it took at least 3 days for major news outlets to stop saying we were “selling our ports” or selling the responsibility of security of our ports to the UAE. So putting weight in those polls is like putting money down on some shiny, exciting property in the everglades.

Oh, yeah, Bush should’ve fired Cheney after a hunting accident … another idea put out by mainstream media because the hunting accident was EXACTLY analogous and vitally linked to his job and job performance.

Yes, the media is flawless in truthfulness and thoroughness so I think we can base everything off of how people feel about things week by week. Of course, if we did that, Clinton wouldn’t have even deserved impeachment proceedings but, instead, kicked out on his ear before they were ever initiated.

Obviously I’m being sarcastic and don’t wish to sell the country off to arrogant, self-righteous, self declared geniuses in the media. And that includes everyone from the New York Times to Fox news to CBS News to the SanFran Chronicle and back again.

If you want to get out of Iraq, let’s have a vote in Congress about it. Oh wait! We just did that a few months ago and, by a vast majority to include most dems, we’ve decided to stay in Iraq because “hard” doesn’t have to = “quit”.

Any other issues? Take them to appropriate branch of gov’t. I don’t recall the Constitution recommending any polls besides elections themselves as a way to decide on the issues of the day. But perhaps I didn’t read all of the Constitution … or I’m simply forgetting something. I’ll be happy to acknowledge any corrections.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 3, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #131092

Of course you know that Reagan’s buildup of the armed forces broke the back of the Soviet Union’s commie economy, and yes it finally crumbled shortly after he left office. He was also voted the “Greatest American” on the discovery channel against the likes of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, FDR, Einstein, Edison, and MLK. Reagan’s legacy will outlive the memory of Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bushs 1&2,and the Clintons combined and you know it.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #131094

“Control of either house of Congress will not change hands next year, if anything the Reps will pick up seats. Bottom line.”

I know polls aren’t prophetic, but you are? Thanks… good to know what’s coming up (should’ve seen the signs…)

Ken -

So the polls don’t say what ya want, so you’re just going to take your ball and go home. Wow, dude, relax… they’re just saying most of the people our President is sucking at his job, that’s all.

Posted by: tony at March 3, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #131101

here is the article from the Atlantic. It’s only available online if you are a subscriber. Guess this makes me an “unauthorized duplicator”.

The Atlantic Monthly | March 2006

The Agenda

Demolition Men

Ariel Sharon and Junichiro Koizumi point the way to a centrist resurgence in American politics
by Jonathan Rauch


Ariel Sharon could boast of as daring a military and political  career as anybody since Andrew Jackson, but he saved his  biggest surprise for late in the game. The champion of the Right conquered the Israeli center. In doing so, he transformed Israeli politics. More than that, he showed the way toward transforming America’s.

Long before he became prime minister, Sharon was a founding father of both the Israeli settlement movement and the hawkish Likud Party. Yet it was Sharon who turned against his political base and his party to withdraw Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip last year. The public rewarded him with one of the highest approval ratings ever accorded a second-term Israeli prime minister, but Likud’s hard-line core remained bitterly unreconciled. And so in November Sharon, having run over his party but not won it over, abandoned it to form a new party, Kadima (“Forward”).

“With Sharon’s new party,” Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in The New Republic shortly after Sharon bolted Likud, “Israel’s centrist majority has finally found a political home.” Until Kadima, Halevi noted, not one of the many parties in the Knesset represented centrist Israelis. Tectonic pressures had been building up in the Israeli center for years. When Sharon finally released them, they caused an upheaval: a new party, a new political landscape, and the marginalization of partisan extremists who not long ago had seemed impregnable.


Sharon was felled by a major stroke in January, leaving Kadima, and the rest of Israeli politics, atilt in midair. Still, his late-game maneuver deserves Americans’ notice, because Israel is not the only democracy where a neglected center is restive. The United States has no majority party. Republicans and Democrats are at rough parity, each commanding about a third of the country, each captive of a partisan base that is well to the electorate’s right or left. Neither party can govern except in coalition with independent voters, most of them moderates and many of them dismayed. By the end of last year, polls showed, independents had lost confidence in President Bush and his party. But unhappiness with Republicans did not translate into enthusiasm for Democrats. Independents rated both parties unfavorably. The center believed it had nowhere to go.

In a democracy, tectonic pressures can only build so long before making themselves felt. The question is whether adjustment comes in the form of a shock, as in Israel, or in smaller rumbles, as happened recently in Germany. There, in elections last September, voters refused to give either major party a majority, forcing the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats into an uneasy coalition.

he American equivalent of a coalition government is divided control in Washington. Political handicappers say it is possible that the Republicans may lose one or both chambers of Congress this fall. That would drag Washington’s policies toward the center and probably make independents happier. What it would not do is create a political home for moderates or a popular majority for either party—just a tug-of-war between extremes.

Sharon pointed toward an alternative—as does Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, who is in some respects even more daring than Sharon, if that’s possible. His Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, has governed Japan for all but a few months of the past five decades; the Japanese public has long been tired of its rule but has seen no credible alternative. Capitalizing on the public’s disenchantment, Koizumi won leadership of the party and the country in 2001 by saying he would “change the LDP to change Japan.”

For a while he appeared to settle for sloganeering, but when the old guard of his party sought to block his most ambitious economic reform (a privatization of Japan’s postal savings system, which serves as a slush fund for special interests), Koizumi did the unthinkable. He called a snap election last September, announced it would be a referendum on his reform plan, and proceeded to campaign against his own party, going as far as to recruit candidates, known as “assassins,” to challenge LDP dinosaurs in their own districts. Imagine President Bush recruiting congressional candidates to run against Republican grandees and you get some notion of Koizumi’s audacity.

Not only did the assassins knock off many of Koizumi’s adversaries; the voters gave the LDP its largest parliamentary majority since 1986. The LDP’s main rival, the Democratic Party of Japan, had in fact proposed reforms bigger than Koizumi’s, but was trounced. Koizumi had captured the center, positioning himself and—against its will—his party as the happy medium between too little reform and too much. Koizumi’s personal popularity attained unheard-of levels. “He is so popular,” reported The Economist, “that when he was found to have served Mimolette cheese, a pricey French import, to a colleague in his office, Japan’s biggest online shop sold out of the stuff.”

Even the most boneheaded of U.S. partisans might wonder if there is something to be learned from Sharon and Koizumi. When the political center is empty, a bold politician can achieve spectacular results by filling it, even—no, especially—if he throttles his own partisan base to do so.

Can a base-breaking, center- stealing strategy succeed here? Not easily. In 2000, Senator John McCain ran against the party establishment for the Republican presidential nomination, and lost. He might hazard an insurgent candidacy again in 2008, but then again he might not. Even for a figure as popular and charismatic as McCain, the gantlet of primaries poses a formidable challenge to any candidate who bucks the partisans.

In Israel and Japan, Sharon and Koizumi betrayed their bases only after they were firmly ensconced as premiers and party leaders. If Bush, as sitting president, were to turn against his party’s right, the political effect would be electrifying. But Bush, though neither an ideologue nor an extremist, is a partisan’s partisan. He believes the lesson of his father’s defeat in 1992 is “Dance with the one who brung you.” Though he has proved willing—more willing than is generally acknowledged—to make excursions off the reservation by day (campaign-finance reform, the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, immigration), he is careful to come home every night to his partisan bedfellows.

So perhaps the ground will not shake until some far-future president breaks with his (or her!) party base. Perhaps we will muddle through with two immoderate minority parties sharing Washington and annoying the country.

Perhaps. Still, there are at least two reasons to think that base- breaking might happen here, and sooner than many people imagine. One is the immense potential payoff: whichever party finds and holds the political center, and does so while retaining the more moderate portion of its traditional base, will be the country’s majority party, possibly for years to come. Doubters are referred to Tony Blair, 10 Downing Street, London.

The second reason? Simply this: for a major politician to demolish his own party base seems unimaginable right now in the United States, but it also seemed unimaginable in Israel and Japan—until it happened. America may or may not find a demolition man, but it is ripe for one.

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #131103

Repeat slowly, Randolph Scott. Now doesn’t that make you feel whole again?
As to the current clown, I hope he has a heavy duty umbrella, because it doesn’t look like the shoes are ever gonna stop falling.
Fire Cheney for a hunting accident, that’s the least offensive thing that jackoff has done.

Posted by: sndyrmony at March 3, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #131108

Thanks macsonix. That was a good read. Did you happen to check out the article about moderates. It contained some interesting graphs and info.


Posted by: KansasDem at March 3, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #131111

not yet I’m at work with what must be 17 balls in the air above my head…

Posted by: macsonix at March 3, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #131113


What a thoughtful, intelligent comment. Can I plagiarize it?

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #131124


Good article. I hope everyone takes a few minutes to really look at the generic congressional ballot you linked to.

Of course, to quote Duano, since I’m a “tree-hugging fruitcake” I like the results as shown so far.

Most interesting to me was the “Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 1-5, 2006.”

When asked:

“Would you like to see your representative in Congress be reelected in the next congressional election, or not?”

In Feb. ‘06 the poll showed 59% saying yes and only 28% saying no.

And yet when asked:

“Regardless of how you feel about your own representative, would you like to see most members of Congress reelected in the next congressional election, or not?”

In Feb. ‘06 the poll showed 36% said yes and 49% said no.

I guess that implies we all tend to think more highly of our own representatives than we do of others states representatives.

This should prove to be a very interesting political year.


Posted by: KansasDem at March 3, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #131126

I expect you will either way. Now take a deep breath.

Posted by: sndyrmony at March 3, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #131130

Take a deep breath for what? Reagan is one of the great ones, and that irks you to no end, doesn’t it. Whether or not you agree with me, most Americans do and that’s the most important thing, public opinion, right?

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #131134
So this Administration doesn’t pay attention to polls

I’m trying to figure what this Administration DOES pay attention to.

Certainly not intelligence data. Otherwise we never would have invaded Iraq.

Certainly not the military leadership. Otherwise they would have sent 500,000 the soldiers into Iraq.

Certainly not the elderly. Otherwsie they would have heard how the prescription drug plan just gives billions to the pharmacudical companies.

Certainly not the poor. Otherwsie they would have heard how many people are barely getting by, and their numbers are growing.

Certainly not the weatherman. Otherwsie they would have heard the forecaster during that now infamous briefing say that the levees in New Orleans might not hold back the water.

Posted by: bobo at March 3, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #131138

“Whether or not you agree with me, most Americans do and that’s the most important thing, public opinion, right?”

Well, it worked like hell for Iraq.

Posted by: tony at March 3, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #131139


Before you say that an Israel shipper thinking the Dubai ports deal is, of read this from the Jerusalem Post. From what I’ve seen, Jews have been very silent on this issue. But I bet it will blow wide open if they start to speak out.

Posted by: bobo at March 3, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #131140

I’m tired of hearing about the poor, quite honestly. This is the only country in the world where the poor are fat.

Posted by: Duano at March 3, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #131142

Yet they are still malnourished, doesnt that matter?

Besides that, moving, as a nation toward a class of inherited wealth and mass poverty is kind of a big deal, something we should seriously be worried about, after all, when median incomes start dropping, you lose consumer spending power, endangering the longterm health of the economy.

unless of course eventually wages drop so low that we can start to compete with low wage nations and sell our products to the new wealthy ones.

Posted by: iandanger at March 3, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #131196

be very quit elmer ha ha ha. the mossad is on it.

Posted by: rodney brown at March 3, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #131346

Does duano really believe the crap he sends out??
reagan is just another second rate cowboy in “B” films, a very poor president along the lines of the present cowboy in the W.H. Are you sure your real name isn’t guano????

Posted by: artjoe at March 4, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #131364

If the democrats regain control of one or both houses of congress, it will be a mandate for critical investigation (the first of the administration) at the very least and impeachment at the very best.

Posted by: Thom Houts at March 5, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #131403

fartjoke said, “Reagan is …along the lines of the current cowboy in the WH”. If that’s true, Bush will be revered as a great President as well, and the Democratic party will disintegrate into nothing, oh wait, they already are. Are you sure your name isn’t artbloe? Maybe fartfloe? You know, the whole glass houses thing.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #131730

You know, I do tire so quickly these days of righties posthumously sainting the old Gipper.

Reagan was a good politician, in that he knew, like Bubba, how to turn on the charm. He also knew about cameras and drama and how to use them to his advantage. And of course, he played that anti-communism card like a pro.

Problem is, there’s this little country called Afghanistan. And this dude named Bin Laden. And these other guys who were fighting the Soviets. It took a long time, but the Soviets finally gave up. We helped that process along (can’t give all that unforgivable terrain and a shitload of poppy fields to the damn Soviets) by funding the hell out of these Muslim guerilla soldiers. Reagan and company (come to think of it, a cast of characters bearing more than a slight resemblance to our current crop of nimrods running around the White House) got into bed with these freedom fighters (not my words, Reagan’s) just like they did with Saddam and they made lots and lots of whoopee.

And I don’t need to tell you how it all turned out for the good old USA. But at least we held that domino theory at bay. At least we didn’t let Iraq turn into another Iran.

Or have we?

Posted by: macsonix at March 6, 2006 8:44 PM
Post a comment