November 27, 2005
Don't Flush - President in the Toilet
The President’s approval ratings are in the toilet. Only 34% of Americans think he is doing a good job. It could be worse. The Republicans in Congress weigh in 7% lower than their president. But as bad as all that, even they float 2% above Congressional Democrats. Now is the winter of everyone’s discontent - and it’s still November.
Most people think the country is heading in the wrong direction. Only 27% are optimistic. The only time people were in a sourer mood was back in 1995, when only 24% were happy with the way things were going. Depressing even for an optimist is that most people almost never think the country is headed in the right direction. In fact it only clearly broke 50% during the unusual period of December 2001.
How can this be? With few exceptions everything is better now than it used to be. Why all the angst? There are three interrelated explanations. One is the nature of popular democracy. It goes back to the Athenians, who eventually turned on anybody who stood out too long or too prominently. Then there is "hedonistic adaptation," a fancy way of saying people get used to good things and don't feel happy or grateful for what they’ve got. It is why people who have things too easy too long are often not happy while those who survived tragedies sometimes are. It helps explain the high numbers in December 2001. But those things have been around a long time. What changed?
A recent development is the enhanced success of the negative campaign coupled with unreasonable expectations. We bloggers are part of this. No matter how loyal, true or brave, nobody is perfect and everybody has something in his/her life that is shameful or can be made to look that way. We find it. The ubiquity of the Internet makes it easy to uncover true miscreants and truly makes miscreants of honest people.
None of the leaders we admire most would be qualified for public service today. Washington would have ended his career at the Monongahela. Franklin makes Bill Clinton look like a Trappist monk. Jefferson had his - shall we say - personal inconsistencies. Lincoln was depressive. Grant was drunk. Theodore Roosevelt was mercurial. His cousin Franklin was often less than truthful.
All of the important advances that make our lives better would engender fear and be shunned as dangerous and dodgy propositions by our precautionary standards. Electricity! Do you really want something like that in your home? It starts fires. It can kill you with a mere touch. And can we prove that it doesn't cause cancer? How about food? If you analyzed the chemical composition of an apple (even an organic one) and had to put that on an ingredients label nobody would eat them.
People's perceptions are not going to improve until they wise up about the world. Detection has improved, but our perceptions have not changed. Imagine if the cops developed a sure fire technology to catch every speeder, every illegal parker or anyone who broke any traffic laws at all. Would we still want to maintain the same rules and penalties? Anyone who drives a car, rides a bike, or even crosses a street on foot would be revealed as a law breaker. Would it mean our standards have dropped? It is time to be realistic. That does not mean low standards, but it does mean not seeking utopia. Improvement are impossible under two sets of standards: lackadaisically low and unreasonably high. It is time to bring back the reasonable man standard before we all do down the toilet.
Hi Jack,
“How can this be?”
Bush’s two major policies have resulted in economic disaster (8 trillion dollar debt with 352 billion/year interest both going up very quickly) and what’s likely the worst strategic decision in the history of the country (occupying Iraq).
We’ve got American troops fighting and dying in order to support Muslim extremists in Iraq such as Al Sadr. Why would anybody approve of that sort of idiocy?
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 10:43 PM“How can this be?”
When you have a secretary of defense who advocates “retaliating” against the wrong country and said “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” as a reason to go into Iraq, you’re going to have some problems.
Having a bunch of complete morons who centered our Iraq policy around the crook Chalabi is bound to come back and bite you in the ass.
The Middle East is a really bad place (I’m talking about a truly BAD place) to have a bunch of idiots plan a large scale occupation in……This sort of thing was bound to bounce back at Bush.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 10:57 PMLouis
Say the negative things you want about the economy, but invest differently and you will be better off.
Anyway, why are people even less confident in the Democrats in Congress? Chirac “enjoyed” numbers lower than Bush for some did, as did Schroeder. And why is it that most people most of the time think the country is going in the wrong direction? I mean, if the country has been going wrong for so long, would we not have arrived at that nefarious destination by now? Today’s low unemployment and high productivity is not what you would have guessed if you looked at the low numbers in 1995. I expect we will have the same results in 2015. Something in the nature of man enjoys the prediction of doom. They have always been right, but sometimes you have to wait a really long time. In the long run we are all dead, but as we are living now, life is good.
Posted by: Jack at November 27, 2005 11:03 PM“How can this be?”
Right wing hate spin only goes so far. It got us into Iraq but it won’t get us out and it certainly won’t cause things to go well there.
The Prime minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist organization. Our troops are fighting and dying to support him. You can say a whole lot of bad things about Democrats but you’ve still got a serious mess going on in Iraq.
Sorry for going on Jack. You’re question was so good that I can’t stop myself here.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 27, 2005 11:04 PM
Hi Jack,
“Say the negative things you want about the economy”
I’m being realistic here. 352 billion/year interest payments that are going up really quickly isn’t a sustainable situation.
“invest differently and you will be better off.”
I bought a bit of gold as a hedge. Things could tank quickly.
“life is good.”
Life is great! I study philosophy and do lots of kayaking. I’d love for things to keep going like they have been for the sake of myself and my children if nothing else as well as all my fellow Americans…..It’s been a really good run but it’s about to come crashing down.
Public opinion polls are very interesting and occasionally useful, but they’ve historically been massively inconsistent and even self-contradictory.
Here are two examples of what I mean.
1). Even while majorities strongly approve of their own representatives in Congress, they still strongly disapprove of Congress as a whole. This is why incumbents still get reelected again and again even while satisfaction with incumbents is in preciptous free-fall.
2). Even those who say that they are economically well off and even more well off than they were 1, 3 or even 5 years ago, will say that the economy is bad and getting worse. This is very interesting.
You could make the argument that people base this judgement on other factors than their own situation, but this would require you to think that a majority are paying close attention to matters such as the national debt and deficit spending, which grossly contradicts the extremely low amount of attention than the general population actually gives to educating themselves on these matters.
I suspect that most people react to poll questions in a way that reflects what’s currently being projected in the media rather than any deep awareness of what’s actually going on. When Bush’s numbers were up around 80% in 2001 and early 2002, that didn’t reflect the success or failure of his policies, and it certainly didn’t mean that those numbers wouldn’t change later on. So now that they’re lower, we can’t say that they won’t change again either.
In fact, there’s ample evidence that they’ve started to rise from their historic lows, and I’d be very surprised not to see a 5 or 10 point bounce after Iraqi elections in December, the State of the Union address and the Iraq troop draw-down that scheduled for next year.
As a sidebar, Bush’s job approval is just not currently at 34%. Perhaps there was a recent poll with that number, but the average of the major polls is currently at 39.8%, and the most recent Rasmussen poll has him at 46%. Personally, I think that Rasmussen has the best methodology and is the most reliable as they were the only polling outfit to accurately predict the 2004 election within a half of one percentage point for both presidential candidates.
Of course, none of this conclusive. All we can say for sure is that polls change, sometimes dramatically, and we’re currently in the middle of something (the second Bush term), and the end of the story has yet to be written. You’d be a fool, considering the fluidity of history, to think that current polls are the final word.
Posted by: sanger at November 27, 2005 11:29 PMAlso remember, Truman’s approval rating when he left office was 24%. Do we take those numbers and say that Bush is a better president than Truman?
I would of course say no, but it does point to the fact that ‘approval ratings’ are really no measure of the true success of a president and I’ve always found talk about them silly in a second term president who won’t be running again…
Quick question, what does everyone think Bush’s approval rating be if he had not forced the issue in Iraq and just left it be as it had been?
I would guess depending upon if Iraq had not made good on it’s plan to attack us, his ratings would be around 60% perhaps? Probably not though, there would have been a huge fight for the 2004 election and it would have brought anyone’s poll numbers down. If we had been attacked by either al-qaeda or Iraq? Well, how does single digits sound?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 27, 2005 11:45 PMRhinegold, I hope you’d agree that how people vote in polls is an interesting but mostly irrelevant sidenote to the later judgement of history.
There’s many a high school homecoming king or queen that now runs the deep frier at a fast food restaurant while the unpopular kids went on to found Fortune 500 companies, write great novels or otherwise succeed beyond what was captured by a popularity contest once put to a vote.
Mikhail Gorbachev, at the end of his term, enjoyed almost no popularity or support in his country, but there’s little doubt historians of the future will see that the democratic reforrms that he brought wih Perestroika were good for not only for his own people but the human race.
The most unpopular US President, during his lifetime, was by far Abraham Lincoln. Half the country actually broke away from the Republic upon his election, and as the war wore on, even his former allies turned viciously against him. Read the editorials in the New York Times circa 1863 about Lincoln. They make what Krugman and Frank Rich of the modern New York Time say about Bush look like hymns of praise.
On the other hand, plenty of American presidents, such as Andrew Jackson who basically commited genocide against Native American, were enormously popular during their terms, but the judgement of history has not been so kind.
None of us know what history will say about Bush. None of even know what the polls will say about him six months from now. If the policies of the Bush administration leads to wider democracy in the Middle East, he’ll be seen as a visionary in the league of Lincoln.
But to head off leftist detractors, this of course remains to be seen. I have my opinion about what will happen, and others have their own. But the final chapter has yet to be written.
Posted by: sanger at November 28, 2005 12:37 AMRhinehold,
We would be saying; I hope he doesn’t do anything too stupid and kept our fingers crossed.
As for the approval ratings I have to agree on the basis of how we do surveys. These aren’t cold calls they are focus group mainly and in focus groups there is a concensus opinion. Differing greatly from an independent opinion. If you look at the psychology it is akin to a kid standing up in class to give an answer. Some of the means by which they come to these opinions are pseudo-science and fraught with holes.
Even including dumb questions on TV that really don’t even ask the appropriate question but more of a hegelianized version to garner an overtly simple response.
As for Bush’s approval I’d have to say it’s probably lower and he has lost quite a few of his more moderate conservatives. Especially with his spending and they may not come back to the republican side unless they see change. Plus the issue of immigration that has republicans pissed to say the least. FReeper may ban such posts but they are there even if momentarily.
the corruption is another big issue with the mainstream indies that are between the two parties and gas prices evn if down now to $2.50 roughly still means that 2 gallons is five bucks and that’s insane given that it is all entirely Bush and republican manufactured prices.
Why would anyone want a president who does that? Why would anyone want a party who does that? If we get a good democratic candidate in 2007 you are done for and the congressional elections are still just ahead. Could we take back the house? Could we win back the baby-boomers? Well you’ve made it all possible, to which I thank you republicans.
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 12:53 AMJack,
This is a pretty good article in some ways. I agree that the standards that we set for public officials are in some ways too high and in others far to low.
We accept a system where big money has a corrupting influence on politicians of all stripes - so our standards are far too low in this respect. It is one of the reasons that I lean strongly toward the Democrats. They are mostly sold out to big money just like the Republicans - but I think that they are just a little bit less sold out than the Republicans. One reason that I believe that the Dems are less sold out than the Repubs is that some of the big money that they sell to is big labor. Just like all people, all big organisations are at least somewhat corrupt. That includes big labor, big bussiness, big political parties, and big religious organisations. Human beings and human institutions are all imperfect. So… big labor has a proud tradition of fighting for the empowerment and protection of workers and of fighting for the poor and disinfranchised. While big labor (like the UAW) is corrupted, much of that proud tradition still shines through and their money allows the Dems to have a little more integrity - that is what I think anyway.
So yes we should over look indiscreations like President Clinton’s which have little to do with public policy. We should also overlook indiscreations like president Bush’s drunk driving as well as Bush’s draft dodging for the same reasons. People can make a very good case that these things do reflect on the ethics, morals, and character of the man - and they do - but they should be of secondary importance. We are far to perfectionistic in these regards… yes… but… I find it interesting how forgiving and accepting you Repubs have suddenly become. Many of you were so quick to condemn Clinton.
Now you want us to forgive and accept Bush… as he is… well but… Bush’s problems do go a little deeper than drunk driving, don’t they? Yes America may be fine in 15 years. It may be fine right now. Does that mean that George Bush in any less incompetent - if things work out in spite of him? The bravery and nobility of our soldiers may eventually prevail in Iraq and leave Iraq better than we found it and that would make the mideast and America safer considered in isolation by itself. But does that change the fact that Bush will have also helped Bin Laden recruit millions of new terrorist and train tens of thousands of them in live combat training against the most powerful army in the world? There has been a massive increase in world wide terrorism since Bush has started protecting us. America is more isolated in the world. Our army is wearing out. We have squandered our treasure by the hundreds of billions of dollars and will have corespondingly less options in the face of ongoing threats. We have sullied American honor, dignity, and nobility through torture. We have undermined American civil liberties through the Patriot Act. Yes, America may be fine - in spite of Bush - but the list of Bush’s failures and incompetence is endless. Bush’s incompetence is not some little character flaw that we can or should wink at and sweep under the rug.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 28, 2005 12:55 AMOh Rhinehold?
Made good on his plans to attack us? Okay yeah that would have been when? And with what? How would he have done that?
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 01:00 AMBush will go down in history by the response we took to his actions. Our outrage and your republican support of falsehood will be the main denominator.
the truth will come out and in lieu of the overwhelming evidence he will be seen as someone toting and touting a lie.
See it’s all about what is on congressional record and that determines a mediocre president from a really bad one. Good ones are only at times of just wars where we needed to be defended abroad, like Roosevelt and they are usually positive figures and non-polarizing. Bush will be seen as one of the really bad ones who divided everyone. No positive legacy there, trust that. Right down to his haughty caviar cowboy walk and numerous meaningless speeches.
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 01:16 AMAlso theimage of him reading to children the book about a pet goat will be more indelible than the “They will hear all of us soon” speech because with the attack of Iraq that will be seen as in vain. No weapons of mass destruction, No terror connections, this is the stuff that will live on as well as the high gas prices.
Even Carter had a Sadat moment of glory that he’ll be remembered for even amidst the hostage crisis which was a set up (Now known) and high energy costs which were a needed response.
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 01:25 AMAlso Gitmo, the torture images with homosexual themes, dropping the ball on 9/11. Wow what a not so good legacy. His appointments, Michael Brown, Fema chaos in Louisiana. History will not be kind to republicans.
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 01:37 AMSay the negative things you want about the economy, but invest differently and you will be better off.
How nice it must be to be able to invest anything. As it stands now, I lose money every day as the jobs in the Dayton, OH area flutter away..Delphi, GM, Fridgidaire, Huffy, Reynolds and Reynolds.
School in the day, bartend at night, my financial aid may not come through this time. I had quite a time getting enough for this semester. Last week I had to drop my health insurance because the premiums went up, not like I could afford the co-payments if I had to see a doctor. How is someone in my position supposed to invest? Is this the picture of the “ownership society” or “on your own society”?
Many can say the economy is all fine and dandy, but the fact that people aren’t even DRINKING like they used to can say alot.
Jack, your article completely missed the boat.
Sentiment is what it is due not to a flaw in the American public as you portray. It is where it is because:
1) the looming 11 Trillion dollar national debt which this president and congress have locked in by the end of this decade threatens the wages and futures of voter’s children who will have to deal with it
2) an Iraq quagmire which despite protestations from the right, is looking more and more like a no-win, damned if we stay, damned if we leave, Viet Nam scenario
3) the partisanship warfare in Congress which is debilitating Congress’s ability to a) secure an affordable and sustainable plan for keeping the Social Security safety net, b) secure our borders against foreigners whose intent on coming here is unpredictable at best, c) halt or compensate for the decline in real wages and worker compensation packages like pension plans, massive layoffs and downsizing by the likes of Xerox, GM, and Ford to mention just a few, and d) the moral value divide which both Rep. and Dem. parties are using to divide the electorate on issues which largely should not be the province of government, (abortion, medical marijuana useage, right to die with dignity issues which government has no business intruding itself into American’s personal decisions which have no negative impact on the rest of society, regardless of how families and individuals choose on these issues.)
It’s not the people, Jack. It’s the political system shaped and run by the Dem. and Rep. parties that is the problem. And voters are seeking an answer, and that answer, many of them will find at VOIDnow.Org, Common Cause, and a host of other organizations who are beginning to recognize that R & D incumbents and their parties are the source of failure by our government to solve more problems than it creates.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 04:36 AMRay G.
You started out okay by blaming the influence of money in politics, but you gave your inner thoughts away with the following statement:
“So yes we should over look indiscreations like President Clinton’s which have little to do with public policy. We should also overlook indiscreations like president Bush’s drunk driving as well as Bush’s draft dodging for the same reasons.”
Of course, we know that Bush did NOT dodge the draft, but actually served in the National Guard. You’d be correct to say that he avoided combat in Viet Nam, but 100% wrong to say that he dodged the draft. That comment would actually better fit Clinton, who never served, though it would be wrong for his circumstance as well.
Secondly, Clinton’s affair WAS held in the public arena, as he conducted it in the Oval Office while doing the job of President (discussing such public policy decisions like funding troops in the Balkan region while getting oral sex from ‘that woman’).
Feel free to disagree with Bush all you want, but at least have the decency to be somewhat accurate in your comments.
Louis:
“Right wing hate spin only goes so far.”
Since you were responding to Jack, one might assume you are accusing him of ‘right wing hate spin’. If not, you should clarify that. But if so, I’d point out that Jack, in his usual calm and factual manner, said nothing hateful or even bad about ANYone.
He pointed out the poll numbers, which are simply factual, but also indicative of the mindset that he discusses. And he is correct of course. In today’s world, D-Day would be considered a major disaster, what with the high casualties, the slow progress, the horrible intelligence information etc. Its all how you look at a situation, and today’s society finds the worst light to view things.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 07:35 AMHi Rinehold,
“if Iraq had not made good on it’s plan to attack us”
I’m very interested in knowing more about this plan. Can you provide any information on Iraq’s plan to attack us?
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 07:39 AM
Hi joebagodonuts,
“one might assume you are accusing him of ‘right wing hate spin’.”
I wasn’t. I hope I didn’t give Jack that impression. Jack seems like a most reasonable fellow. I appologize for leaving that impression.
I was refering to the right wing hate spin that the White House and their huge propaganda machine goes in for. Hate spin is no substitute for compentent leadership and that is becoming extremely obvious these days.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 07:44 AM
Made good on his plans to attack us? Okay yeah that would have been when? And with what? How would he have done that?
I’m very interested in knowing more about this plan. Can you provide any information on Iraq’s plan to attack us
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html
still means that 2 gallons is five bucks and that’s insane given that it is all entirely Bush and republican manufactured prices.
Um, really? What evidence do you have of this? Was the two major hurricanes in the Gulf, one of the major reasons for the increase in prices this summer, a plot by the republicans and Bush administrations?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 28, 2005 07:56 AMHi Rinehold,
“The intelligence-gathering operation was not in response to specific threats but was based on U.S. estimates that Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.”
Life is good despite what the lefty socialists say….
From Boortz.com nealznuze
He is responding to networks plans to air shows on “The end of America”
He says:
You can trace the decline of American to several different and varied beginning point. Among them:
The adoption of a graduated and progressive income tax, as envisioned by Karl Marx.
The adoption of a system of government education of our children, again as envisioned by Karl Marx.
The movement away from a rule of law to a rule of the majority (Democracy) which really took hold during the days of Franklin Roosevelt.
America, the welfare state, is growing steadily. In the last few weeks we started George Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program. The original estimates for this welfare boondoggle ran at about $300 billion for the next ten years. Those estimates doubled before the program even began. The actual tab will probably be closer to one trillion dollars for the first ten years .. and growing after that. Baby boomers will be retiring over the next decade. As they retire they will start drawing down Social Security and Medicare dollars by the bucketfull. The cost will be enormous. As presently structured, these income transfer programs can’t handle it, but all attempts at reform, at least insofar as Social Security is concerned, have failed.
Back to the main point. Americans are no longer in love with freedom. In fact, the case can be made that Americans are afraid of freedom. Oh, they want to be free to go on vacation and to chose where to live, who to marry and what to wear each day, but that just about covers it. Americans want the government to educate their children, guarantee their jobs, determine their wages, provide them with medical care, pay for their prescriptions, insure their comfort in retirement, regulate their business competitors, and control the actions of their neighbors. If you suggest that the responsibility for any of these factors be placed back into the hands of the individual the screams and howls of outrage and indignation will be heard across the country.
If the networks want to do a series on the end of America, their script has already been written … .by a Russian immigrant named Ayn Rand.
I could not agree more. Is Atlas Shrugging?
Rhinehold,
Here’s the key sentence from the article you linked to (emphasis added):
…Hussein might respond to a U.S. invasion by ordering attacks against U.S. targets in the United States or in other countries.So, it was OK for the US to pre-emptively invade a country that posed no serious, direct threat to us, but wrong for that country to plan to attack us because our troops were massing on its borders? We posed a real, direct threat to Iraq.
I think Saddam was following the Bush doctrine.
Hi Leftovers,
“The adoption of a system of government education of our children, again as envisioned by Karl Marx.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Our education system was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson.
Given how you’re spinning out of control here I assume you think Jefferson was a Communist?
You think calling everybody you disagree with a communist constitutes reasoned debate don’t you?…..You’re quite wrong.
Leftovers brings ideas to the table, it is a shame they are a little bit right of making Barry Goldwater look like a bleeeding heart liberal. I thought the new spin from the ultra right neo cons was to call anyone they disagree as:unpatriotic, unamerican, and if they are really mad they call us Liberals. To call people Communist is old hat and Leftovers proves he is just a relic from a past that is best left there, in the past, and we should all pass him by.
Posted by: Craig T. Rich at November 28, 2005 09:20 AMHi Craig,
“Leftovers brings ideas to the table”
He brings “idea” to the table. His big “idea” is that everybody who disagrees with him is a communist.
Lying about those you disagree with isn’t really an idea…..it’s just dishonesty and hate disguised as an idea.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 09:28 AMThe real question here is whether we are supporters or selectors, whether Bush is in our employ, or whether he’s our CEO.
Dictatorships, Monarchies, and other non-democratic forms of government place leaders above citizens. Because of that, the leaders are capable of many abuses, and people often cannot remedy those abuses by remaining within the law or preserving the peace.
The reaction against Bush, though possibly misplaced here and there, is generally healthy. If a president gets one thing wrong after another, if he fails to convince people, despite being elected to the office twice, that his views are trustworthy, then his numbers are justifiably in the toilet.
I think it’s time for the Conservatives to start encouraging the president to act as an employee of the American people in general, rather than a leader of a minority of them in particular. It’s time for the Conservatives to recognize that their views were not as widely or solidly held as they believed.
It’s timed for a dose of some voluntary humility.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2005 10:13 AMToday’s low unemployment and high productivity is not what you would have guessed if you looked at the low numbers in 1995.
I get frustrated everytime someone tries to portray the current economy as “good.” Granted, it’s not terrible, but just a few years ago we had 3 percent unemployment and growing wages. Now we are calling 5 percent unemployment good and ignoring the fact that wages are standing still (all that productively growth is going straight to profits). When are Republicans going to cite statistics that are relevent to people’s pocketbooks?
Bobo
We had a bubble economy in 2000. That ended just before (not after BEFORE) President Bush took office because it was unsustainable. It is like measuring the speed of a running during the sprint at the end of race. Our current economy is wonderful. It is better than the economy most of us lived with for most of our lives. A 5% unemployment rate is great. The economy has grown well since 2003. We are growing at twice the rate of comparable European economies. We shrugged off the effects of Katrina et al with amazing speed. There are clouds on the horizon, as there always are, but the economic prognosis is very good.
David
I thought you would swing harder at the 3rd party pitch. I did throw a slow ball to anyone who wanted to hit that one.
Petgoat
Presumably you are investing in the most important thing you have - human capital. After college it took me six years of full time work to get back to a neutral net worth. I got my first “real” (I also had lots of the bartending type jobs) job in 1984, when the unemployment rate was 7.5%. I thought I was lucky. The year before it had been more than 10%. Inflation was 4.7% that year and if you could get a mortgage loan for 12% you grabbed it with both hands.
Anyone born after 1980 doesn’t remember a bad economy. Of course my old aunt told me the same thing, but her base year was 1940.
But now we expect better. See “Hedonistic adaption” above.
Posted by: Jack at November 28, 2005 10:57 AMJack you may be into the sport of pitting party against party, I am no longer. Parties have lost their way. Voters are where the power lies, and specifically, in the couple million potential voters who can make incumbency unpredictable in federal races. Parties have been ruining America’s future as one nation undivided. Time for the majority of voters to get their say, and an anti-incumbent vote that shakes the foundations of party incumbency predictablility, is where not only the power lies, but where America’s unity lies.
The bottoming polls regarding the President, the Congress, and both the major political parties are the most encouraging news I have seen for America’s future in decades.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 11:59 AMDavid:
We’ve had this conversation before. I agree that parties, and the polarization that they create, are hurting America. But the biggest obstacle in the process is gerrymandering. Since this ensures that most of the incumbents will retain their seats, the parties have little to worry about. They are not held accountable because they keep winning their seats.
The problem with supporting a non-incumbent vote is that the outcome of such a thing depends on masses of people all doing the same thing, and also on mutual trust. The trust issue is the same principle that prevented the US and USSR from disarming their nukes during the Cold War: neither side trusted the other to not cheat.
If all of one party voted non incumbent, and half the other party voted non incumbent, guess who wins. And thats the rub. If you could truly trust each other, it could work.
Getting rid of the gerrymandering of districts is the key, in my opinion. I don’t have ideas on HOW to get rid of it, but I feel its the place to begin.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 01:05 PMJack,
I am surprised that Bush’s poll numbers are anywhere near as incredably high as 35%. Novenge makes some good points about why that they may incorrectly be that high. Beyond that, I would say that the poll numbers reflect on American stupidity. I agree that the Democrats are in just as much trouble as the Republicans. There are several reasons for that. We ran back to back failed and weak Presidential campaings. There is no way that this @$%$##x4 should ever have been able to capture the Whitehouse other than we gave it to him. Another reason is that the evil genius Rove did an effective job of discrediting the Democrats through his Swiftboat Veterans for Lies and other tactics. Many Americans are fed up with Bush but they probably still think that Kerry would have been even worse - their mistake - but understandable. Another reason the American people are fed up with the Democrats is that Bush used patriotism to cow and gag us after 911 - and so we have failed as a loyal opposition and have allowed the bad things listed in my previous post to happen. These are our failures too. We voted for the war - we may have been lied to - but we voted for it. We voted for the Patriot Act, and so on. Another reason that the polls are so low for Democrats is that we are fed up with ourselves - I am anyway. But make no mistake - I will work for and vote Democratic. Finally, we Dems do not yet have a unified voice amongst ourselves.
Poll numbers are vital because if Bush is popular, then he will have the political juice to do even more damage to our great country. If he is unpoplular then people in his own party will have to run away from him in order to save themselves - his presidency will be crippeled and at least the worthless incompetent idiot will not be able to do even more damage to our great nation.
However there are other ways in which poll numbers do not really matter. Poll numbers do not change underlying reality. They just indicate how someone is doing in a popularity contest and they represent an IQ test for the American people - one that we often fail. American troops will begin to withdraw from Iraq. They will be withdrawn for a number of reasons. One is that they have done a great job and they may not really be needed. Another reason is that there presence is counter-productive. They will also be withdrawn because the war is unpopular - the American people have turned against it - the American people have turned against because of Bush’s failure to prepare them to be willing to make the sacrifices which are necessary to win. The troops will be withdrawn because Bush is unpopular and the Repubs need to run away from him. In other words the troops will be withdrawn for political reasons and the war has been and will continue to be micromanaged by the civilian leadership just like Veit Nam and that is wrong. But when the troops start coming home, Bush’s poll numbers are liable to start going up. That does not change the reality of his multitudinous failures however. It is just poll numbers. They have been up. They are down. They are probably going to go back up. So what. Bush has been, still is, and still will be a total failure. You can put lipstick on a pig - they don’t like it - they would rather eat it - so you have to hog tie em first - but you can do it. I know there things see - cause I grew up on a hog farm. But as they say down on the hog farm: a pig is still a pig. You can say that Bush is still a great President but it does not change the fact that he is still a failure. Period.
joebagodonuts,
You wrote:
Of course, we know that Bush did NOT dodge the draft, but actually served in the National Guard. You’d be correct to say that he avoided combat in Viet Nam, but 100% wrong to say that he dodged the draft. That comment would actually better fit Clinton, who never served, though it would be wrong for his circumstance as well.
Yes it does apply to Clinton as well. Bush clearly used family pull to get into the gaurd from which he proceded to go AWOL in order to avoid being drafted into real service. Actually for brevity’s sake my comments were not completely techniquly accurate and I was being all to kind to Bush and everyone knows the details so I figured intelligent people could fill in the gaps and get the broader rhetorical point that these indiscreations are of secondary importance although they do of course,
illuminate the particular chartacter defects that these men happen to have. Clinton’s indiscreations were somewhat more serious because they involved sexual harrassment of a subordinate but they were still secondary to the fact that he was a generally competent and good President, where as Bush is an incompetent failure. Period. That is the point.
Jack,
There are three interrelated explanations - the biased media,the biased media,and the biased media.
Fedupmike
MyPetGoat
Many can say the economy is all fine and dandy, but the fact that people aren’t even DRINKING like they used to can say alot.
From what the 4 or 5 bar owners I’ve known over the years has told me this is a good sign for the economy. They’ve told me people drink more when it’s in the tubes.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 28, 2005 01:58 PMRay:
I do like how you use your opinion to try to create facts. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
Both Bush and Clinton used their pull to get out of combat. Bush used family pull, while Clinton used political pull. Bush served in the military while Clinton never did. Bush was never accused by the TANG of being AWOL, so your comment that he was AWOL is without any merit or standing whatsoever. THOSE are the facts.
You are free to have any opinion about Bush. But treating your opinions as fact simply doesn’t cut it here. Use facts to create your opinions, but don’t use opinions to try and create fact.
If everyone knows the details, then you shouldn’t play so fast and loose with them. It will only show you to be inaccurate and incorrect.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 02:00 PMJack,
Life is great. Bush sucks. End of story.
Posted by: Burt at November 28, 2005 02:03 PMHi biased media,
“the biased media,the biased media,and the biased media”
There is a strong pro-war bias in the mainstream media. If that weren’t that case than hadlines such as: “OUR TROOPS ARE FIGHTING AND DYING ON BEHALF OF AL SADR WHO IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT” would be all over the news.
Another headline that would show that the media has no pro-war bias would be to report the fact that: “THE IRAQI PRIME MINISTER BELONGS TO AN ANTI-AMERICAN TERRORIST GROUP”.
These to facts have been reported but not in such a way as to cause very many people to find out about it……I bet you didn’t know about them.
There was a reporter on the New York times who was part of the White House propaganda team when we were going into Iraq.
When you say “media bias”, are you repeating right wing spin that you’ve heard or did you form this opinion after careful study?
joebagodonuts
Of course, we know that Bush did NOT dodge the draft, but actually served in the National Guard. You’d be correct to say that he avoided combat in Viet Nam, but 100% wrong to say that he dodged the draft. That comment would actually better fit Clinton, who never served, though it would be wrong for his circumstance as well.
Bush DID dodge the draft. The same way I did.
ENLISTMENT!
“There are three interrelated explanations - the biased media,the biased media,and the biased media.”
Yes! I, too, am heartily sick and tired of the right-wing media machine.
Posted by: Arr-squared at November 28, 2005 02:04 PMJBOD, my article on the Power of Small Numbers, explains how just 2 to 4 million votes can change everything including the elimination of gerrymandering except at 10 year census cycle. Check it out. Anti-incumbency movement does not depend on loyal Dem. or Rep. voters to achieve its results. That is why only 2 to 4 million votes out of 84 million who didn’t vote, can change everything, election cycle after election cycle. Its all in that article in the center column.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2005 02:32 PMDavid:
Thanks in advance. I’ll educate myself through reading what you’ve provided. Much appreciated.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 28, 2005 02:45 PMJack:
You’re in denial. So are most Republicans. They can’t believe that they could be wrong. They have the answer to everything. Bush personifies this trait exactly.
The public is upset because we were dragged into a war with Iraq based on lies and the war has turned into a quagmire. Back home Congress is busy offering tax cuts to the rich and enacting laws that benefit Big Business at the expense of everyone else. Big Business is doing well but workers wages have been stagnant for decades. Corporations are transferring American jobs overseas; this is something that will grow and become a full scale crisis.
There is more, but this will do for now. People are upset because they are worried about their future.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 28, 2005 03:28 PMJack,
First, I disagree with your asessment that we had an “unsustainable bubble economy” before 2000. If it was so unsustainable, where were the economists out there warning about it? What were the phony jobs created than brought unemployment down from 5% to 3%? That translates into millions of jobs.
Second, yet again, you don’t address pocketbook issues. Economic growth is great, if the growth ends up in your paycheck. That hasn’t been the case since you so-called “bubble economy” ended.
Posted by: bobo at November 28, 2005 03:34 PMI think that everyone has missed the boat here, yet virtually everyone has mentioned it in their comments.
The reason people seem to think that the NAtion is serious trouble? Polls. We’re inundated by them. Perhaps my memory is slipping, but I can remember a time when there was only one polling company-Harris-and every newscast wasn’t filled with polls on everything from what color to decorate your Christmas tree (really, that was ch. 7, NYC, last night) to when to invade other countries.
Americans have always been a dichotic people. We claim to be individualists, but in reality submit to peer pressure rather easily. As much as we poke fun at ourselves for our “Keepin’ up with the Jones’” mentality, it has now invaded political discourse.
Polls can be notoriously inaccurate. In our recent gubernatorial election, the polls all called it “too close to call.” Of course, John Corzine won by 12%, and carried all but 3 of 21 counties.
My point is this: we crave to be like everyone else, but don’t spend enought time getting out and about to actually see and talk to our neighbors. We now rely on the opinion poll to tell us what is popular, even in our political and economic lives. They become self-fulfilling prophecies.
There is another problem with living by polling data. Questions can be phrased in such a way as to arrive at the answers desired by the pollster. Here are some examples:
“Do you believe that with his ongoing problems in Iraq and with the CIA leak case that the President is deserving of your support?”
“Do you believe that because of attacks by interest groups on the President’s handling of foreign policy, that the President is more or less deserving of your support?”
Note that the first question is most likely to elicit a negative answer. The second is most likely to elicit a positive one. (Both are actual questions used in recent polls).
Democracy is not an exercise in governing by poll. It was the reason that the Founding Fathers did not establish our nation as a true democracy; rather, they formed us into a representative republic. They understood what most folks today don’t: government by the masses is most likely to result in chaos and paralyzation. We have a voice, but it is expressed once every two years when we choose our representatives. For me, that is the only poll that counts.
Personally, I think there are problems. Are they as bad as some would have us believe? No. This nation seems to lurch along from crisis to crisis and overcome them all, thank you. Besides, I can think of some really bad crises in our past: the economic collapse of 1836, when Andrew Jackson removed the Bank of the United Stares’ charter. (Talk about economic ruin. The dollar devalued by 80% in 2 months!). 25 years later, we were embroiled in the Civil War. The Great Depression of the 1930’s. Hey, want a war started for no particular reason, other than to start a war? How about the the Spanish-American war of 1898.
So as for our current crop of problems, I’m not terribly worried about them. The nation has had a unique way of developing and finding the right leaders at the right junction in history.
Posted by: Ray at November 28, 2005 03:43 PMjoebagodonuts,
I note and appreciate your response but I don’t have time to reply and will be gone for several days.
Posted by: Ray G. at November 28, 2005 03:57 PMBobo
First off, the president has less to do with the economy than we praise or blame him for. Alan Greenspan, the guy probably most responsible talked about the stock market’s irrational exuberance. And many talked of the “froth”. Maybe you were not paying attention. That cost a lot of people a lot of money when the dot.com bubble burst in MARCH 2000 (ten months before Bush took office)
You should also understand lag times. The economy started its upturn in March 1991 and started its downturn in March 2000. Clinton had the good fortune to be in on the upswing and out on the downswing. You know the Federal fiscal year starts and ends in October. The first Bush budgets didn’t even start to bite until October 2001 because until that time we were living with Clinton’s budget priorities. The effects of any change would not reasonably be felt until at least months or maybe a year later. Unemployment is a LAGGING indicator, so it is even later. It was 5.4% in 2001 and 5.7% in 2002. After that it started to improve. And this analysis doesn’t even figure in the enormous costs associated with increased security after 9/11
So whether or not the bubble was unsustainable, George Bush didn’t burst it. There are plenty of factors beyond presidential politics to account for the downturn.
I have had to explain this so many times, I think I will just write something so I can have a link on the web. There is a bottom line to all this. Anybody who believes that the economy tanked because of the Bush policies problably doesn’t do well with his/her investments. There is a good reason for that and such people better leave the planning to people who know better.
Jack,
The problem comes from the question it self!!
The Right/wrong direction is never defined.
Therefore, most will always see some where we are not doing well as a country.
When it seems the dems are in control republicans will say we are going in the wrong direction. This happens a cross the broad between opposite points of view.
Some economic numbers look good to business but are not good for individuals.
Low interest rates help those looking to buy houses and other big items but hurts those who are retired and living on fixed incomes.
The Christian fundamentals might agree with the war, the friendly conditions for business but will say we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to things that they see as moral issues.
At the same time, Christian liberals will see the injustice that is going on and how are big debit and spending is causing cuts in programs where they feel people need it the most.
The fact is we have different views of what the right direction is.
And we might see the economy is doing well but see are education system as heading in the wrong direction and say the country is going in the wrong direction.
At this time, I feel we are going in the wrong direction on more issues then we are going forward in mainly because of two things.
First, there seems to be too much at looking at things as “either or†instead of we need to a little of this and a little of this.
Second, in some debates there seems to be clear misunderstandings about what is being debated. The Evaluation /Creationism/ Intelligent Design debate going on next door to me in Kansas is a great example of this.
Posted by: jp at November 28, 2005 04:07 PMJack,
I never said the current economy was due to Bush. I never said Bush “burst the bubble.” I just refuse to accept the fact that the economy cannot sustain 3% unemployment in the long term when it was very clear in the late 90’s that we could reach that level and keep inflation in check as well.
The only economist you cited who warned us of anything was Alan Greenspan who, curiously, also had the power to control the bubble but didn’t due anything of the sort (such as raising interest rates). makes me think that the entire economic profession was asleep during the late nineties.
Three percent unemployment is REAL to millions of people looking for jobs. The other stats you cites aren’t. that’s why I don’t take comfort in the data you cite.
Posted by: bobo at November 28, 2005 04:38 PMJack,
“How can this be?â€
The economy. The war. Homeland security. Disaster relief. The environment.
Name one thing Bush has been involved with that is going well.
Posted by: Max at November 28, 2005 05:09 PMJack,
The latest Republican job approval ratings in congress, looking at several polls, ranges from a low of 27% (The Harris Poll, Nov. 8-13, 2005) to a high of 38% (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Oct. 21-23, 2005.)
The same polls shows the job approval rating for Democrats in congress ranges from a low of 25% (The Harris Poll, Nov. 8-13, 2005.) to a high of 41% (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, Oct. 21-23, 2005.)
All other poll results fall somewhere in-between these ranges. As you can see there is not much difference between the job approval ratings. But it is important to consider the reasons for these low numbers by party. I do not think they are the same.
In my opinion the Republican’s numbers are an indicator of how people feel about what they have done. The Democrats numbers are an indicator of how people feel about what they have not done. The Democrats were elected as the opposition party, yet they have remained fairly silent up until now. The reasons for this, imo, are because of the high level of patriotism that was expected after 9/11. Even today when the Democrats voice opposition to the war in Iraq, they are called unpatriotic. I disapproved of the Democrats in congress because they did little to oppose bad ideas coming from the Republicans. This has finally started to change.
What I think you are going to see is that as Democrats start to become more vocal and develop alternative plans, that the poll numbers will swing favorably to Democrats.
When asked the question; if the 2006 election were held today would you vote for a Democrat or Republican?, the poll numbers unanimously favor Democrats. The gap ranges from as low as 6% points (GWU Battleground LV 10/9-12/05) to as high as 17% points. (Newsweek RV 11/10-11/05)
This is telling because the Republicans are in control of congress and even though the approval ratings for both sides are low, the message is that people want a change. This is the time that the Democrats need to come forward and offer such change.
David,
I agree that the low poll numbers are encouraging in that it shows that people are finally starting to say enough is enough. The problem I have with your solution is that I personally would have a very difficult time getting myself to mark the box for a Republican. IMO, they have an atrocious track record.
The current system severely limits true choice.
Maybe the primary election should go the way of the past. In that all candidates are voted on in the November election. Along with campaign finance reform, true choice between say a Democrat incumbent and a Democrat challenger and a Republican challenger would exist. This would also lend greater opportunities for other political parties.
Ray G.,
Keep tellin’ it like it is!
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 28, 2005 05:14 PMMedia coverage of a story has alot to do with how the public preseves it. If all you get is the negative, that’s the way you’ll see things. This is what the liberial media is giving when it comes to this administration, the economy, and the war in Iraq.
All you have to do is turn on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN and you’ll get what I’m talking about.
They’ll say things like the story that ran locally last Friday. “The Christmas shopping season got off to a bang today but it won’t last”. Then they went on to slam the administration for ‘tax cuts to the rich’.
Just what the hell does that have to do with the Christmas shopping season? ABSOULTLY NOTHING. It’s almost like they want the Christmas season to be lousy so they can talk about the economy being bad.
Correction:
Along with campaign finance reform, true choice between say a Democrat incumbent and several Democratic challengers and several Republican challengers as well as third party candidates would exist.
All you have to do is turn on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN and you’ll get what I’m talking about.
It is interesting to me that you cite those news networks as being liberal biased. The one news network that receives the most criticism for being biased and unbalanced is FOX News, a conservative news outlet. I suppose you think FOX News is neutral.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 28, 2005 05:26 PMUnemployment reached 3.7% (not 3%) for two boom years. Then it went back up. If you look at the long history of unemployment, you see that such low unemployment has not been sustainable and only achieved in rare boom times, usually associated with a war or the end of one. http://www.econstats.com/BLS/blsnea4.htm
You may expect unemployment to drop in a couple or years as the baby boom retires. Of course, that same event will wipe out Social Security, so it depends on what you wish for.
At 3% you have a labor shortage. I live in N. Virginia, where we have essentially no unemployment. Our unemployment rate was 2.5% (the State of Virginia as a whole has 3.5%). You have to wait a long time for contracting etc. And we are drawing in lots of people, so housing is a problem. It is nice to boom, but you can’t keep it up forever.
Jay
If the Dems come up with a program, they might have a chance. If they had run a decent candidate in 2004 they might have won.
The saddest phrase in the minds of men are these four words: “it might have been.”
Posted by: Jack at November 28, 2005 05:35 PMJayJay,
NO! I was talking about the liberial news networks which is what most people watch.
Actually checked the quote:
The saddest words Of tongue or pen Are these four words.
Jack-
Down here we call that, “shoulda, woulda, coulda”
Posted by: George in SC at November 28, 2005 05:43 PMIf they had run a decent candidate in 2004 they might have won.
Well, you are right about this. It shows how slim the pickings were, when the best we could come up with was John Kerry. I hope that the Dems are not serious about Hill, or putting Kerry back up. No matter how much ground Dems may or may not make up, that would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 28, 2005 06:26 PMI don’t set much store in what polls say as they can be manipulated to come up with the results wanted.
If I wanted to prove that most people would rather die than live all I have to do is limit the answers that can be given to the question.
ie: Which would you rather have happen to you?
A. Be hanged until dead.
B. Be shot to death.
C. Be electricuted.
D. Be tourtured everyday for the rest of you life.
Now I go out and ask this question to 100 suicidal people. Lets say that 40% choose A, 30% B, 20% C, and just for the masochist out there 10% choose D.
Then I report that 90% of people would rather die than live.
The polisters also screen potential participants to get a cross section of the type people they want. I’ve been asked to participate in a couple political polls and was rejected both times. Once because I’m conservitive. The second liked me being Conservitive but rejected me because I’m not Republican. I have a liberial friend (yes I really have them) that has been rejected because she’s liberial.
Ron,
I agree that news is mostly covered on the negative side and I agree that more should be covered on the positive side. But, should we stick our heads in the sand and ignore any bad news? I, for one, like to hear both good and bad. I don’t like anyone sugar-coating bad news nor do I like anyone leaving good news unreported.
It seems the right wants to ignore the bad news and the left wants to ignore the good news. Unfortunately, most Americans are too busy making a living to look into the truth. However, if one thinks that ALL the bad news in Iraq is reported one would be VERY wrong. For every negative story we hear in Iraq there are hundreds we don’t hear about. My problem is the major outlets don’t cover ANY good news….except FOX (and I don’t consider them “news”….more like propaganda).
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Tom L at November 28, 2005 07:33 PMTom L
Your right about there should be more equal coverage between the good and bad news. I’ve noticed that the local stations, and sometime the networks will have one story in the whole broadcast that has good news in it. And usally it’s something like someone finding their long lost dog or something like that. Not anything that might counter their view of all the bad news they just reported.
I don’t get Fox News here so I cann’t really tell much about it. However from what little I’ve seen of it, they seem to be just as bias as the major networks.
This is why I don’t take what’s reported at face value. But when I start talking to most people about something they go right along with what they’ve heard on the networks. And usually dot their I’s and cross their Ts right down their their party’s line.
People hear things enough and then start believing them. It’s a shame more folks don’t think on their own. Most democrats believe what the major media outlets spew and most republicans believe what Limbaugh, O’Rilley, and FOX spew.
I am not happy with this administration nor am I happy with this congress….either party. I have one congressman I will continue to vote for because he is truly a fiscal conservative and actually voted against his party regarding war with Iraq. Other than that, there needs to be a major overhaul in DC.
Posted by: Tom L at November 28, 2005 08:04 PMWow this thread’s gettin’ ugly, guys!
Actually, and here’s a fact, economists are now projectively BULLISH on this Christmas season and see a projected year-end increase in sales of 6.0%! Do you like that republicans?? See it’s not so bad right? Wrong they are still down .5% as the increase in sales was 6.5% the year earlier. And still may be lower if gas prices go up further. (reference:CS Monitor)
Thanks for the gas prices repubs your export side economy is just working out marvelously to pull your own butts out of office.
GIVE ‘EM ENOUGH ROPE..
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 08:13 PMOh and as for the title of this piece.. Don’t flush Bush down the toilet.
Jiggle-jiggle-jiggle SPLOOSH!
(Hey it was his hand on the handle!!!)
Posted by: Novenge at November 28, 2005 08:21 PMHi Leftover,
You’ve again Demonstrated that your only real idea is to lie about those who disagree with you being communists.
I think it would be a hoot if you could acutally back up the nonsense you’ve been spewing but I don’t think you’re up to it.
Lying about communism is obviously the best you can produce.
After reading so much of the above comments I have reached a conclusion that a lot of you guys failed your audition with SNL and had to come back here to try your new comedy routines. I guess somebody is trying to fill Rodney Dangerfields shoes, but can’t. Back to my stamp collection and see ya later!
Posted by: tomh at November 28, 2005 09:15 PMHi Leftovers,
“Logic wins the argument”
What logic are you bringing to bear here? You go in for lying rather than logic.
Here’s an example of your “logic”: Republicans tend to support a strong military. Nazis supported a strong military. Therefore Republicans are just like Nazis.
Can you provide anything better than filthy lies about those who disagree with you being communists? Seriously lying all you have to offer here isn’t it?
People’s perceptions are not going to improve until they wise up about the world.
Funny, not so long ago, Jack, you were talking up collective wisdom. Now you’re blaming the masses for their mass thick headedness. It’s funny how we only believe in collective wisdom when that wisdom reflects our own personal views.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at November 28, 2005 09:32 PMLouis,
You think every Repub lies b/c you’re on the other side of the arguement. Just b/c you disagree with them doesn’t mean that they lie or that they are “right-wing spin” replies. Just debate the issue. Show us who you are and what you’re all about with your comments/replies and we’ll do the same w/ our comments/replies. Of course, that’s how normal debates work, duh…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 09:52 PMHi rahdigly,
“You think every Repub lies b/c you’re on the other side of the arguement.”
That’s nonsense.
“Just debate the issue.”
There is no issue with Leftovers except the fact that he lies a lot about Democrats being communists. If he’d stop lying and start discussing issues that would be a good thing.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 28, 2005 10:03 PM
Louis,
Ok, that’s fine if that’s how you feel about that particular person; I have no beef with that. However, you’ve thrown around labels quite a few times with me when you should be debating the issue.
With that said, go back to “how liberalism warps your mind” archive and debate my response to your comment. Thanks.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 28, 2005 10:08 PMThe Republicans in Congress weigh in 7% lower than their president. But as bad as all that, even they float 2% above Congressional Democrats.
I don’t know where you got that number. All of the recent polls show that voters distinctly favor Democrats over Republicans.
See here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm
(generic congressional ballot)
Or here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/institut2.htm#Democrats
(comparing parties)
For example, take this ABC poll on 11/2
“Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?”
Democrats 49%
Republicans 37%
This is just one example that I grabbed from the top of the page…
Woody,
Check out this poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html
“Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot…Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.”
I’ll ask you this and then you can babble a while. Which of the two political parties is closer to Communism? Dems or Repubs?… There are plenty of comparisons to socialism and communism and democrats.
Leftovers,
Communism is reached through a series of steps that are mirrored in recent American history. Capitalism progresses to Socialism which progresses to Communism.
Socialism is liberal.(A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.)
Communism is conservative.(Fewer people have any say in how the economy works, and it places restrictions on personal liberties, to achieve social order.)
Liberals pushed Capitalism towards Socialism and now we are seeing Conservatives pushing Socialism towards Communism.
The sad part is that the majority have stood by and let these two minority groups push us in this direction. The majority of citizens are neither liberal nor conservative, but could be defined as Centrist or Libertarian.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 28, 2005 11:03 PMP.S. Based on Libertarian ideology this party, if ever brought into power, is more likely to push us back towards Capitalism and what the original intent of the federal government was suppose to be.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 28, 2005 11:12 PMReed
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” But I am flattered that you pay attention to what I write. Thanks.
The masses are wise when making decisions about their own business and when we have independent though aggregated decision making about important matters that actually affect them. For example, they chose right during the actual election, didn’t they.
It doesn’t mean that they are always right about what they think others think or that they are always happy with what they got.
JayJay,
i agree we need more libertarian— and independant and green voices in government.
Jayjay Snoman wrote:
“Based on Libertarian ideology this party, if ever brought into power, is more likely to push us back towards Capitalism and what the original intent of the federal government was suppose to be.”
_________________________-
God forbid we go back (further) towards capitalism and original intent of the Constitution. Ha! Ha!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 07:30 AMRahdigly,
And yet people still prefer the Democrats…
I think it is a bit of a loaded question, but I am sure that criticism of the war does hurt morale at least a little bit. But in a democracy we need to be able to talk about these things…
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 29, 2005 07:35 AMWoody Mena,
“And yet people still prefer the Democrats.”
____________________________________________
Which people are you referring to? The Europeans? Al Qaeda? Saddam? The last I checked the Repubs have been winning the National Elections in 2000, 2002 & (especially) 2004. So, until the dems come back and get a strategy to actually win a national election, your statement is not accurate.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 29, 2005 07:58 AMRahdigly,
I am referring to Americans responding to polls, right now. Now, if you say that the Democrats still can’t win “national elections” (I assume you exclude this year), I obviously can’t prove you wrong until the next one happens.
While we are trading polls, put this in your pipe…
The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
“Do you think that the Bush Administration generally provides accurate information regarding current issues or do you think they generally mislead the public on current issues to achieve their own end?”
Accurate Misleading Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 32 64 4
Republicans 68 28 4
Democrats 7 91 2
Independents 25 73 2
Woody,
“Democrats still can’t win “national elections” (I assume you exclude this year)”
_________________________________
We didn’t have a national election this year (2005); the state elections didn’t reflect the President’s agenda. Nice try though.
And, as far as “The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3 (for all adults).”, that’s just kicking a dog when he’s down. Remember, the polls were in Kerry’s favor for a while and look what happened come election time (that’s National Election). So, don’t put all your eggs in one basket with these polls. And, if you still do, look at this poll again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html
All politicians say they don’t look at polls but I don’t believe it. Their ego is too big.
While Clinton was in office in his second term the media continually talked about his legacy. Now, they are talking about Bush’s legacy.
If folks would stop worrying about their “legacy” they may do a better job governing.
I foresee troop reduction in the coming year. Why? You’ve got me….maybe the polls have something to do with it? I disagreed with us going in to Iraq but now that we are there we should load the country with as many troops as possible until the boarders are safe, schools and hospitals are built, power and water are abundant and the government is stable. instead we’ve “half-assed” the whole thing…and now we are pulling out? Mom always told me: “you break it, you fix it”. Maybe Barbara forget this sage adivce for George….
Posted by: Tom L at November 29, 2005 11:24 AMREPUBLICANS: — These are the guys sending people to
> > war:
> > * Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments, the
> > last by marriage.
> > * Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
> > * Tom Delay: did not serve.
> > * Roy Blunt: did not serve.
> > * Bill Frist: did not serve.
> > * Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
> > * Rick Santorum: did not serve.
> > * Trent Lott: did not serve.
> > * John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to
> > teach business.
> > * Jeb Bush: did not serve.
> > * Karl Rove: did not serve.
> > * Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” The man
> > who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
> > * Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
> > * Vin Weber: did not serve.
> > * Richard Perle: did not serve.
> > * Douglas Feith: did not serve.
> > * Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
> > * Richard Shelby: did not serve.
> > * Jon Kyl: did not serve.
> > * Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
> > * Christopher Cox: did not serve.
> > * Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
> > * Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight
> > instructor; never left the U. S. A.
> > * George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year
> > National Guard; Record shows he refiused overseas
> > duty.
> > * B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting
> > was over in Korea.
> > * Phil Gramm: did not serve.
> > * John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of
> > Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
> > * Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
> > * John M. McHugh: did not serve.
> > * JC Watts: did not serve.
> > * Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,” although
> > continued playing in NFL for 8 years.
> > * Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National
> > Guard.
> > * Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
> > * George Pataki: did not serve.
> > * Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
> > * John Engler: did not serve.
> > * Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
> > * Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
> >
> > * Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a
> > non-combat role making movies.
> > ————————————————————————
> > DEMOCRATS:
> > * John Murtha, Marine Colopnel: the Bronze Star with
> > Combat “V”, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross
> > of Gallantry and the Navy Distiguished Service medal.
> > * Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
> > * David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
> > * Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
> > * Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.
> > 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
> > * Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,
> > Vietnam.
> > * Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
> > * John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze
> > Star with Combat
> > V, Purple Hearts.
> > * Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze
> > Star, Korea.
> > * Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &
> > Bronze Star, Vietnam.
> > * Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
> > * Tom Harkin: Lt. 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
> > * Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army
> > Reserve 1979-91.
> > * Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star
> > and seven campaign ribbons.
> > * Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam,
> > DFCs, Bronze
> > Stars, and Sol dier’s Medal.
> > * Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart,
> > Silver Star and
> > Legion of Merit.
> > * Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne,
> > Purple Heart.
> > * Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in
> > Vietnam; Bronze
> > Star with Combat V.
> > * Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
> > * Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
> > * Chuck Robb: Vietnam
> > * Howell Heflin: Silver Star
> > * George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
> > * Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments.
> > Entered draft but received #311.
> > * Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
> > * Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
> > * John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal
> > with 18 Clusters.
> > * Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.
> > Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
> >
> >
> > Pundits & Preachers
> > * Sean Hannity: did not serve.
> > * Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal
> > cyst.’)
> > * Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
> > * Michael Savage: did not serve.
> > * George Will: did not serve.
> > * Chris Matthews: did not serve.
> > * Paul Gigot: did not serve.
> > * Bill Bennett: did not serve.
> > * Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
> > * Bill Kristol: did not serve.
> > * Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
> > * Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
> > * Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don’t shoot back.)
* John Wayne: did not serve.
Dan
Yet the military actually doing the fighting tended to vote Republican. Maybe we should only let veterans and active military vote and see who they choose.
Maybe military service should be required of anyone who wants to run for president or senate.
Is that want you want? Making a list like that implies that is what you believe.
Dan:
Though your efforts are appreciated, your list is a tad bit biased. I am a Democrat through and through but you’ve forgotten a few republicans who served with honor and valor. I agree that it is appalling the lack of military service on the part of our current legislative bodies, both Repugnicans and Democrats. You forgot to add Bush’s Father Navy Pilot Shot down in the Pacific during WWII. You also forgot former Senator Bob Dole who lost the use of his (I believe Right Arm but in might be the left) arm during his tour of duty during WWII also. I am very upset that the “Three Stooges (Emporer George II, Trickey Dickey, And Uncle Rummy) and their String Puller Karl Rove”, Couldn’t lead a Rat out of a box with a piece of cheese, have pulled the wool over the collective populace, I do believe that you have “Stacked” The deck against the GOP….KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
As Always,
Wayne
