Everything is not well with the Republican party. Despite the fact that the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, despite the fact that the President was elected by a larger margin than in 2000, and despite the fact that the judiciary at all levels is being remade in a conservative mold and the President has a pretty historic opportunity to appoint anywhere from two to possibly from Supreme Court Justices, things are not well.
The President’s approval ratings remain, well, terrible, and any further dip in his ratings would put them at what can only be described as Alphonsian depths (a reference to former Senator Alfonse D’Amato). Congress, meanwhile, populated by Republican majorities, suffers from a similar lack of public approval, and if the numbers can be believed, are even less popular than President Bush (althought the Tip O’Neill axiom remains accurate– individual members remain varying degrees of support far above the overall rating of Congree).
The popularity of the War in Iraq has plummeted, with Bush’s handling of the war even lower. So low is domestic support that despite repeated assurances that we will stay until the job is done, rumors of massive troop withdrawals are far more believable than they should be.
Social Security reform, at least for now, is dead. Only 39% of poll respondents approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. Democrats and their grass roots campaigns are raising extraordinary sums of money to fight the Supreme Court nominantions, and for now, at least, Howard Dean has learned how to keep his mouth shut.
The media, which until recently had been nitpicky but generally rather docile, is growing tired of the mendacity of the current administration, and they are subsequently waking from their slumber and are hungrily looking around for a meal. The President’s right-hand man, Karl Rove, is himself recently immersed in a particularly nasty scandal (just keep scrolling), with no sign of relief in the immediate future. Add to all of this the following:
Just nine months after giving George W. Bush the crucial swing votes he needed to best John Kerry, political independents are bolting out of the Republican Big Tent. Angered by GOP meddling in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case, reeling from record gasoline prices, and depressed by the escalating cycle of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, unaligned voters are suddenly lining up with Democrats to give Bush the lowest ratings of his Presidency. The disenchantment extends beyond the White House to the GOP Congress: Only 31% of independents say Congress is in touch with their concerns, according to a June 14-15 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Amid such dismal data, the only good news for Republicans is that the chronically disorganized Democrats have not convinced swing voters that they are any better — at least not yet.
But that’s cold comfort to the GOP. A June 24-26 Gallup Poll shows independents turning thumbs down to much of the President’s second-term agenda, including his stay-the-course stance on Iraq, partial privatization of Social Security, and a pro-drilling energy policy. Equally worrisome: Just 15% of indies approve of Bush’s handling of the economy, a June 19-22 American Research Group Poll found — down from 44% last November.
To gauge the depth of independent anger, talk to Alan Rego Jr., an assistant supermarket manager in Cleveland. Rego, 23, twice voted for George W. Bush. The unaligned voter viewed Bush as a champion of small business and a stalwart in the war on terror. But he now sees a President bogged down in a Mideast quagmire and a Congress obsessed with a Religious Right agenda he does not share. “Congress is involved in too many social issues that it shouldn’t be, like Terri Schiavo,” he says. “It doesn’t want to tackle the issues that it should be fixing, like tax reform, unemployment, and job creation.”
For Republicans, an exodus of voters like Rego could have profound repercussions. Because 67% of independents think Bush will appoint a Supreme Court justice whose religious beliefs will inappropriately influence judicial rulings, according to Gallup, Dems may be emboldened to dig in for a long showdown .
Add together all the individual issues, tie in the fact that Bush has by all appearances lost the middle, and it appears clear what the strategy for the immediate future entails. Attack, attack, attack.
From top White House operative Karl Rove to two of the party campaign committees, Republicans have launched a full-scale attack on MoveOn.org, questioning the liberal group’s patriotism and worldview. These attacks appear to have two purposes: One is to put the group and its Democratic allies on the defensive over support for the war on terror. And the second is to drive a wedge between Democratic candidates and the millions of dollars that MoveOn’s supporters have pumped into their campaigns. With MoveOn fast becoming one of the Democratic Party’s most important fundraising sources, the second goal may end up being the more important one.”
Take the case of GOP Senator Rick Santorum, darling of the Christer right. The almost-certain Democratic nominee against Santorum next year is Bob Casey Jr., the Pennsylvania State Treasurer, son of a former Democratic governor, and a noted social conservative who opposes abortion. Despite Casey’s conservative views, MoveOn sent out a major e-mailing soliciting funds for Casey’s campaign as a way of defeating Santorum — and with great success, raising over $150,000 for Casey in the first 24 hours after the fundraising appeal.
“But,” reports Roll Call, the National Republican Senatorial Committee immediately went on the offensive with a release titled, ‘Casey Moves In With MoveOn,’ alleging that the group’s e-mail on behalf of Casey shows how closely he is aligned with the ‘ultra-liberal left.’ John Brabender, Santorum’s media consultant, predicted that if Casey continues to accept MoveOn money, he will have to answer for the group’s controversial policies, which include opposing military intervention in Afghanistan. ‘You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep,’ Brabender said. A group like MoveOn ‘will have a lot of trouble in Pennsylvania, particularly in the middle part of the state. The group will be hung around Bobby Casey’s neck.’ The rhetoric from Brabender and the NRSC is aimed at forcing Casey into a no-win choice: He could pass up a generous source of campaign cash, or he could accept MoveOn’s ample resources, yet face an assault over the group’s issue stances.”
This shouldn’t be surprising for anyone who has watched Rove, as his modus operandi is to always attack.
A typical instance occurred in the hard-fought 1996 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court between Rove’s client, Harold See, then a University of Alabama law professor, and the Democratic incumbent, Kenneth Ingram. According to someone who worked for him, Rove, dissatisfied with the campaign’s progress, had flyers printed up
Sojourner
The Bush administration is not finished raping the country. There’s still money to be made off of this country and its people. So, of course, it’s worth it.
Geek, Esq.
2006, baby.
One can bet that plenty of 2004 Bush voters will be sitting at home next November.
The only hope is to get Dems to stay home as well.
Rove also is worried about saving his own behind at this point. The frogmarch watch is on.
Randolph Fritz
“I can think of no real reason to constantly attack a beleagured minority party and her surrogates, when we should be concerned with governing.”
As I wrote several years ago, these people don’t actually want to govern; they want power, and what they want to do with it is take us back to some imagined past. They rule the most powerful nation in the world–and that’s all they can think to do with their power? I can remember a time when Americans dreamed of the future, and looked forward to it with hope. But this lot has no imagination. Central to their political failure–it’s failure, though they may rule for years yet–is that a majority of Americans don’t want to live in the 19th century, regardless of what the various radical factions currently in control of the Republicans believe.
So they have to attack the Democrats they have to stir up as much fear as they can, because that’s all the hold they have on the voters.
John, you’re a Republican and a conservative. What do you want? The Bush administration has had numerous failures, but the USA is still, for the moment, wealthy and powerful. What future would you create with that wealth and power?
JG
Last month I officially made the switch from republican to independant.
Tim F
It seems like you answered your own question. When every aspect of your agenda pushes your support farther into the negative, the only thing left is to throw shit. id est, Swift Boat Veterans for Hooey.
Jimmy Jazz
Nobody’s buying what these quacks are selling. Their “agenda” is to enrich themselves and their campaign contributors and their “strategy” is to smear the opposition and drive moderates out of the process in disgust.
I think the car’s about run out of gas, though.
John, you’re a bright guy, but what the hell did you and other sane Republicans think was going to happen when you allow people to act unaccountably?
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’m not the first to point this out: the enemy has always been the Democrats and the liberals. Do you think Stalin gave a damn what Joe McCarthy was saying? The Russians, the Vietcong, Al Qaeda, they’re just cutouts.
Osama and the jihadists are dangerous guys who pack big guns and hide in hot, unpleasant countries. Democrats are a much softer target. (Well, we used to be.)
ppgaz
For a minute there, I thought I was reading one of my own posts …..
All I can say is something I’ve said before (you know, in the finest tradition of blogdom :-)) ….. I really don’t think you’ve seen the bottom of what these potatoheads can do.
For a long time, they’ve smeared their lipstick on this pig and gotten away with it. The cosmetic counter is now closed. It’s time for them to stop waiting for “things to get better” and start MAKING things better. It’s time, but I ain’t holding my breath.
srv
Just imagine how many flip-floppers (moderates) are going to vomit during the SCOTUS battles. Approval rating will be under 40% by the end of October, unless AQ helps him out.
Jess
John,
This is a very insightful analysis, but I think you should take it a step further and reconsider the constant framing of MoveOn as ultra left. If you visit their website, I think you’ll find that almost all of their campaigns for the past 3-4 years have been driven by the moderate liberals who want to work within the system to make their voices heard. I was happy to support many of their campaigns as a moderate because I was fed up with the radical nihilists that had taken over what I would call the hard left. I believe that most, if not all, the positions they promote are at this time supported by at least 40% of the voting public. Futhermore, I don’t recall that they were against any military intervention in Afganistan, nor were they pushing for “moderation” against Al Quaeda, but were encouraging a more surgical operation rather than a druken pi
Tim F
snerk.
RepubAnon
Seems like all the Republicans know how to do is to fill people with hate and fear, and use those emotions to fashion a lynch mob.
There was an old Twilight Zone episode where the lights went out everywhere but at one house. The neighborhood decided that house was “the enemy” and destroyed the house and its occupants. Then, another house’s lights turned on.
The aliens, watching from a hill, said: “That’s how we’ll defeat these stupid Earthlings.”
President Bush sdescribed himself as a “uniter.” In fact, he practices “divide and conquer” tactics coupled with outright lies. (Moveon.org did NOT oppose the Afghanistan war – someone that later became associated with them did. This no more means MoveOn.org opposed the Afghanistan war than David Duke’s Republican Party membership makes all Republicans racists.)
bs23
The partisan shitstorm surrounding Plame/Rove leaves me incapable of describing how pathetic the whole charade has become. The two sides couldn’t/can’t even agree on the basic facts. Now, about that health care reform, or social security reform you have — what’s that you say? [splat]
I should have seen this coming with the chewbacca defense.
I will say that I’m clinging to this blog (even though I’m a dem) amidst this huge swirling mess for the sweet, sweet actual thought-processes at work. Keep it up; you’re braver than I.
JG
What the hell is the Chewbacca defense?
KC
Great analysis John. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it out there in such an obvious fashion.
Stormy70
Supreme court poll – 58% say Dems should confirm a qualified conservative
Current poll for Bush approval – this rating also was where he was at when reelected
war poll – 49% say avoiding Iraq war would have made US more Dangerous
Polls – I’ve got polls, too. Republicans have been begging the Republicans to fight back, so this will get them excited. It’s about time they start tarring the Dems with the wackos in Move On. Bush=Hitler doesn’t exactly sell well with the more conservative Dems.
John Cole
The Chewbacca Defense.
The Jim Dandy
Gold.
Stormy70
Seriously, where do you see the Democrats picking up seats in 2006. Not snarky question. Polls show Dems are losing more ground than Republicans.
ppgaz
You’re right, Stormy. It’s just like Mr. Potatohead sez:
Wanted Dead or Alive
Osama who?
Mission Accomplished
It’s hard work
Bring it on
Last throes
Remember the lessons of 9-11*
Stay the course
—/
* My personal favorite. Can anyone tell me which lessons of 9-11 have anything — anything at all — to do with this idiotic war? Let’s see, the lessons of lousy intelligence. Bungled FBI work. Warnings about OBL gone ignored. Saddam = Hitler. Uh …
—-/
Stormy, all due respect, I hope the Elephants follow your advice and keep on keeping on. Because like I said, this party is over. The cow is out of the barn. The ship has sailed. This plate is one enchilada short of a House Combination. The hoedown is finished, it’s time to take down the streamers and the balloons.
I don’t know which is more astounding. The fact that these guys probably aren’t near done with screwing up the opportunity they were given, or that nice folks like you are still out there who believe their bullshit.
Stormy70
No answer on the question, I see. Just more of the same I’ve seen, ad nauseum. The Dems can’t run on that platform in 2006, especially in the red states.
eileen from OH
Thanks, John – succinct and to the point. How many times have I heard that the Dems don’t know (or articulate) what they stand for and it’s a legit complaint, in many ways.
But what do the Republicans stand for anymore? What’s their unified message? It used to be smaller government, but that’s been shot to hell. It used to be against foreign nation-building adventures. Ditto. It used to say less government in our personal lives. Now it’s okay to go stomping into bedrooms, hospices, and a woman’s visit to her doctor.
The Republicans are turning into the Sybil Party – new identities keep popping up daily.
eileen from OH
ppgaz
The Dems can do whatever they want, AFAIC. I ain’t runnin’ for office.
I’m just trying to imagine what a boilerplate Republican campaign speech sounds like a year from now. Try as I might, I can’t imagine what it would say.
List the great things we’ve done? Uh ….
Tell our great vision of the future under our leadership? Uh ….
Pump up the troops with calls to despise and ridicule your fellow Americans? Ah!
If they do the latter, which would be in character, then I wouldn’t want to be one of those spuds in 2008. In case you guys haven’t notice, people are growing tired of that crap.
demimondian
Stormy —
We don’t have to win in 2006 on any platform. Barring the emergence of a credible third party, we can, and mostly will, sit on our hands and let you all lose.
Remember that W was reelected with the smalled margin ever for a war president. That made him a lame duck twenty minutes after the polls closed, no matter what he may have seen through his Rove colored glasses. Gravity is our friend, not yours.
And that’s actually why Rove is pursuing a policy of attack. The only hope he has right now is to drive the Democratic negatives up. If the Dem negatives stay where they are, then W won’t be able to get away with a social conservative for SC Justice, in which case the theocrats will sit home next November. That wouldn’t be pretty for the R’s.
— Demimondian
CaseyL
Bush et al. were never about “governing.” Ever.
They were, and are, always and ever, about using the US as their personal fucktoy-cum-piggybank.
Period.
Doug
Bob Casey is an idiot if he doesn’t take the MoveOn money. Guess what? They’re going to create a caricature of MoveOn and try to hang it around every Democrats’ neck. Doesn’t matter if they’re taking money or not. The only way to beat Rove & Co is to play as dirty as he does. If you’re trying to beat up the other guy, and he’s trying to kill you, you’re going to lose. It’s sort of a prisoner’s dilemma situation. If everyone played nice, we’d all win. If one person plays dirty and the other one doesn’t, the one playing dirty wins big and the other guy loses big. If both play dirty, they both lose a little. The task for the Dems at the moment is to simply stop losing big.
If Republicans like our esteemed Mr. Cole were running the show, I’d vote GOP more times than not even though I disagree quite a bit with a few of his positions. But, we have Imperial, Bible-Thumping, Red Ink Republicans running the show. No thanks.
nyrev
Oh, don’t throw a tantrum, Stormy. Here’s some more poll numbers for you.
The majority of Americans disapprove of the President’s performance. They disapprove of the war in Iraq, and feel that the economy is in the toilet. Even more disapprove of Congress, and most Americans think that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
So, where do I see the Democrats picking up votes? Given the backlash from the proposed Social Security reforms and the Schiavo case, the Democrats could easily swing Florida. I also see them picking up votes throughout the midwest. For example, Ohio’s economy has gone to hell during the Bush administration. Unemployment rates have gone up, while quality of living has gone down. And it’s one of the areas that have been hardest hit by Iraq casualties. To a lesser extent, Indiana, West Virginia and Missouri are in the same boat. If the general public continues to lose confidence in the President and his administration, and the Dems can find a candidate with a half-way plausible economic plan and some people skills, they’re in like Flynn. Also, if the Republicans pick their own equivalent of Al Gore or John Kerry to run, the Democratic candidate would win by default.
demimondian
ppq —
“Growing tired of that crap”? I doubt it. People love that “crap”, and you should, too.
Seriously, as hard as it may be to stomache, it’s a great sign of a healthy democracy. In order for such attacks to be allowed, there must be a standard of “basically acceptable vileness” that’s shared by the electorate as a whole. If such a standard exiszts (and it does, at least this year), then things are pretty healthy, and we know that it’s all a part of the “grand game”.
It stops being a game when people genuinely get hurt. We haven’t seen lives ruined like we did during McCarthy’s witch hunt. Until we start seeing that — people aren’t going to get tired of it. It isn’t for real. Yet.
Doug
If the Dems don’t pick up anything in Ohio, they’re just incompetent (which may very well be the case.) The Toledo Blade has almost single handedly delivered mortal wounds to the Ohio GOP with Coingate and an apparent attempt to hide the loss of $200+ Million from the Bureau of Worker’s Compensation fund.
Randolph Fritz
“The Dems can’t run on that platform in 2006, especially in the red states.”
Stormy, I asked John, and he hasn’t answered yet, so I’ll ask you, too, as someone I take to be fairly radical right, what do the red states want? They can’t have 1950 back again, let alone 1900. What do they want that politicians, rather than angels, can give them?
The red states have been sold the impossible by the Republicans. The Republicans can say, correctly, “the Democrats can’t give you what you want.” But neither can the Republicans. So the needle spins. Maybe the Republican leadership will discredit itself sufficiently so that the radicals will stay home, or vote for conservative Democrats. Certainly the war of attrition in Iraq and appalling corruption of the Republican leadership–Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Tom Delay–work against Republican credibility. But I do not think all the hatred the right has whipped up will be so easily dispelled into angry muttering.
ppGaz
my most important post ever:
It’s ppGaz, not Q.
It’s essentially initials, plus state abbreviation.
Arizona, home of the Jackalope and Cactus Jelly.
This is a lowercase g
This is a lowercase q
Different. Not the same.
Defense Guy
“We don’t have to win in 2006 on any platform. Barring the emergence of a credible third party, we can, and mostly will, sit on our hands and let you all lose.”
This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi stating that she did not need an alternate plan, that she simply needed to stop Bush. The arrogance of this position is astounding.
The American people are smarter than that, and will not elect you if you don’t have a plan to deal with the war.
You have problems with the Republicans John? I hear you, kind of a rough patch. The alternative, is at this point, unthinkable. Which leaves us in a bad place altogether.
Fledermaus
For example, Ohio’s economy has gone to hell during the Bush administration.
Don’t forget Coingate. Although it’s a state GOP thing, it makes for a nice analogy. As far as a platform goes we still have a year or so to cook one up. Any chance the GOP Congress will have accoplished anything useful by then. Well there is that flag burning amendment, gotta protect those 6 or so flags that are burned every year, God knows there aren’t any bigger problems to deal with.
p.lukasiak
This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi stating that she did not need an alternate plan, that she simply needed to stop Bush. The arrogance of this position is astounding.
when “no plan” is better than the plan being offered, there is nothing arrogant about not offering a plan.
John (not Cole)
You have problems with the Republicans John? I hear you, kind of a rough patch. The alternative, is at this point, unthinkable. Which leaves us in a bad place altogether.
Posted by Defense Guy at July 11, 2005 08:52 PM
–
I always wonder what republicans are thinking when they say the equivolent of “can you imagine what the USA would be like if DEMOCRATS were in charge?”
Yes, I can. It was called the Clinton Years, and while Bill was fooling around, he was also being a damn fine President of the United States. Balenced buget, fighting terrorism while also keeping an eye on Iraq (he bombed the place for God’s sake, and republicans said he was just wagging the dog), good ties with other countries, and a high aproval rating all the way through the impeachment fiasco. If it wasn’t for the Arkansas Project, a small group of radical neocons who hated Clinton so much they probably didn’t even know why, he wouldn’t even have been impeached. The neocons were looking for anything to get him as soon as he took office. Can you tell I just finished Blined by the Right by David Brock?
Anyway, to make a long story short (too late), It boggles my mind when I hear republicans whine how bad we would be under a Democrat President. You guys control all three branches of government, is that not enough? Jeez.
Sojourner
This may very well be the case. I don’t have a whole lot of confidence that the American people are willing to do the hard work of looking through the Republican smoke and mirrors. I don’t think they’re willing to do the hard work of understanding why their lives are harder than they used to be, why they can be a whole lot less confident in their financial futures, and retirement may already be an unachievable dream. It’s not obvious to me that the American people understand the significant implications of the dumbing down of science and science education in this country. A whole lot of people are going to be surprised when they realize that the leading edge in science is no longer located in the United States. How many years away are we from people getting on airplanes to travel to other countries which have taken the medical lead from the U.S.?
It’s not obvious to me how much more this country will have to fall apart before people are willing to pay attention.
And for those of you on the right who measure things only in terms of wins and losses – I hope that some day you’re able to set aside your reflexive defense of your party and recognize just how much damage has been done to this country.
John (not Cole)
And to the people saying “but 9-11 changed everything”, I know 9-11 changed a lot of things, but most of the problems we are now facing can be traced back to bad decision making by the Prez, not terrorists. How we react to terrorism makes a larger impact than the terrorists themselves.
Mike S
Polling Report has a couple of polls up on SC confirmations. The second, a CNN/USA Gallup says that he should nominate someone dems can accept by 51/46.
“Suppose President Bush decides to nominate the person who he thinks is the best choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, but almost all the Democrats in the Senate oppose the nominee because they disagree with that person on important issues. Should President Bush still nominate the person he thinks is best for the job, or should he nominate another well qualified person whom the Democrats find acceptable?” Options rotated
The next question asks
“Suppose almost all the Democrats in the Senate oppose President Bush’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court because they disagree with that person on important issues. Should the Democrats in the Senate still vote to confirm the President’s nominee unless they believe that the person is not qualified legally or ethically, or should they work to defeat the nomination to try to get the President to pick someone that is more acceptable to them?” Options rotated
Work to defeat wins by 53/40
.
Doug
One swing state the Dems should be hitting with a vengeance is Ohio. After revelations of about $300 million in losses by the Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation ranging from incompetence to corruption, the BWC is announcing cuts in worker’s compensation benefits. “Republicans play, Workers pay” would be my slogan. Diary up at Kos with links to the relevant news stories, if anyone’s interested.
Stormy70
First I posted different polls from the outfit that was one of a few who called the election correctly, so polls don’t really impress me. I use them to prove a point about polls. They are like dueling banjos.
I consider myself a South Park Republican, Randolph.
I live in Texas.
Our judges know they better lock criminals up and throw away the key, or if violent, fry them. Soft on crime is not an option.
Taxes should always be cut, then cut again the next session.
Guns are not frowned upon, and if a criminal comes at you, you can defend yourself and not go to jail.
Abortion should have some rules and guidelines, in line with all major surgeries.
Pro-gay marriage if done through the legislative process, but long time posters know my opinion on the idiots in Mass. who screwed that option up for years.
Some drugs should be legal, like marijuana. Gateway, my ass.
I like immigrants, they work hard and they are good people. And they usually bring their cooks with them to open restaurants, which I eat at all the time.
Federal Government should only be in the business of National Defense, the rest is alot of superfluous bullshit.
Terrorists should be killed over there and not here.
The religous right doesn’t scare me, and neither do far left democrats. Half my family saw the premier of F9/11 in Wshington DC, for pity’s sake. They are moonbats, but they belong to me.
Why vote Republican? Perry is going to cut property taxes by billions. If he gets that done, then I will vote for him. I don’t care if he signs 50 bills in a church. My standard of living has grown the entire time Bush has been in office.
Sojourner
Me, me, me. Cut my taxes and cut ’em some more. Screw the military – they don’t need all that equipment. Screw those without health insurance. Screw those who have lost their pensions through no fault of their own.
I don’t care if the religious right turns us into a theocracy as long as my standard of living continues to improve. I don’t care about civil rights – I’m making more money than 5 years ago.
Me, me, me. The new American values.
arkabee
causality? because mine has decreased, juxtaposed against a new job, better salary, benefits. gas prices are greatly effecting me, clients are not spending money like they used to.
sustainablity? if you happen to be dealing in real estate in certain areas of the country, then i don’t expect you to sustain your standard of living.
W.B. Reeves
Yes it’s me, me, me alright. Except when it comes time to pay the piper, as in Iraq. Then someone else can foot the bill. Sadly, there’s nothing really new about it. Most of our history as a nation can be read as a struggle between those who have sought to build a common community and those who have paid that ideal lip service while seeking only their own advantage.
Stormy70
I don’t want to cut military spending. I want to cut Medicare, (fraud central), Ag subsidies, funding for all art. Lots of medical funding is ridiculous and do we need every college department getting federal grants to study the mating of moon moths? No, we don’t. There is a ton of pork that could be trimmed, not the military.
What does civil rights have to do with government spending? And my standard of living has grown, because I moved cross country and back again. I am flexible, I will move to where my opportunities are better. And I assure you, my standard will keep going up, because I live in a pro-business state.
Give your tax cuts back if you hate them so much. If you care so much, then why don’t you want the brown skinned Iraqis to have freedom and opportunity, instead of living under the brutal thumb of Saddam? Or is it only me, me, me with you guys?
Common Community sounds like communism, which means you would dictate my choices for me since you don’t like the ones I am making “for the greater good”. Sorry, Americans are not communists.
W.B. Reeves
I direct your attention to the national motto of the United States of America which can be found on the Great Seal of the United States as well as on the reverse side of the penny. “E pluribus unum” this latin phrase, in case you’ve never bothered to learn it’s meaning, translates as “out of many, one.” Does that sound like Communism to you as well? It may come as a shock to you but Americans are not all acolytes of Ayn Rand either.
ppgaz
Right, Stormy. A country with astronomical cost-per-citizen for healthcare should just leave those without insurance or money to just fester away in leper colonies. Screw ’em, right?
As for Saddam: I’m sorry, I’ve only lived six decades and a rather unsheltered life. Moved long distances myself when I needed to. Done more different kinds of jobs than you can believe. Went to college. Was I too busy to notice the part on American History and stuff where America was here to go out and start wars to bring freedom to other people, at the whim of misguided policy maniacs? Where did I miss that? Did I skip a course in school? Did I sleep through a lesson? Was I sick the day they handed out the “America – The World’s Daddy” handbooks?
I’m confused by you, Stormy. You scoff at programs to help Americans who need help, and then out of the other side of your mouth, you talk about “brown-skinned Iraqis” having “freedom and opportunity” as if you care about it. Do you? How about all those Africans? Those North Koreans? Those Iranians? Myriad Arabs, in fact? Right now we can’t even keep Baghdad under control. People with not a lot more than pitchforks and a few stolen weapons put a stick in our eye in Mogadishu. When did we become not just the champions, but the providers, of freedom and opportunity for all the people in the world?
This country never gave a rat’s ass about the people in Iraq until about 3 years ago. I’m up to here with the maudlin crocodile tears and the phony “caring” for them. I don’t think you care about them at all, I think you like using them as props for your arguments.
bg
Stormy, I just think there really isn’t anything the Republicans could do that would make you vote Democrat.
Hey, I understand, when shopping for bread, most of the time I want wheat. Every now and again I get fed up with wheat and I buy rye. That’s me. It’s like how I usually vote Dem, but could be persuaded to vote Republcan every now and again.
But when I’m tired of wheat, I also look at the potato bread. I never buy the potato breat. Just don’t like it. Don’t even really care why. Ain’t gonna buy it. I think that’s you: never gonna vote Dem.
Sojourner
You want to cut Medicare. What the hell do you think your grandmother relied on? Do you seriously think that she could have gotten private insurance as a disabled senior citizen? If you want to be taken seriously, you have got to leave Planet Stormy where you can take whatever positions you want even if they contradict each other.
Are you willing to sign up for the military or is that only for poor slobs who don’t aspire to be rich like you?
Why would we give our tax cuts back? We’re going to have to pay a whole hell of a lot more than that to cover the vast debt created by these tax cuts.
That ton of pork you keep talking about is trivial compared to the cost of the tax cuts. I know you plan to be rich but don’t you find it ironic that the middle class is paying for welfare for the wealthy?
Freedom and opportunity for the Iraqis? That certainly remains to be seen. I guess it never occurred to you that a civil war might complicate your desire for American style democracy in Iraq.
As long as they’re tax cuts, you don’t care if the religious right calls the shots. That’s where civil rights comes in. But I guess you’re too busy plotting your next money making scheme to worry about the Bill of Rights.
But it’s okay if Big Business calls the shots as long as there’s a buck to be made, right?
Randolph Fritz
Stormy, I agree with you on some things, disagree with you on others, but I think we could deal. With what’s leading the Republicans now, though, with that I can’t deal. And there’s one thing I can’t deal with: you write that you’re doing well financially because of tax cuts…yes, and borrowing beyond your means makes you seem rich, for a while. That’s what these bastards are doing, at every level of government; people are happy with their tax cuts…and then wonder why the bridges are falling down, interest rates are rising, and the dollar is falling on international currency markets. For this, you give your loyalty?
By the way, first trimester abortion is not major surgery.
Randolph Fritz
Stormy, I agree with you on some things, disagree with you on others, but I think we could deal. With what’s leading the Republicans now, though, with that I can’t deal. And there’s one thing I can’t deal with: you write that you’re doing well financially because of tax cuts…yes, and borrowing beyond your means makes you seem rich, for a while. That’s what these bastards are doing, at every level of government; people are happy with their tax cuts…and then wonder why the bridges are falling down, interest rates are rising, and the dollar is falling on international currency markets. For this, you give your loyalty?
By the way, first trimester abortion is not major surgery.
nyrev
Don’t bother, Randolph. Stormy must be a tornado, because all she does is spin and spin. Texas sure has more than its fair share of wackos.
Darrell
Here we have John Cole emphasizing an unflattering story (lying smear?) on Karl Rove from the Atlantic online regarding alleged Rove dirty tricks in Alabama. According to the article, the entire basis of this allegation against Rove is based on “According to someone who worked for him”
According to some vague unnamed source?? That’s it? Unless there is more to that article John, you need to put bold and color with big question marks over the words “according to someone who worked for him” because unless there’s more to it, it looks like an unsubstantiated smear job on Rove, nothing more
What JC, possessed you to place such emphasis on a story which is clearly suspect?
Darrell
Like most lefties you are clueless on economic matters. In the past few months, the dollar has risen sharply against the Euro and most other intl currencies. And why don’t you explain for us why it would be a bad thing for the dollar to fall? Because you really seem to know what you’re talking about
Interest rates across the board are very low. Inflation is low. The only thing threatening inflation and interest rates, is the worldwide price of oil. Unless you dishonest lefties want to blame Bush for the world price of oil
Defense Guy
John (not Cole)
You mean the Clinton years when terrorism was allowed free hand? Yes, surely we should be longing for those days again. Before you start with the ‘Clinton hatred’ meme, let me just state that I voted for him twice, which is one more time than I have voted for Bush.
I am an American way before I am a Republican and was way before I was a Democrat.
Having no plan is simply not a viable option these days, because you had better believe that those that wish to kill us have one.
Sojourner
Interest rates are low because the economy has been largely stagnant for the last five years. Wages are stagnant.
Your knowledge of economics resembles that of the Bush administration, which explains why we’re in this mess.
gratefulcub
And before 9/11 Bush payed very little attention to terrorism. Bush Sr, payed little attention to terrorism. Reagan……..
Of course Bush focused more on terrorism than his predecessor, but it was because we were hit. Do you really think that if 9/11 happened on the watch of Gore, or Clinton, or any other democrat, that terrorism wouldn’t have become priority number one?
gratefulcub
Sojourner, you are nothing but a crazy lefty kook that knows nothing about economics. If you don’t watch out, you are going to start sounding exactly like that crazy communist alan greenspan.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/2005/0303gspan.htm
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Wednesday that the federal budget deficits were “unsustainable,” and he urged Congress to scrutinize both spending and taxes to solve the problem.
The Fed chairman emphasized that his own preference was to reduce deficits by cutting spending rather than raising taxes. But he said the “overriding principle” was to reduce the deficit, making compromise essential. “It’s the principle that I think is involved here, namely that you cannot continuously introduce legislation which tends to expand the budget deficit,” Mr. Greenspan said.
“When you begin to do the arithmetic of what the rising debt level implied by the deficits tells you, and you add interest costs to that ever-rising debt, at ever-higher interest rates, the system becomes fiscally destabilizing,” he told lawmakers. “Unless we do something to ameliorate it in a very significant manner,” he added, “we will be in a state of stagnation.”
Extending all of the expiring tax cuts add about $1.8 trillion to the federal debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That would come on top of a rapid escalation in the federal debt from $3.4 trillion to $4.3 trillion as a result of soaring annual deficits since 2001.
DBurn
This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi stating that she did not need an alternate plan, that she simply needed to stop Bush. The arrogance of this position is astounding.
Arrogance? Not at all. Look at how often Bush crashes when he rides a Bike. If he did the same thing with a large car and the results were devastating in economic and human damage. The best thing to do is to get him out of the drivers seat and clean up the mess.
He’s repeatedly driven the country into a brick wall The damage will take years to fix. I guess if you wanted to hear a plan from Pelosi: The best thing she could say is ” Clean up Bush’s mess because he can’t do it on his own.”
Throatwarbler Mangrove
The present leadership of the republican party doesn’t want to govern, they want to rule. They’ve used the mechanisms of representative democracy to get into power but they have no respect for it. I think this will be their downfall because they don’t truly represent their constituents any more, just the interests of the party as defined by its corporate donors and the more extreme elements of its base. Independent voters are rightly asking themselves why the republicans concern themselves with gay marriage, Terri Shiavo, flag burning, and Social Security privatization when the Iraq war and rising health care costs and gasoline prices, among other things, are real day-to-day concerns for most?
All this leadership can offer is more demagoguery and spin, and it’s wearing thin.
Despite its seemingly insurmountable electoral advantage (if you listen to their own spin and that of Faux, the WSJ, and the Moonie Times as well as the SCLM) Democratic Senators represent more voters than Republicans, the House majority isnt’ that big (having been increased mainly through Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering shenanagins), and Bush’s margin of victory, for an incumbent, was very small. If the party continues on its present course and the Democrats can capitalize on its increasing detachment from the concerns of independent voters (not holding my breath here) it runs the risk of being out of power and increasingly marginalized, just as the Democrats have been for the past few years.
Throatwarbler Mangrove
The present leadership of the republican party doesn’t want to govern, they want to rule. They’ve used the mechanisms of representative democracy to get into power but they have no respect for it. I think this will be their downfall because they don’t truly represent their constituents any more, just the interests of the party as defined by its corporate donors and the more extreme elements of its base. Independent voters are rightly asking themselves why the republicans concern themselves with gay marriage, Terri Shiavo, flag burning, and Social Security privatization when the Iraq war and rising health care costs and gasoline prices, among other things, are real day-to-day concerns for most?
All this leadership can offer is more demagoguery and spin, and it’s wearing thin.
Despite its seemingly insurmountable electoral advantage (if you listen to their own spin and that of Faux, the WSJ, and the Moonie Times as well as the SCLM) Democratic Senators represent more voters than Republicans, the House majority isnt’ that big (having been increased mainly through Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering shenanagins), and Bush’s margin of victory, for an incumbent, was very small. If the party continues on its present course and the Democrats can capitalize on its increasing detachment from the concerns of independent voters (not holding my breath here) it runs the risk of being out of power and increasingly marginalized, just as the Democrats have been for the past few years.
Kimmitt
Yeah, well.
Stormy70
nrev – nice personal attack, there. Now I know to avoid your posts in the future.
Randolph Fritz
“Like most lefties you are clueless on economic matters. In the past few months, the dollar has risen sharply against the Euro and most other intl currencies.”
and fallen before. But the fundamentals are cursed clear: the USA has a negative balance of trade, has for years, the Bush administration has done nothing to address it, the dollar is being propped up by the East Asian banks, and economists and investors across the political spectrum are worred.
Which does not mean it is wise to dump dollars; I did not say that, and I did not imply that. The reality is that “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”, and no-one knows when the dollar bubble will burst. But burst it will, unless policy changes are undertaken.
Kimmitt
Yeah, this part of things is pretty scary. I really don’t know which is more unhealthy — our dependence on them or their dependence on us.
Rick
Interest rates are low because the economy has been largely stagnant for the last five years. Wages are stagnant.
What Darrell said.
But aren’t we all shocked, like the host, to find politics going on?
Cordially…
jobiuspublius
History is repeating itself, not exactly, but maybe close enough. Maybe they think they can do it all over again. Maybe they don’t know what else to do.
What they’re doing is scapegoating, combined with anger and fear. The result is a group of dumbed down people who are highly mobilized to set aside differances to fight a common enemy relentlessly. Do this in a hedonistic society and you have a reason for some people to find other things to do other than get their asses kicked. All this produces the divisions they need to “win”.
Those who do not run away or comply are beleagered and overwhelmed. The constant stream of absolutly fantastic lies produces an image of unstoppable determination for the scapegoaters and further frustrates the opponent and makes them look weak. Pavlovs experiments, and derivations, are based on the repeated unwavering denial of expectation, a type of stonewalling if you will. The poor dogs world is constantly turned totally up side down until he finally quits and becomes a quivering pseudo-vegetable.
Notice how anything that inspires sympathy for the oppressed is suppressed. Sympathy unites people and makes them set aside differances to help each other. Their mantra is individual prosperity, competition, rebuild. Not sympathy for the have-nots.
jobiuspublius
There could be another reason that the dominant party is so relentlessly viscious towards the minority party: the dominant party wants to become like the opposition party, in some sense, and needs to cover it up as I explained before, as well as maintain dominance. Look at the size of the government and it’s budget. It has grown larger than ever which is exactly what the dominant party accuses the opposition party of being all about. Yes, the spending priority and organization is differant. This explains why the opposition is such in name only. How does Howard Dean fit in?
jobiuspublius
J Cole found the answer yet?