America still prefers Democrats, 54-39.
B-b-but! Doesn’t Congress have a lower approval rating than Bush? Yes indeedy. People hate Congress because, like me, we expected a hell of a lot more when we elected them in ’06. Think about what it means that Congress has a higher approval among Republicans than Democrats. And why not? Frist and Hastert delivered less on unrestricted government spying than Reid and Pelosi.
Also notice that the percent of Americans who support Republicans roughly overlaps the number (41%) who believe think Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11. If you still don’t think that FOX News plays an indispensable role in the GOP machine then, frankly, you’re nuts.
jenniebee
But ZOMG 80% of Republicans hatez teh Hillaries! And we’re doomed, doomed without the 28% cheering us on.
Even Republicans know this, and they are only trying to help!
Face
Fox is popular b/c it is the ONLY channel that supples the Kool-Aid daily. CNN has happy-hour specials of it, ABC offers it on occasion, while PBS has banned it.
And to remain a Republican, one must consume this constantly, to avoid actually moving in the World of Reality. This is why Fox is so popular–it’s necessary to keep many people in their bubble.
BFR
I think this is also why the GOP is pretty f’d heading into 2008. They can’t win GOP nominations without appealing to the Fox alternative reality, but this will cut them off from any reasonable levels of support from sane people.
rily
The GOP is a dangerous machine. After the 2004 elections I would not overestimate the sanity of “the people”. They can
be fickle and easily distracted.
spoosmith
Want bets on when FOX starts blaming Iran for 9/11?
I’ve already heard hints of this from other GOP apologists.
Zifnab
It’s interesting to note the shift in attitude towards Democrats, though. Or, to be more precise, a complete lack of shift. Dems had a 54.7% favorability rating in ’02 and they’ve got a 53% favorability rating in ’07. That’s not much of a shift over a five year span.
So what is going to happen to the 16% of people who were Republicans but aren’t much of anything today? Who the hell are they going to vote for? What’s more, if there was a third party – an alternative to Democrats and Republicans – how many on both sides do you think would get pealed away?
And, of course, there’s the ever prevalent question, wtf is wrong with 38% of America? Who is your Congressman? Who are your Senators? Why are you still supporting these guys?
The Other Steve
gotta seal the deal. Hillary or Obama or whatever need to convince them that they’re reasonable.
Once the Republican party has been officially badged with totally crazy guys, it’s going to take 30 years or so to change that. They really fucked up here going this route. I don’t think it was planned. It’s just that to sell the Iraq war thing they had to spill a bit of kool-aid, and now they can’t get anybody to drink anything else.
jrg
The contenders will sound radically different after the nomination. On every issue from Iraq to taxpayer-funded Christianity, the nominee (whoever it is), will change their tune faster than a baritone that just sat on a mouse trap.
I guess a couple hundred more soldiers have to die before the GOP can get it’s presidential campaign in order.
If
Ralph NaderRon Paul runs as a third party candidate, I might just donate some cash.Sstarr
Tim, I think that you understate the importance of the disapproval of congress. In this next election cycle I think people will be looking to vote for a different legislative branch than the one we have now. Sadly, I haven’t heard of another representative body that’s expressed a desire to run this election cycle. I’d gladly vote for a parliament or a duma. Maybe even a council of elders. Or that cool senate in the “Attack of the Clones” where representatives float around on those hovering disk things… I’d totally elect that for congress.
Cyrus
The Other Steve might be right, but I’m afraid the real reason is that the 16 percent don’t mean it. Or they’ll be swayed back into the Republican fold, maybe not by 2008, but by 2012 or 2014. How long can a Democratic president continue to mess around in Iraq before he/she shares some of the blame for its horrible state? How much of that 16 percent are saying that Republicans are icky, but when push comes to shove, will decide that Republicans have “really” changed this time? Or are the lesser of two evils for some completely nonsensical reason? (Call this the Instapundit demographic.) Reagan got elected only six years after Nixon resigned, after all.
LITBMueller
The saddest fact of all is that all these numbers clearly show the absolute disconnect between our elected officials and the will of the People. All of the posturing, blaming, fundraising, dividing, calculating, triangulating, and faux outrage has lead to what we have now: a completely unrepresentative democracy.
I absolutely guarantee, even if the 2008 election comes down between Rudy/Thompson vs. Hillary/Obama, this election will have an incredibly low turnout.
People are just turned off by both parties (with the exception of the 28%ers/fundies). No one believes what either party has to say now, and that’s exactly why not one candidate is running on the sort of “change” ticket that Clinton used to defeat the 1st Bush.
A government that no longer listens to the people is broken. The problem is: there’s no one else out there. People are even having a hard time pouring their hopes into the Empty Vessel, Fred Thompson.
Mike S
I guess I’m about the only one who didn’t expect more from a Democratic congress because I knew that the remaining GOP members would do everything in their power to keep the Dems from doing what the nation wants.
And if the media covered coingressional politics and votes more honestly the rest of the country would understand that as well. Why would the headlines for the Webb amendment read that the Dems failed to pass it when the real truth is that the GOP minority blocked it?
And before the GOP cultists whine about the Dems blocking things before, at least the media described those things as blocked by Democrats. That just isn’t the case now.
Zifnab
Bullshit. No one forced Democrats to vote for that ridiculous condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad. Certainly, no one prevented Democrats from supporting Reid-Feingold and making the vote an even 50-49, like every anti-War bill should be. Where Democrats have the opportunity to clearly draw a line in the sand, they’re waffling and triangulating and playing as hard right as their base will allow.
I eagerly await tough primary challenges on every lukewarm DINO we find. If we Liebermanized half the sitting Senators, I don’t know if it would be a bad thing. Netroots Dems have the money. They’ve got the mojo on the ground. And they’ve got the will of the people as their banner. And if we’re not going to do more than limply subpoena the White House with our “majority” in both Houses, I say let the wimps and the stay-the-coursers find a new party. The Republicans proved in the 80s that a strong minority can be more vicious and strong than a weak majority. And they proved that revolutions come to those that wait and stick together.
In a vacuum this might have had an effect. I’m sure one more “Democrats Are Losers” headline would feel crushingly negative, except that people actually following the Webb Amendment aren’t so quickly swayed by “Democrats Lost” versus “Republicans Obstructed”. We know what happened – the bill was filibustered to death. That doesn’t make me feel any worse about Jim Webb or any better about Mitch McConnell.
bittern
People hate Congress because, whatever your political faith (liberal, paleo, prohibitionist, goo-goo, sponge, or puritan), the Congress is full of people who disagree with you. If ONLY the Congress would carry out my personal instructions, but noooo . . . Easier to get behind a single individual. At least you can imagine you’re following a coherent platform. How could anyone get behind a Congress reflecting a multifaceted polity?
ThymeZone
They’re just doing politics. In this case, a move that takes away a negative campaign commercial from the GOP next fall, and costs us nothing at all, absolutely nada.
The goal is to gain seats next year, and this was a smart move. The goal of members is not to act out your blog rage. Believe it or not, the most important thing right now is to insure Dem seats in the next congress. Seats = votes on the floor. Votes = change.
Mike S
I’m always amazed by people who think we represent the majority of Americans. We know what is going on because we are addicted to politics. The rest of the country doesn’t know anything except headlines and the first 3 grafs of an article. And thats only when they actually bother to read a paper.
bittern
But I wouldn’t say so if I could get at Zifnab’s stash.
Billy K
Have you listened to Obama at all?
r4d20
this will cut them off from any reasonable levels of support from sane people.
In a word of insane people, the 28% who are sane must appear to be insane.
Bush rocks. Libs suck. Fox is fair and balanced. Anything that contradicts my preconceptions must be false.
John Cole
I think the bashing of Democrats needs to calm down a little bit. As I see it, there are several issues at play:
1.) The Democrats are still putzes. Period. I am not sure what they have been watching the past ten years, but they came into office under the impression that they were going to advance an agenda.
Not going to happen. Not with a slim majority, not with an opposition party that is thrilled to filibuster, and a president who will veto. They should have come into office with the sole agenda of stopping the bad shit that has been coming, and investigating the past few years of unrestrained corruption and perfidy.
That is why they were put into office- to stop the Republicans before things got worse.
2.) The democrats are still pussies. Period. they actually seem to be afraid of how the republicans are going to portray them if they try to stop the war, when the REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IT ANYWAY.
3.) The left sucks at message control. Period. I can not believe the Freepers were in the WH and no one said anything,. I can not believe religious nuts are singing revamps of God Bless America, and the GOP is not beiung interrogated about it. If this were a game, geeks would describe the Democrats ability to get their message out as “EPIC PHAIL.”
They should spend the next year being as in your face and belligerent as they possibly can. They should filibuster EVERYTHING the Preisdent wants, and cut him no slack. If he wants to veto spending bills for the troops because he does not like them, fine. That is on BUSH.
Regardless, as disgusted as I am with the pitiful Democrats, they don’t have much to work with. They are up against an entrenched minority with nothing to lose and no scruples, a dead-end preisdent who does not give a fuck, a media that is famously hostile to the Democrats despite the accusations of liberal bias, and a spin machine of blogs and well financed organizations and magazines that echoes whatever the GOP needs.
They suck, but the cards are stacked against them, despite being in the majority. They need more numbers. Not for you all to throw them to the wolves and bitch that they aren’t doing enough.
Mike S
John pretty much nailed it. All of it.
Zifnab
Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Voting for the MoveOn condemnation Sense of the Senate resolution won’t spare them any flak in ’08. Republicans will still smear them as terrorist-kissing, Jesus-hating, hippie, moonbat, extremist liberals. Passing the FISA changes didn’t give them one inch of cover. Every inch the Dems concede, the Republicans drum up as a victory. Every inch the Dems to hold causes the Republicans only act more foolish and out of touch. See: the Ahmedinijad visit.
The Dems need to learn that they’ve got a base too, and that we deserve some real love’n. The Webb bill was a good move. The Reid-Feingold bills are always welcome. Katrina investigations and Iraqi contractor inquiries and dragging “I don’t recall” Gonzolas to the mat warms my heart. But when the Democrats buckle under, they just look so… damn… stupid.
No one is throwing them to the wolves. They suck, but they suck at levels of suck we grew accustomed to in the 80s and 90s. Tolerable levels of suck. Bush and his Republicans have been entirely intolerably sucky. No one paying attention on these boards is going to run off a vote Republican. The vast majority will vote Dem, close pin on nose or otherwise.
That said, this is America and I claim the right to bitch. The Democratic Party doesn’t have the luxury of cheerleaders like their Republican counterparts. They just have a very loud audience. We’ll cheer or boo depending on whether Dems can make the plays. That’s all any honest politician should be able to ask for.
Alan
Freepers were in the White House? It’s hard to believe the GOP thinks reaching out to RW pundits and whack-jobs will somehow help the party win back credibility. As Tyler Durden might say, “The GOP is polishing the brass on the Titanic. It’s all going down, man.”
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Welcome to Non Sequitur City! Population: you.
Not sure where you’re trying to go with all that. “Americans are stupid! Americans prefer Democrats!”
Well, duh.
Bubblegum Tate
Absolutely.
I mean…Freepers at the White House…what the fuck? Goopers will scream bloody murder if they can connect any Dem with any “bad leftie person” within six degrees, but here, the president actually invites some of the biggest wingnuts this side of actual wingnuts (the hardware), and…nothing.
ThymeZone
Totally disagree. But that aside, what do you think it costs them? Driving dem voters to vote for Republicans?
It’s not a bad move unless it generates a Republican vote. The actual measure means nothing, it’s entirely theater.
To whom? Who do you think actually cares about this?
Get a grip, man. We’re playing with real bullets here.
Zifnab
Dude. No one likes seeing a Republican gloat. It’s just disgusting.
Nest of Kegels
Trust Tim F. to celebrate the fact that 54% of the country is criminally insane. These people should be confined to some sort of facility until the War on Terror ends.
Tsulagi
Yep
Yep
Yep
And a definite yes. If the Dems think they’re going to get the presidency and more seats in Congress just by showing up next year, they’re going to get their asses handed to them. They need to learn how to fight.
The way they’re playing, they got a 1 point lead in the third quarter and they keep taking a knee because they’re afraid of turning over the ball. You can lose that way.
Mike S
It’s fair to say that it is just the cultist Republicans that fall into the stupid catagory. It is after all just you fools that still think that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Zifnab
It reveals what type of Dems we’ve got in the Senate. The fact that we’ve got people like Fienstein and company who repeatedly stab the guys that sign their campaign contribution checks in the back. Its a disgusting act of betrayal and it weakens the party as a whole when you’ve got the right wingers in the left half of the party trashing us from the inside.
Zifnab
Should they be rounded up and put into some kind of camp?
ThymeZone
I think you just discovered congressional politics. It’s been essentially the same for about 200 years.
ThymeZone
So what? Your goal and only goal is 60 Senate seats or more if you can get them.
Waving your arms and stamping your feet over a theatrical meaningless vote is a waste of time. Or worse.
Do you think one less vote for that meaningless measure equates to one more seat in the body? Show me that argument, please. Otherwise, have some pie.
ThymeZone
So what? Your goal and only goal is 60 Senate seats or more if you can get them.
Waving your arms and stamping your feet over a theatrical meaningless vote is a waste of time. Or worse.
Do you think one less vote for that meaningless measure equates to one more seat in the body? Show me that argument, please. Otherwise, have some pie.
VidaLoca
TZ,
What do you think it gains them? The Dems control the agenda in that place; all Reid had to say to Cornyn was “take your punk-assed resolution and stick it where the sun don’t shine” and that would have been the end of it. Sure the Republicans would have claimed that it would prove that the Dems don’t support the troops but they’re going to do that anyway.
It’s appeasement. They look like little bitches. Everybody can see what the Republicans are doing so when the Democrats respond the way they do it costs them a lot: it alienates their base and it demoralizes people (like John Cole, e.g.) who aren’t exactly in the Democrats’ base but are looking for support in the movement to end war and resist Bush.
Tsulagi
Just in case you missed the Freepers bash at the WH, here’s a few photos to brighten your day. Looks like a fine Big Tent soiree on the WH lawn. No doubt Freedom Fries and Jesus Juice were the most popular refreshments.
Of course you can count on our Decider Man to charm the ladies. Speaking to some Blue Star and Gold Star mothers: “Every day is Mother’s Day as far as your concerned, isn’t it?” Yep, every day has been a happy, fun-filled event for those moms. Our Decider sees the biggest picture.
jrg
In the immortal words of commander codpiece, “bring it on”. I doubt that labeling more Americans as un-American is going to do the GOP any good.
Even attempting to engage the Democrats about the moveon ad makes the war seem more of a partisan issue. If this is not a partisan issue (as the Republicans would have us believe), then why didn’t the resolutions condemning the Kerry, Cleland, and Murtha slurs pass?
We’re talking about an anti-war ad, here, not an election year ad from a 527 group. The Republicans want to make it more of a partisan issue? I say let them do it.
Hear, Hear. Dems need to be more vicious: “Senator X has says that I have not supported the troops by refusing to condemn an anti-war ad, but Senator X [voted against funding for Walter Reed] or [failed to fund body armor] or [voted for sending soldiers back for 4th and 5th tours]…”
You could not ask for an easier message to re-frame, in light of everything that’s happened since 2003.
John’s right. The left sucks at message control. Here’s a wedge issue split 70/30, that the Pukes are handing them on a silver platter. It’s like the Republicans are begging to make the war more of a partisan issue. I say let them.
Sojourner
Nope. It drives dem voters like me to become independents… and, to wonder seriously if I will bother to vote in the presidential race. Because, by G-d, I will not vote for anyone who does not understand and support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And after the FISA vote that the Dems allowed to happen (and lost), I have doubts as to whether the Dems actually do understand the Contitution and the Bill of Rights. Other than as a political tool – which gives them something in common with the current crop of Repubs.
Perhaps the Dems are confident they can win without their base. Only time will tell.
LITBMueller
Bill K said:
Sure I have, but the problem for Obama is, as far as our Middle East policy goes, he’s only a little bit farther left than Hillary on Iraq (phased redeployment, but still a presence in the Middle East), but farther right than Hillary on health care.
And, how do statements like these sound like change from Bush & Co.?
Rice could have said that herself, but it was Obama on March 2, 2007.
But, you know what is kinda telling? On Obama’s campaign homepage, the word “change” does not appear once. Heh.
r4d20
I can not believe religious nuts are singing revamps of God Bless America, and the GOP is not beiung interrogated about it.
The Repubs did manage to make a huge deal about a Spanish national anthem……
jake
Exactly. There’s nothing to lose here, especially since telling the truth hardly constitutes “vicious.”
Unless of course you’re a WATB Republican, in which case Truth = Smear. But anything that gets them whining is a good thing.
The only thing I can figure out is the Democrats expect their voters to know Senator X is a lying crap weasel and so don’t bother to point it out. This flattering but stupid.
You know what I find depressing? 90% of the fuckers in these pics are old enough to know better but not old enough to claim senile dementia as a defense. Not that I’m studying the photos carefully so I’ll know who needs a single-digit salute or nuthin. I’m sure their neighbors do it on a regular basis anyway.
ThymeZone
It’s hard for me to believe that any intelligent person, faced with the chance to take power away from the crazy Repubicans, would take that stance.
It’s just about the most self-defeating thing possible at this juncture.
I expect Ralph Nader to show up here any minute, this place deserves him.
The Other Steve
That’s it. I’m voting for Nader!
Bubblegum Tate
Fry: Oh my god, you’ve all become idiots!
Bender: Hey, let’s go join the Reform Party!
Nancy Irving
Or it may simply be that most people don’t even know that the Dems took over Congress in ’06. They are punishing the current congress for the sins of (Republican) congresses past.
But most people who *vote* know who *they* voted for in ’06, and what party that candidate belongs to. People who voted in ’06 voted for Democrats for a reason. And there’s no indication they’ve changed their minds since then.
Bob Barbaque
Fun thread,this,and many times close to the truth.
For one the Dems are not afraid of appearing partisan to
the electorate,they are afraid of appearing partisan to
the lobbyist.
There maybe a bit of blowback to this as myself and some colleagues wrote nasty notes to the DNC when aproached for
donations,something to the effect that when they start doing the peoples buisness then and only then will they begin to see any money.
Second the moveon.org hullabaloo,
the R/Wer’s feel they have a monopoly on many things.
Swiftboating is just one such monopoly,
(in a James Cagney Gangstish voice):Now see here youse,
if i catches ya’s reaching into my turf again,i’ll send Sal
and the boys in the band over to wreck your newstands,capiche paisan?
seriously, in this case they’ll have their funding and special priveledges redistributed.
I have an idea, lets have the people decide with a popular vote.
Instead of the Lobbyist calling the shots to the legislature
lets us call it instead and do away with all these pay for play shenanigans.
Chuck Butcher
If you don’t like the wire tap enhancement bill, and you’d like to hold your Democtratic Congress-critter’s feet to the fire for it, I have them (yeas) listed. You’ll have to be from someplace other than Oregon to get mad at them, 5/5 OR Ds voted right.
TenguPhule
TZ, what all of us are pissed at the Ds in office about is that they set the agenda now, not the cocksucking Republicans. And this stupid shit is *STILL* being voted on and passing when it should never see the light of day in the first place.
Yes, the Ds need 67 seats to actually get anything to be law now, but this does *NOT* excuse them making it so easy for Republicans who were ‘up or down’ to go into stealth filibuster mode without at least making the damn Rs get up there with a phone book and make them read it.
Yes, its all a big kabuki, but we little folks kinda figure the Ds would know their lines already instead of trying to make shit up as it goes along. Give us a reason to vote for the Democratic Party other then ‘We’re not Republicans’, given how shitty they’ve been with the branding, I can’t help feeling that the Rs are successfully mudding the water enough to make it hard to tell one side from the other.
And given how fucking stupid at least 35% of the voters are, that could enough for them to sit out the next election and just give up on the whole process.
Saying that the situation is building for a D blowout is all well and good, but battles are not won by retreats and I have yet to see our representatives take and hold a line against the pantywaists of the Right.
I’ll vote for a Democratic Party that fights for me. Not one that pretends to be R-lite to try and attract voters who are batshit insane and will never vote for them anyway.
John Rohan
Question. Has Fox News ever said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?
Anyway, like many others who read headlines from lefty websites and don’t dive into the material, you missed a couple other things about that actual poll (located here). For example, look at page 8: 42.6% of Democrats believe that the US government was either responsible for 9/11 or deliberately allowed it to happen (In contrast, 30.5% of Independents and only 19.2% of Republicans fed into this nonsense). If Fox News is to blame in the first case, then they also must be commended for better educating their listeners in the latter case. (More detail available here).
Bruce Moomaw
Uh, Mr. Rohan? That statement that “the US government was responsible for 9-11” can, of course, obviously also be interpreted to say that the US government was “responsible” for it through neglecting to properly appraise the advance intelligence indications that it might happen, which is a belief shared by a hell of a lot of non-paranoiacs. Which means that it’s a wee bit premature to conclude that 43% of Democrats (and 30.5% of Independents — and 12.5% of Republicans, for God’s sake!) think that the Bush Administration deliberately set up the 9-11 attacks. Actually, it’s downright stupid for you to conclude that.
Bruce Moomaw
Correction: make that 19.2% of Republicans, not “12.5%”. Typo on my part. Mr. Rohan must think there are an awful lot of crypto-Communist paranoiacs who are also registered Republicans.
Bruce Moomaw
Second postscript: page 7 of that poll concludes that 32% of the Americans in our ARMED FORCES think the same thing. With so many traitors in the military, how can we possibly win?
Bruce Moomaw
And a third postscript: page 16 of the poll lists 38% of the members of our armed forces (once the 5% undecided are equally divvied up) thinking that this should be “investigated”. Dare one suggest both that Mr. Rohan has misinterpreted the poll, and that he’s in an awfully wobbly position to be accusing other people of skimming over it too fast?
Bruce Moomaw
And a fourth postscript: it turns out that the poll that Mr. Rohan is quoting (Zogby) isn’t even the same one that Tim F. was quoting (Newsweek). Oy.
whippoorwill
I believe Zogby used the “Let it happen” . To combine the questions of “was the US responsible for 9-11(actually did the deed] or purposefully let it happened” is misleading. Many people believe that Bush was warned repeatably that an attack on US soil was imminent {and the evidence supports this assertion] and choose to do nothing about it. This could easily be taken as an affirmative to the second part of the question and drive up the percentage of yes respondents which falsely suggest more support for the first half of the question that the US was responsible for 9-11.
whippoorwill
And upon closer exam that’s exactly what you, Mr. Rohan. Only 6.3 % of democrats believe Bush made 9-11 happen and 36.3 believe the Bushies “let it happen” by ignoring the warnings for whatever reason. Nice try pal.
Lee
Any spanish readers?
Spain Opens the Books on Bush
My ability to bring you the full details on this are, to put it charitably, limited by my inability to accurately translate Spanish. But it seems someone in the Spanish government has leaked to El Pais transcripts of conversations between President Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Aznar just before the outbreak of the Iraq War. The gist seems to be that Bush was rather candid about the fact that the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis were a sham and that the war was a done deal.
Not a surprise certainly, but interesting to see it revealed as it was discussed by the actors at the time.
Apparently El Pais is going to be publishing more . If you read Spanish, take a look and tell us what you see.
Buck
Assuming that they vote for change.
Lee
Ooops wrong thread, thought it was the open one…sorry.
Zifnab
That’s not entirely fair. They sent the Timetable bill to Bush and broke the filibuster once. Then they stood tall on the Web dwell time amendment. The fact that Barbara Boxer threw out the alternative MoveOn bill that condemned attacks on John Kerry’s war record as well as attacks on General Petreaus shows that at least someone knows how to play the game. That bill got virtually full Dem support (I think Feingold was the only one who threw up his hands and called the whole thing bullshit), and full Republican opposition. Unfortunately, that bill got a half a sentence at the bottom of page A-18 in most newspaper columns.
And that’s what we’re afraid of. In ’08, we win our 67 seats by a groundswell of Dem support. And in ’09, a dozen or so red state Dems continue to vote with the Republicans, and we face plant right back where we started. Disaster.
Halffasthero
Politics according to the Gospel of John the Cole.
I can’t argue a single point. This is exactly the way things are right now. I became convinced of that when the Dems, in their infinite gutless wisdom decided to retroactively exonerate everyone for the warrantless release of phone records by the telecoms. All because of the usual excuse this might hurt national security. As I read somewhere, this is the stuff tin pot 3rd world countries dream of. And the Dems are just letting it happen. Our democracy is getting killed off one blind eye at a time.
r4d20
battles are not won by retreats
Yeah, but they are sometimes won by moving sideways … especially when there is a cliff behind you.
jrg
Answer: Yes, they repeated the White House’s lies about Iraq/9-11 links ad nauseum. Back in 2003, before the link was proven to be a lie, Fox could just parrot Bushco talking points with plausible deniablility. Nowdays, they continue trying to link the two using half truths, omissions, and the biases they helped create.
Amazing what five minutes on Google can do. You should try it.
Conservatives are such a joke. You guys create your own parallel universe, then refuse to acknowledge it’s existence when confronted.
The Other Steve
Granted, 100% of Republicans believe the US government was either responsible for Pearl Harbor or deliberately allowed it to happen.
But that’s not “nonsense”, because IOKIYAR, right?
Go look up the term responsible in the dictionary, nitwit.
Sojourner
Exactly. There’s no incentive for the dems to grow a pair if their base continues to support them even when the dem leadership allows votes to occur that take away our civil rights. On the Iraq war, the majority of Americans share their position but you wouldn’t know it from the way the Congressional dems behave.
Supporting this crew is just stupid if you truly believe in civil rights.
Yes, the lectures on accepting the lesser of two evils will continue but I’m just not willing to support lesser any longer. Doing so simply supports the status quo.
Zifnab
Except that there are no other alternatives for at least another year and a half. We’re stuck with the Congress we’ve got.
The problem lies in the primaries. For too long, people have assumed that primaries just don’t matter. On the contrary, primaries are of HUGE importance. Lamont demonstrated that in Connecticut, when he ousted Lieberman and demonstrated the might of the anti-war movement. Dean proved it in ’04 – if he hadn’t run, ’06 and the 50-state strategy would never have happened like it did. The DKos candidates prove it on a daily basis.
If you want good candidates, not just people with a (D) or and (R) by their names, your primary vote decides who your party seeds onto the ballot. The Republican fringe base is tearing the party apart at the primaries by fielding crazier and crazier candidates. The netroots is picking and backing candidates long before a primary happens.
If you want to make change, you need to back the guy running against the incumbent you don’t like. If you want to make real change, you go out and find people who can make an honest run, and you encourage them to dive in.
ThymeZone
Yes, and you are stuck with the vast majority of its members even into the next congress.
This all hinges on what you think today’s politics is about. If we think it is about the crappy voting of Feinstein and that sort of thing, sure, rage all you want, it fills up the blogs nicely.
But … it isn’t about that. It’s about reality, and a two-party reality, and machine politics. It’s about the fact that the country is being ground into hamburger by a beast, namely the Republican machine, and the only effective weapon you have against it in the short to mid term is the other machine, the Dems. And the way you empower your machine to beat their machine is to get more seats in congress in the next election.
Anything else you do …. is self defeating. Period. One vote, one speech, that costs us a seat is bad. We are in a position to pick up seats. We have to pick up the seats or else two years from now you are going be sitting here in the same weak position you are in now.
Feinstein is not your problem, Republican seats are your problem.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I realize that you genius Democrats are always right in your own heads and echo chambers, but the Newsweek poll Tim linked to kind of argues against your arrogant fantasy, doesn’t it? I mean, simple fifth-grade logic would argue against you, too, but I wouldn’t want your head to explode.
The poll only contained only 25% Republicans (which explains all the wrong answers — bump that GOP number up, and these folks wouldn’t look like such idiots), yet only half of the total people surveyed said Saddam didn’t aid the 9/11 terrorists.
So if every single Republican said Saddam was involved, they would only make up half of the folks with the “wrong” answer.
See how simple that was? So you’re not only arrogant, you’re not very bright, either! Which should explain a lot to you, but it probably won’t. Good luck.
ThymeZone
If you want a good example of how this works, I give you the Macaca Speech. That’s how it works for us and against the beast.
Supporting MoveOn doesn’t win you a seat anywhere. It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Nobody said you have to like the reality of the system you have. But I am saying, you have to gain seats to gain power. And you don’t gain seats by worrying about incumbent Dems who are sitting on safe seats, even if you despise them. You go after the other guys’ seats.
When you have 60 Senate seats (or 60 reliable anti-beast votes) then you can start worrying about trying to replace the Feinsteins.
With 49 reliable votes, you can’t do that.
First, kill the beast. You kill the beast with the safe seats you have, not the ones you wish you had. That’s my opinion.
Buck
Any idea how many total seats you would need to have in order to insure having 60 anti-beast votes?
John Rohan
Nope sorry, read the poll. It makes that very clear:
“Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives”
Yes, that was a mistake on my part. This was a recent poll that was similar to, but not the same one that Tim F. referred to. Unlike some people on this site, I do own up when I make a mistake.
Bruce Moomaw
Page 7 of the Zogby poll: 32.3% of Americans in our “armed forces” think that the Bush Administration “let it happen or made it happen” (3.4% undecided). Among Americans who are NOT members of the armed forces, the figure is actually LOWER (26.9%, with 11.9% undecided).
Page 6 of the poll: 23% of those who call themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” agree (5% undecided).
Page 8 of the poll: 19.2% of Republicans agree (5.9% undecided).
Clearly either this poll is completely deranged (and Zogby’s overall record isn’t THAT bad), or else most of these people are indeed just saying that the Bush Administration was neglectful, maybe because of bias toward focusing instead on other supposed threats. Give it up, Mr. Rohan. La comedia est finito.
As for EEEL’s complaints about Newsweek’s supposedly Democratic-biased party ID figures: that 10-point edge for the Dems isn’t that far off from the Wall Street Journal’s latest poll (a 7-point Dem edge), Rasmussen (5 points), and Harris (a 9-point edge throughout 2006). And as for that 41% who think that Saddam “was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks” of 9-11 (versus 50% who don’t): I suggest that a lot of them think that he helped finance the attacks and knew of them in advance, but was on the periphery of the whole plot. (On the bright side: only 20% think we’ve found WMDs in Iraq, 11% think we’ve already captured Bin Laden, and 4% think Andrew Jackson opposed global warming. And with that, I bid you adieu.)
ThymeZone
Well, if we are talking bulletproof antibeast votes, I am thinking the answer is pretty close to 60. And that may not include the despised Lieberman demi-crat.
I had a chart somewhere that showed the Dem prospects for 2008 but I can’t find it so I have to start over looking for that.
We have (yet another) Dem seat pickup possible here in the House races (AZ) that I need to look into, I am going to get out there and put up some signs and ring some doorbells next year.
I have no illusions about the saintliness of Democrats, believe me, I just see the need to destroy the GOP for a few years to get the country back on track.
BIRDZILLA
Proves you cant trust those lie a day polls taken by AP/UPI ot CNN/TIME since their are faked those who are undecided are counted as those who are ether prodemactrat antirepublican and they dont call it CONgress for nothing
cleek
BIAS!! BSASI! !BIASI!! SI! BIAS!@!!
someone call ConYanker and tell him to get his sleuthin hat on!
ThymeZone
Yeah, those Framers were sly, Bird. No doubt about it.
whippoorwill
I’m sorry Rohan, but the question is too vague to be reliable. Since apparently the poll was commissioned by a 9-11 conspiracy group it’s not surprising. If it said something like “elements in the government specifically knew the attacks on the WTC were going to occur and could have stopped them but didn’t for various reasons”, then it would be more reliable.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Why in the hell would you not vote, as opposed to voting for some minor party that more accurately represents your views? I can understand the “wasted vote problem” in our present winner-take-all system, but only for those that bother to vote. Surely registering your support of a minor party is worth more than registering what looks like apathy, isn’t it?
Or conversely, if you take the strictly pragmatic view that your vote won’t change anything and isn’t worth the effort to make it to the polling place, then why would you ever vote even if you adored the Democrats? (One vote is infinitesimally likely to change the outcome of a statewide election.) I can respect pragmatic non-voters, but not conditional non-voters who decide it’s too much effort to vote for a minor party when it never used to be too much effort to vote for one of the majors.
TenguPhule
EEEL’s Irony of the Day.
grandpa john
I live in the blood red state of south carolina so I know my vote will not count but I damn sure intend to turn out and make my tiny squeak of protest by voting against every weasel assed republican running for any office even if dog catcher
Sojourner
I won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t support a core set of values that I hold dear. Because that would be self-defeating. It remains to be seen if the Dems will put forward such a candidate.
Randolph Fritz
(In passing) It is worth remembering that roughly half of the Senate Democrats turn out to be conservative. We really can’t blame the party for that–like it or not, these people were elected. Right now I’m hoping and praying for anything that will even weaken Republican party discipline. Anything that stops this lockstep march towards Iran and World War III.