[moki]

The message here is pretty clear. The people who are mindlessly ranting against Bush, and creating wacko conspiracy theories are likely to aid him in getting re-elected.

Thus if you really don't want Bush in the White House for another 4 years, tone down the hate mongering, and address the issues substantively.

from: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=2227433

.....

The politics of rage
Nov 20th 2003
From The Economist print edition

And how it could help keep George Bush in the White House

GEORGE BUSH arrived in the White House promising to change the tone in Washington. He failed to add that it was going to change for the worse. One grizzled political hack, Robert Novak, says that “in 44 years of campaign-watching” he has not seen anything like the Bush-hatred that is currently gripping America. Geoff Garin, a pollster, says that it is “as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years of polling”.

Bush-hatred is now something that civilised people wear as a badge of honour. In a recent cover-story in the New Republic , Jonathan Chait revelled in the fact that he doesn't just hate Mr Bush for his policies. He hates everything about him, from the way he walks (“shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides”) to the way he talks (“blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang”). “I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.” Bush-hating is a fast-growing business, with Michael Moore and Al Franken as its robber barons and every leftish author in the land trying to break into the market.

Forget about fixing Medicare or improving education. To hell with preventing another September 11th. Bush-hatred is the only issue that has succeeded in igniting the Democratic campaign. Howard Dean transformed himself from a no-hoper into a front-runner by bad-mouthing Mr Bush. Now the rest of the Democratic pack is trying to do the same. Dick Gephardt dubs him “a miserable failure”. John Kerry calls for “regime change”.

Many Democrats regard Bush-hatred as their magic key to the White House. Bush-hatred will not only provide the Democratic nominee with the manpower and money he needs to take on an incumbent who will have more than $200m in the bank. It will also drag ordinary folk to the polls in record numbers, determined to reassert good old American common sense over the conservative extremism Mr Bush has foisted on the country.

In fact, the likelihood is that Bush-hatred will actually increase the Toxic Texan's chances of remaining in the White House. Consider the evidence of history. The two presidents who have been subjected to the most vicious vilification in recent times—Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, both long before scandal struck—were re-elected by landslides. By contrast, one-term presidents such as Gerald Ford, George Bush senior and Jimmy Carter were pitied by their opponents rather than hated.

The similarity between today's Bush-hatred and yesterday's Clinton-hatred is striking. Remember the way right-wingers accused Mr Clinton of drug-running and murder? Bushbodycount.com has compiled a list of people the Bush family has rubbed out, starting with JFK . Remember all the cash Richard Mellon Scaife poured into his “Arkansas project” to get rid of Mr Clinton? George Soros has already spent more than $15m on getting rid of Mr Bush, a cause he describes as “the central focus of my life”. Counterpunch.com compares Mr Bush with Hitler, conceding only that “Bush is simply not the orator that Hitler was.”

Demonising the president is always a risky tactic, since he occupies the position of head of state as well as being the leader of a party. It is a particularly risky strategy with Mr Bush, a man who strikes most Americans as a regular guy, who loves dogs and baseball and mangles his syntax. Mr Bush's personal approval ratings are consistently higher than his job-approval ratings: in one poll in September, the gap between the two was as much as 20 points. Demonising the Toxic Texan may help the Democrats to pile up even more votes in Berkeley; but it is no way to win over floating voters in the South and the suburbs.

The peril of letting actors speak their own lines

Meanwhile, Bush-hatred is dragging the Democrats dangerously to the left, just as Clinton-hatred dragged the Republicans to the right. It is also undermining legitimate criticisms of the president's policies. There are lots of reasons to worry about Mr Bush's record on civil liberties, for example. But when Janeane Garofalo, an alleged comedian, describes the USA Patriot Act (an anti-terrorism act which, for all its faults, was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities) as “a conspiracy of the 43rd Reich” sensible people snort with derision. There are genuine arguments against the Iraq war. But does that justify Ted Rall, a cartoonist, encouraging Iraqis to kill American troops?

Bush-hatred has already led the Democrats into making big strategic mistakes. In the 2002 elections, for example, Terry McAuliffe, the head of the Democratic National Committee, decided to make defeating Jeb Bush (thereby avenging the Florida recount in 2000 and wounding the Bush dynasty) the Democrats' top priority. This diverted money from close races in Missouri, Minnesota and New Hampshire without doing anything to harm the younger Mr Bush in Florida, who won by 13 points.

The other reason why Bush-hatred will keep Mr Bush in the White House is that it unifies and galvanises Mr Bush's own troops. Mr Bush has worried fiscal conservatives by letting public expenditure get out of control. He has alienated libertarians with his carelessness for civil rights. He has annoyed social conservatives with his tepid defence of marriage. But the spectre of Bush-hatred will mobilise all these Republican soldiers for battle over the next few months, thereby increasing Mr Bush's freedom of manoeuvre in much the same way that Clinton-bashing helped his predecessor. Just as Democrats were willing to swallow any indignity—even welfare reform—in order to foil “the vast right-wing conspiracy” arrayed against Mr Clinton, Mr Bush's supporters will be willing to tolerate any heresy to defeat Ms Garofalo, Mr Rall et al .

Mr Chait ended his article on “The Case for Bush-Hatred” with a sigh of relief: “There. That feels better.” Less than a year from now, the Democrats may learn that there is a big difference between doing what makes you feel good and doing what is necessary to win back the White House

[NYCFarmboy]

Honestly I think its just a fad. Its popular now, easier to hate your own President and blame him for everything wrong in the world than to actually have a sincere reasoned opinion that you can actually back up without having to parrot the words of someone else.

...like these has-been singers/actors trying to be anti-Bush now as its the popular thing to do to try to get a headline or a mention in the newsmedia.

Abraham Lincoln faced a similar situation at the time of the Civil War, but is remembered as one of the greated Presidents in U.S. History.

The Gettysburg Address for instance was roundly and completely and savagely critized by the Democrat media of the day. Yet today it is looked upon as one of the most inspired set of spoken words of all time.

George W. Bush has had so much thrust upon his shoulders and is bearing the burdon in an admirable way. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and throw a stone at him and say how evil he is... but we live in a more safe world now because of his actions.

The pathetic pack-dog attacks are so repulsive and mean spireted they will have the result of in the end only helping clarify the fact that G.W. has been an excellent President in these times of trouble.

[tie]

Originally posted by moki:
The similarity between today's Bush-hatred and yesterday's Clinton-hatred is striking. Remember the way right-wingers accused Mr Clinton of drug-running and murder?

There's no comparison. The country was doing well under Clinton. It isn't doing well under Bush. And Bush is to blame. Budget is his fault, misguided and expensive war with Iraq, his fault. All his lies -- his fault.

The other reason why Bush-hatred will keep Mr Bush in the White House is that it unifies and galvanises Mr Bush's own troops. Mr Bush has worried fiscal conservatives by letting public expenditure get out of control. He has alienated libertarians with his carelessness for civil rights. He has annoyed social conservatives with his tepid defence of marriage.

Only valid point. People like Moki, who a few months ago said they would support impeaching Bush if his statements about Iraq turned out to be lies, now support his reelection. Not because Iraq has turned around, or because Bush has been validated with respect to Iraq, nor because of any issues -- but simply from reflex and an inability to admit that they were completely deceived.

[Troll]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
George W. Bush has had so much thrust upon his shoulders and is bearing the burdon in an admirable way. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and throw a stone at him and say how evil he is... but we live in a more safe world now because of his actions.

Just for the sake of clarity, which world are we talking about here? If you're talking about the world known as the United States of America then the jury's out but there's an argument that the risk of attacks on US soil have been diminished. If you're talking about the world as in the whole planet (what most of us refer to as the world) then it's patently obvious that it's not a safer place. Neither Indonesia, Turkey, Iraq or Kenya are safer today. Italy, the UK, Spain, Poland, Australia have all suffered record losses of life through terrorist and related action.

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The pathetic pack-dog attacks are so repulsive and mean spireted they will have the result of in the end only helping clarify the fact that G.W. has been an excellent President in these times of trouble.

I disagree. I think this ex-con, drug addict, alcoholic who lied to the American public and the world, then flaunted all of the rules that were put in place to keep global peace, marched off and without cause killed 10,000 innocent civilians in Iraq deserves every attack that is made on him.

I agree with Moki's article that framing the opposition of Bush in the way some are doing (criticising his walk for instance) is counter-productive. At the same time, it seems that it's very difficult to address substantive Bush policy without being accused of being a traitor. But I digress, there should be more of a focus on the substantive issues. Lord knows there's enough to criticise.

[Troll]

Originally posted by tie:
People like Moki, who a few months ago said they would support impeaching Bush if his statements about Iraq turned out to be lies, now support his reelection.

He does? Moki, do you really support Bush's reelection?? After all of the things you've said?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Troll:
He does? Moki, do you really support Bush's reelection?? After all of the things you've said?

True story.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
Thus if you really don't want Bush in the White House for another 4 years, tone down the hate mongering, and address the issues substantively.

Why not just "move to impeach Mr. Bush"?

[moki]

Originally posted by tie:
Only valid point. People like Moki, who a few months ago said they would support impeaching Bush if his statements about Iraq turned out to be lies, now support his reelection.

Careful. You do not know whom I support for re-election (indeed, I have not decided yet, and won't decide until well into the campaign next year).

You also assume that I've dropped the idea of impeaching Bush if it turned out to be true that he was lying to the public regarding the statements of WMD in Iraq. I haven't. Rather, I haven't seen any evidence at all that he lied. None.

Somehow, I think that if there was any basis for the whole "lying" thing, Democrats who are eager for any issue at all to attack Mr. Bush on would be all over it. Clearly they don't think there is enough there to warrant such statements, and currently, neither do I.

I'm also awaiting the results of the inquiry into the whole affair that the house is conducting currently.

But this is neither here nor there. The point is that this kind of hate-mongering isn't going to get anyone anywhere. It just polarizes the issues, and makes people on either side more extreme. I for one defend Bush a lot more than I normally would, because the attacks on him are ridiculous in the extreme.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
He does? Moki, do you really support Bush's reelection?? After all of the things you've said?

No, he manufactured that idea for me. It isn't the case at all.

[moki]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Why not just "move to impeach Mr. Bush"?

If there was anything to impeach Mr. Bush for, I'm sure the Democrats would be champing at the bit in order to put it forward. Alas, it appears to be nothing by hyperbole.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Careful. You do not know whom I support for re-election (indeed, I have not decided yet, and won't decide until well into the campaign next year).

You also assume that I've dropped the idea of impeaching Bush if it turned out to be true that he was lying to the public regarding the statements of WMD in Iraq. I haven't. Rather, I haven't seen any evidence at all that he lied. None.

YOU tied it to finding WMD in Iraq within six months.

Your words.

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
If there was anything to impeach Mr. Bush for, I'm sure the Democrats would be champing at the bit in order to put it forward. Alas, it appears to be nothing by hyperbole.

YOU'VE FOUND WMD IN IRAQ?!?!?!?!?

QUICK, CALL THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
YOU tied it to finding WMD in Iraq within six months.

Your words.

That is correct, and I am still annoyed by the situation, but more because it appears to show that our intelligence is woefully lacking. I haven't found any evidence that Bush knowingly mislead the American public.

I can tell you one thing, though. It is highly unlikely that the American public would ever support another war without much more concrete proof, or more certain danger.

This is certainly one of the factors I will be considering when it comes to decide my vote next year. Sadly, most people in the US won't give that much consideration to their vote.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
I can tell you one thing, though. It is highly unlikely that the American public would ever support another war without much more concrete proof, or more certain danger.

Ah I see, so we've progressed from "if no WMD are found the lying bastard must be ousted" to "Well, at least it won't happen again. Hopefully. Until next time, at least. That is, it's highly unlikely. Until then."

You're funny.

Originally posted by moki:
This is certainly one of the factors I will be considering when it comes to decide my vote next year. Sadly, most people in the US won't give that much consideration to their vote.

"If in six months no WMD are found, I will *possibly* begin to reconsider my staunch determination to re-elect the thieving liars" doesn't sound quite as good as your words back then, does it?

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"If in six months no WMD are found, I will *possibly* begin to reconsider my staunch determination to re-elect the thieving liars" doesn't sound quite as good as your words back then, does it?

Yes, people do change their minds when they see new information. Those that don't change their minds in light of new information are the ones to be amused by....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, people do change their minds when they see new information.

I'm intigued by this "new information" you speak of.

[petehammer]

I guess I fail to the the clause ("only if it can be proved Bush was lying")

It's funny, when people started bringing up this little statement of yours, you disappeared from the boards for quite a while. Did you think it would never come back to bite you in the a$$?

(see below)

[DBursey]

America certainly seems to have become a strange place. What's with this idea of equating political criticism with hatred?!

In my country criticism of elected officials is expected and accepted. And yes; excessive and hyperbolic criticism usually backfires. Of course, many politicians aren't elected in a cloud of obfuscation, and most don't lead the charge to unilaterally invade sovereign countries under dubious pretenses.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by DBursey:
America certainly seems to have become a strange place. What's with this idea of equating political criticism with hatred?!

It's all the rage in Israel, too.

But hey, I'm just a terrorist-sympathizer.

-s*

[NYCFarmboy]

The putrid hatred of Bush by those on the hard left has went far beyond political criticism.

I very much worry for his (Bush's) safety.

It really saddens me that this viscious personal hatred of Bush is "accepted" and encouraged by the left. Then after Oswald these militant-hate groups get all upset that they MIGHT be being monitered by the FBI?

P A T H E T I C

[petehammer]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The putrid hatred of Bush by those on the hard left has went far beyond political criticism.

No joke, the fact that the hatred rose to the level that Congress impeached him for lying about getting oral sex! It's sad when the entire party was wrapped up in this and tried to force him out.

Oh, wait, which president are we talking about?

[BRussell]

For those of us who want Bush out, you better believe this article is right. Even Clinton has said essentially the same thing. I'm afraid when I hear the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates. Sure, talk about how you would handle the Iraq situation differently. Talk about the fiscal situation, and what you would do differently. Talk about your health plan, your tax reform plans. Talk about special interest/big business influence and the problem of one-party government. But don't make it personal.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
No joke, the fact that the hatred rose to the level that Congress impeached him for lying about getting oral sex! It's sad when the entire party was wrapped up in this and tried to force him out.

Oh, wait, which president are we talking about?

Exactly...and watch Bush be easily re-elected in a landslide just as Clinton was. What goes around comes around.

The hard right is just as nutso as the hard left.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Exactly...and watch Bush be easily re-elected in a landslide just as Clinton was. What goes around comes around.

The hard right is just as nutso as the hard left.

Don't kid yourself.

America doesn't even *have* a hard left.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
The message here is pretty clear. The people who are mindlessly ranting against Bush, and creating wacko conspiracy theories are likely to aid him in getting re-elected.

Thus if you really don't want Bush in the White House for another 4 years, tone down the hate mongering, and address the issues substantively.

hmmm...you REALLY REALLY want to curtail the speech of those you disagree with. Although I appreciate the altruistic nature of telling those who disagree with Bush to shut the hell up, I'll continue to ignore such nonpartisan advice.

Besides, I don't understand the problem....if doing so will get your guy re-elected, why are you so intent on stopping it?

methinks thou dost protest too much.....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The putrid hatred of Bush by those on the hard left has went far beyond political criticism.

I very much worry for his (Bush's) safety.

It really saddens me that this viscious personal hatred of Bush is "accepted" and encouraged by the left. Then after Oswald these militant-hate groups get all upset that they MIGHT be being monitered by the FBI?

P A T H E T I C

er...am I understanding you correctly? Are you paranoically characterizing people that disagree with bush on the same level as Oswald? that disagreeing with Bush is somehow a threat to his safety?

and people call ME paranoid.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
er...am I understanding you correctly? Are you paranoically characterizing people that disagree with bush on the same level as Oswald? that disagreeing with Bush is somehow a threat to his safety?

and people call ME paranoid.

what's the difference between agents of the CIA and agents of the FBI?
Can anyone explain this to me...Are the FBI more insiders to Us and the CIA the diplomats? Or do I have it all wrong?


yes, one other thread was about an agent not having a funeral "with the flag and honnors"
Do they declare publicly : X, brother of so and so was member of the CIA?

I dont know if that's correct:
W's father I read/heard in few places was part of CIA too.
(same thesis who says Bush senior knew all about JFK before it happened)

(well if CIA is a diplomat nothing more normal...
head-ache stories

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by swrate:
what's the difference between agents of the CIA and agents of the FBI?
Can anyone explain this to me...Are the FBI more insiders to Us and the CIA the diplomats? Or do I have it all wrong?


yes, one other thread was about an agent not having a funeral "with the flag and honnors"
Do they declare publicly : X, brother of so and so was member of the CIA?

I dont know if that's correct:
W's father I read/heard in few places was part of CIA too.
(same thesis who says Bush senior knew all about JFK before it happened)

(well if CIA is a diplomat nothing more normal...
head-ache stories

CIA officers are intelligence agents -- spies, spy handlers, analysts. That kind of thing. Some of them are under cover, some are not. They work on things that are basically oveseas.

FBI agents are basically federal police officers who handle the most sophisticated crimes. They are also supposed to catch foreign spies. The FBI's focus is domestic although they do a lot of cooperation with foreign police forces.

Bush senior was never really "with the CIA" in the sense that he never was a spy. He was politically appointed to serve as Gerald Ford's CIA Director. He served in that postion for one year before going to be ambassador to China. That was all over a decade after Kennedy's assassination.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Troll:
I think this ex-con, drug addict, alcoholic who lied to the American public and the world, then flaunted all of the rules that were put in place to keep global peace, marched off and without cause killed 10,000 innocent civilians in Iraq deserves every attack that is made on him.

My fellow Americans, please give a warm round of applause for your new and improved liberal left.

[theolein]

So what do you all think of Waco and Ruby Ridge and the paranoid stories going around that the current restrictions on civil liberties are going to start a civil war?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by DBursey:
America certainly seems to have become a strange place. What's with this idea of equating political criticism with hatred?!

In my country criticism of elected officials is expected and accepted. And yes; excessive and hyperbolic criticism usually backfires. Of course, many politicians aren't elected in a cloud of obfuscation, and most don't lead the charge to unilaterally invade sovereign countries under dubious pretenses.

Mostly because the effort would flatly fail...

Unless you thought Canada could kick Iraq's ass.

(omg, you did?)

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by theolein:
So what do you all think of Waco and Ruby Ridge and the paranoid stories going around that the current restrictions on civil liberties are going to start a civil war?

Maybe I am misreading what you wrote, but I do believe that one William Jefferson Clinton, a democrat, and his nasty ass looking Attorney General Janet Reno, where at the helm for both of those little love-ins. What does that have to do with Bush? And I still haven't got the memo on this impending civil war. I hope they don't start without me!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
My fellow Americans, please give a warm round of applause for your new and improved liberal left.

A South African lawyer living in Paris is the American liberal left?

You're kinda reaching, don't you think?

-s*

[DBursey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Mostly because the effort would flatly fail...

Unless you thought Canada could kick Iraq's ass.

(omg, you did?)

Check our recent efforts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Haiti, Cypress, the Arabian sea, Persian Gulf etc. In which of these missions would Canada's participation be considered a flat failure?

On the other hand, your administration's half-hearted attempts at multilateralism, coalition building and diplomacy are all 'flat failures' by any historical yardstick.

Mind, you're already quite adept in destruction of infrastructure from high altitute. With luck, determination and perhaps the adoption of 'planning', you'll excel at this invasion game yet.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're kinda reaching, don't you think?

Negative. It was the hate-filled, anti-Bush content and tone - reflective of the today's liberal left - that I was referring to.

[mcsjgs]

Bush 43 is indeed a polarizing president, Hard not to be given how he was elected. What I think will keep him in the White House are:

1. Enormous amounts of money raised for his re-election campaign. If “you get what you pay for” applies to politics, Bush wins, no question.

2. Weak Democratic opposition. If Howard Dean is the nominee, look for a Dukakis II result. Dean has clearly run the most skillful campaign so far, but has a miniscule base compared to Bush.

3. Bread and Circuses. Combine a dumbing down of the American electorate with a celebrity culture, and who cares about politics? We can watch the Michael Jackson saga, and it is so much more interesting. And Kobe is coming too.

Politics has been reduced to meaningless photo-ops, mealy-mouthed platitudes crafted by handlers, and a win-at-all-costs campaign mentality. Let’s bomb away with those negative ads in the last 2 weeks, boys, and above all, don’t say anything that will lose the election. America now has the exact government it deserves for better or worse.

Bush and Karl Rove understand each and every one of these factors well. If there is a Democrat who does, I haven’t seen him or her yet.

It’s a very sad state of affairs and does not bode well for the future.

What the Democrats need is a dickless Clinton who was a superb politician and campaigner. Hillary ain't it. Until Democrats can appeal to both women and blue collar men in droves, the Republicans can sit back and just not make mistakes. The only hope is that their greed factor will result in a scandal of such proportions that Republicans will be discredited. The Republicans will be too smart for this, I think.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Negative. It was the hate-filled, anti-Bush content and tone - reflective of the today's liberal left - that I was referring to.

You are projecting

Troll never said that.

[mcsjgs]

Political rant:

The Republicans have done an incredibly effective job of winning (and show no signs of slacking off) They:

1. Control the White House (no viable opposition in sight)

2. Control both houses of Congress (will continue as long as Daschle, Pelosi and DNC leadership remain as is)

3. Control the Supreme Court through their appointees (the final bastion of sanity, now run by political hacks)

That's all three branches of government, folks -- with no end in sight.

Statehouses: Control more governorships and keep increasing the margin

Money: Have mastered fundraising, both inside existing law and around it with legal loopholes. If money is the "mother's milk of politics", the Republicans are fat, happy babies

Lack of Outrage: The Republicans have turned government into one vast corporate welfare state, and no one cares. Billions are funneled to contributors and cronies on a regular basis, and no one cares. Tax cuts return billions to the very wealthiest, and no one cares. Huge deficits, and no one cares.

It is not lack of rage that is the problem, it is the lack of well-directed, thoughtful political planning to address the current imbalance in US political life that enrages me.

The Democrats have rolled over and played dead since Clinton/Monicagate. Gore ran the worst campaign I've seen since McGovern, and the people responsible occupy all the leadership positions in tthe Democratic party. Recipe for continued defeat.

I am not into class warfare, but I am in awe of what the Republicans have managed to accomplish since 1990. It is truly unbelievable, yet it is the new normal.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:
Political rant:

The Republicans have done an incredibly effective job of winning (and show no signs of slacking off) They:

1. Control the White House (no viable opposition in sight)

2. Control both houses of Congress (will continue as long as Daschle, Pelosi and DNC leadership remain as is)

3. Control the Supreme Court through their appointees (the final bastion of sanity, now run by political hacks)

That's all three branches of government, folks -- with no end in sight.

Statehouses: Control more governorships and keep increasing the margin

Money: Have mastered fundraising, both inside existing law and around it with legal loopholes. If money is the "mother's milk of politics", the Republicans are fat, happy babies

Lack of Outrage: The Republicans have turned government into one vast corporate welfare state, and no one cares. Billions are funneled to contributors and cronies on a regular basis, and no one cares. Tax cuts return billions to the very wealthiest, and no one cares. Huge deficits, and no one cares.

It is not lack of rage that is the problem, it is the lack of well-directed, thoughtful political planning to address the current imbalance in US political life that enrages me.

The Democrats have rolled over and played dead since Clinton/Monicagate. Gore ran the worst campaign I've seen since McGovern, and the people responsible occupy all the leadership positions in tthe Democratic party. Recipe for continued defeat.

I am not into class warfare, but I am in awe of what the Republicans have managed to accomplish since 1990. It is truly unbelievable, yet it is the new normal.

you're essentially pointing out prong one:
control the government.
would that it were not so.

[mcsjgs]

What baffles me is where is the healthy lust for power in the Democrats? They are content, it seems, to merely take scraps off the table from the Republicans. They pander to the middle by becoming Bush lite instead of offering real ideas and meaningful oppositon.

The Democrats have become losers in word, deed, and thought. They do not have the numbers of voters to compete except in real strongholds. Americans do not like losers. America likes winners, and the Republicans are extremely good at winning.

The Democrats have not even become the loyal opposition of yore. They have become an ineffective, dwindling minority.

Where is their will to compete, their lust for office? They campaign like they are on Prozac.

[Spliffdaddy]

The conservative ideology has spread like a California wildfire thanks to the efforts of folks like William F. Buckley, Newt Gingrich, The 104th Congress, Ronald Reagan, and even Rush Limbaugh - to name only a few.

It's only just begun. There's lots of acreage left to be consumed by the fires of conservatism.

[mcsjgs]

My daily heartfelt prayer is that the Republicans will trip mightily over the log of hubris. "Why, we are entitled, by a right-wing divinity, to be in power. It is the natural order of things."

They will have to beat themselves. The Democrats are literally incapable of doing so.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:
My daily heartfelt prayer is that the Republicans will trip mightily over the log of hubris. "Why, we are entitled, by a right-wing divinity, to be in power. It is the natural order of things."

They will have to beat themselves. The Democrats are literally incapable of doing so.

I'm amazed they havent' yet. it is perhaps the widest and deepest trough of hubris I've ever personally witnessed.

[mcsjgs]

You can say that in spades. They have built a political machine the likes of which has never been seen in American politics. They are very smart, and so far very lucky.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:
Bush 43 is indeed a polarizing president, Hard not to be given how he was elected. What I think will keep him in the White House are:

1. Enormous amounts of money raised for his re-election campaign. If “you get what you pay for” applies to politics, Bush wins, no question.

2. Weak Democratic opposition. If Howard Dean is the nominee, look for a Dukakis II result. Dean has clearly run the most skillful campaign so far, but has a miniscule base compared to Bush.

3. Bread and Circuses. Combine a dumbing down of the American electorate with a celebrity culture, and who cares about politics? We can watch the Michael Jackson saga, and it is so much more interesting. And Kobe is coming too.

Politics has been reduced to meaningless photo-ops, mealy-mouthed platitudes crafted by handlers, and a win-at-all-costs campaign mentality. Let’s bomb away with those negative ads in the last 2 weeks, boys, and above all, don’t say anything that will lose the election. America now has the exact government it deserves for better or worse.

Bush and Karl Rove understand each and every one of these factors well. If there is a Democrat who does, I haven’t seen him or her yet.

It’s a very sad state of affairs and does not bode well for the future.

What the Democrats need is a dickless Clinton who was a superb politician and campaigner. Hillary ain't it. Until Democrats can appeal to both women and blue collar men in droves, the Republicans can sit back and just not make mistakes. The only hope is that their greed factor will result in a scandal of such proportions that Republicans will be discredited. The Republicans will be too smart for this, I think.

Wow. Wow.

The more I read your posts in this thread, the more I think I'm falling in love with you.

At least some people get it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
The putrid hatred of Bush by those on the hard left has went far beyond political criticism.

I very much worry for his (Bush's) safety.

It really saddens me that this viscious personal hatred of Bush is "accepted" and encouraged by the left. Then after Oswald these militant-hate groups get all upset that they MIGHT be being monitered by the FBI?

Don't be afraid. Just as Dan Quayle was excellent life insurance for Bush I, Dick Cheney is about the best life insurance Bush could possibly get. That is, if assassination by a liberal is what you fear.

I'd bet most liberals would take a bullet for Bush, if they stopped to think about who would replace him...

BG

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't be afraid. Just as Dan Quayle was excellent life insurance for Bush I, Dick Cheney is about the best life insurance Bush could possibly get. That is, if assassination by a liberal is what you fear.

I'd bet most liberals would take a bullet for Bush, if they stopped to think about who would replace him...

BG

Off topic: A dickless BC would be nasty. He's much more entertaining the way he is. Presidents are human too!

Totally off topic: I was talking to my grandfather the other day about Bill Clinton and he told me when he had visited the US in 1979 and met Bill Clinton when he was the governor of Arkansas. (My grandfather, Ingvar Gíslason, was the minister of education and an MP at the time and was in an official visit to the US -- among the places he visited was Arkansas) He told me Clinton was a really energetic and charming fellow. Very sure of himself too and he told my grandfather: "One day I'm gonna become the President".

Cocky bastard!