September 4, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Political notes
On a political note, I think this does show one of the electoral strengths of the Bush administration. The Democrats seem taken aback -- flailing wildly, in fact. Not one of them had anything even mildly interesting, much less punchy, to say to the New York Times or the Washington Post.
(I know many of my readers hate the "Politics as a horse race" discussion, but I'm afraid I come from a long line of political handicappers, so they'll have to endure it.)
Because the Bush administration holds onto their policies longer, and doesn't engage in the kind of relentless public battle that the Clinton administration did (another, very different, impressively effecitive operation) their opponents waste a lot of their political energy -- and capital -- shadowboxing. The Democrats have grown more and more tenative as Bush has, time and time again, bided his time, but ultimately each time they have decided to launch an attack -- only to find themselves neatly pre-empted. There are certainly arguments from principle as to why this is not necessarily a good thing, but a strategist has to admire the discipline and planning.
(My liberal commenters who are planning to fill the comments with contemptuous dismissals of the mere possibility that George Bush might be good at anything other than venal mendacity should consider that this has now happened five or six times. If he's such an idiot, how stupid are your guys to be losing to him this repeatedly?)
Posted by Jane Galt at September 4, 2003 9:13 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksOne thing I've noticed is the Bush camp propensity to take a page from the Clinton playbook and carefully pick issues to concede. Issues like supporting the assault weapons ban, Steel protectionism, extending affirmative-action hiring policies in the federal gov't, pushing the prescription drug benefit, budget increases in the NEA and public broadcasting, the farm bill (although woe to any politician who messes with the farm bill, that’s is to red states what SS is to senors)..
Point is he has given the Democrats little to stump on. And really other then the farm bill and steel these are really trivial issues. The Dems could get a lot of traction on the debt issue but they don’t want to reduce spending either. Raising taxes is a loser and unless all hell breaks lose in the middle east there is not much to go on, why vote democratic when you already got one?
I would only quarrel with one notion, without 9/11 Bush is on the defensive because issues like Enron and jobs would be front and center. The amount of political capital that flowed to Bush in the wake of 9/11 was staggering.
"If he's such an idiot, how stupid are your guys to be losing to him this repeatedly?)"
Basically, Bush has done this 5 or 6 times because the voters are idiots also. Look at California.
No doubt if all voters were intelligent we would all be voting Democrat. Curse you stupid people voting Republican! Curse you!
Rick DeMent wrote:
One thing I've noticed is the Bush camp propensity to take a page from the Clinton playbook and carefully pick issues to concede. Issues like supporting the assault weapons ban, Steel protectionism, extending affirmative-action hiring policies in the federal gov't, pushing the prescription drug benefit, budget increases in the NEA and public broadcasting, the farm bill (although woe to any politician who messes with the farm bill, that’s is to red states what SS is to senors)..
That’s true and he has left quite a bit to keep his base happy – e.g. cutting off taxpayer funding for abortions, the tax cuts, staying firm on Social Security reform, faith-based initiatives (which are actually more about getting more blacks to vote Republican IMNHO), and national security issues. More importantly though, since the Democratic Party has gone so far to the Left, no matter how disappointed they might be over the explosion in federal spending, Republicans are unlikely to bolt and vote for a Democratic nominee in 2004 as Rick alludes to:
Point is he has given the Democrats little to stump on. And really other then the farm bill and steel these are really trivial issues. The Dems could get a lot of traction on the debt issue but they don’t want to reduce spending either. Raising taxes is a loser and unless all hell breaks lose in the middle east there is not much to go on, why vote democratic when you already got one?
That’s true and I would just point out that much of the explosion in federal spending (that wasn’t military-related) was done to negate it as an issue for Democrats. The Farm Bill? Passed with a Democratic Senate at the behest of then Agricultural Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA). The ill-advised prescription drug benefit –take away an issue from the Democrats. $15 billion in AIDS funding for Africa, ditto. The only way Democrats can go after spending is to either (a) go after the military (again) or (b) cut off funding for their base, neither of which will happen. So any rhetoric from the Nine Dwarves about the deficit is pretty much disingenuous at best especially when they are so anti-reform when it comes to entitlement programs and more likely to want to increase spending more than Bush agreed to.
I would only quarrel with one notion, without 9/11 Bush is on the defensive because issues like Enron and jobs would be front and center. The amount of political capital that flowed to Bush in the wake of 9/11 was staggering.
I have to take issue with this. Enron wasn’t gaining traction as a political issue prior to 9/11 especially when so many Democrats were found to have just as many links to corporate malfeasance (e.g. Terry McCaulife and Global Crossing) and the polls showed that the public didn’t hold Bush responsible for it. As far as jobs go, arguably without 9/11 the economic recovery would happen sooner and we would have had less unemployment with the shock it created. So if you take out 9/11 for the political capital it gives Bush, you also have to remove the problems it created for him and the economy as well. I wouldn't say its a wash by anymeans, but I do think no 9/11 would definitely mitigate the jobs issue.
California voters keep electing Democrats. Why is that smart?
The Neo-Left mantra:
"If only people were smart! Then they'd see how right we are!"
Funny. I always thought if those pesky Democratic voters were a bit smarter, they'd see how completely wrong they are.
Shows you what I get for having a point of view based on some imaginary world.
One point re: jobs
Paul Samuelson had a column a few weeks ago noting that the govt data on jobs was widely divergent. He said that the payroll survey showed a loss of about 2 million since 2001. Henoted, however, that the household survey showed that the number of lost jobs during that period was only about 108,000.
He ran a quote from one expert that the difference was probably due to companies hiring contractors that they don't count on regular payroll. But the workers themselves consider themselves employed since they are getting paid for working.
The numbers on consumer spending would tend to support the conclusion that the household survey is more accurate. This raises two points. First, why doesn't the media (90% of whom vote Dem) point out the same facts that Samuelson did? They focus exclusively on the worst emplyment data they can find.
Second, the reality on the "jobless recovery" is very likely to be much more favorable to Bush than the Democrats' wishful thinking. There simply aren't the numbers of jobless that the Dems have wanted to believe.
Whoa, let’s not forget that all job losses are not a bad thing from a macroeconomic perspective. Some are actually a very good thing. The question always is whether the unemployment is due to economic weakness---or *creative destruction. Many people are forced to find another way of earning a living due to technological advances in their industry. Allow me to be brutally frank: increased productivity intrinsically means that someone’s job is being threatened in at least a minimal way.
Did you perhaps advocate policies guaranteeing full employment? If so, let’s outlaw huge machinery to dig holes in the ground----and instead hire a bunch of people to do so with a teaspoon!
PS: As I’ve said many time previously. Those gods of creative destruction are dirty rotten %#@* unforgiving scum bags. They simply refuse to cut us any slack.
What 'five or six' times are you referring to? Elections?
One word: Sponsorship. Bush hasn't made any accomplishments of his own accord.
I hate to give a predictable, simple answer to a complicated question, but his incompetence has enraged me to the point where I'm not ready to entertain this kind of nonsense anymore. None of George W Bush's success implies that he has personal or professional skills. He clearly has neither.
Okay, Peregrine, I'll bite. Name one thing he's been incompetent on.
"One thing I've noticed is the Bush camp propensity to take a page from the Clinton playbook and carefully pick issues to concede. Issues like supporting the assault weapons ban, Steel protectionism, extending affirmative-action hiring policies in the federal gov't, pushing the prescription drug benefit, budget increases in the NEA and public broadcasting, the farm bill (although woe to any politician who messes with the farm bill, that’s is to red states what SS is to senors).."
That doesn't seem like such a careful selection of issues to concede. The prescription drug benefit will be a huge money pit - I can't think of anything he could possibly get from the Democrats that would justify rolling over on it.
In particular, trading higher spending for tax cuts isn't a very good deal for our side; sooner or later, we'll either have to give up those tax cuts and then some, or have that fight to roll back domestic spending that Bush shied away from, only we'd have to roll it back from an even higher level than Bush would have had to. In other words, on the domestic front, Bush has been a disaster for his side.
Unless you assume that Bush, for whatever reason, is either indifferent to or actually favors high domestic spending. Which is why I wish to hell someone would mount a primary challenge against him. Otherwise, we're stuck voting for a Democrat, or a Democrat in Republican clothing.
"Basically, Bush has done this 5 or 6 times because the voters are idiots also."
It's hard not to smirk at remarks like this, given the left's overall propensity for fetishizing democracy.
What's the slogan nowadays anyhow? "Power to the people who agree with us!!!"?
>I can't think of anything he could possibly get
>from the Democrats that would justify rolling
>over on it.
Reelected?
Okay, Peregrine, I'll bite. Name one thing he's been incompetent on.
He has not vetoed a single piece of legislation sent to him. And yet he proudly says it's his job to limit Congressional spending.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6588180.htm
"I hate to give a predictable, simple answer to a complicated question, but his incompetence has enraged me to the point where I'm not ready to entertain this kind of nonsense anymore. None of George W Bush's success implies that he has personal or professional skills. He clearly has neither."
He got, in a single term, over 1.5 trillion dollars in taxes cut, the first 1.3 trillion, and another 350 billion, which very well turn into another trillion if played correctly. He not only got the military operation that was supposedly "widely unpopular" around the world, but got it with overwhelming Congressional backing. He bucked one of the most ingrained electoral trends and gave his party dominance in not only the Executive branch, but in both houses of the Congress.
People talk about perscription drugs. Well, where is it? I'm still looking for the campaign he supposedly is waging to get this massive benefit.
Peregrine, your so blinded by your hatred, He have to ignore the real world to keep yourself from admitting the truth. Whether any of us wants it or not, Bush seems to have a way of getting what he wants
People, the answer is simple. Bush only needs to appeal to 1/6 of the population and get the rest so depressed that they would rather slit their wrists than bother voting. The politcal battles in the country are fought over 1/3 of the over 18 population, the rest are so put off they dont bother voting.
So, in the face of identical candiates offering identical promices and causeing identical problems who is the idiot, the one who bothers to vote for one of the two bozos or the one who realizes the futility of voting for one of the two bozos?
Stan makes a great point. In fact, Brian Wesbury has been making the same point for quite a while. He just is not as widely read as Samuelson.
The most annoying point about the way the "massive job loss" story is reported is that reporters quote the 2.1 million jobs lost from the payroll study. They then quote the unemployment rate, which is derived from the household study. If the household study is so unreliable that one can only trust the jobs number from the payroll study, then the unemployment rate is a meaningless statistic.
The Democrats seem to take it as a given that they will be able to run on weak economy. Given the all the numbers that have come out in the last two months, though, growth will probably be above 6% this quarter and the next. So the Dems are back to hoping for a terrorist attack.
I'm sorry. The two studies are the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey. The "unemployment rate" comes from the Household Survey. The payroll numbers come from the Establishment Survey, not from the "payroll study". I don't know what I was thinking, let alone what I was typing.
We could get into a long and pointless debate about the relative problems/accomplishments of the Bush administration. In the end, we are where we are.
The things that could work against Bush in 2004 are as follows:
1. Beating the deficit drum over and over again (like Krugman does so well). For better or worse, people are thinking about it and the correlation (whether true or false) could be made to joblessness.
2. Here in Oregon, we are consistently #1 or 2 in unemployment. How many of these people vote? How many are motivated by the slack job market to vote that didn't in 2000?
3. The Bush administration seems to like to jerk the chain of their opposition. While that provides mirth for Conservatives, it also creates more motivated political enemies. Grassroots groups will be ready to get the vote out. Since voter apathy is higher in areas with lower incomes that benefit more from entitlements, it wouldn't be a hard sell if a large, motivated group pounded the pavement to reach these people. This could be a real "Dewey defeats Truman" situation.
4. The administration burned too many bridges pre-Iraq. Old Europe is, after all, still Europe. What incentive are they going to have to help us after all the crap they took over opposing the Iraq war? We could have gotten away with quietly acting unilaterally in Iraq, but we sent out Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. to personally attack the people we now need to help settle Iraq. I am sure they are now content to let the situation stew for a year hoping things go their way.
5. As good as the administration is at finessing the opposition, they sound more and more like used car salesmen as people acclimate to their tactics. The stupid psychobabble backdrops (like "Stimulate the Economy") should goes in the dumpster.
As a Democrat sympathizer, I hope this is enough to push them over the top.
Well, Don, as for point number 2, I think it's safe to say that Oregon has and will trend Democratic for many years to come. The Democratic-leaning people who might have stayed home in 2000 because Gore was such a bad candidate (and caused it to be a real race) will be out in force to vote against Bush. (And likely, to vote for Dean. Even the super-hot Molly Bordanaro cannot stop the Dean juggernaut, even if everyone east of the Cascades decided to vote for Bush.)
By the way, unemployment is so high in Oregon because Oregon is well, Oregon. It's always going to have a high unemployment rate when it relies on out-of-state investment to drive job growth in manufacturing and then badmouths those same businesses for political reasons.
(How lucky has the Portland area been that Phil Knight hasn't taken the hint and gotten Nike out of Dodge when all that sweatshop business was going on?)
"The administration burned too many bridges pre-Iraq."
Outside of traditionally Democrat voting blocs the fact that the United States may have offended the Chocolate Makers will not in any way be considered a reason to vote against Bush.
Can we back up a bit here.
What does der Fuher need to do to win?
He needs to keep the 1/6 of the population that voted him into office in 2000 motivated to vote for him in 2004. He needs to keep the 2/3 of the population he and Gore drove away from the polls in 2000 away in 2004 with the help of whomever the Dems put up. He needs to try and drive a small percentage of the 1/6th that will likely vote for the Dem into staying home by convincing them that the Dem is a child molestor.
Now, what makes up the 1/6 that Bush wants and has he pissed them off?
He has kissed up to the Religious Reich at every turn. The racist factions have been well pandered to by bombing of brown people and anti-imigration policies. The gunnies may not have gotten much, but they are so used to being the rights whipping boys that they dont know any better. The crony capitalists have been very well sucked up to. Hmm... I cant think of any of his intrest groups he hasnt gotten down on his knees for. He ought to keep the usual suspects.
The decisive factor as usual is how well can they keep the majority of people at home on election day. Will some moderate non voters who are anti war see the Dem as a lesser of two evils and decide to get out and vote for them?
Scott,
If you insist on repeating the crackpot leftist bromide of comparing Bush to Hitler, the least you could do is learn to spell führer correctly. Otherwise, people might not take you all that seriously.
Also, I don't really remember him "kissing up" to the former Secretary of Labor all that much, but I could be mistaken.
Uggabugga has a funny map inspired by Richard Boucher Chocolate Makers remark.
"der Fuher" sucking up to the "Religious Reich"?
Why that's marvelous! Thank you for putting all these complicated issues into the proper perspective.
I like it when people explain things in a way that doesn't make me think too much. Not like that book by Ann Coulter with all them words in it.
the 2/3 of the population he and Gore drove away from the polls in 2000
Scott is right. Many polling locations had cattlecatchers, blaring car alarms, and stink bombs (Made by MONSANTO!) driving away voters, unlike all the other elections. My polling location was only defended by lightly-armed elderly Scandinavian women - I easily juked the first few of them, and voted all like POW! Yeah!
That's why Scott says that 2/3 of the population didn't vote. Just because of Bush and Gore. Those damned guys! Or, Scott is a hysteric. Maybe he's a poopy-head. I just don't know!
Will someone humor a (social) liberal here?
How is coming over to the general democratic position outsmarting them?
The proper democratic position of course should be:
"Of course I'm very happy that the president has shown such good sense in following my advice. And in the interest of the national good and in the spirit of non-partisanship, the president is free to consult me in any other issues in which he is still confused."
"Basically, Bush has done this 5 or 6 times because the voters are idiots also."
Wallster,
Is publicly insulting the very people who you need to win an election really all that wise? o_O
"Old Europe is, after all, still Europe."
Don,
No it's not! ^_^
Old Europe isn't even the western half of Europe. It's merely France, Germany, and, of course, the great and powerful kingdom of Belgium.
Just because "Old Europe" assumes that they are *all* of Europe does not mean that we are obliged to honor their pretensions.
"Old Europe isn't even the western half of Europe. It's merely France, Germany, and, of course, the great and powerful kingdom of Belgium."
Old Europe is where the money is. How much money do you believe the US might get out of Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania or the Ukraine? Or even Italy?
I might mention that there are huge majorities even in Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, the Ukraine and even Italy against US adventurism in Iraq.
My liberal commenters who are planning to fill the comments with contemptuous dismissals of the mere possibility that George Bush might be good at anything other than venal mendacity...
Oh no, as a liberal I'm more than happy to grant you that George Bush's prowess at getting elected is particularly high. Far above his competency levels in most other departments, in fact!
Pinky -
I'm not running. I don't need to be worried about insulting anyone.
"So the Dems are back to hoping for a terrorist attack."
Please. The first terror attack is the reason that Bush's approval rating isn't currently in the low 30s. Another attack will just give President Flightsuit another chance to wrap himself in the flag and avoid the issue of the massive debt burden he's encumbering us with. That's the last thing the Dems need.
Just because "Old Europe" assumes that they are *all* of Europe ...
This reminds me of that great line in "Canadian Bacon," where President Alan Alda, as he calls for a preemptive invasion of Canada, exclaims, "Let's put the 'America' back in 'North America'!"
I keep seeing people imply that the Howard Dean nomination is a foregone conclusion.
The Republicans can/will smoke him if he gets the nomination.
Ditto Bob. Yay for Howard Dean. I think it's hilarious that he's gaining so much support. I truely hope he wins the nomination. If he does, Bush won't even have to TRY to win. He can just sit at home and eat peanuts while Dean drives people to him in droves.
raj has filled me with righteous fury. It is not 'the' Ukraine, it is Ukraine. It is a country, not a region (or a collection of united states). You do not say the Canada, or the France.
Sorry to point you out like that, but everyone seems to use this formulation and it drives me nuts.
dear jane,
it is true that the dems aren't getting much traction, but i am pretty happy with what they have managed given the fact that they have no consistent avenue to get their ideas out and hammer the admin. i do not think you would have written this had the dems had control of either the house or senate. its amazing what wonders having the power to set up investigative committees and chairing them has for your political effectiveness and visibility...
"Please. The first terror attack is the reason that Bush's approval rating isn't currently in the low 30s."
And you base this on what exactly? Your amazing machine that lets you travel to the alternate universe where a terrorist attack didn't happen?
OT: Sorry about the doggoned string of trackback pings, Megan. I'll wrassle this MT character, yet.
Nathan, how do you feel about "the Argentine"?
SO, in summary, the "Bush is eevviill" contingent really doesn't have an anwer.
More seriously, w/r/t to Mike Farris' question, since essentially '68, parties have continued to shed hardline partisans and more people have drifted to the "center". This phenomneon became most famous with the "Regan Democrats." This was again done with incredible skill by Clinton and later Bush II.
The way that American politics runs now (although it similar behavior has been seen historically) is that each party nails down it's partisans and then runs to the center. The notion that there are any longer big gigantic stacks of policies that are solely Democrat or Republican just isn't true like it was 20 years ago.
Notice the fact that for all the major programs enacted in the last several years, they have tended to be Republican v. Democratic versions of the same deal. The Republican tax cut versus the Democratic tax cut. The R Homeland Security agenda v. the D H. Sec. agenda. And so on...
So in "seizing" the Democratic Agenda, the R's aren't doing anything particularly spectacular, they've simple recognized issues with broad centrist support and managed to put out something that allows them to preserve brand identity while pushing a middle-of-the-road agenda.
Claiming that they're seizing the Democratic Agenda is not unlike the Republicans complaining the Democrats are trying to seize the R agenda with their take on H.Sec., tax cuts and the War on Terror.
The sole angle in which the Ds are being outsmarted in this particular arena is the fact that the Rs have managed to attach their names more effectively to centrist policies than the Ds.
On a more subtle level, also take note of the fact that the D response has been to surge further to the left in an attempt to regain brand identity, effectively letting the Rs continue their hold on the center, rather than doing a Clinton and recapturing centrist policies under a D brand name.
This is why Dean is a bad omen for the Ds.
In passing, another way that the Dems are outsmarting themselves is that they fail to acknowlege that Bush, even if a lousy personality, is a good politician, much as Clinton was. He's kept his base in line, rebranded issues traditionally belonging to the other side as centrist and then managed to keep the initative by stamping Repub. on them, thus depriving his opponents of a solid base of support.
(Shameless plug for an essay on political realignment and the problems for the Dems in '04here)
Oh, 'the Argentine' is perfectly fine. It just rolls off the tongue!
cas, you make it seem like it's some kind of bizarre accident that the Dems don't have the house or senate, rather than the fact that the voters pretty clearly don't want them there.
"In passing, another way that the Dems are outsmarting themselves is that they fail to acknowlege that Bush, even if a lousy personality, is a good politician, much as Clinton was. He's kept his base in line, rebranded issues traditionally belonging to the other side as centrist and then managed to keep the initative by stamping Repub. on them, thus depriving his opponents of a solid base of support."
And thereby defeating the whole purpose of opposing the other side in the first place! You don't defeat the opposition by doing the exact same thing that they would do. That simply means that you're doing their work for them.
Jane:
"the voters pretty clearly don't want them there"
Really, how clear is it?
Not to re-fight the Battle of Florida again, but Bush DIDN'T get a majority in the popular vote in 2000, and the Republicans' control over both houses of Congress is by a relatively thin margin: the Democratic "defeat" in the 2002 elections was mainly seen that way, IMHO, because the usual commentators were expecting a big pickup; the "off-year" CW.
However, the AURA of control is as important as the actual numbers, and this the Republicans are much better at than the Dems - thanks to greater party discipline. All Dubya really needs is a one-vote margin in each house and that's enough of a mandate for him (one-vote mandates seem to be specialty of this Administration) - since the main legacy of the "Gingrich Revolution" was their revamping of House rules to give the majority party (however thin their margin) iron-fisted control over the process.
Does this mean that Republicans really ARE so much more popular than The Other Party - or have they just learned to "game the system" better?
Ken,
It is entirely possible to actually do well without alienating the middle. That's what Clinton did to the establishment that Reagan put together for Bush Sr. Likewise, the strategy you call self-defeating is precisely what Bush Jr. did to Gore.
For examples of the strategy you appear to be advocating look to McGovern, Goldwater or Dole.
Or - I could be completely misreading your post.
One could view the strategy of stealing the other guy's planks a very astute Sun Tzu way of doing domestic politics.
Usually, I agree with people who say the democrats are always in disarray. But this time, in California, I see 3 grandmas (with political clout), Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, all sitting on the power structure of the recall.
Meanwhile, the republicans have 134 horses in this race. It's like the old Roman Chariots. This field will be filled with blood on October 7th. Because republicans will have to bump into one another.
Meanwhile, grandma discipline has kept things very simple. The $2-million Issa spent out of his own pocket, because he couldn't stand a fair and square right wing nutter election loss, where Grey Davis got re-elected last year ...
Well, first to go was his money.
Arnoldt! came along (a RINO no less), and for about $50,000 stole the prize. And, got lots of publicity. Then, from out of the woodwork, the republican tent just crawled with candidates.
So?
So republicans do have candidates beyond the Bush Family controls.
And, since Bush didn't win the popular vote on the last go-round, and his numbers are now dragging. And, his policies look stupid beyond measure ... I mean is he going to the UN to garner democratic votes? Is this his gambit? He'll dress like Gore in 2004 so that he can get more votes then he'd get in wearing his own hat?
I think the big question is if Hillary emerges this October to claim a run in 2004. I thought she said 'no,' but Matt Drudge on Sunday, on his radio show, said that Bill Clinton, for his '92 run, ANNOUNCED IN OCTOBER. Because Bill had high negatives, and this was how he cured them. Ditto for the wife?
I do not know. But I know there's lots of stuff I think that doesn't make it into the papers. There's so much lying going on with our public media. And, this is the stuff Bush plays on. If Bush were braver he'd treat the media as if it didn't exist. (Sharon does this in Israel.) It's hard to get photo-ops and speeches out of Sharon. He just shows up for cabinet meetings. And, now that he's heading to India you'll see some stuff. But basically he is quiet. And, his troops are going after Hamas INDIVIDUALLY. WIth the best of INTELLIGENCE. Something, alas, none of the American defense organizations have built up. Not the CIA. Not the FBI. Not Military Intelligence. And, if anything, the Israelis are spooked. They see Pollard as an example of what happens to Israelis.
You think I'm kidding?
Right now Colin Powell looks foolish when he talks about his roadmap. And, Tony Blair is on the ropes, so a lot of good he can do to Bush with the roadmap.
If Bush thought this was a magnificent policy coming into Memorial Day. He didn't win his fight with Sharon. And, Sharon won't let Abbas/Arafat win no matter what kind of temper tantrums come from Rice or Powell.
You either lead. Or you are behind the 8-ball.
If Karl Rove is a genius then show me why Bush had such a poor popular showing in 2000?
Then, the economy was good. Gore had a lockbox. Now, no lockbox. And, the genie is out of the bottle.
As a voter I'm basically Republican, though at his height I was half-hoping Gingrich and his whole crowd would crawl back into the baseboards with the rest of the roaches and I have reservations about the national party.
But I am saddened by the demise of the Democratic national party as well. Used to be I might disagree with a lot of their policies, but acknowledge they were trying to do "good" things. I was even considering voting for Robert Kennedy, though I had no use for JFK and abhor Teddy. How far the party has gone since Truman is perhaps best demonstrated by the eedjuts fleeing their responsibilities in Texas for motels in other states. Time was, in my own life, they would have been drummed out of the party: now, they are considered akin to heroes for demonstrating a total lack of responsibility and competence.
It feels strange, but I actually hope the Democratic party somehow gets its act together: a one-party state is something that gives me goosebumps.
Partisanship defined:
'the Democratic "defeat" in the 2002 elections'
When one's party loses control of one legislative body, becomes a smaller minority in the other, both contrary to a well established historical trend and one still uses scare quotes to describe the event.
John Anderson,
Another mystery is how the Democratic party got so out of touch with the blue collar Americans they always claim to represent.
I look at the Democrats and see a bunch of elitist snobs who won't leave people alone to enjoy their snowmobiles, guns, and SUV's.
I'll bet Howard Dean doesn't even know who Bobby Dragon is.
"I'm not running. I don't need to be worried about insulting anyone."
Wally (or is it Stery?),
And THAT is the attitude that gave the Dummycrats the sort of results they so richly deserved in the 2002 elections. ^_^
The voting public makes and breaks political parties at their pleasure. A party that forgets that soon finds itself discarded. If the party in question is stupid enough or arrogant enough to forget it permanently then their being discarded will be permanent as well.
"And you base this on what exactly? Your amazing machine that lets you travel to the alternate universe where a terrorist attack didn't happen?"
Yes, Lance, I call it my AAMTLYTTAUWATADH for short. I got it at the same place you got your "Amazing machine that allows you to read democrats' minds and know whether they are hoping for another terrorist attack".
Raj,
"Old Europe is where the money is."
Nope. Recession or no, if we were talking money we'd be better off looking at the Asian Tigers.
"How much money do you believe the US might get out of Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania or the Ukraine? Or even Italy?"
But is it money or troops that we want? Machiavelli once noted that the 4 important ingredients for war are men, weapons, food and money but that off these the most important were men and weapons "For men with weapons will be more likely to bring you food and money then food and money are likely to bring you men with weapons."
While Germany is prosperous enough there is a limit as to how long they can permit the French to sponge off them and the French do have their own problems in the economic realm.
"I might mention that there are huge majorities even in Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, the Ukraine and even Italy against US adventurism in Iraq."
You might but I would be inclined to suspect that such legendary majorities in those countries are indeed legendary as Rumania and Italy are the only places where there ever seemed to be a majority, let alone a huge one, against the war in Iraq. Had you said huge *minorities* I'd've believed you as it does seem that a huge minorities support us in Canada, France, and Germany that many opposed to the President would rather we forget.
[Shrugs]
The fact is however that polls are so inprecise that the only ones that truly matter are the ones that are held on Election Day. If you doubt me just ask President Dewey and President Landon! ^_~
- S.P.M.
I think things have gone very, very well for the Democrats since Bush has been elected. Retaking the Senate briefly in 2001 because of Bush's arrogance and general meanness was a gift, but losing the Senate in 2002 was a bigger gift. Now the republicans can't point the finger at us -- its all your fault, and republicans aren't very good at getting results, as the current news shows. Bush's approval rating is now at 45% (Zogby) going into the campaign season -- I just don't see how this is all going well for him. He's stumbling about, and it's not going to take Muhammad Ali to knock him out.
"Amazing machine that allows you to read democrats' minds and know whether they are hoping for another terrorist attack"
Gee Wallster, I know I'm getting older and my mind wasn't what it used to be, but I'm pretty damn sure I've never either said or typed that particular collection of words.
" Retaking the Senate briefly in 2001 because of Bush's arrogance and general meanness was a gift, but losing the Senate in 2002 was a bigger gift. Now the republicans can't point the finger at us -- its all your fault"
Well, in November 2004 when Bush is reelected it should be like Christmas and your birthday all rolled into one big happy ball for you then.
hi jane,
"cas, you make it seem like it's some kind of bizarre accident that the Dems don't have the house or senate, rather than the fact that the voters pretty clearly don't want them there."
i agree that dems were in trouble after 2002 because they were clearly in disarray as to how to respond after 9/11, but they have done much better since then, especially as bush's position has eroded.
what you say does not in fact answer the point that i made re access to a national platform to air the other sides' dirty laundry. i don't doubt that this administration, notably cheney, has plenty to air. what is sad is that this administration doesn't have any incentive to lift its performance, as its "mistakes" (negligence?)are papered over by a cooperative house and senate. more effective oversight might help increase political decision making capacity (though partianship would likely derail it--sorry thinking rational discourse---BOAPW)
--The administration burned too many bridges pre-Iraq. Old Europe is, after all, still Europe. What incentive are they going to have to help us after all the crap they took over opposing the Iraq war? We could have gotten away with quietly acting unilaterally in Iraq, but we sent out Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. to personally attack the people we now need to help settle Iraq. I am sure they are now content to let the situation stew for a year hoping things go their way.--
The international and domestic press is trying their damnedest to have it go their way.
However, America's been watching *the world* thru the UN and aren't really happy w/*the world.* Iraq is settling better than we could have hoped for. It took 7 years in Germany, after all. And *the world* wasn't in particularly good shape to get settled at that time.
Lance -
whoops, you didn't say it. Someone else on this thread did. My bad.
hi sandy p,
"It took 7 years in Germany, after all. And *the world* wasn't in particularly good shape to get settled at that time."
iraq is not germany, and this is not world war two. and it isn't even europe, or kansas for that matter. i would feel more comfortable with your position if the historical examples you used were more similar than dissimilar.
Comments are Closed.