Reply With QuoteLol read this guys blog... Its... very... umm... interesting to say the least...
http://www.dailykos.com/
Lol read this guys blog... Its... very... umm... interesting to say the least...
http://www.dailykos.com/
A friend of mine sent me this link. The first paragraph pretty much sums up the map above.
http://www.tomdispatch.com./index.mhtml?pid=38464
Tomgram: An American Tipping Point?
Losing the Fear Factor
How The Bush Administration Got Spooked
By Tom Engelhardt
It's finally Wizard of Oz time in America. You know -- that moment when the curtains are pulled back, the fearsome-looking wizard wreathed in all that billowing smoke turns out to be some pitiful little guy, and everybody looks around sheepishly, wondering why they acted as they did for so long.
The article goes on at length (loooong length), but it's a pretty good read.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
It all needs to be taking with a grain of salt. I really do not think all of those states will vote blue.
You're right, of course, but if a Republican takes the presidency in 2008, it'll be *despite* Bush, not thanks to him. I'd say the Republicans' only hope is someone like John McCain.Originally Posted by Boredkid
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
^Go McCain!!!!
I always look at politics from afar, since I can't really get interested in it. IMO, the Republican party is being hypocritical. And that is why their approval rating is down, or should I say the Presidents. And the lack of trust is being proved out in the numbers.
I didn't trust Clinton either, but he could at least lie to your face and make you feel rosy inside.
So the next president will be Democrat?
Listen to the Dividing Line, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, White Horse Inn and RTS University the most nowadays.....
Quite likely... and a Clinton, at that.
I'm still planning to vote Green, though.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
It's not just one guy's blog. It's a lot of guys' blogs.
The Green Party was created by Republicans to siphon more votes away from the Democrats...don't fall for it. (of course thats not a true statement, but it has some truth to it)
Not so much. I feel like the Greens took a big step forward when we told Nader that we were no longer willing to put up with him and instead selected (former Texan) David Cobb as our candidate in 2004. Nader wanted to make a point against the war at the expense of the party -- Cobb wanted to build the party from the grassroots, and ensure that we're around the next time a President watches too many Westerns.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
I dont see a Clinton beign a president anytime soon. Two reasons, I think she is too liberal for the mainstream American. Second, She is a woman. As sexist as that is it is just how America is, its not me Its america.
Somethings ya just can't change.
I'll bet you don't even know why you think she's "too liberal." Just passing on talking points.
He might know more than you think but it doesn't really matter. She is percieved as a NE liberal and they have not won an election for 45 years. She will be painted that way and her stand on issues like nationalized health care will not help her cause. But her biggest problem will be the right. Having her on the ticket will drive right wing turnout like nothing else ever has. I think a woman could win, just not her. She is far too abrasive and divisive.
I really really really hope she wins.
Hillary is surprisingly moderate, and even hawkish militarily.
In her latest senatorial campaign she's focused heavily on upstate NY, even though she doesn't have to. Upstate can be very similar to the midwest demographically and ideologically speaking. Dairy farmers, ranchers, small-town fellas, and she's resonating very well with them.
Hillary favors comprehensive health coverage, and so do most Americans.
^I think she says what needs to be said to look moderate. Doesn't mean she is and that hawkish military talk is not going over well with the true left which means it is probably just that...talk. Most Americans favor comprehensive health coverage like they have at work, not some socialist takeover like Hillary tried to get past us.
Dude. That's exactly what the Clinton plan was. Comprehensive coverage for every American through their employers by HMOs.
Anyway, I'm not a fan of the Clinton Health Care plan in its 1993 incarnation. What's the point of providing every Americans with health care, while maintaining the system by which we decide who receives and doesn't receive health care? Wasteful overhead.
If my prediction is correct, both parties will take the more moderate approach in the next election. It'll be a moderate Republican vs. a moderate Democrat. I'd really love it to be Hillary vs. Rudolph, but I really don't see Hillary as moderate. McCain will make a bid, but if they put Rudolph up there, I really don't think anyone could take him down. He's too loved everywhere! Bush has killed any chance for a conservative Republican bid.
Oh, and that map is a little misleading. The election on Nov. 8 proved the conservative strength in Texas. We don't even have a powerful Democrat running for governor. I'm tempted to vote for one of the homeless people in Austin whos running.
Misleading and meaningless.
The president is not going to be reelected in 2008. The dissatisfaction of the American public does not affect the president's role, or his constitutional powers.
Which is fortunate.
You always have the question of what the poll is actually measuring. Certainly not the 2008 presidential election.
Perhaps it is measuring the general malaise of the American public with the way the USA's role in the world is changing?
Like... we no longer have cheap gasoline for ourselves, but must compete with China and India for it? We waged war with Native Americans in the West for decades, but cannot wage it against terrorists for more than 2 or 3 years? We grieve over 2,000 combat deaths over 3 years of battles and expect wars to be casualty free? We don't like living in a world where terrorists are trying to kill us, and blame Bush for this? We blame Bush for killer hurricanes? Or for not personally flying helicopters into the Superdome?
This so-called Approval poll is maybe measuring nothing more than the irrational perceptions of the public? One that no president can appease.
The primary reason I want a woman to be the next president is for the Equal Rights message that would send to citizens ruled by the oppressive power holders we're battling in the Middle East.
Gulf War II sucks, but if the women in Iraq become an active part of running that country, then the ends justifies the means.
1. She lacks experience to become President.
2. She is too liberal—on large government, health care, partial-birth abortions, trial lawyers, and the right-wing conspiracy
Somethings ya just can't change.
Obviously. The graphic specifically states "approval rating."You always have the question of what the poll is actually measuring. Certainly not the 2008 presidential election.
You're right. Pay no attention to the irrational masses. Bush knows best.This so-called Approval poll is maybe measuring nothing more than the irrational perceptions of the public? One that no president can appease.
She's a Junior Senator and First Lady. That's one of the more hefty resumes out there. Certainly stronger than W's was in 2000.
Too liberal on trial lawyers? WTF? Too liberal on right-wing conspircies? WTF? Partial birth abortions? Hillary opposes partial birth abortion except in cases where the woman is in danger.
Good god. Does anyone on this board know what they're talking about?
And what is "approval" supposed to be? The public has no role in controlling or influencing a sitting president. Their view of Bush is immaterial. And yes, whatever Bush thinks is best is what will happen.
Sure, life is tough, isn't it?
That's hilarious. Say that again when we draw down in Iraq by Nov. 2006.The public has no role in controlling or influencing a sitting president.
You're full of it.
This board is full of SpinMeisters who will say anything to prove a point. . .no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
Now, I didn't name names here, but you know who you are.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something. - Plato
Hmmm... looks like you take it personally when people disagree with you. Now we all know how to annoy you.
I'll say it whenever you like, November 2005, 2006, 2007... the public's opinion has no effect on the actions of a lame-duck president.
And, in addition... a public opinion poll which claims to measure something as nebulous as "approval" is inherently meaningless... there is no such thing as approval of a sitting president.
What then should we call strange sense of displeasure that 60+ percent of the populous holds toward the Bush administration? I was going to say disapproval, before I inferred it may be a non-existent term.
Let's bypass the semantics and just get to your underlying point. It may be true that a lame duck 2nd-term president is less politically accountable than a 1st-term president. However, other considerations such as patriotism, civic duty, party loyalty and ego continue to shape the actions of a sitting president, and allow the sentiment of the people to reflect itself in the executive office.
This is getting ridiculous.
The 60% figure was generated by a poll, and the materiality of the poll is in question... thus the 60% figure is in question. There has always been a degree of disaffection toward a second-term president... every one of them.
He is not just less accountable, he is not accountable at all. Certainly not to the voters. Bush's alleged ego, patriotism or civic duty has nothing to do with the sentiment of the people. Party loyalty? A midterm congressional election has often gone against the party holding the executive branch, as this one will.
Last edited by aceplace; 25 November 2005 at 04:00 PM.
Who would be the Vice Presidential nominee for both parties? That is the question that I am wondering.
Richard Cheney alleviated a lot of the fears about Governor George Bush's lack of experience when he cast his ballot with the president. With him and his secretaries and advisors, the ballot gained the experience of the Nixon/Ford/Reagon/Bush 41 administrations.
I doubt that Senator Clinton could pull her husband's bag of people out of her hat and make it "work" like Bush 43 has done. I remember that she was quite active in her husband's first term, but she played more of a common housewife in his second term in order to help maintain popular support during the trials. Despite this fact, many of Clinton's advisors who were not tapped by Bush and then discarded when convenient were discredited.
I feel really bad about saying this, because Obama is the first real African American contender for the presidency, but I do not think he has yet proven himself to be the type of polititian that he is promising to be. With more time, I think the American people will be able to see if he lives up to his ideals and to see what decisions he makes when under pressure. He just has such a small track record so far. Any time before 2016 would be too soon for the Junior Senator to campaign for the presidency.
Al Gore. Al Gore... I'm not sure what to say about him. He almost won one time, a world ago. I'm not sure what resources he would use to make himself a better president - and america better. If John Kerry was labeled a "flip-flopp(er)," then Gore was labeled the guy who never took a stand in his own life. There was everything from Lumberjack Gore to dot.com wiz Gore. He's had more makeovers than Joan Rivers has had "wind swept" face-lifts.
Yes, we know about the environment, and yes it is important, but what about civil liberties and rights, america's growing addiction to abusing the working poor, and international issues like nuclear proliferation, the growing problems of democratically elected dictators in South America and in Asia, civil wars and genocides in Africa, and even the international perception of the United States. (Of course, the perception matters less than the actual moral makeup and actions of the country).
Our nation is divided. Can people like John Edwards unite it on issues that seem to be pulling its heartstrings apart?
I don't know that he can.
To be balanced, in my mind, is to have opposing sides tettering over a small point of equilibrium. I'm not sure balance is the word americans need to be thinking about in the next election.
We need some of our problems resoved.
I like Obama because he hasn't been as exposed to so much of the crap. We need get as far away from the current atmosphere in Washington as possible.
Like a true liberal, Hillary is pro-tort reform. She's no friend of the trial lawyer.
DAGNABBIT!
Never mind...
I'm embarrassed for my former, idealistic self.
Here's an interesting look at our predictions from 2005. I think I was right.
Notably, there isn't any mention of Obama until late 2006. It was all Hillary until then. And I think Sarah Palin was still in high school.You're right, of course, but if a Republican takes the presidency in 2008, it'll be *despite* Bush, not thanks to him. I'd say the Republicans' only hope is someone like John McCain.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks