What's wrong with the Republican party?

[BobG]

It's obvious Frist is hoping Americans won't remember any of this in 2008. Many feel McCain is too old, and I hear Gulliani isn't planning to run. I haven't been able to check this out--anyone know more about this?

Frist, Cheney, and Bush reflect the influence the religious right currently has on the party. Doesn't matter whether they thought the issue had a chance or was even appropriate - they have to pay their dues to the party. They did their part, gauged the reaction, now they tactfully back away from the issue and let it cool off.

Giuliani will continue not to run for at least another two years. He has all the name recognition he needs. What he doesn't need is to walk around as the front runner with a bulls eye on his chest for three years. The way it is, the same gang that trashed McCain in the South Carolina primaries, trashed Kerry in the election, and waged war against the AARP on the Social Security reform could target a too liberal Giuliani in the 2008 primaries (unless that gang really is just Bush's gang instead just a friendly ally).

 

[Astronuc]

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

That's why we have separation of Church and State. Apparently Bush and Frist do not understand that concept.

 

[russ_watters]

Pressure builds on DeLay
Majority leader's travel, campaign finances at issue
The Associated Press...

And continues to build: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-13-delay_x.htm

The problem is that DeLay's ethics issues are a side-issue to the philosophical problems of the party. Essentially it boils down to the dominance of christian fundamentalism and its manifestations. The cure (as always) is for the people to take back their party.

 

[Astronuc]

There may be hope for the Republican Party after all.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_go_co/delay_tancredo
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - One of Congress' most conservative members on Friday became the second House Republican to urge Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside because of the ethics scrutiny he's facing.

"If the majority leader were to temporarily step aside so that these trumped up charges can be dealt with in a less hostile environment, as they have proven to be an unnecessary distraction, it may be a productive move," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

 

[Astronuc]

Tom Delay must go!

NY Times - April 17, 2005
In DeLay's Home District, Rumblings of Discontent Surface
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL

SUGAR LAND, Tex., April 16 - Patricia Baig, a substitute teacher with a comfortable inheritance, paid $2,776 this week to call for Representative Tom DeLay's resignation.

Ms. Baig, 57 - who identifies herself as a fellow Republican of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, and is one of his constituents - took out a full-page advertisement on Wednesday in the 62,000 copies of the weekly free Fort Bend Southwest Sun. It urged demonstrators "who want ethical reform" to rally against Mr. DeLay's speech Saturday night to the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, "to protest the actions of Representative DeLay and ask for his resignation," while adding her gun-owner's caveat: "This is NOT a protest of the N.R.A.!"

=====

Regarding Delay, racketeering and corruption come to mind.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm starting to look for grad schools in Canada..

there are some rotten tomatoes in this country that can't be thrown away, and simply need to be left alone, down in the South.

 

[ron damon]

Should Hillary Clinton also step aside for having family members enrich themselves in connection to presidential pardons? It seems to me that since the Left can't convince the American public to vote for them they'll resort to tactical maneuvering to win political space. If this DeLay fellow did not break a law, he should not be witch-hunted down.

 

[Informal Logic]

Should Hillary Clinton also step aside for having family members enrich themselves in connection to presidential pardons? It seems to me that since the Left can't convince the American public to vote for them they'll resort to tactical maneuvering to win political space. If this DeLay fellow did not break a law, he should not be witch-hunted down.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the Whitewater investigation was a huge waste of American tax dollars. I don't see DeLay's possible misuse of contributions to be so much of an issue as tampering with the House Ethics Committee and trying to incite people to go after judges regarding the Terry Sciavo case. Though I think Hillary would be a polarizing candidate, DeLay's activities are far more questionable.

 

[ron damon]

I'm not sure what you're referring to

I'm talking about the couple of people who gave her brother thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, and later got a presidential pardon.

And about the judges issue, I heard the other day his comments and all the man said was he "understood" the public's anger at the judicial institutions for not being responsive to their expectations and values. Should he not be able to express this very reasonable idea? How many times have I heard someone from the Left cry out when she/he gets called "anti-american" and a "traitor" for expressing his/her thoughts that terrorists' intentions of exterminating the West can be "understood" by this and that social, economic, or US foreign policy reason?

All I'm saying is people should be more aware of their biases when they pass judgement, such as in this case, so that we could all be a little more fair.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm talking about the couple of people who gave her brother thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, and later got a presidential pardon.

And about the judges issue, I heard the other day his comments and all the man said was he "understood" the public's anger at the judicial institutions for not being responsive to their expectations and values. Should he not be able to express this very reasonable idea? How many times have I heard someone from the Left cry out when she/he gets called "anti-american" and a "traitor" for expressing his/her thoughts that terrorists' intentions of exterminating the West can be "understood" by this and that social, economic, or US foreign policy reason?

All I'm saying is people should be more aware of their biases when they pass judgement, such as in this case, so that we could all be a little more fair and smart.

Well since the majority of Americans did not agree with government intervention in the Schiavo matter, I'm not so sure I'd use the word "reasonable"--but this was debated fully in a thread by that title. I don't think it is bias to question changes to the House Ethics Committee--I find this to be a serious matter. Though truly the current efforts to change the historical rule in the Senate regarding "filibuster" opposition is the most appalling.

 

[BobG]

And continues to build: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-13-delay_x.htm

The problem is that DeLay's ethics issues are a side-issue to the philosophical problems of the party. Essentially it boils down to the dominance of christian fundamentalism and its manifestations. The cure (as always) is for the people to take back their party.

Which people? You have at least 4 major groups, or maybe 5 if you add in a moderate group that shares enough interests of the other four to hang around with Republicans.

Change is pretty much the status quo.

The Republicans started out as a merger of the Whigs (strong central government), industrialists, and anti-slavery abolitionists. All three had similar interests (elimination of slavery has the side effect of a dependence on machinery). US industry was still too weak to compete against Europe, even within our own continent. They built the country's industrial base with strong management by the government, protecting industry from foreign competition via high tariffs and investing in a strong infrastructure (Erie canal, a standardized train system, the first 'modern' public school system).

After the country was established economically, the Republicans turned against government interference (don't overcook the pasta). Democrats pushed for immediately sharing all the wealth with the labor that built the goods while Republicans pushed for reinvesting the wealth to make sure the economic base stayed strong (if you spend every penny you earn and put some aside for bad times and retirement, you're eventually going to have some big problems - uh oh, I just revealed the group I identify with). There's still a large base of fiscal conservatives in the Republican party.

After WWII, with the cold war, a lot of Republicans finally turned toward internationalism and free trade and went back to thinking you needed a strong central government to manage that, both economically and politically, becoming involved in the politics of all these emerging nations. These guys drove a lot of our biggest diplomatic successes and a lot of our worst military failures. You still have a large base of neoconservatives that believe in the Cold War foreign policy style. Unfortunately, a lot of neocons are still following a Cold War mentality when a war against terrorism probably has to be fought in a drastically different manner than a cold war.

With just two groups, I don't think you had that big of a problem with the party. The problem is the two new groups in the Republican party - the paleoconservatives (like Pat Buchanan) who defected from the Democratic Party when the Dems adopted civil rights as one of their core values, and the religious right. They might technically be two different groups, but there's a pretty big overlap in the South and, combined, they've got a lot more power than they used to (in fact, the friends the religious right keeps is scarier than the religious right, itself).

If you look at history, the social activists have pretty much been that special energy that's changed which party has dominated. The Whigs petered out relying just on abstract government management principles - the abolitionists provided that special extra energy to the Republicans that they were able to actually apply the Whig principles. The Dems were nowhere in the 20's until they got that special extra energy from the pro-labor movement (the Depression probably had a lot to do with that success, as well). Fear of communism gave the Republicans a little extra boost early in the Cold War, but fear doesn't make a hugely successful social cause. The civil rights movement gave the Democrats the little extra energy they needed to dominate from the 50's through the 80's.

The neocons War on Terror is probably going to motivate about as long as McCarthy's anti-communism movement. The religous right really could be the group that provides (and has provided - this movement started in the 90's, not post 9/11) that little extra energy needed to take control of government from the Democrats.

It's hard to energize people with dull things like 'what's the best way for government to manage the economy'. That's not nearly as exciting as issues like Terri Schiavo and Laci Peterson. We might have to accept the idea that the Republican Party is turning into an ideological party that's a lot different from the Republican Party of the recent past. Unfortunately, if the current progress of Social Security reform is any indication, we might not even get many of the economic side benefits of Republicans being in control.

 

[Informal Logic]

Which people? You have at least 4 major groups, or maybe 5 if you add in a moderate group that shares enough interests of the other four to hang around with Republicans.

Change is pretty much the status quo.

I know someone who identifies himself as a neocon fundamentalist, who is smart and well-informed. Though pro-life, he did not agree with Bush/Republican intervention regarding Terri Schiavo, and also does not agree with other issues such as guest worker amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet he remains a devoted Bush/Republican supporter. Then there are many other Bush/Republican supporters who simply aren't aware of these issues--they only know the most obvious things, such as gas prices going up. Still, Bush's approval ratings are at 50%, so I'm not so sure there will be any change.

It's hard to energize people with dull things like 'what's the best way for government to manage the economy'. That's not nearly as exciting as issues like Terri Schiavo and Laci Peterson. We might have to accept the idea that the Republican Party is turning into an ideological party that's a lot different from the Republican Party of the recent past. Unfortunately, if the current progress of Social Security reform is any indication, we might not even get many of the economic side benefits of Republicans being in control.

The economy is important when people feel it enough. As for Social Security, many Republicans are not in favor of Bush's proposal, so I'm not sure what you are saying on this point.

 

[BobG]

I know someone who identifies himself as a neocon fundamentalist, who is smart and well-informed. Though pro-life, he did not agree with Bush/Republican intervention regarding Terri Schiavo, and also does not agree with other issues such as guest worker amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet he remains a devoted Bush/Republican supporter. Then there are many other Bush/Republican supporters who simply aren't aware of these issues--they only know the most obvious things, such as gas prices going up. Still, Bush's approval ratings are at 50%, so I'm not so sure there will be any change.
The economy is important when people feel it enough. As for Social Security, many Republicans are not in favor of Bush's proposal, so I'm not sure what you are saying on this point.

The Social Security problem is because so many people have trouble understanding the economy. No one ever votes for economic policies that affect long term trends - they vote based on whether they're at the peak or the valley of the current short term trend. (Plus, admittedly, Bush's Social Security proposal still doesn't address the coming shortfall in funds - it just keeps the situation from happening again should we manage to resolve the current problems). From my point of view, we have the worst of situations: big deficits, a war based on thinking that went out of date 15 years ago, and right wing social extremists taking over the party.

 

[SOS2008]

While I have my 30-day trial access to Gallop Poll information, I can't resist:

George W. Bush Approval Rating
Most Recent Rating: 2005 Apr 4-7
50% Approve
45% Disapprove

"State of the Country" Satisfaction Rating
Most Recent: 2005 Apr 4-7
38% Satisfied
59% Dissatisfied

Economic Confidence Ratings
Most Recent: 2005 Apr 4-7
32% Excellent/Good
67% Only fair/Poor

Congress definitely took a public relations hit with its unpopular action in the Schiavo case -- more than 7 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of its involvement. Negative economic perceptions, as currently exist, also tend to take a toll on Americans' evaluations of the national legislature. Congress' ratings in recent years have broken some uncharted positive territory, but in recent years, and recent months, the arrow is pointing downward.

So while record deficits are due to the war in Iraq, tax cuts, etc., and Bush also helped intervene in the Schiavo situation, people seem to be blaming Congress rather than Bush -- go figure.

April 19, 2005: Fewer Americans Say Iraq War "Worth It" - [Since late August 2004] and per the April 1-2 Gallup Poll, 45% of Americans saying the war was worth it, while 53% say it was not. Of course this is per party line:

Democrats are much less likely than Republicans to say it was worth going to war in Iraq. Nearly 8 in 10 Republicans (79%) say it was worth going to war, while just 19% say it was not worth it. Among Democrats, only 17% say it was worth it and 82% say it was not. The divide among political independents is not as wide: a third (36%) say it was worth going to war, while 61% say it was not.

I say keep an eye on the Independents.

 

[ron damon]

I disagree. First, the Whig party's identity was not of a "Strong Central Government". They evolved out of the segments which fought in the English civil war against the king, thus against central government, and in favour of the Parliament. In fact, the great F. A. Hayek, the most eloquent and comprehensive critic of a strong government, liked to describe himself as an "Old Whig". "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men". The GOP carries today that extremely revolutionary tradition (pun intended) that views individuals not as passive variables to be toyed with by those in power, but as distinct entities with a natural right to work, and build, and realize their dreams and potentials, without being enslaved or coerced by the majority, however "democratic" it may be. In all of human history, this has been realized only once, and the last shimmering thread of that precious miracle lays with the United States of America. I don't see Europe getting out of Socialism. Let me make a bet with you, in a 150 years people will think of Europe like we do today of the middle east: once the cradle of brilliant civilizations, now a wasteland of tradition strangling the human spark.

Second, the Republicans have lots of talented, creative, attractive and effective figures like Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Rice and Gingrich. Remember who were most prominently displayed during the GOP convention? The moderates were. Pro-choice, social liberal people like Arnie and Giuliani. Compare that to Michael Moore sitting next to Carter in the Dems convention. It really says a lot that while one party embraces its moderates, the other goes to its most extreme members. How about Dean running the DNC?

The possibility I see here is of the emergence of a strong Republican centrist party in line with intrinsically American values such as free enterprise, low government intervention in the economy, foreign policy exceptionalism, law and order, personal responsibilities, and a solid optimism about the capabilities of free men and women to transform the world in their image. Opposite to that I see developing a left wing Democratic party, with a mainly negative view of America, but with no concrete proposals, and a right wing religious section splitting from the Republican party, with the characteristics we all know and dislike.

The first black and female president will be doctor Rice.

 

[Informal Logic]

...Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain...

I don't see Rice in that group. She is right-wing, even perhaps a neocon, but not a moderate. And I question whether Schwarzenegger is really a Republican at all.

The religious-right is not likely to split from the Republican party for a couple of reasons. First, they are a large group that the Republicans cannot afford to lose, but at the same time too small to be effective on their own. Second, I agree with BobG regarding overlap in that many fundamentalists are also neocons.

 

[BobG]

I disagree. Second, the Republicans have lots of talented, creative, attractive and effective figures like Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Rice and Gingrich. Remember who were most prominently displayed during the GOP convention? The moderates were. Pro-choice, social liberal people like Arnie and Giuliani. Compare that to Michael Moore sitting next to Carter in the Dems convention. It really says a lot that while one party embraces its moderates, the other goes to its most extreme members. How about Dean running the DNC?

The possibility I see here is of the emergence of a strong Republican centrist party in line with intrinsically American values such as free enterprise, low government intervention in the economy, foreign policy exceptionalism, law and order, personal responsibilities, and a solid optimism about the capabilities of free men and women to transform the world in their image. Opposite to that I see developing a left wing Democratic party, with a mainly negative view of America, but with no concrete proposals, and a right wing religious section splitting from the Republican party, with the characteristics we all know and dislike.

The first black and female president will be doctor Rice.

Democrats also have some effective, moderate folks like Ben Nelson, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, and others. The only difference is that they aren't prominently displayed or embraced by their party (with the exception of Harry Reid as Senate Minority Leader).

If a Democratic Party that encompasses a pretty large spectrum can be dominated by its most extreme members, what is it the Republican Party has that will protect it from its own most extreme members? How much of the differences are due to the traditional minority party having to shift its stances a little towards the majority party's lines and much is due to being a stronger party?

Republicans being the majority party is a new situation (at least as far as current politicians are concerned). You can't just look at how things have usually gone in the past. There has to be a concrete reason the Republicans won't experience the same problems the Democratic Party has.

 

[ron damon]

what is it the Republican Party has that will protect it from its own most extreme members?.

The way I see it is this: the Republicans are an amalgam of two distinct groups that by chance coalesced into one party at the present point in history. First you have authentic through-and-through liberals, like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, who believe in personal freedom and exploration at all levels of the human experience, and then there are the true conservatives, guardians of tradition and propriety, like Aschcroft and Sean Hannity.

You have also the odd figures like Newt Gingrich, who never ceases to amaze me with his creativity and profusion of ideas. He is a voracious reader, and even loves physics and science books and has reviewed a couple of them at Amazon. Very interesting man.

Anyway, the two groups (liberals and traditionalists) come together in the Republican party because the United States lives on the greatest tradition of liberal capitalism that has ever existed. Thus, the liberals who are of the spirit of the country, and the conservatives who uphold the tradition of the land, are defending one and the same thing.

Of course, and this is why I see them splitting, there are increasingly many points where the two diverge, one of them being religion and another sexuality. I can only hope the liberals can maneuver with sufficient ability to take control of the party and push the conservatives to the fringe.

On the other side of the spectrum you have the Democrats, but they are for the most part no more than Left-wing contrarians, who are always negative and have nothing of value to contribute. I do like that Bill Richardson fellow though...

 

[Informal Logic]

...then there are the true conservatives, guardians of tradition and propriety, like Aschcroft and Sean Hannity.

Um, Sean Hannity is a reporter, not a political leader.

...On the other side of the spectrum you have the Democrats, but they are for the most part no more than Left-wing contrarians, who are always negative and have nothing of value to contribute.

Who needs half the country. We should be a one-party state anyway.

 

[ron damon]

Um, Sean Hannity is a reporter, not a political leader.

But he IS a political leader, not a reporter. Only he is not elected.

 

[SOS2008]

But he IS a political leader, not a reporter. Only he is not elected.

A mix of news sources, preferably more balanced news sources, is something you may want to try.

 

[Astronuc]

We need more policians like Alan Simpson (Wyoming) and Warren Rudman (New Hampshire). I think they simply got tired of the BS.

Someone like Colin Powell would be great - at least he seems to be one of integrity.

But it seems that only those of questionable integrity or lack thereof are more likely to get elected - in both parties.

What does that say about the state of democracy?

 

[SOS2008]

I've been meaning to post something about this, and it probably should go under separation of church and state, but is applicable here as well:

This [last] Sunday at 7:00 pm EDT, Senator Bill Frist [partnered] with radical conservatives like James Dobson and Tony Perkins to launch "Justice Sunday" - a national telecast to churches across the country which claims that opposing the far-right's "nuclear option" is tantamount to discrimination against "people of faith."

I don't know if anyone caught any clips of what various speakers said during this telecast, but they claim Christians are oppressed in the U.S.! One speaker bashed gays and then went on to say there needs to be tolerance in this country (for religious beliefs, of course). As for Frist participating as a political leader in this...Now who was it that was saying there's no movement in the U.S. to remove separation of church and state? People should be outraged, and it's amazing these Christians are so ignorant as to place themselves in this position.

 

[BobG]

I've been meaning to post something about this, and it probably should go under separation of church and state, but is applicable here as well:

I don't know if anyone caught any clips of what various speakers said during this telecast, but they claim Christians are oppressed in the U.S.! One speaker bashed gays and then went on to say there needs to be tolerance in this country (for religious beliefs, of course). As for Frist participating as a political leader in this...Now who was it that was saying there's no movement in the U.S. to remove separation of church and state? People should be outraged, and it's amazing these Christians are so ignorant as to place themselves in this position.

This is the scariest part of the direction the Republican Party seems to be headed. Other than his political views, Frist is a very good leader who can generate a lot of respect. It would be better if all of the religious right politicians bordered on the edge of looney.

Ironically, DeLay might be the savior of the Republican Party. It's dicey, since someone like DeLay could taint the entire party and turn control of Congress over to Democrats, but DeLay may wind up giving a lot of Republicans some room to move away from anything and everything associated with DeLay, including the religious right movement.

 

[Informal Logic]

They are looney. 'Oppressed' means persecuted and not allowed religious freedoms. It's my understanding that people here in America are still free to practice the religion they choose--to go to church, to worship, to pray, to teach their children, etc. A couple of judges have been, or are being blocked based of their extreme-right activist records. The checks and balances in our system are in place to keep these kinds of nominations off the bench, and it has been the case for the far left as well.

The truth is these people aren't satisfied with their own individual rights and freedom of religion. They want to impose upon everyone else's rights by forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country. That would be religious oppression.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This is the scariest part of the direction the Republican Party seems to be headed. Other than his political views, Frist is a very good leader who can generate a lot of respect. It would be better if all of the religious right politicians bordered on the edge of looney.

It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Frist. If he gets the nomination, I am done with the Republican party.

 

[Informal Logic]

The problem is not just Frist. He is the majority leader for a reason. And though he led the legislative intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, he did not go it alone. Now he is fighting to have Bush's judicial nominees confirmed starting with the most extreme (think pro-intervention), and once again, he is not going it alone. He has a good amount of support from other Republican senators. I think the problem is larger and more far reaching then one person like Frist.

 

[BobG]

I wouldn't rate Frist's chances at getting nominated for 2008 nearly as high as they were last fall - not even as high as last week. He really hasn't been able to keep the Republican Senators together very effectively - probably because he has aligned himself with the right-wing fringe.

I think the deal McCain and the other Rep/Dem Senators came up with will turn out to be very interesting. Which of the judges in this actually get appointed or dumped probably winds up being trivial. What happened with Greer in the Schiavo case shows that - the political views of the judges may affect what angle they start from in viewing the case, but most wind up doing their best to rule according to law. It means more politically in the struggle over who controls each party.

One thing is for sure - the religious right is declaring war on McCain. They'll probably be able to trash his chances of getting nominated, but I'm wondering how much backlash they'll feel in the process.

Maybe moderates from both parties are finally forging some kind of power in the middle. If so, the impact on Hillary will be as great as the impact on Frist and could open the possibilities for someone unexpected in both parties.

Although 'moderate' might not be the right term for some of the Republicans that joined the group. McCain is mostly conservative, even if he's not shy about his views that differ from the party line. DeWine, Graham, and Warner definitely aren't liberal Republicans, either.

At least initially, I think the McCain deal is good news for folks who were a little concerned about the influence the right-wing fringe element was having on the party as a whole.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The way Frist is working, openly wooing the religious right, he either isn't hoping to get nominated, or else has has thoroughly deceived himself on the number of votes they can deliver. He might just be angling for a place at the table when the true nominee is selected, plus a place in the cabinet if that candidate wins. If you though Ashcroft was bad...

 

[SOS2008]

I believe Frist is truly a fundamentalist. From day one of Bush becoming their beacon of light, fundamentalists have believed this is their chance to overturn Roe v Wade, and in general to strengthen Christian practices in our country. I'm not sure these folks care about party unity, or even the future in general. They wear emotional blinders, including Frist.

Aside from ignoring polls and majority views time and again, issue after issue, the Republican party is going to have difficulty within their own party right up to election time and finding nominees that can really win.

 

[BobG]

The way Frist is working, openly wooing the religious right, he either isn't hoping to get nominated, or else has has thoroughly deceived himself on the number of votes they can deliver. He might just be angling for a place at the table when the true nominee is selected, plus a place in the cabinet if that candidate wins. If you though Ashcroft was bad...

Miscalculation is a good possibility. How much of Bush's power during his first term was due to backing from the religious right and much due to the post 9/11 attitude about the world?

Bush, Frist, and DeLay seemed to have forgotten something that the religious right might not have - the exciting campaigns of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanon. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Capitalizing on the current situation may be a lot bigger priority for the religious right than who wins the next election. Time's running out, if it hasn't already. If it takes burning Frist to get a couple of conservative US Supreme Court justices, then that's a 'sacrifice' the religious right would gladly make.

Besides, losing the next election isn't a foregone conclusion. Trashing McCain's wife and kid in the 2000 primaries worked, the 'Swift Boat Ads' worked again in 2004 - why not a three-peat?

These guys play hardball and anyone's expendable for the greater cause.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course politicians rely on Americans not being well informed and having short memories, but after the WMD propaganda, the Terri Schiavo incident, etc., I don't know about a three-peat. Frist keeps nailing his coffin shut, McCain isn't getting any younger, and with regard the Bush dynasty (including Rice), remember 48% wanted an end to this in 2004, add to that the swing votes, and?

 

[Big Papa]

right to church.

I have no problems with the two repubilican senators form Maine. I do have a problem with a number of other republicans. First on the list is how the electronic voting machines rigged the election for George Bush Jr. to win. Second is how the religiouse people are running the Right's agenda. Third is how we are paying for a star wars program while putting a freeze on housing subsidies. Forth is how the no child left behind is putting all the children behind on their hisotry studies. Fifth is how the enviorment is treated like something that can not be destroyed fast enough. Sixth, is how they preach morals on sex, while the wives of the president and vice president hang out at strip clubs. Seventh, is how Fox news network is a big lie for their propaganda. ( See past Rolling stones, magazine articles.) Eighth, is the war on weed which could generate so much money using hemp for industrial and commerial uses. Ninth, is their war on Howard Stern and anythiing else that has to do with Freedom of Speech. Tenth is how Radio stations were allowed to be bought up by clear channel commnications, and now musicians have to pay to be played on these stations.

This is just for starters, but the bottom line is pure fasicism. Not just the Nazi brand, but also the Japanese brand with the thought police.

 

[Informal Logic]

Another article about Bush and his supposed political capital...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8040150/page/2/

To begin, the 51% to 48% win in 2004 was not a landslide. Second, Bush obtained the 51% mostly because of the war in Iraq, and other factors like religion, and of course a weak Democrat opponent (Kerry). Yet the Bush camp/supporters have continued to claim a mandate.

Bush started off his second term with a string of important victories, pushing through measures to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits against big corporations and to wipe out debts by filing for personal bankruptcy. Congress passed its first budget resolution in years, largely along the lines of Bush's proposals, and gave him nearly everything he asked for in an $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With regard to the $82 billion for war costs, what else could be done—it is not like this was appropriated with enthusiastic support. Victory?

The excuses are even more amazing. First is the claim that Bush has bravely used his political capital to reform Social Security. Americans do not want privatization, but Bush is brave. Followed by even more unpopular measures, such as:

The 'Nuclear Option' to end Filibusters – The majority of Americans do not want lifetime appointments approved with only a simple majority—that’s scary no matter who has power. Is there a president in US history who has had all nominations approved, and why should Bush be an exception?

Stem Cell Research – As with Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, the majority of Americans see these activities as extreme misconstruing of pro-life beliefs.

CAFTA – Americans are tired of failed trade agreements such as NAFTA, and American jobs going overseas.

Guest Worker Program – Americans believe people should abide by laws, should not be allowed to flood into the country without screening, etc.

Iraq/Foreign Affairs – Aside from the ongoing death tolls, Americans did not appreciate being deceived about the war.

Of course the Bush camp is blaming these failures on Democrats. Has it ever occurred to them that these issues are just very unpopular with the American people? Seriously, if there was not an opposing party in this country, these issues would still be unpopular. I hope they continue to be delusional idiots and continue to ignore the polls.