Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Congressional Approval Rating at 14% - Page 12







Post#276 at 10-28-2007 07:37 PM by 13rian [at Pennsylvania joined Aug 2007 #posts 151]
---
10-28-2007, 07:37 PM #276
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Pennsylvania
Posts
151

Veep Veep Veep

i think there's alot of running for VPOTUS going on.....

Republicans:
Huckabee
Thompson
Hunter(?)

Democrats:
Dodd
Richardson
Biden (if he was polling better)







Post#277 at 10-28-2007 09:18 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-28-2007, 09:18 PM #277
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by 13rian View Post
i think there's alot of running for VPOTUS going on.....

Republicans:
Huckabee
Thompson
Hunter(?)

Democrats:
Dodd
Richardson
Biden (if he was polling better)
I think the Dems, in particular, have a number of Sec Def and Sec State candidates - Dodd and Biden being prime examples. Neither wants to stay in the Senate much longer; both are ambitious but too old to get traction for the lead job.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#278 at 10-29-2007 10:13 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
10-29-2007, 10:13 AM #278
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Bill Richardson has flatly stated he's not interested in Vice President, and while whoever wins the primary may feel obliged to offer it to him just out of courtesy, the usual Conventional Wisdom in his home state is that he'll be offered (or should be offered) Secretary of State, a job he's shown he'd be suited for.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#279 at 10-29-2007 11:55 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-29-2007, 11:55 AM #279
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
Bill Richardson has flatly stated he's not interested in Vice President, and while whoever wins the primary may feel obliged to offer it to him just out of courtesy, the usual Conventional Wisdom in his home state is that he'll be offered (or should be offered) Secretary of State, a job he's shown he'd be suited for.
H-m-m-m, add him to the previous list, then. So, who wants Treasury ... or AG?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#280 at 10-29-2007 02:05 PM by 13rian [at Pennsylvania joined Aug 2007 #posts 151]
---
10-29-2007, 02:05 PM #280
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Pennsylvania
Posts
151

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
... or AG?
John Kerry?







Post#281 at 10-29-2007 04:36 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
10-29-2007, 04:36 PM #281
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Quote Originally Posted by 13rian View Post
John Kerry?
Kerry is about as eloquent as Gonzales.







Post#282 at 10-29-2007 09:06 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-29-2007, 09:06 PM #282
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by sean '90 View Post
Kerry is about as eloquent as Gonzales.
He's way too obtuse for the job, but at least he's honest. Of course, it's easier to be honest when you have never lacked for anything in life. That also applies to Dubya, though, so you can't go by that.

Nonetheless, I think Kerry is in the best possible place for him and us.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#283 at 10-30-2007 10:18 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
10-30-2007, 10:18 AM #283
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Lawmakers of both parties seek to avoid government shutdown

Interesting article in today's Government Executive.

A dozen years ago, a high-stakes budget battle between the White House and congressional Republicans resulted in a train wreck. The federal government partially shut down twice. Public disapproval of Washington soared, as voters voiced disgust with their obviously dysfunctional government.

Leon Panetta remembers that time well. As President Clinton's chief of staff, he helped plot strategy when House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., felt emboldened to draw a line in the sand over his party's budget priorities. Gingrich -- eager to make his mark after the GOP's 1994 electoral sweep gave it control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- calculated that a weakened president would capitulate to the Republicans' seven-year balanced-budget plan. But Panetta, a former House member, cautioned the speaker to avoid brinkmanship.
"I remember telling Newt Gingrich that it would be a helluva lot better for them to compromise and cut a deal with the president because, in the end, they would have gotten the credit for governing the country, rather than shutting the government down," Panetta recalled in a recent interview.

Gingrich and the newly elected House firebrands were not about to compromise. Yet, when the appropriations stalemate between them and Clinton closed some of the government in late 1995, it quickly became apparent that voters were directing their anger mostly at Republicans. The president successfully argued that he was standing up to heartless cuts in federal programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, on which the most-vulnerable citizens depend. As Republicans lost the rhetorical battle, Gingrich was forced to relent.

Now Panetta worries that some of the same ingredients that produced that 1995 meltdown are evident today. Once again, an unpopular president and a newly empowered majority on Capitol Hill are bitterly divided over the budget, with plenty of encouragement from their electoral bases. Hard-charging Republicans are demanding that the White House flex some fiscal conservatism, while liberal activists, frustrated that Democratic lawmakers have failed to end the Iraq war, are eager to see a confrontation with President Bush.

"This president has been pretty unwilling to compromise on a lot of issues, and you get the sense that the Democratic Congress isn't particularly anxious to compromise with this president," Panetta observed. "That is a recipe for real trouble. That's why I am not very confident that they are going to easily resolve this issue."

All in all, Democrats want to spend about $23 billion more than the $933 billion that Bush requested for discretionary spending in fiscal 2008. The president, who has threatened to veto most of the pending appropriations bills, has signaled that he's ready for a fight. "You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington," Bush told a friendly -- and receptive -- audience in Rogers, Ark., on October 15. "The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn't meet needs as far as I'm concerned, I get to veto. And that's precisely what I intend to do."

Bush scolded Congress for not having sent any of the appropriations measures to him. Because the fiscal year started on October 1, the government is operating on a continuing resolution that expires on November 16. "I don't think it makes sense for a new Congress to come in and make promises about how they're going to be wise about what they're going to do with your money and ... not being able to perform," Bush said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., shot back within hours of the president's speech. "The worst-kept secret in Washington this fall is that President Bush, after refusing to veto even one appropriations bill over the last six years, wants to instigate an appropriations fight with Congress in a vain attempt to establish his bona fides with his conservative base," Hoyer said. "After enacting policies that ignited record budget deficits and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt, the president simply has no standing to lecture anyone on the importance of fiscal responsibility."
And, in a refrain sure to be heard over and over in coming weeks, Hoyer emphasized that Democrats want to "adequately" fund education, clean water, veterans health care, and other domestic programs, in contrast to Bush's "deeply misguided" priorities. "At the same time that he is proposing cuts to key domestic programs, he is demanding that Congress appropriate another $190 billion for the war in Iraq -- with all of that Iraq funding added to the deficit," Hoyer said.

Despite the fiery rhetoric and the likelihood of a clash that could keep Congress in session until Christmas, members on both sides of the aisle agree on one thing: They want to avoid a government shutdown. In interviews with National Journal, eight lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum said that even as they brace for battle, they believe that closing the government would be ill-advised and counterproductive.
Likewise, an early-October poll of NJ's Congressional Insiders found that both Democrats and Republicans saw only a "low" chance that a spending deadlock would lead to a government shutdown this year.

Lessons Learned

So why, if party activists are hell-bent on encouraging a war over budget priorities, is there such reluctance on Capitol Hill to push a showdown into a shutdown? The answer seems to lie in the lessons that both parties have drawn from 1995.

First, Democratic and Republican lawmakers worry that such a debacle would amount to a self-indictment -- proof positive that they can't do their job at a time when Congress's approval ratings are already in the toilet. A tacit, but obvious, second reason is that both sides worry about whom the public would blame.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a moderate who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, was adamant that anyone looking to escalate the budget disagreements between Bush and the Democrats is missing the point from 1995. "Certainly the Republicans learned our lesson from Newt Gingrich that the people in the country expect us to act like grown-ups and do our job and not shut down the government," Alexander said.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., was just as resolute. "A government shutdown is a disaster for the American people," he said. "We don't want it to occur. We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen. We have passed continuing resolutions until we can finish up with our appropriations bills, and that [shutdown] just isn't part of our strategy."

Even conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long railed against government spending and earmarks, said that a shutdown is off the table. "Nobody wins" when the government closes, Coburn said. "The American people reject that. That is the absolute incompetence of Washington -- all that does is prove the point."

For his part, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is already set to assign blame. "If the government is shut down, it won't be because Republicans let it; it'll be because Democrats forced it," Kyl said. "I would hope Democrats would not play politics with this issue because it gets to the delivery of Social Security checks and keeping national parks open and all the other things that Americans really don't want to see jeopardized by political gamesmanship in Washington."

A senior Senate Democratic staffer worried that a shutdown battle with the president, even one whose public-approval ratings are also at rock bottom, carries too much risk. "We've read the clips from 1995. We've studied it, and we're just determined to avoid it," the aide said. "The president does have the bully pulpit -- a pretty powerful microphone to compete against -- even though in this instance the president is in a much more weakened position."

But when asked about the Democrats' apparent determination to avoid a shutdown, David Rohde, a Duke University political scientist, was skeptical that they could categorically rule out any tactic in the looming budget impasse.

"The only way for Democrats to absolutely guarantee that the government won't shut down is to capitulate to Bush," Rohde said. "If the president says, 'I am going to veto any bill that doesn't do exactly what I want,' the Democrats have a choice between accepting current policy, which is essentially what a clean continuing resolution does ... or [passing] a continuing resolution with changes. Then if Bush says, 'I'll veto any CR that has changes that I don't like,' the only way to absolutely guarantee that there is no shutdown is to capitulate completely."

If the government did close, Rohde added, "The absolute strategic requirement for the Democrats is not to be seen as causing it.... They have to be able to say, 'It's not our fault -- it's their fault.' This is what Clinton said about the Republicans in '95."

Democrats, in fact, seem to be taking a page from Clinton's budget playbook by emphasizing their support for popular social-welfare programs. Bush "repeatedly says no to health care, no to law enforcement, no to homeland security, no to stronger infrastructure, but he says yes to this intractable civil war in Iraq which is being paid for by borrowed money," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at an October 22 press conference.

To counter the Democratic efforts, the White House message is that the debate boils down to a choice between continued economic growth and lower deficits versus more spending that will roll back the positive trends.

"It is beyond our understanding why every problem that comes forward with this Congress requires increased spending," said Sean Kevelighan, press secretary for the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Faux Fight?

Although not even an astrologer can foresee how the budget issue will play out, Democrats have begun to signal their initial strategy. They intend to send Bush a series of appropriations bills that enjoy bipartisan support. Early speculation has centered on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill, which the House passed in July by a 276-140 vote -- just 10 votes shy of the two-thirds needed to override a veto -- and which the Senate passed on October 23 by a veto-proof 75-19 vote.

The massive Labor-Health and Human Services bill contains roughly half of the $23 billion that Democrats want to spend overall above Bush's fiscal 2008 request, according to CongressDaily. Democrats were willing to strip out an embryonic-stem-cell research provision that Bush opposed, but the White House nonetheless said that the legislation is still objectionable because it contains "irresponsible and excessive levels of spending." Assuming that Bush follows through with his threatened veto, what next?

A senior Democratic staffer pointed to last spring's endgame over the Iraq supplemental spending bill. After Bush vetoed the legislation because of its Democratic-crafted timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, Democrats eliminated the timetable and instead required White House progress reports and "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government to meet. They also added their long-sought minimum-wage increase to the final version, which Bush signed in late May. "We negotiated out a solution," said the staffer, adding that he hopes for similar give-and-take over the appropriations measures.

Republican lawmakers who face tough 2008 re-election battles support plenty of the programs in the veto-bait spending bills, putting them in a difficult position when Democrats try to override the Bush vetoes. "The president can stand his ground at 26-28-31 [percent] approval ratings because he's not running for re-election," the staffer noted.

But Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 110 House conservatives, said that the RSC has already rounded up enough commitments to sustain Bush's vetoes of appropriations measures. "We have a pretty deep bench to come on downfield should we need it in this fight," Hensarling said. He supports Republicans taking a firm stance and dismisses any efforts to minimize their differences with Democrats.

In Hensarling's view, the options are obvious: a "clean" continuing resolution that funds the government at current levels; a CR with proposed funding changes; or an omnibus bill that rolls a slew of appropriations measures into one big package. But he is so suspicious of Democrats' strategy that he added another option: "They may choose to violate their word and shut down the government and try to use that as a ploy to blame the president and see if they can leverage that into more spending."

Democrats' suspicion of the White House is just as intense. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., noted that a $23 billion difference in a trillion-dollar budget would typically be settled by negotiations, rather than provoking a huge flare-up. "I don't think we are that far apart," Spratt said. "In normal times, this amount of disagreement would not bring the process to its knees."

Similarly, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, noted that the president has shown no real desire to work out the differences. "They seem to be itching for a fight," Nelson said. "When I was governor [and] wanted to make sure that an important piece of legislation was veto-proof, we had our people working with members of the Legislature to make it veto-proof."

Still, some skeptics wonder if Democrats will take this match to the mat. They see party leaders as reticent to engage in a national controversy that could disrupt the political momentum that appears to be going their way heading into next year's presidential elections. A budget impasse wouldn't help at a time when their party's approval rating in Congress is about 10 points higher than the Republicans', when the list of GOP retirees keeps growing, and when polls indicate that their opponents' base is dispirited.

"What I see on the Democratic side is [a sense of], 'Heck, let's get through this next period and not take any big chances here, any risks. We have a chance to pick up seats. We might win the presidency, and then we can do what we want,' " said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University. "This has been a Congress from the start that has been more geared to the next election than any Congress I have seen."
Maybe so, but as the rhetoric gets hotter and the posturing on both sides gets more menacing, it is hard to imagine this face-off ending in a whimper and not a bang.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#284 at 10-30-2007 09:38 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
10-30-2007, 09:38 PM #284
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

From Government Executive:


"The only way for Democrats to absolutely guarantee that the government won't shut down is to capitulate to Bush," Rohde said. "If the president says, 'I am going to veto any bill that doesn't do exactly what I want,' the Democrats have a choice between accepting current policy, which is essentially what a clean continuing resolution does ... or [passing] a continuing resolution with changes. Then if Bush says, 'I'll veto any CR that has changes that I don't like,' the only way to absolutely guarantee that there is no shutdown is to capitulate completely."
Which is pretty much what's likely to happen on the war funding, the Democrats folded in practical terms on this issue several months ago. When Harry Reid sent the Senate home so the GOP base could chew out the Senators about Iraq, and they chose to chew them out about illegal immigration instead, the Democrats had run out of fallback plans. They'll make a lot of noise about not funding it, but they know what they're going to do when it's done, because they're scared to death of being seen as seeking defeat. They'll probably want to get it off the table as fast as they can, actually, since they lose ground every time this issue comes up.

Even the tendency to play to the base is fading, now that Billary is almost ready to triangulate. In the 90s Bill triangulated against both the GOP in Congress and the Left of his own party, this time they're going to triangulate against the GOP candidacy and the Left of their own party.


Democrats, in fact, seem to be taking a page from Clinton's budget playbook by emphasizing their support for popular social-welfare programs.
This is where Billary is likely to make their stand on the general election, unless Rudy is the nominee. I suspect they're planning to try and replay 1992 as closely as possible, focusing on health care, domestic issues, and other areas where the Dems are not divided.







Post#285 at 10-31-2007 09:41 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-31-2007, 09:41 AM #285
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Well, well, look who's popped out of his hole...
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#286 at 10-31-2007 10:13 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-31-2007, 10:13 AM #286
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
I suspect they're planning to try and replay 1992 as closely as possible, focusing on health care, domestic issues, and other areas where the Dems are not divided.
I thought you had left; it's been like two months since you posted.







Post#287 at 10-31-2007 01:40 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
10-31-2007, 01:40 PM #287
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I thought you had left; it's been like two months since you posted.
Pink Splice predicted he'd be back, and I agreed with his prediction.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#288 at 10-31-2007 01:48 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-31-2007, 01:48 PM #288
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by The Pervert View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I thought you had left; it's been like two months since you posted.
Pink Splice predicted he'd be back, and I agreed with his prediction.
HC needs 691 posts to roll the 5th digit on post volume ... a target too sweet to ignore. And Kiff is giving chase.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#289 at 10-31-2007 03:38 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-31-2007, 03:38 PM #289
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
They'll make a lot of noise about not funding it, but they know what they're going to do when it's done, because they're scared to death of being seen as seeking defeat. They'll probably want to get it off the table as fast as they can, actually, since they lose ground every time this issue comes up.
As usual, I agree with HC, but only in regard to her disparaging characterizations of Democrats. The War On Iraq will not be a winning issue for Dems in 2008. The pro-War crowd views them as cowards, and the anti-War crowds views them as... cowards.

Unfortunately for the Grim Old Party, it's a losing issue for them as well. They've driven off the old-school isolationists and fiscal conservatives, probably for a generation.


Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
I suspect they're planning to try and replay 1992 as closely as possible, focusing on health care, domestic issues, and other areas where the Dems are not divided.
Not only are the Dems united on this, but so is the electorate at large. A majority of Republicans polled supported the expansion of SCHIP. If the election were about any of these issues (or even the war), Dems would win in a rout.

Unfortunately, the election will actually be about (depending on the Dem nominee) how Hillary is a bitch or Edwards is a fag or Obama is an uppity ******, and whether Rudybaby is a great candidate or the Greatest Candidate Evar.

Count on it.
Yes we did!







Post#290 at 10-31-2007 11:04 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
10-31-2007, 11:04 PM #290
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I thought you had left; it's been like two months since you posted.
I've dropped in without posting once or twice, but I've been busy lately.







Post#291 at 10-31-2007 11:28 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
10-31-2007, 11:28 PM #291
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
As usual, I agree with HC, but only in regard to her disparaging characterizations of Democrats. The War On Iraq will not be a winning issue for Dems in 2008. The pro-War crowd views them as cowards, and the anti-War crowds views them as... cowards.
If so, they still don't understand the current Democratic leadership. They aren't cowards, they're self-interested and calculating liars. They spent three years or more feeding the fantasies of the nutroots with a steady stream of lies, endless talk of manipulated intelligence and war crimes and impeachment, but I doubt any of them believed more than one word in ten of what they were saying (other than people like Kucinich).

Their problem was that having fed the most extreme elements of their party on a diet of red meat (albeit fake red meat, but it tasted real to them) for years on end, once they won in 2006 they had to somehow switch them over to tofu, without warning. It hasn't gone well.

Remember last spring? Pelosi took off to the Middle East, talking grandly about how the Democrats were going to have their own foreign policy independent of Bush. The Old Radicals were talking about reviving the ERA. The RINOs were in a near-panic and desperately looking for some way to side with the Democrats.

But when Bush called their bluff over the Israeli Sacrifice Group, they collapsed. The public wasn't with them, they knew the public wasn't with them, and their own public statements were becoming so self-contradictory that even their allies in the media were having trouble defending them.

After the PR disaster of Petraeus' testimony and the Betray-us ad, the Democrats were in shambles as far as any actual plans went. They haven't even been able to fulfill their empty 'first 100 hours' agenda that nobody even cared about, except for the minimum wage.


Unfortunately for the Grim Old Party, it's a losing issue for them as well. They've driven off the old-school isolationists and fiscal conservatives, probably for a generation.
The fiscal conservatives have nowhere else to go, they either work with the GOP as best they can or stay home, and the Dems have been busily demonstrating over the last few months that as bad as the GOP is on spending, they want to be much, much worse.

The isolationists are a harder case, because they divide into genuine, old-school isolationists who don't really matter today, and national sovereigntists who have several legitimate griefs with the party and the Bush Administration.


Not only are the Dems united on this, but so is the electorate at large. A majority of Republicans polled supported the expansion of SCHIP. If the election were about any of these issues (or even the war), Dems would win in a rout.
The war is useless to the Democrats as an issue for now.

Remember, the polling data you're seeing on the media is mostly propaganda pieces, they had polls showing a majority of the public supported Comprehensive Amnesty, too. Which is as good a proof as I can think of that everything the media does should be looked at in light of whatever agenda is behind it.

The evidence for what the Democratic internal polls are really saying can be found in the actions of the Democrats themselves. If their polling data was really saying that the public was with them on the war, they'd still be pushing Chuck Schumer's original idea of 'one resolution after another'.
In the spring the Dems were confident enough that they were emphasizing their opposition to the war, and boasting about endless resolutions and time-tables and benchmarks. Now they're just trying to change the subject.

If their data were really saying the public wanted retreat as badly as they try to claim, they'd have cut funding by now. Nancy Pelosi would have made her promised second trip to the Middle East (remember that?), and they'd have had the nerve to attach some strings to the funding bills.

Health care is more complicated, the GOP can win on that, but they'll have to show some creativity and spine. The key is the new media, which is why Billary is trying so hard to intimidate them into silence.

But it's looking more and more like it's going to come down to who can turn out their respective voters most effectively, or alternatively, if Rudy is the candidate, who will alienate the fewest voters on their own side.







Post#292 at 11-01-2007 01:32 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-01-2007, 01:32 AM #292
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
If so, they still don't understand the current Democratic leadership. They aren't cowards, they're self-interested and calculating liars.
And the GOP leadership aren't too?

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
After the PR disaster of Petraeus' testimony and the Betray-us ad, the Democrats were in shambles as far as any actual plans went . . .

. . . The war is useless to the Democrats as an issue for now.
Yeah, what a disaster. It was proven that Petraeus was right and things in Iraq are going really well. Furthermore, the bad PR has turned things around and now only 30% of the public disapprove of Bush (instead of the other way around). Your political instincts are simply amazing. How do you predict these things so accurately?

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
The fiscal conservatives have nowhere else to go.
So yeah, too bad. F**k 'em, right?

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
The isolationists are a harder case, because they divide into genuine, old-school isolationists who don't really matter today, and national sovereigntists who have several legitimate griefs with the party and the Bush Administration.
Several legitimate griefs? Nah. He just wants to let as much cheap labor as possible into the country for his rich buddies, and has them all creaming over that North American Union he denies (in public) he's planning. Why would anyone interested in national sovereignty care about that?

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
Remember, the polling data you're seeing on the media is mostly propaganda pieces, they had polls showing a majority of the public supported Comprehensive Amnesty, too. Which is as good a proof as I can think of that everything the media does should be looked at in light of whatever agenda is behind it.
Speaking ex cathedra? Or was it the The New American which is the divine source?


Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
The evidence for what the Democratic internal polls are really saying can be found in the actions of the Democrats themselves. If their polling data was really saying that the public was with them on the war, they'd still be pushing Chuck Schumer's original idea of 'one resolution after another'.
In the spring the Dems were confident enough that they were emphasizing their opposition to the war, and boasting about endless resolutions and time-tables and benchmarks. Now they're just trying to change the subject.

If their data were really saying the public wanted retreat as badly as they try to claim, they'd have cut funding by now. Nancy Pelosi would have made her promised second trip to the Middle East (remember that?), and they'd have had the nerve to attach some strings to the funding bills.
Or they may just be cowards, uh, I mean, self-interested calculators in bed with the same monied interests the GOP is? No, that can't be it.

How about, they like seeing the GOP squirm as this war drags the latter down further and further? Nah, couldn't be that either.

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
Health care is more complicated, the GOP can win on that, but they'll have to show some creativity and spine. The key is the new media, which is why Billary is trying so hard to intimidate them into silence.
You're right. Hillary has this thing so locked up she is already sending out those "national security letters" to people that Bush has used. Oh, and she is wiretapping warrantlessly, suspending habeas corpus, sneaking and peaking, and shipping people off to be not-tortured in a hostel in Bratislava. Dang, the "Billary" is really intimidating.


Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
But it's looking more and more like it's going to come down to who can turn out their respective voters most effectively, or alternatively, if Rudy is the candidate, who will alienate the fewest voters on their own side.
Yep. That's what it all boils down to, since we are such a 50/50 nation, eh? After all, it's all about Red vs. Blue, right?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#293 at 11-01-2007 01:33 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-01-2007, 01:33 AM #293
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
As usual, I agree with HC, but only in regard to her disparaging characterizations of Democrats.
[Emphasis Added]

HC is female? Do tell.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#294 at 11-01-2007 08:47 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
11-01-2007, 08:47 AM #294
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 View Post
I've dropped in without posting once or twice, but I've been busy lately.
Good to see you drop by, even though we sit on other sides of the fence.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#295 at 11-01-2007 08:56 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-01-2007, 08:56 AM #295
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
HC needs 691 posts to roll the 5th digit on post volume ... a target too sweet to ignore. And Kiff is giving chase.
If I start using trite phrases like "nutroots" and "Billary," please let me know so that I can suspend myself from the forum for a week.

It's not worth it to "win" the race to 10,000 if I have to resort to that crap.

Update: The New Newspeak is worse than I thought: "Israeli Sacrifice Group" and "Comprehensive Amnesty." Real cute.
Last edited by Child of Socrates; 11-01-2007 at 09:13 AM. Reason: post economy
-----------------------------------------