September 27, 2005
W IS MS, THE DEMOCRATS ARE N.O.:
Democrats In Disarray (E. J. Dionne Jr., September 27, 2005, Washington Post)
The party splintered over the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice. The newspaper Roll Call reported yesterday that some House Democrats were opposing the decision by their leader, Nancy Pelosi, to boycott a Republican-led investigation of the Katrina disaster. Pelosi favors an independent commission. You know the party has a problem when even the politics of Katrina divides its members. [...]
[C]onsider the lay of the land for the 2006 congressional elections. It takes 218 seats to form a majority in the House of Representatives. Kerry carried only 180 congressional districts, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Put another way, Democrats, according to the Almanac, now hold and have to defend 41 House districts that Bush carried. Republicans are defending only 18 districts that Kerry carried.
The core difficulty for Democrats is that they must solve two problems simultaneously -- and solving one problem can get in the way of solving the other. Over time Democrats need to reduce the conservative advantage over liberals in the electorate, which means the party needs to take clear stands that could detach voters from their allegiance to conservatism. For some in the party this means becoming more moderate on cultural issues such as abortion. For others it means full-throated populism to attract lower-income social conservatives. Some favor a combination of the two, while still others worry that too much populism would drive away moderate voters in the upper middle class. The debate often leads to intellectual gridlock.
But even indeterminate talk of a "national" message makes many Democrats holding those 41 pro-Bush House seats (and Democratic senators from red states) nervous. Such Democrats figure they know their own districts better than any national party leader or consultant, and they often prefer to operate on their own.
Ever notice how every "devastating blow to the Bush presidency" ends up hurting Democrats?
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 27, 2005 11:35 PM
Actually, I think every blunder has made him a little less popular among those who might have liked him at the beginning of his presidency.
Its only because of the administration and their interests ability to corrupt the MSM that it appears as though his enemies have wound up worse in the public perception than himself.
Theres nothing that could hurt the Dems anymore than the pitiful state the parties in. They are left to cry like babies as robber barons are running our country into the ground in their short-sighted hunt for cheap and sleazy profits that benefit a very narrow section of America.
Bush should be tried for perjury and war crimes, not for being a general screw up and sell out in every act of domestic policy. But, that will never happen so long as the Dems have no powers, and the media is under his control (unlike Nixon).
Greg: The media thing is just completely delusional.
"Bush should be tried for perjury and war crimes..."
Greg, do you have ANY CLUE why such silly, paranoid hyperbole is such a turn-off to most average voters?
Of course he doesn't. When that happens, the Democrats might have a chance at the White House again.
"Its only because of the administration and their interests ability to corrupt the MSM"
Hey Dude, don't bogart that joint, pass it over to me. Man, that must be some righteous herb you are smoking.
Its only because of the administration and their interests ability to corrupt the MSM [...]
Bush should be tried for perjury and war crimes
Professor Chomsky, please use your real name when you post here.
It's safe to assume Greg's even more eager than the rest of us to see Richard Cheney in the Oval Office...
Greg: Pathetic .. just pathetic.
Then why did he lose to Gore but beat Kerry and why has the GOP increased its margins in both houses?
OJ: Money, money, and more money And he didn't beat Kerry without defrauding the results in the only two states where the votes really mattered. And Kerry was an idiot who practically threw the election. And the MSM did not do its job in reporting the election, and allowed a certain type of simplistic, uninformed discourse (calling Kerry a flip-flop) to take hold and influence public opinion. Because, (surprise!) it wanted Bush to be elected all along.
Keep up the pep rally boys. You all sound really informed and intelligent.
If you guys don't think the admin and the interests that use it have their grip around MSM, then maybe you should go out and try reading some alternative new sources; it is a very common conservative misconception that the media is liberal; its one of the best ways for conservatives to deflect criticism of themselves.
The Media is a business, owned by bigger businesses, who are all tied together in the interest of furthering the corporate rape of America for a quick buck; All of the main outlets had an interest in promoting the war in Iraq, and all of them for the most part did support the war in Iraq. Saying the MSW is liberal is like saying the Democrats are liberal; both Dem's and MSM are around only to make it look like big business isn't using the Republican party to control everything.
Wake up people, I know it might be embarrassing to admit to yourself and the world that you've been worshipping false gods. I don't have a problem with the Bush administration, but unless you are very rich, or very stupid, there is no reason why you should support the Bush administration, and the current leadership of the Republican party.
No! Wait a minute . . . this E.J. Dionne guy's just dead wrong, Bush is over, he's finished, it's all collapsing and the Dems are gonna retake power. I read it in the Washington Post . . . here's the column, right here, Tuesday, September 13, 2005; Page A27, "The End of the Bush Era," by . . . E.J. Dionne!
Money doesn't win elections or we'd have a president Perot or Forb es.
You think Perot or Forbes has more money than the friends of the Bush Family? You should learn more.
Along from the fact that neither were affiliated with a political party, neither Perot or Forbes had charisma, or father who used to be head of the CIA, White staff member, and the President of the United States.
You comment is pretty silly. Money wins elections. Its proven. Its why Bush beat McCain in the primaries years ago. Its why Republicans have been able to shift their funds around the country to defeat Dems in key districts, and take control of most of the US. Money for money's sake.
The logging and timber industry gave more than $1.5 million to Bush and got the right to log without the usual environmental reviews.
The coal industry gave $300,000 to Bush and got less protection against black lung disease for workers.
The chemical industry gave more than $1 million to Bush and got reduced regulations on chemicals exposed to workers.
The auto industry gave more than $300,000 to Bush and got eased rules on reporting potential defects and a rule allowing truckers to drive 11 hours a day.
The restaurant industry gave more than $1.2 million and got killed a regulation intended to prevent their workers from exposure to smoke.
During 2000, food companies and industry groups with a major stake in the proliferation of irradiated food gave $3.3 million to national Republican Party committees and federal candidates. Those same companies gave $654,000 to national Democratic Party committees and federal candidates. The companies include IBP (formerly known as Iowa Beef Packers) and Tyson Foods. The industry groups include the Food Marketing Institute and National Food Processors Association
And millions of individual donors gave to him and got a conservative president. Everybody's happy, except the Left.
You think Perot or Forbes has more money than the friends of the Bush Family?
Yes, they do. You should learn more.
Along from the fact that neither were affiliated with a political party...
Forbes was a Republican running in Republican primaries to win the Republican nomination.
...neither Perot or Forbes had [a] father who used to be head of the CIA...
Yes, it's well documented that almost all Presidents have been related to current or former heads of the CIA.
BTW, it was the CIA who told Bush that Iraq had WMD...
Why are they incompetent to provide simple info about other nations, but are capable of rigging elections in the most media-scrutinized political race on Earth ?
Money wins elections. Its proven.
Apparently you've never heard of Michael Huffington or Pete Coors.
PHILADELPHIA - Republican officials insist that their financial base is primarily small donors, but the party has received more than $90 million from a relatively small pool of wealthy individuals and corporations, some of whom have shielded their generosity from public view.
Yes, a few big donors give big. Millions of small donors give small. Both got what they wanted.
Since the art of editing apparently escapes Mr. Anonymous, let me break it down:
739 contributors gave slightly more than $90 million in soft money to the GOP in '99.
Of those 739, 80% gave less than $ 250,000 apiece.
In '99 then-Governor Bush also raised $93.2 million in hard money from checks of $1,000 or less. He promptly listed his donors and the amounts they have contributed on his Web site.
Therefore, since over 100,000 people liked Bush enough to send him money to help him get elected, donations which Bush promptly disclosed...
Republicans are corrupt, and tools of the CIA and the Fascist media puppets.
Of those who gave $1 million or more in 2004, 92% were Democrats. Peter Lewis, George Soros, and some guy from Hollywood each gave over $10 million. Tereza had probably $600 million at her disposal.
Ya gotta love the Democrats here - they accuse Bush of being rich, of being a tool for the rich, but then they accuse him of being an idiot and a loser at business (failed oil man, failed baseball man, etc.). Which is it?
And Greg, just why does Mickey Mouse (or Sumner Redstone, or Jeffrey Immelt) want war in Iraq?
"This is like trying to argue with children."
BTW, I never said the CIA rigged the election.
So, if you didn't intend to imply that somehow the CIA was involved in Bush winning the White House, then posting that "neither Perot or Forbes had [a] father who used to be head of the CIA" was completely irrelevent, right ?
That would make you a fool.
Perhaps you'd better go back to "delusional", and agree that you believe that the CIA runs the show in America.
BTW, the Bush family and friends are the most wealthy group of people on the planet.
That's actually true, when you consider that Bush's "friends" include roughly half of the households in America, with a combined net worth of over $ 25 trillion.
Forbes and Perot are legitimate businessmen; Bush and Co. runs everything.
If BushCo runs EVERYTHING, wouldn't everyone on the Forbes 400 list have to be at least passively cooperating with the Bush Junta, lest they be thrown in jail and their wealth confiscated ?
That would include Forbes and Perot.
Actually, Perot made his first millions off a government contract -- processing Medicare records, in the '60s. So I guess the Bushies had him in their pocket even then. The conspiracy just keeps getting bigger...
Greg & [: ],
Thanks for sharing the latest flavor of kool aid from Daily Kos, Dem Underground and the braying ass DNC site. However, it has been shown that your kool aid causes illness, defects, and long term suffering., so, no thanks.
..ummm...well, that was fun, but to EJ 'Bush era over, I tell you!' Dionne's point:
EJ (barely) alludes to a real problem the Dems face in the 06 midterms -- no matter how low GWB polls look now (I don't think they're as bad as MSM wants you to believe, but..) or even next year, Tip O'Neill's maxim 'all politics is local!' is likely to apply, because the Dems cannot (cliche alert!) 'nationalize the election' in the way (everyone thinks) Gingrich did in '94 ... that is, essentially, the point Dionne is fumbling with.
Tim Russert was babbling the other day about how the 'party in power' gets punished when 'things' are going bad .. I don't buy it..
I could see GWB poll #s in the dump in Nov '06 and the GOP could STILL pick up some seats
Why are companies giving any money to the Democrats, who are powerless?
Many republicans and libertarians are dissatisfied with Bush, and that is showing up in the polls, but that doesn't mean they will vote Dem in the next election or wish they had voted for Kerry. That is the pollsters dirty little secret. Some conservatives are unhappy with some of the current news but they know that nothing is so bad that a liberal couldn't make it worse. Why else would the red state senators voting for Roberts? They know for whom the bell tolls.
They don't like $3 gas. The rest is white noise.
Thanks for erasing my post. I see you take a lot of cues from you Republican heroes when it comes to fighting a fair fight.
Editor's note: Put at least a pseudonym or they'll all be erased. It's simple manners.
Well, Anon, if you are with the 3% of voters who support Nader or other third- and fourth-party candidates, then more power to you. However, there is a reason your positions are at 3% (and falling).
The Hollywood guy who gave around $10 million (to the Dems) was Steve Bing.
While we're at it: The total amount of money contributed by corporations to all candidates for federal offices in the last election cycle: $0.
Patrick H supports my point more or less exactly ...
It is pointless to argue with people who acheive enlightenment by reading DU.
"achieve enlightenment by reading DU"
Now there's an oxymoron. One to rival "military intellegence" and "socialist thought."
And what's an antonym for "enlighten"?
You ignore the most obvious possibility--most Americans are what the Left would call fascist.
And Patrick, couldn't we logically assume that the disatisfied Republicans and some of the Libertarians are so because GWB wasn't conservative enough, in their opinion?
Greg and anon, if not one and the same, your logic and grasp of current events is truly unsettling ... frightening really ... especially your willingness to go public with it. I wonder how many of you are out there?
Exactly. The libertarians want less third way spending and more gay rights and porn. The paleocons want us to turn our backs on Israel and the Iraqis, the neo-cons don't like Bush's social agenda ... OMG! I'm turning into oj. I better check for back hair.
Ah, you snatched the pebble from my hand....
But, unlike Grasshopper, it is not time to go. I like it here.