Murthamania
With the pre-Thanksgiving news void yawning before us like a gargantuan bowl of gelled gravy, why not take a few minutes to speculate about Election 2008?
Great anticipation, as well as anxiety and angst roil the Democratic masses. With the Bush administration sinking into an LBJ-like quagmire of its own construction, the Democrat base can sense that their moment may be fast upon them. Look no further than the redrawn red/blue map at the right -- based on Bush's current approval rating to see what's got the Dems cranked up. But the speading Blue Dawn doesn't render the thought of Candidate Hillary any more appetizing than spooning into those cold turkey drippings.
Organized labor, for example, is quietly working under the radar (no reporting on this yet in MSM) to convince John Edwards to be the anti-Hillary.
Then there are the “progressives” – those convinced to the bottom of their souls that if the Democrats were only and simply more left-wing they’d sweep from coast to coast. As I’ve written before, like Western Civilization, that’s a nice idea. There just isn’t any evidence to bolster the case.
That, however, doesn’t stop those who have lived out their lives splashing around the pwogwessive fish bowl, like Jeff Cohen, from reciting the usual detached mantra:
"What I want this Christmas season is an antiwar Democrat to step forward to challenge Hillary Clinton in New York's upcoming primary for senate. And I want a powerful antiwar Democrat to oppose her for the presidential nomination in 2008.Pollster John Zogby believes that a credible progressive Democrat will challenge Hillary for the presidency in 2008: "There will be an antiwar candidate," predicts Zogby. "That's what the base demands."
Zogby may be right. That’s why Cohen is probably wrong. “The base” is a base. The Republican base, you will recall, favors full-time occupation of Iraq, privatization of social security, repeal of Roe, Ten Commanments in the class-room, and a 200 foot high wall on the border; and you see how politically savvy that's been. The base is the ideological hard-core of a party. And while it’s nice to have them on board—they rarely if ever provide the majority needed to actually win an election.
The most recent case in point, of course, was the failed candidacy of Howard Dean. His energized supporters – “the base”—just couldn’t believe he got his ass handed him to in Iowa and then in New Hampshire by none other than the walking corpse of Kerry. The Deaniacs, accustomed to attending rallies of hundreds or even thousands of others just like themselves, failed to notice that Dean, even at his zenith, never polled higher than 30% among Democrats and that millions did not want him. Why all the surprise, then, to see on primary day that – well—about seven or eight out of ten Dems voted against him?
So to those on the Democratic Left, are you sure you want a “strong anti-war” candidate in 2008? Or do you want a candidate who has come out against the war, but might still resonate with constituencies far beyond your own? Someone who makes people other than you and your reading group feel good?
I don’t pretend to know the answer and I am not making any endorsements (I'm not a Democrat anyway). But the question is certainly worth asking. Democratic strategist Flavia Colgan comes up with her own answer. She makes an early endorsement of Jack Murtha:
What Murtha has done is present an idea so simple and clear in thought that it has rocked the wishy-washy establishment that is Washington, DC.
Prior to Murtha's plan, possible Democratic contenders for the White House were all over the map with a bunch of half-baked and arbitrary plans for Iraq. Senator Russ Feingold proposed bringing everyone home by the end of 2006. His caveat was that it could change, and he offered no reason for his December 2006 date. John Kerry proposed bringing 20,000 troops home by Christmas, with no explanation as to how he reached that number.
Democrats like Feingold and Kerry are plagued with what has dogged Democrats for too long -- wanting to have things both ways. When weapons of mass destruction were not found, Democrats were quick to criticize the President, but afraid to look "weak," refused to say they may have made a mistake in voting for the war. Now, afraid to be labeled a coward, no Democrat until Murtha would dare posit the obvious -- maybe it's time for troops to come home as soon as they safely could.
Jack Murtha was not afraid of the attacks he knew would come. Murtha had the political courage to propose something clear that wouldn't appease all sides. Most of all, Murtha has done something that no one has yet done in all this political posturing on the war: Put the troops first.
For that, he has my vote for President.
Tweaking Feingold (who I like a lot) like that is going to rankle some of the pwogs. But embedded in Flavia’s pitch is a real quandary for Democrats – especially of the liberal stripe. They don’t want (I hope) another Kerry. They’re suspicious of Hillary (though they ought to be scornful). But how do you make sure you don’t take that energy of the “base “ and squander it like in 2004 when the “progressive” Dennis Kucinich campaign came to resemble little more than a gaggle of vegan drummers?
Also: Harold Meyerson has a quirky take on all this. Map: via Kos
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:12 am
2008?! You might as well be talking about 2020. We don’t know what either Iraq or the U.S. economy will look like in a couple of years, so there’s little basis for strategizing about a White House capture based on the major issues.
Murtha for President? Probably the furthest thing from his mind.
Harold Myerson makes some good points — we don’t really have a wild-in-the-streets antiwar movement, a tumultuous and (for the average voter) alienating backdrop for spiroagnewizing. I’d say that’s mostly because we don’t have a draft. Believe me (if you’re under 40): America HAS been more polarized, within living memory.
As Melvin Laird points out in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs, “war is a fluid thing.” Moreover, it’s a fogged river into unmapped territory. War is politics by violent means, and a few years is a lifetime in politics.
Kerry proposes pulling out 20,000 troops, but offers no other details of an exit plan. Well, that’s probably because he’s smart. I think what he’s really saying is this: “Let’s pull out some troops AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.” He doesn’t add those words I capitalize because he doesn’t want somebody to seize on them and say, “Hey, listen to Kerry, what an idiot — he doesn’t have a real *plan*.”
The fact is (and Kerry probably knows it), no plan is likely to survive contact with reality, no prediction is likely to stand up. Getting out of Iraq is at best going to have to be a series of experiments, and policy will have to evolve despite a lack of firm conclusions from those experiments, even in the fortuitous cases where we do get a clear and relatively unpoliticized analysis of the experimental outcomes for purposes of calibration.
And watch the river bend while we’re at it. It now appears that Iraqis in (what passes for) central government have agreed that there should be a timetable for withdrawal, and that non-terroristic combat within Iraq is “legitimate.” This, in discussions with the Arab League. That’s very, very interesting — Iraqi could start wagging the U.S. dog, even with a tail controlled by three different internal central nervous systems and five external ones. Perhaps this recent announcement reflects an underlying agreement: that, whatever their differences, they are all better off having some influence on who becomes President of the United States in 2008, and that they can’t do this without the Arab League, which really couldn’t give a flying fig for democracy . Pretty soon, we may not be able to tell Iraq what to do, because it’s tantamount to trying to tell the Arab League what to do.
And nobody can order the economy around.
For the time being, the best presidential hopefuls can do is to keep touring, shaking hands, kissing babies, letting ice cream and gravy dribble off their chins to show just plain folks that they, too, are just plain folks, and project a hazy, glowing nimbus of Moral Values.
Platform? You need solid ground to build a platform. There is none, right now.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:24 am
The Democrats will get another DLC type, I presume. Hillary Clinton is one option, there are others. Of course they say they are “progressives” too so we can all have pointless debate about what being progressive means… Or what “pwogwessive” means, or perhaps we’ll leave that to Mr. Cooper.
De riguer cheap shot at Dennis Kucinich. Not a chance of winning I agree, but its indicative of the state of US politics that his health care proposals appear far out and radical, when they are solidly mainstream in Euopean social democracies. That’s the bigger picture.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:54 am
Presumably this is an all-skate? marc does a pretty good job of spinning the poll results into a very encouraging opportunity for the Democrats. It clearly is just that. However [and it is a big however] much of the negative opinion of Bush is based on the pork-laden spending of his administration. Right wingers are livid about it. Running polls that do not clarify that fact, but instead offer the simplistic “approve†or “disapprove†options are nothing more than Democratic spin at this point. Converting a right wing “disapprove†responder into a Democrat vote is not as easily done as the map might appear to indicate.
Bush was not the strongest candidate, but all he had to do was beat Kerry. The real opportunity for the Democrats is to fix their broken candidate-selection process so that it can produce a candidate that the center can vote for. There are many votes in the center that are aching to vote the rascals out, but they are not yet willing to vote the other, disorganized rascals in to do so. The 2008 election is the Democrats to lose. Unfortunately, so far it looks to me like they can easily accomplish that.
Is the union-and-trial-lawyer-backed “Breck Boy†the answer? Hillary is another Kerry waiting to happen. Joe Lieberman? An almost certain winner with great appeal to the center and even some on the right, so forget him – he will never get the nomination. So, how to get a winning candidate nominated? Tune in at eleven.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:04 am
From Barak Obama:
“Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue,” Obama said.
He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion “once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: ‘Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I’m here, I’m willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.’ ”
(end clip)
Obama, incidentally, takes the tepid approach to Iraq, like most Dems. Michael Turner is right on this – getting out is going to require some “stop and go” measures rather than a single swell foop. (Murtha’s plan is hardly a “cut-and-run” proposition, by the way if you actually read it and consider the implications.)
Of course, Obama’s asking a lot of a guy who comes up with stuff like this (a plan for dealing with “the liberal media” that no doubt would appeal to Woody.)
http://tinyurl.com/9lhqs
Incidentally, Marc, I think your characterization of Kucinich’s campaign as “a gaggle of vegan drummers” is way off base. I thought it was more like vegans playing wooden flutes. Sharpton evoked the drummers, with a few guys clashing cymbals, who could hardly wait to go out and grab a cheeseburger after the rally. Kerry? A feast of turkey on whitebread, of course, with muzak piped in. (The French Roll thing was a lie.)
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:05 am
I’m just as amused at the wishful thinking process of the Dems that short term popularity polls mean anything as I was that the elections of ’94 meant any substantial change.
History has proven that the Republicans in charge aren’t much different than the Democrats in charge. High spending, low accountablility, carping from the backbenchers. The only thing that really seems to be changed is the R or D after some names on some seats.
On the other hand, will the polls result in a sea change in political voting? I think not! But you guys on the left can certainly hope so can’t you?
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:08 am
reg, I gotta disagree (as if you expected any thing else) The Kucinich group is more like vegans on Kazoos. Wooden Flutes indeed!! LOL
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:00 am
The Dean candidacy failed primarily because of perceptions of competency and electability. There was hardly a wholesale rejection of his ideas, many of which were to the right of the eventual nominee.
I’m convinced that an articulate and compelling progressive candidate is electable. What Americans respect more than anything is moral clarity, and they will respond favorably to one who is willing to stand up for his or her ideas. How else can you explain the success of progressive politicians, Wellstone and Feingold, in swing states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin?
Since today is Woody’s birthday (and since he hasn’t said anything stupid yet), I’ve decided not to be mean to him. Furthermore I distance myself from some of reg’s comments above about Woody. However, this is for today only and doesn’t apply to Woody’s deluded friends who also post here.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:09 am
I thought Bush was the guy playing to the Kazoo Krowd, but whatever…
As for whether the “polls result in a sea change in political voting”, the polls will result in nothing, other than a lot of cel phone chatter, keyboarding and head-talking by consultants and pundits. What they are is a measure of a series of missteps and bad policy by the GOP that will likely result in a significant shift among voters in key states for (at least) the next two election cycles. The change is being brought on by Bush (being Bush), not by polls and I doubt if there’s any turning back given this administrations’ pathologies. Personally, I’m hoping that the looming Abramoff scandal coupled with the Iraq mess means not just more Democrat’s occupying chairs in the Beltway Bingo game, but some real fresh blood – with Iraq vets like Hackett, a wave of “anti-corruption” candidates, and – yes – Al Franken backing up Obama, Feingold and a handful of others to start shining a bit more light on the – admittedly – decadent, dishonest machinery that holds sway.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:21 am
“distance myself from reg’s comments above about Woody”
Any sane person would distance themselves from most of what goes on between Woody and myself. But all I intimated about Woody on this thread was that I’m sure he’d love to see al Jazeera bombed (check link). I have a hunch Woody will chime in and prove me correct.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:04 am
Marc -
I think you’re absolutely right to rdidicule the idea that America is secretly yearning for a candidate like Kucinich and will flock to him given a chance. Murtha as a candidate (or VP) is kind of intriguing. I say that as an economic leftist and social moderate who assumes he may share those positions (I could be dead wrong). Feingold’s position doesn’t seem particularly wishy-washy, especially given the fact that he came forward first. And I don’t care what the Vegan drummers say!
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:08 am
Marc Davidson: Unlike you I have NO idea why Dean’s campaign failed, other than — as I said– he never commanded the sympathies of more than 30% of Democratic primary voters. Only the Deaniacs themselves thught he could win — they were so impressed with their own energy!
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:40 am
Hey Davidson–When did Minnesota become a swing state? It hasn’t voted for a R candidate for president since 1972 when it went for Nixon, and prior to that went for Kennedy, Johnson and Humphrey. Ok I’m done nit picking now.
On the topic at hand, I don’t know that I think if they are more “left” in some generic sense that the Dems will sweep. But I do think a winning coalition can be built on a platfrom of what I like to call economic nationalism. I think there is great fear of outsourcing, of lost manufacturing jobs, of flat incomes, of Toyota passing up GM, of the Chinese and so on. Some of these are phantom fears and some are real, but the working class is essentially ignored in our politics and I think there is a real chance to reenergize that group as a political force. At the very least, ignoring them is helpful to the Republicans.
Marc, so how would you describe yourself politically? Just curious.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:50 am
I say Ron Paul for President.
He’ll probably abolish the office at the end of his first term and resign.
All the better.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:53 am
It isn’t hard to figure out why Dean’s campaign failed or that any other far left candidate will fail.
America isn’t about to elect a communist anytime soon no matter what they call themselves.
It’s quite obvious that since LBJ forty years ago not a single liberal running as a liberal has been elected president. Clinton ran as a safe Bubba, a Republican Lite and Carter ran as a Southern Governor and he just barely defeated Ford the only appointed president in US history.
The only way a Democrat can win the election is to run as a Republican Lite against a particularly inept
Republican candidate (never underestimate the Republican Party elites ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). Or as Harry S Truman is supposed to have said ” give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will always choose the real Republican.”
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:35 am
I’m sorry, I must have been delinquent the day the communist president was discussed in history class. Which one was that?
Dean, pro-gun, balanced budget Dean was a lefty?
What you smokin’?
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 am
notherbob2 Says:
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:54 am
Presumably this is an all-skate? marc does a pretty good job of spinning the poll results into a very encouraging opportunity for the Democrats. It clearly is just that. However [and it is a big however] much of the negative opinion of Bush is based on the pork-laden spending of his administration. Right wingers are livid about it. Running polls that do not clarify that fact, but instead offer the simplistic “approve†or “disapprove†options are nothing more than Democratic spin at this point. Converting a right wing “disapprove†responder into a Democrat vote is not as easily done as the map might appear to indicate.
———————————–
So, are you saying that Bush’s 30% is really a handfull of socialists?
Who is Bush giving pork to? Left-Wingers?
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:30 am
Let us welcome the new people here from PJ Media. I look forward to more insigtful comments like “Dean is a Commie.” We’ve needed the level of debate and discussion elevated here for some time.
Marc, maybe you’re in the dark about Dean’s collapse in Iowa but I’m not. The good doctor was riding high going into December when he ran into one of the more vicious media sliming campaigns I’ve seen. Remember the “Rev” Al Sharpton all but calling him a racist? Imagine taking moral instruction from Al! And it wasn’t just the GOP. It was the DC kool kids in the media and in the Democratic Party that saw him as the Barbarian at the Gates. They still do. Look at the boo hooing in the press over his “snubbing” of fat cat donors (i.e. not kissing their ass) while setting records for off-year fundraising. No Marc, the exit polls in Iowa showed three out of four caucus goers agreed with Dean but went with Kerry and Edwards because they were seen as more electable. So much for the wisdom of Iowa voters.
As to 2008. You got the map from KOS but did not mention the KOS Straw Poll. When asked who the nominee should be the results were:
1. Wesley Clark
2. Russ Finegold
3. John Edwards
Edwards was coming up fast, at the expense of Clark. Hillary? In single digits and stuck there for months. Now you may say that is unscientific but two points:
a) there were 22,000 replies in the last poll.
b) this was the KOS universe – almost by definition the Democratic Party activist base. The people who not only particiapate in the Primary Process but work in the campaigns. The longer Hil “stays the course” in Iraq the more cravenly political she will look when she, inevitably, switches positions. Don’t crown her yet!
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
I have no idea who the nominee will be in 2008. But Murtha? Who one poster “assumes” would be congenial to his economic leftist and social moderate beliefs? Are you kidding? Murtha has been about as far to the right as any northern Democrat in the past 30 years. That is what makes his “move” so significant that it has placed Bushies in the unusual position of kinda sorta apologizing for their characteristic McCarthyist attack against him.
It is a funny war…Perhaps the most insightful Congressional critic going in was Robert Byrd, and the most noteworthy demanding a way out is Jack Murtha.
I would like to see Feingold do something designed to gather some limelight, just to see how he handles it and how the public reacts. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a lineup, though I know he has shown an independent and, yes, progressive turn of mind on certain issues. [btw, marc, the "pwog..." thing....is this a sop to the manly-men caucus or something? How does it play at Arianna's?]
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Michael Crosby -
I’m the rube who projected his own beliefs on Murtha. Is he actually right-wing on economic as well as social issues (the social dosen’t surprise me)?
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I don’t buy the parties are the same fallacy either. Spending on what and whom is pertininent as to context, which most of these two-sided arguments lack. They’re different more successful as Clinton’s certainly illustrate. The budget was balanced. Resource policy was well-reasoned. Ad hominem is the only opposing view we’ve heard. Which is telling in and of itself.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Michael, thank you for asking my questions. I’m no expert on the Democratic (or any) Party, so when I first heard the ruckus about Murtha’s gauntlet-throwing I was pleased to hear of it. But president? Call me picky, but I tend to think simply having a backbone regarding Iraq isn’t quite sufficient for branding you as future president. The Democrats obviously have their problems with message development, and it’s nice that Murtha can actually present one forcefully, but to quote Harvey Keitel’s character in Pulp Fiction, “Let’s not start (expletive) each other’s (expletive) yet.” It’s Jack freakin’ Murtha, for Pete’s sake–not Frankin Delano Roosevelt.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Happy Birthday, Woody. (We love you and your excellent sense of humor…..even if you would probably like to see Al Jazz bombed. Just don’t act on that urge, okay?)
About Murtha, as I know Flavia Colgan (and her style of commentary) I can safely say that she was making a point—rather than a serious nomination.
Speaking of O’Bama, his appearance on the Daily Show was rerun last night. Dear merciful heavens but the charisma factor is sure off the charts for that dude. Now if he can just continue to grow wiser and braver while in public office (not more intellectually isolated, foolish. and politically risk averse, as seems to happen with most folks)—and not believe his own hype.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Speaking generally I think Murtha is somewhat left of dead center on economic issues….my impression, and it is only that, is that he is a sort of George Meany/Scoop Jackson kind of Democrat (not, for young basketball fans, the Hoop Magazine Scoop Jackson). And he has always been to the right of most Republicans on militarism. But at least he can see clearly and perceives no need to stepin fetchit around the issues at hand: when do we withdraw troops, and what do we do once that’s begun, and once it’s done?
My sense is that the Dems who at least think they will be choosing the next Beloved Leader believe that things are going well, and that the strategy that Meyerson describes very well is working….so “let’s stay the course…” Though the course is pretty much to stay anchored in bay, awaiting the signal due in early November, 2006, that it’s OK to lift anchor and move toward land.
What the spinners and advisors are missing is that no matter who throws up no matter how “radical” an attack on the war or how strident a demand to withdraw, the public seems to accept it. Be it Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore or John Murtha or Powell’s assistant secretary of state or Pat Buchanan or Chuck Hagel or fill-in-the-blank, there doesn’t seem to be much of an outcry save from the bloggers on the far right.
I suspect that in a weird way this seems to reinforce the Dems’belief they are on the right track. But I deeply believe that the centersitters–Woody’s normal people–are waiting for the Democrats in Congress to stand up and lead us out of the quagmire in Iraq.
As I write this, I think that the key question is: what is “courage” now, and what sort of action will demonstrate courage to the American people. Is it standing against a specific plan for withdrawal, as the Congressional Dems are now? That would seem to be a prophylactic measure to protect the party and its leaders of charges of weakness in a time of insecurity. Or is it to finally take a positive position, not a diluted version of the administration’s?
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Don’t confuse the parties with the party leaders. The Republican and Democratic parties clearly draw on different constituent bases, as witnessed by the level of mutual vitriol we see on the internet (and elsewhere). Financial donors differ too — from what I’ve read we see less hedging of contributions than we have in the recent past. (If someone who has studied the actual reports knows differently, I’m willing to stand corrected.
The leadership, though, seems more convergent between the parties, in part by what seems to be a pact to put incumbant advantage ahead of party loyalty — not that parties will not contest where they perceive an opportunity — but that the leaders are more interested in protecting their own seats [in all senses of that word].
In terms of elections, it’s hard to translate presidential popularity into legislative outcomes because each race has its own local and state milieu that adds a whole different dimension . In other words, it’s not just how one views the country, it’s what one thinks of a specific candidate — and in the case of a challenger, the voter needs to buy into a need for change and believe that the challenger will do better.
Bottom line, you need strong candidates to take advantage of discontent; discontent alone is not enough.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Thanks for asking, NeoDude. I always try to answer serious inquiries, but most readers here don’t really care what I think so I will try to be very brief. The pork is going everywhere; Bush has vetoed nothing. Fiscal conservatives are openly stating on centrist and right wing blogs that they will not vote for Republicans because of this issue. I am presuming that these folks check the “disapprove†box on polls. Sounds good for Democrats, right? Yes, it is. Unless they run a big spender. Query: Is there a Democrat who is NOT a big spender? Who is checking the “approve†box? Loyal Republicans who are not too upset by the spending.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Is there a Republican who is not the real big spender? Contrary to myth spending always goes up under Republicans and down under Democrats. That’s the truth, the myth is not. If you prove this wrong have at it. I’d find it entertaining.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Responses to Comments
Marc Davidson wrote: “Since today is Woody’s birthday (and since he hasn’t said anything stupid yet) I’ve decided not to be mean to him.”
Oh, no. I wish that I had read this before making a comment on Marc’s next post about Galloway. I’m afraid that I might have crossed that line. Thank you for your consideration today, however, and I’ll try to be more careful–at least until I get to the next response.
———-
reg wrote: “…all I intimated about Woody on this thread was that I’m sure he’d love to see al Jazeera bombed….”
Is that like PBS or the New York Times? Well, if we can allow anti-American press in our own country, then we sure shouldn’t condemn it in another.
———-
notherbob2 wrote: “…much of the negative opinion of Bush is based on the pork-laden spending of his administration. Right wingers are livid about it. …. Converting a right wing “disapprove†responder into a Democrat vote is not as easily done as the map might appear to indicate.”
Well put. This may shock some, but if I were asked a simple “approve or disapprove” question on Bush today, I would say “disapprove.” Federal spending is a big part of that, but so is the handling of the Iraq war, even though I agree that we should be there. Also, I wasn’t pleased with the Supreme Court nomination of whats-her-name that I have forgotten. I’m also upset that the temporary tax cuts have not been made permanent. Surprisingly, you will find two posts from me at GM’s Corner comparing Bush to LBJ. First in “Who Is This Man and Should We Be Worried?” http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2005/10/who_is_this_man.htm and next in “”Lyndon Baines” Bush Upsets Conservatives and Threatens Party Prospects” http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2005/10/conservatives_r.htm .
However, there is one thing in particular that is good about having Bush as President–he’s not Al Gore or John Kerry.
———-
Rosedog wrote: “Happy Birthday, Woody. (We love you….” and “Speaking of O’Bama….”
Thank you, rosedog. If it’s okay, I’ll skip any kisses from reg. My day started right when I griped at the tag office that the ad valorem tax on my car was too high, so they obliged me and cut it in half. I’m doing my part to hold down taxes and government spending.
As you can see from another response above, I would not favor bombing a news outlet based in a country that is our ally–plus, I don’t have enough information to determine whether or not al Jazeera is contributing to American casualties. Sometimes I’ll form an opinion with incomplete facts, but not in this case.
Regarding O’Bama, is he an Irishman from Tuscaloosa? Anyway, I went to the O’Auburn – O’Bama football game last Saturday and watched them slug it out like a pub full of drunken Irishmen, which also describes the condition of many students in the stands.
———-
Okay. I have to go blow out the candles now. (I wish for world peace and that poor people would be fed and that the sick can be healed and that I get some really good gifts.)
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Marc: I may have missed it but would love at some point to hear your thoughts about the (in)electability of Hillary in ’08. I just don’t see it and fear the dems will once more shoot themselves (& thus the nation) in the foot by making her the nominee.
What’s your perspective (okay — it’s a snapshot in time, subject to revision/rethinking at a later time) — but at this point?
all the best always and thanks for a sober, down-to-earth perspective
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:46 pm
“Any sane person would distance themselves from most of what goes on between Woody and myself.”
On a related note, I think my Haldol is finally starting to kick in.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:57 pm
I don’t like Bush’s big spending — but CONGRESS controls the purse.
Best economies are when there’s a big-spending Dem in the White House but Reps are a majority in Congress — because then the Dem pres. tries to do things that will pass Congress, meaning Dem acceptable Rep things. Like NAFTA and Welfare Reform. Stuff a Rep pres. has problems doing.
Every Pres. has an easier time “getting things done” if the things they do are what the other party wants. Bush spends (not disapproves of it), trying to get a few Dem votes; so did Bush 41 and Reagan.
The Reps are more rabidly anti-deficit, anti-spending whenever a Dem is pres. Only Nixon could go to China — or put in wage & price controls. Or run away from Vietnam w/o victory (OK it was Ford, after Nixon’s resignation. Immortalized in Rocky Horror Picture’s short quote, “I have never been a quitter…”).
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:33 pm
You right-wingers are in such denial!
Woody and Liberty Dad are like cokeheads who believe they are better than other cokeheads because they hate all the coke they snort, while those other addicts love their coke.
Get over it….you right-wingers are self-righteous statists.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:45 pm
notherbob, oversimplifying:
“Converting a right wing “disapprove†responder into a Democrat vote is not as easily done as the map might appear to indicate.”
Whatever happened to independents? Whatever happened to moderate Republicans, and “Bush Democrats” (there are a few, even if an endangered species at this point.) The Dems could run a campaign that brings out every rightwing voter in America (on stretchers and mobile respirators if that’s what it took) to vote against them, and they could still win if they got most of the middle-range voters in swing states. Satisfaction with *both* parties is on the decline, but winning the White House in 2008 might only be a matter of which party comes in *second* in the race to the bottom.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Woody and Liberty Dad,
“Please, God….oh please,…don’t force me to spend again!”
Jeez, take the straw out of your nose before you hand out lectures on addiction.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:18 am
“If it’s okay, I’ll skip any kisses from reg.”
You’ve got me confused with George Galloway. Actually you were confused about Galloway as well. He’s just British. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Marc appears to be confused about him as well, since he intimated some fear that he might wake up one morning with Galloway snoring next to him. As I noted on that thread, that would only mean one thing – that he’d had too much to drink over at Arianna’s the night before. Now Marc’s got an entire thread devoted to drinking.
Perhaps, by some method known only to Marc, all of this ties together…
Naaahh!
November 24th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
All your base are not ours
Marc Cooper comments on and ponders what it will take for the Democrats to make a comeback in ’06 and ’08.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
“Well, if we can allow anti-American press in our own country”
This is wingnut humor. But all humor is based on the factual beliefs of the comedian. The assertions he or she sees as funny, so Woody does believe this. Criticism to them is treason, but real students of history know better. Who would want the country these people would build? We’re getting a taste of that sort of federalism now.
Not one piece of evidence concerning Republican spending always outpacing Democrats in power. Not one shred. Hell, they even hire me twice as often as the Dems.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
“But all humor is based on the factual beliefs of the comedian.”
Disagree. Humor bears no necessary relation to truth. Only a minority of the time do I have a “that’s so true” reaction to a joke. In fact, many a time I’ve got a good laugh at the absurdity of things I regarded as patently false. For instance, on another site some anti-Semite posted a link to this and I laughed my ass off. I mean, who doesn’t find the characterization of homosexuality as a “Jewish Mind Control Mechanism” funny. It truly reaches the level of self-parody.
November 24th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
That site is not meant as humor. Woody’s crack was. But yeah they believe it, but it’s more sad than funny just like that CNN X marks the spot joke. It wasn’t to Drudge et al.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
America isn’t about to elect a communist anytime soon no matter what they call themselves.
True story:
I was speaking once with my oldest sister’s first husband’s parents, Wormie [a nickname, I never found out his real name] and Bernice at their home in Haleyville, AL. They told me that the Kennedys were nothing but a bunch of “commonists” [sic]. I pointed out that the Kennedys were incredibly rich and that, while one can disagree with them , I cannot recall them as being Marxists (I was in 10th grade at the time. In Alabama you had to take a course on communism as part of government in the 9th grade)
They replied that “the Kennedys don’t think like us.” I asked him if that’s what made them communists and they replied “of course.” They also said that Bobby Kennedy had had “n#@$er blood.”
That was in 1971. Sad to see that discourse still hasn’t progressed much beyond that for some.
November 24th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
It really hasn’t sadly. Prejudice is still prejudice and facts have no bearing on it. I graduated HS in 1971, but Maine is very different from the old south. We’d go to Virginia in the winter and see the separate bathrooms and I asked my dad what this was about, and he said “the people down here think black people are different, but we don’t.”
It made me glad not to be a southerner in those days.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Ohio Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Ohio …
July 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte poker zeigen ?xnv
August 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I Love the way you write…thanks for posting