FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Oh that! Mine broke 3 years ago. Since then it's been a 200 pound incense holder.
You *can* get lighter and more decorative incense holders, you know
Disgusted with Political Process
- Thread starter Ping898
- Start date
Oh that! Mine broke 3 years ago. Since then it's been a 200 pound incense holder.
You *can* get lighter and more decorative incense holders, you know
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
The topic of this election is the war.
No, some want it to be, especially the Democrats, but it's not. Not wholly anyway.
Democrats want this mid-term election to be a moratorium on Bush and on the War in Iraq in particular. Since they can't reach him directly because he's not running, so they wannt the individual races to be symbolic of the countries discontent with the war as an issue and him as well. They figure that if the Democrats can control one huse, or both, it will be seen as a public statement against Bush and the War, giving them both mandate and legislative power to do...something. Problem is, teh Democrats are more against Bush than the War anyway, the War is just a convenient itarget as a way to get at him. As has been mentioned before, the Democrats are not pro-anything, they are just anti-republican, and Bush is the head Republican, and the War is the defiining point of his presidency, so attempting to make the Election about the War is just politics as usual.
But the election will be about a lot more than that. In no particular order:
Iit will be about whether or not the Democrats can articulate a vision for the near-future of America and define a plan to implement that vision. The Republians have the upper hand here simply because a) since they control majorities of both houses they can claim more populus support of theor vision and b) since they control both houses and the whitehouse they can act more preogressively on their vision which gives people a chance to see it in action and the momentum of "we are enacting our plan" is powerful.
It will be about consolidation of power. The American people have to decide whether putting two branches of government in the hands of one party is a good idea or not (I'm ignoring the SC because they are not directly elected by the people and they are notorious for not doing what the people who appoint them want them to). A bi-partisan government is in-effectual these days; a single party government has uncontested power. Which is more unattractive, especially in time of war? Well nect week, people have a chance to try something else if they want.
Ultimately, though, it will be 'local', as it always has been. It will be about whether the incumbant stinks and whether the challenger can overcome the strength of incumbancy. It will be about who runs the most effective campaign. It will be about who can promise the most pork, and covince the most people he or she can deliver.
It will be about a lot of things
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Willful ingorance or deliberate mis-information continues to be what is peddled with such statements. Try "The Google" the phrase "First 100 Hours".
Despite being Pro-the First 100 Hours plan - and the compete lack of attention by the media on the plan (wonder why that is) - The issue is the war in Iraq. And polls show this.
The war is not winable
The war is headed in the wrong direction
The war is costing too much money
The war is costing too many lives
Have you heard that the Prime Minister in Iraq is not giving orders to the United States military. I wonder who made him commander in chief?
Not to mention the House Majority Leader is blaming the current status of the war in Iraq on the military on the ground. Apparently, the 'chain of command' is something that escapes Represenative Boehner. Of course, SecDef Rumsfeld himself, believes he is not part of the chain of command. Amazing.
Oh that! Mine broke 3 years ago. Since then it's been a 200 pound incense holder.
I've heard about people being incensed about what they find on TV, but I took it a totally different way.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 44
Just an aside, and I'm sure Michael just mispoke, but the polls show no such things. They just show that's what peoples opinions are.
Jeff
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Despite being Pro-the First 100 Hours plan
Actually, the problem is that the plan itself is just anti-Republican rhetoeric. "Drain the Republican swamp"? Then you get into things like repealing the tax-cuts and stem-cell research and changing pharme rules, all particularly going against poltical issues that have marked the Bush presidency in some way. The "First 100 Hours" is simply a reactionary attempt to capitalize on an attempt to rasie "Anti-Bush/Anti-Republican" sentiment.
When the Democrats can actually earn the moniker of 'progressive' they've been attempting to adapt, then it might be interesting, but right now their 'vision' is 'We're Not Republicans', which is hardly much to get excited about
The war is not winable
A martial artist of all people should know that the first step to survival is state -of-mind and a defeatist attitude gets you killed. The war may or may not be winnable on technical grounds, but it is not winnable if you beleive it is not.
The war is headed in the wrong direction
Possibly. Hard to say when it's hard to say what direction it is headed. Bush, etc.. .have done an amazingly bad job of defining criteria for 'success' and steps to get to that direction. Ideally, imo, the 'war' has been 'won' in the sense that we fought the Iraqi government and defeated the political leadership and military power of Iraq. That was then; now we are in a situation of trying to establish a peaceful government there, and the problem is that the various political/religious sides do not want a peaceful solution. Success would be the establishment of a political/social structure by which the various factions could debate, discuss, and enact their poltitical views in a peaceful manner. Bush doesn't seem to have a vision for how to get that to happen and their citeria of success seems to be 'keep fighting until your enemies are dead'. However,the Democrats don't seem to have a vision for defining success and a roadmap to get their either, so they are hardly an attractive alternative.
The issue is the war in Iraq
As a voting issue? That th eaverage person is going to be in the booth and pick Democrat over Republican because of the War? I'm sceptical
Actually, the problem is that the plan itself is just anti-Republican rhetoeric. "Drain the Republican swamp"? Then you get into things like repealing the tax-cuts and stem-cell research and changing pharme rules, all particularly going against poltical issues that have marked the Bush presidency in some way. The "First 100 Hours" is simply a reactionary attempt to capitalize on an attempt to rasie "Anti-Bush/Anti-Republican" sentiment.
When the Democrats can actually earn the moniker of 'progressive' they've been attempting to adapt, then it might be interesting, but right now their 'vision' is 'We're Not Republicans', which is hardly much to get excited about
The war is not winable
A martial artist of all people should know that the first step to survival is state -of-mind and a defeatist attitude gets you killed. The war may or may not be winnable on technical grounds, but it is not winnable if you beleive it is not.
The war is headed in the wrong direction
Possibly. Hard to say when it's hard to say what direction it is headed. Bush, etc.. .have done an amazingly bad job of defining criteria for 'success' and steps to get to that direction. Ideally, imo, the 'war' has been 'won' in the sense that we fought the Iraqi government and defeated the political leadership and military power of Iraq. That was then; now we are in a situation of trying to establish a peaceful government there, and the problem is that the various political/religious sides do not want a peaceful solution. Success would be the establishment of a political/social structure by which the various factions could debate, discuss, and enact their poltitical views in a peaceful manner. Bush doesn't seem to have a vision for how to get that to happen and their citeria of success seems to be 'keep fighting until your enemies are dead'. However,the Democrats don't seem to have a vision for defining success and a roadmap to get their either, so they are hardly an attractive alternative.
The issue is the war in Iraq
As a voting issue? That th eaverage person is going to be in the booth and pick Democrat over Republican because of the War? I'm sceptical
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Jeff ... my assertions as to the state of the war are not supported by polls - they are my assertions.
But that the Iraq war is the issue, - or that people's opinions are that the war is the issue - is supported by polls.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15533129/
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,141
- Reaction score
- 44
I was pretty sure that's what you meant.
I agree with you that the Iraq is a big reason we are going to have larger than normal turnouts for a mid-term election.
Jeff
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
FearlessFreep said:
On might also "The Google" the Real Security Act of 2006.
Of course, this bill was voted down on a straight party line vote by the Republicans that now are claiming the Democrats have no plan.
I suppose 528 pages can't be a too comprehensive plan, though, can it?
Meanwhile, while we were oogling over Mark Foley and his salacious behavior, CONGRESS passed a bill that basically enacted martial law. Where was the dissent on this? Where was the voice of reason? Where were the Democrats?
They were in the same damn place most of them were when they voted for the Iraq war.
The political process is in big trouble. It has not stopped this illegal war, it not stopped the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, and it has not stopped the enaction of martial law. On and on and on...
One would think that if one were really opposed to this stuff and they would be out on the streets talking to the people and actually trying to be a leader for what they believe in.
They were in the same damn place most of them were when they voted for the Iraq war.
The political process is in big trouble. It has not stopped this illegal war, it not stopped the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus, and it has not stopped the enaction of martial law. On and on and on...
One would think that if one were really opposed to this stuff and they would be out on the streets talking to the people and actually trying to be a leader for what they believe in.
