Plan for 2006?

[shostakovich]

The Administration and its collaborators are in the process of smearing the Media. They have already equated "media" with "liberal', which they have already smeared as "unpatriotic". Actually, one need not be a Democrat, a liberal, or a member of the media to be anti-Bush, which is hardly the same as "unpatriotic".

If the war in Iraq takes a positive turn before October, the Administration can trumpet a "cautious success" (as opposed to "mission acomplished). If it does not, the blame can be placed on the Dem, lib, media coalition whose "non support for the troops" (hardly a truth) has undermined the effort in Iraq. If enough voters buy it IN SPITE of low Bush and Congress poll numbers, there will be little change in November.

Frankly, I think everyone who voted for the Iraq war should be voted out of office. I'm placing my vote against Lieberman as soon as I get the chance, even though he is one of the most otherwise decent men in Congress.
Shos

[barfle]

I've noted several times that I feel the War Powers Act is an abdication of Congress's duty to declare war, and should be fond unconstitutional.

One thing about voting Libertarian, you know you didn't vote for any of the bastards in office! I could be wrong, but I believe the last politician I voted for who actually won the election was Richard Nixon. Which cured me of doing that again.

[Shapley]

Shos,

Sounds like you're setting yourself up for failure. The media has been portrayed as 'left leaning' and 'liberal' at least as far back as the reign of Ronaldus Maximus, so I don't think you can blame that perception on President Bush and his 'collaborators'. They have been seen as unsupportive of the troops and the war effort as far back as Vietnam.

The Democrats appear to be adrift in the sea of politics. If they fail to win big in November it's because they are as lacking in leadership as the Republicans are. Opposition to everything the President proposes is not a sound policy. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, yet the Democrats, with no platform of their own, look at what the President does and shout "We oppose that!". Some leadership.

Not that the Republicans are doing much better, but they are holding on to some issues; tax cuts, the war, gun rights, etc. They're not trumpeting them very loudly, but that's largely because their is no real opposition being offered to their plans. I see Democrats with their "Had Enough?" bumper stickers running around, but I've not heard what they propose to do differently.

From the looks of things right now, they have about as much chance of winning big in November as the Libertarians do.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

There really does have to be more to a policy than "oppose Bush." I've made no bones (sorry, Steve) about how I feel regarding the war in Iraq, but I also feel that the tax cut and gun rights are important issues that I find myself on the side of the administratin on.

What I'd really like to see is a coherent Iraq policy (not just "stay there 'till the job's done)", a coherent plan for the deficit (meaningful spending cuts), a coherent plan for immigration, and a coherent plan for reducing the size and intrusive effects of the federal government.

[BigJon@Work]

The Administration and its collaborators are in the process of smearing the Media. They have already equated "media" with "liberal', which they have already smeared as "unpatriotic". Actually, one need not be a Democrat, a liberal, or a member of the media to be anti-Bush, which is hardly the same as "unpatriotic".

I guess you don't think the media has done a good enough job of smearing themselves? The quality of reporting in the US today is dismal and I don't see any improvements on the horizon.

And now a criticism that call me elitist for thinking this . . .

[shostakovich]

Hi BigJon. My thesis is that the media pick at whoever is in charge. Clinton got his share of criticism. So did Bush I, and Reagan, and Carter, and Nixon, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR (under whose regime I was born). Bush II may get more than his share because he dismisses as irrelevant any ideas different from his own.

The media, on balance, deal with truth, discovery. The individual reporter puts his/her personal spin on the report. The media may be slanted more heavily anti- president than usual, because Bush II shows such disdain for openness, honesty, the Constitution, and his critics.

Many critics of today were pretty non-partisan 5 1/2 years ago. Bush has created media enemies who are not "left wing, liberal". They are just insulted by Bush, and their animosity has gone past balanced reporting. They are simply anti Bush. He's an insult to the presidency. It behooves him to paint them broadly as partisan. His main enemy is truth, regardless of how reporters spin their stories.

By the way, you say the media have done a pretty good job of smearing themselves. I agree with you. The level of "news" reporting, especially on TV, is at an all time low, but if we dismiss the "left" and "right" crazies, we can balance the rest of the reporting ourselves. Then we can discover the "truth" according to our own biases.
Shos

[shostakovich]

Shos,


The Democrats appear to be adrift in the sea of politics. If they fail to win big in November it's because they are as lacking in leadership as the Republicans are. Opposition to everything the President proposes is not a sound policy. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, yet the Democrats, with no platform of their own, look at what the President does and shout "We oppose that!". Some leadership.


V/R
Shapley

Hi Shap. Opposing Bush would have been a great policy for Democrats. Would that they had done it from his earliest days. It should have been a unifying theme. War in Iraq, shitty Medicare bill, attempting to privatize S.S., tax cuts for the rich, emasculating the EPA. We'd have been in better shape without those. I agree that a real platform to go along with "NOT YOUR WAY" should have been offered. It's sad that 535 leaders, most of whom know little beyond how to get elected, will be allowed to continue in office. The world is complicated. Our Congress is hopeless.
Saddened Shos

[Shapley]

Opposition is one thing, sound alternatives are another. The Democrats have offered opposition, but no alternatives.

The Medicare bill delivers on Bush' promise of a prescription drug plan. Judging by the lack of news coverage about it, I would guess that it is less of a problem than the pundits predicted when it originally passed. Social Security Privatization was a sound policy, too bad it didn't pass. Now we have no real solution to the problems the program will face in the future. Some Congress will have to deal with it, and it will be messy when they do. The Democrats can pride themselves on having accomplished what they set out to achieve - nothing. Some policy.

The tax cuts 'for the wealthy' have stirred strong economic growth, and real deficit reduction despite unjustified growth in government spending. The deficit as a percent of GDP is projected to be 2.7% this year, very close to the historical average of 2.4%. It is projected to reach less than 2% within the next two years, the lowest it has been since the 1970's. That is real deficit reduction, the only problem with it is that, given that we have been able to reduce the deficit without cutting spending, thanks the the growth in GDP spurred by the tax cuts, the Congress feels no obligation to make needed cuts in spending. The Republicans have, however, thus far resisted the urge to add too much additional entitlement spending beyond the prescription drug benefit.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

The Democrats may feel they don't need to promise anything more than not to $^@k things up any worse than GWB has so far.

I don't think I agree with that, but it may very well be sound reasoning on their part.

BTW, I'll go on record: If Hillary wins, it will be more of the same.