Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Parsing the Polls: The Voters' Party Impressions

There's so much polling being done these days that The Fix could parse a different survey every day. On Tuesday alone four major news partnerships released surveys -- Washington Post/ABC News, CBS/New York Times, USA Today/Gallup and CNN/Opinion Research.

Anyone remotely following the 2006 campaign can guess what the surveys said: Republicans down, Democrats up.

President Bush's job-approval rating ranged from a low of 34 percent in the CBS/Times poll to a high of 39 percent in the Post/ABC and CNN/Opinion Research surveys. The generic ballot test wasn't much better for Republicans. The Post/ABC poll had Democrats with a 13 percent edge over Republicans on the generic question; it was a 14-point Democratic margin in the Times/CBS survey, a 21-point edge in the CNN/Opinion Research poll and a whopping 23-point lead in the USA Today/Gallup poll.

As The Fix has said many times, this is the worst national environment for either party since the 1994 landslide election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in four decades. The similarity in political atmospherics does not ensure a similar wave for Democrats on Nov. 7, but it does show that the playing field is tilted heavily in their favor.

In The Voters' Own Words

Beyond Bush's job approval number or the dismal ratings for Congress, what caught our eye when deciding what to write about this week was a series of questions asked in a Gallup poll conducted at the end of last month that sought to test the voters' impressions of the two political parties.

Voters were asked to name what they liked and disliked about the Democratic and Republican parties. The pollsters didn't prompt respondents with sample statements; rather, they were allowed to simply say whatever came into their mind. This sort of free-association provides unique insight into how the parties are viewed by everyday Americans and how voters go about making their decisions on Election Day.

Let's look at voter impressions of the Democratic Party first. One-quarter of the sample said they liked the party's economic message: "supports the middle class/working class/average American" (10 percent), "supports the people" (8 percent) or "supports the poor/homeless" (5 percent). Four percent of those tested said they liked that the Democrat party was liberal; the same number cited Democrats' "views on social issues" as what they liked about the party.

Other positive traits worth mentioning include: "the platform" (3 percent), "like the politicians in the party" (3 percent) and "diverse/inclusive party" (3 percent).

What don't voters like about Democrats? Finishing first -- not surprisingly -- with eight percent was that the party is "too liberal/left-wing." One in five voters said what they disliked about Democrats was rooted in some variation of the idea that the party has no real principles: 6 percent of voters said the party had "no clear idea/solutions/wishy washy" or that they "don't take stands for their beliefs/don't oppose Bush", 5 percent said they are "not organized as a party/lack of focus."

Asked what they like most about the GOP, the leading response -- with nine percent -- was that it was conservative. The second most mentioned trait was "views on defense/war on terrorism/homeland security/military" with six percent. Four percent each cited the party's platform more generally and "their morals/family values."

What do voters not like about Republicans? Leading the list is the perception that they are the "party of the rich/not for the middle [or] lower class" (9 percent) followed by voters who said they "don't like/respect Congress/corrupt/poor ethics/dishonest" (7 percent). Six percent said the fact Republicans "support big business" or are "extreme right wing/conservatives" is what turns them off.

In many ways these results are not terribly surprising. For years, Democratic politicians have worked to paint themselves as the defenders of the average American while casting Republicans as the party of big business and the affluent. Republicans, on the other hand, have spent several decades waging a rhetorical war on Democrats by turning "liberal" into a dirty word. In the 2004 presidential election, exit polling showed that just 21 percent of the electorate defined itself as liberal -- a total dwarfed by self-identified moderates (45 percent) and conservatives (34 percent).

What does this mean for the two parties heading into the 2006 and 2008 elections? First, Democrats must find a way to change the prevailing idea that their party is devoid of any foundational beliefs. To win the White House in 2008 it will not be enough for Democrats to be simply be against Republican principles.

Meanwhile, Republicans need to convince the electorate that they are not controlled by big business at the expense of the middle class voter and that they stand as strongly against corruption in their ranks as Democrats.

Quite obviously, whichever side is better able to lessen their perceived weaknesses while highlighting their image strengths will likely wind up in the White House come January 2009.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 11, 2006; 9:33 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate Dems Take to Virginia Airwaves
Next: Clash of the Titans: McCain vs. Clinton

Comments

jep - religion in + of itself, as a system deliberately set up to establish differences between groups of people (not to mention reinforce the dominant social and political paradigm) is the problem. Curiosity, wonder, imagination, compassion, love, fear, greed, generosity, etc. - all human emotions, but when religion attempts to codify their expression, the results are political rather than spiritual and serve to divide rather than unite us.

Posted by: meuphys | October 11, 2006 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I'll think about your offer, JEP. But if you put up that Deanian dreck again, forget about it. You guys really think you're going to just glide in, don't you? Be careful, hubris kills.

Alright, maybe not kills, but it hurts.

Just keep the anti-Bush rhetoric down in 2008. Get it all out in 2006 if you have to.

I like Ben's idea of a scenario-- Southern Democrat vs. A New England Republican. That might be just what the country needs. Turn the Red and Blue inside out and get them out of their comfort zones.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Colin: thanks for the link. "Draining the Swamp" is a wildly appropriate name for the proposed actions. Too bad this info is DC's best kept secret.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 11, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it was an honest mistake.

Totally unintended.

But Toshiro, you do need to vote for a Democrat this time around, especially in your own Congressional district.

It is pretty clear you are conflicted abut your own party, so help us make a change NOW in DC, then start working within your own party to make the changes locally that will start influencing things for the better.

I encourage all Republicans not to abandon their party, but to save it, by voting for Democrats this time around.

"I'll lay odds that when it comes to the West's destruction of aboriginal Americans during the Spanish conquest, you would be somewhat less hesitant to condemn fanatical Christianity"

Not hardly.

Zealots have no religion, thier passions rule them, not the Holy Spirit. Put any label on violence and hatred, it is still violence and hatred.

Christianity, as Jesus taught, shouldn't be considered a religion, it is a spiritual way of life, that lives within us.

According to the scriptures, real Christians really can't "go" to church, because they "are" one.

When you organize it, build a big building to house it in, schedule every day with contrived traditions, and put a human figurehead on the pulpit to gather money in it's name, THEN it is a religion.

And then you will get zealots. Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Maoist, the names change but the story stays the same. When money and worldly power takes over, then you get that oxymoron "holy war."

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Just like four, eight, twelve, sixteen and so on in increments of four years afo, a senator is hailed as the next president of the United States. Clearly you do not pay attention to history as only two sitting senators, JFK and Benjamin Harrison have ever been elected President.
This is for a reason. A sitting senator such as Mr. Kerry in 2004 has too large a voting record to adequately defend. He or she will be accused of being unprincipled if inconsistent or ideologically dogmatic if consistent. Perhaps a more appropriate prediction for 2008 will be Warner Vs. Romney, a Southern Democrat vs. A New England Republican just like the old days

Posted by: Ben | October 11, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

That poll is solid gold. I decided if I ever went into politics, I would use this type of poll--driven directly by input from the people, no filters, though it does take more work--often. I hope the bigwigs in my party pay attention to this.

Posted by: Henry Browne | October 11, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

To Tina and the few people she cites as an example that the Repubs are the party of big business. Just because a few wealthy people are not repubs, doesn't mean it isn't the party of big business. All you have to do is look at the laws that are passed, the de-regulation, and the tax breaks that they are being given and that shows you they are. The people you used aren't "Big Business". "big Business is large corporations, not certain wealthy individuals who happen to own some business.

Posted by: Toppcatt | October 11, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

And I would add that one fascinating recurring element of conversation in the growing network of radical Islamic Web sites over the past few years is an insistence on the reclamation of Al Andaluz by Islam. That ought to send a chill through even someone who thinks these are just good guys faithfully serving their God.

Posted by: D. | October 11, 2006 4:40 PM | Report abuse

JEP, his name is Toshiro, not Toshiba. Is that a trace of self-righteous Macacaism I hear seeping through as you become exhausted today?

I thought it was generally understood that there is no adversary as deadly as one driven by the fires of religious zeal. It is perhaps unfair to generalize by saying Moslem hatred, but is it unfair to speak of the hatred of religious zealots? Would you deny the very history of antisemitism you seem to be alluding to at times -- as in the driving of both Jews and Moslems out of Spain by what even you would probably admit was a fanatically religious Spanish monarchy? I'll lay odds that when it comes to the West's destruction of aboriginal Americans during the Spanish conquest, you would be somewhat less hesitant to condemn fanatical Christianity. What say? The world is full of bad guys, and they're not always American. We've only been around a few hundred years. The world is full of grudges that are millennia-old and STILL not settled. That kind of hatred could care less about American decency and good intentions. As my minister used to say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Posted by: D. | October 11, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"So while I agree there's a lot of hate in the Muslim world, to call it "Muslim Hate" is just plain prejudiced."

Well, it took a lot of words, but you got out the truth. I applaud you.

Look, I'm not trying to tear you down or belittle your ideas. I think you and your party have a lot of noble and good ideas.
But you do a disservice to us all when you pretend that there isn't a lot of pent up hate in the Muslim community. I mean, it violates a lot of PC sensitivities to say it, but then again it appears to be a fact. A real thing. It is an ugly truth. And we need to acknowledge that it exists so we can move forward. It doesn't grant us the leverage to brand all Muslims enemies and blot them out of existence, but they have a share of this mess and we'll need them to do their share of taking up responsibility in order to clean up the whole thing and come to some kind of agreement.

It's going to be a long hard thing. I don't advocate more war, but we need acknowledgement of the issues to get at the heart of the matter. All issues. None left out, PC sensitives not withstanding.

And no, it was not an order, just advice.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"JEP--I said, less Dean more JFK"

Is that an order?

You need to vote Democrat, Toshiba, you are obviously quite conflicted about it.

Just remember, you don't have to BE a Democrat to Vote for one of them.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"Do I need to post a dozen links about the various incidents that have occurred from Canada to Europe to the Middle East to Indonesia?"

I've seen them already.

Why don't you quit blaming Muslims in general and just call them "Islamofascists," at least your prejudice will be somewhat qualified.

You tell me to stop being anti-Bush, why won't you stop being anti-Muslim?

Lest we forget, the Muslim Arabs ARE semetic, and I think since they all descend from Abraham, they are also Hebrew, (correct me if I'm wrong) and they have stories about Jesus and Mary in their holy book.

They aren't "Israelis," but they are very closely related, (Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Essau,) they all spring from the same patriarchs.

These are, again, the Muslims in the Middle East, not all over the world.

So while I agree there's a lot of hate in the Muslim world, to call it "Muslim Hate" is just plain prejudiced.

If that sounds patronizing, my sincere apologies.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

JEP--I said, less Dean more JFK.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"Don't treat us like we're stupid and blind"

then get smart and open your eyes...

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Don't patronize me about Muslim hate."

Thanks for recognizing it.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"There are real antagonists out there and we need to know how to proceed."

How to proceed?

Lets try GOING AFTER THE ONES WHO actually ATTACKED US, instead of the ones OUR NEOCONS "hate."

That way, they (TERRORISTS) will diminish rather that increase.

AND IT WOULDN'T HURT TO SPEND SOME OF OUR INCREDIBLE WEALTH ON FEEDING THIER POOR AND SUFFERING MASSES.

If we had done that in Iraq OVER THE PAST TWENTY YEARS, instead of letting Saddam turn our sanctions into starving citizens, they may have actually GREETED US A LIBERATORS.

I doubt it would have cost us a trillion dollars, like this war is going to.

But, then again, there's certainly a lot more profit in killing people than feeding them.

Wouldn't want to stifle free-enterprise.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

Don't patronize me about Muslim hate. Do I need to post a dozen links about the various incidents that have occurred from Canada to Europe to the Middle East to Indonesia? Don't treat us like we're stupid and blind and don't try to shovel a plate full of PC junk down my throat.

Call the card what it is. If not, lose 2008. You have a degree and are "smart" I assume, let's see it.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"I'm anti-war, torture and weapons too."

So, we probably should never have fought the Civil War, WWI and WWII? A lot of people came back handicapped after FDR's and Lincoln's "gentle persuasion".

See? I too can be disingenious.

I'm just saying that I think you have the blinders on. You only address what you want to and not the entire issue.

You have the right to your views. My goal isn't to change them. It is to make you and your party more effective. This isn't a game. I want you to win. But you won't when you and your party frame the argument this way. This is amateurism. You can only win when you relax, act with composure and be intelligent enough to see the entire issue, be bold enough to address the entire issue-- warts and all. Think a little less Pelosi/Dean and a little more Clinton/JFK. Don't give away the White House again in 2008.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Help us figure out what to do about Muslim hate and you'll help us get out of Iraq."

Thanks for revealing your true colors.

I believe we should protect and defend Israel, it is a very personal thing to me.

But to blame this situation on "Muslim hate" only suggests you are the one who is being disingenuous, and have been all along.

Hate doesn't need a qualifier prefix like "Muslim." There's enough hate out there for everyone, the world is swimming in it.

How about you try the same sentence, without the word "Muslim" and maybe you will begin to actually perceive what us "crazy Dems" have been trying to say here.

Your "religious war" is nothing more than class warfare, on a global scale.

PS. The conservative "movement" was BORN in Europe, and has never disappeared, not by any stretch of the mutual imagination.

Re; Metternich.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

In the words of His Insufferable Zoukiness:

"Finally 30 days before the election the secret Dem plan has emerged. Let's look at the ruin these measures will leave our country in:
1 break lobbyists - so much for free speech and the ability to redress the government. no sense gathering for demonstrations anymore. In fact if you want a voice in government, you are out of luck."

-Lobbyists provide a "voice in government" only for those with sufficient $$ to hire a lobbyist. Hint: that's not you.

"2 enact 911 commission - regardless of cost or effectiveness - arrogant big government policies set by pols despite ground realities"

- This is Reflexive Conservative BS, characterized by lots of adjectives and the use of words like "pols" or "Dems," designed to be spoken sneeringly. Logic is a tactic not used. Anyway, as I remember it the 9/11 commission was bipartisan, and made several recommendations which seemed sensible to experts who are not politicians. Your Majesty, where there exist problems the solution for which does not produce any financial gain for anyone, market solutions do not work. The only answer is well-funded, well-organized PUBLIC PROGRAMS, which put our common resources to work funding programs which benefit everyone, rather than cutting taxes to benefit just a few.

"3 raise min wage - price fixing again?? didn't you learn from the carter years?"

- Your Majesty obviously does not earn the minimum wage, and neither do I, thankfully... but i do know that families cannot live on the minimum wage, and a single person can only barely, and it hasn't been raised in almost 20 years.

"4 - cut student loan interest - perfect, punish banks for entering into contractual agreements. result - no more student loans'


- I take it you have neither a child in school nor any school debt. shed no tears for the banks who lend - they're doing fine. I don't know what's up in Zouk, but here in America, making it more affordable to attend college is a good thing.

"5 - government negotiates drug prices - don't know enough about this one but it sounds like the pharms will be punished for creating the world's best R&D"

- Here again your sympathies are misplaced. I would say first that even if - IF - Big Pharma were to lose money on per-unit sales, they would make it up and more on increased volume. Secondly, with drug prices at today's absurd levels, the boyz in the biz can cut prices quite a bit without feeling too much pain. The question is whether or not they are willing to do so.

"6 - stem cell research - steam roll over moral objections and the free market to create more government"

- A majority of Americans in every poll I have seen have gotten over whatever if any objections they had. And for the record, the goal is not "to create more government," but rather to save lives. I don't suppose you would have a problem with that, even if the lives are not all conservative.


"6 - pay as you go - translation - raise taxes since they never cut anything ever "Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized." translation - we will try to blame any problems on the opposition."We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added." translation - punishing and regressive transfers of wealth from the productive to the special interests that run the Dem party."


- Two points this time, the smarter one first. And that is: from the perspective of this voter, 'pay as you go' means just that, and was at least somewhat effective in helping to contain spending during the '90s. It was even, as i remember, embraced by some Republicans at the time as a fiscal austerity measure, which is what y'all are ALL about, right? Right... The problem is, fiscal austerity and the Gluttonous Old Party do not mix well in practice. And yes, if we want new programs, we will have to pay for them, and in some cases that will mean taxes. Get over it. (of course, we could always just repeal the cuts already on the books for rick people. Just an idea.

-My other point - the number which follows "6" is "7."

"Thanks for making my case so easy."

-No, Your Majesty, thank YOU.

Posted by: the editor | October 11, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"But I won't debate you on Iraq if you choose to only address the Anti-Bush side of it."

Stop trying to blame Bush, I hold his whole crew responsible, he's just one more victim of the neocons.

I'm anti-war, torture and weapons, if you call that anti-Bush, you certainly make my point for me.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I realize I'm posting a lot, I promise to slow down...

After Nov. 7.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date,"

How long do you suppose it will be before they are all labelled "welfare leeches?" by our conservative friends.

'course, don't you know, they should all pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

If only they still had legs and feet to put their boots onto, and hands to grab the leather. Not all of them do.

And pity the poor fool who returns without wounds anywhere but their psyche, someone oughta slap those lazy fakers.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

JEP, you make a very valuble, valid points.

"How many more will come home handicapped, while you frame your gently persuasion?"

I don't know. If you want an direct answer to your question. Let me put on my cold blooded Republican cape before I calculate.

Firstly-- stats are as loaded as politics these days, so I won't trust your stats right off the bat (I won't write them off however).

But I won't debate you on Iraq if you choose to only address the Anti-Bush side of it. The toll on Americans soldiers and how many people we're killing. That *can* be addressed if you're willing to have an honest debate that includes what are the Dems prepared to do about Muslim hate. It's a global phenomenon. Bush didn't not create it, the war didn't create it and it's not going away. This hate is crashing like rocks in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/europe/11muslims.html?hp&ex=1160625600&en=83692e20c96f14b4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Conservatism is on the rise in Europe. They're going to be more accepting of wars like Iraq in the future. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to the dynamics of the situation. You're so concerned with the Bush side of the equation that you forget that this situation didn't occur in a vacuum. There are real antagonists out there and we need to know how to proceed.

Don't be disingenious and pretend this doesn't exist. Don't pretend Bush created it. Do that and it will cost you 2008.

9/11 won't be the last time if we can't figure out, but carrot or stick (or both) how to get them chilled out. And while you'll want to blame the next 9/11 on Bush, the moderate Americans won't see it that way and will want us to take out another Islamic country. Help us figure out what to do about Muslim hate and you'll help us get out of Iraq.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Stock Market breaking all time highs..."

Lest we forget, they were last at this point on the Stock Exchange back at the end of Clinton's administration, so its some sort of victory for Bush that is has taken six years for them to struggle back up?

But somehow, they still manage to glory in their own failures.

If not for Bush's ridiculous policies, who knows WHERE the Dow might be today. Instead of inching its way back up to 11,000+ over six years, it could have soared.

But they would have called it "irrational exhuberance" forgetting one more basic law of business, that Anything is worth WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

BRAGGING THAT THE DOW JUST HIT 12,000 ONLY REMINDS US IT HAS TAKEN BUSH'S ENTIRE TENURE SO FAR FOR OUR STOCK MARKET TO RECOVER.

Pay attention to the whole truth, not just a mangled piece of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

As a dem i'd love to see term limits set, and campaign finance reform enacted..My first goal would be to take out "career" in career politician..The Pres is constitutionally bound by term limits, and it's about time all law makers are..Secondly, get the money out of the political process. I'm pretty sure when the framers enabled people to petition Congress they probably weren't envisioning paid junkets to Scotland to play golf..

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | October 11, 2006 3:01 PM | Report abuse

From today's NYTimes;

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.


The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

Toshiro;

How many more will come home handicapped, while you frame your gently persuasion?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Andy if people are paying attention we will win a landside, Stock Market breaking all time highs, gas plummenting, unemployment as historic lows and no terrorist attacks with R's tough love. You better hope they are not paying attention or you guys are cooked.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 11, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrats have no message!" Actually, I suspect they have a lot of messages which we will begin to hear beginning on November 8th.

I believed that they learned a lesson from this Administration, and that they are uncharacteristically "Staying on Message;" by not saying much of anything. They're letting the opposition dig deeper and deepr holes for themselves.

Gettting to the topic for today - I suspect that in the next four weeks we will see the splits in many of the polls getting closer and closer, simply because that's what happened historically as the undecideds make up their minds. And the current "50/50 split" is still likely to remain close to that.

The Republicans will declare that "the tide has turned and there is no Democratic wave;" and the Democrats would do well to stay on message, not say anything and concentrate on getting out the vote.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 11, 2006 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I suppose you folks find this a better place to attach yourselves than a bar, after all. At least nobody gets to see your vices. They just read them. And read and read and read. (P.S.: Aaron Neville's new CD is fabulous.)

Byee, kids.

Posted by: D. | October 11, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time finding the slightest bit of value in this poll. Whether some small, single-digit group of Republicans thinks it's worse that the Democrats seem too wishy-washy or that they are too liberal is such a useless piece of information that I am amazed anyone would bother spending the money to obtain it.

Who cares which aspect of the far right that the far left hates the most? What do each of these little 3 or 4 percent groups really consist of? None of this is remotely useful.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | October 11, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

How many more innocent people will die while you frame you gentle persuasions?

I should repost this once for every casualty we have in Iraq today.

But that could get tedious.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

How many more innocent people will die while you frame you gentle persuasions?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

How many more innocent people will die while you frame your gentle persuasions?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised someone would bring up the "Contract with America" as a symbol of success. Let's see... Cut defecits - Failure; Cut size of government - Failure; Cut the budget - Failure; Restore honesty and integrity to Congress - Failure. Not a record I would like to run on.

Posted by: Repub | October 11, 2006 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Toshiro;

Let me re-post something that I would like you to respond to directly;

"I could care less about revenge, I have posted numerous times I would be happy to let them all off the hook if they would just tell us the whole truth, so we can make sure it never happens again.

And I mean that from the bottom of my heart."

I was raised a Republican in Iowa, I know Republicans at EVERY level of our government, and love them dearly. And they all love me, very dearly.

But until they are willing to purge their ranks of these war-mongering neocon extremists and their thoughtless enablers, I can not respect their handling of our government.

Sorry to sound SO SO vitriolic, sometimes, there's just no honest diplomatic way to put it without compromising your ideals.

Your party is being run by bullies. And your own heroes have pretty much established, if you don't deal with bullies forcefully, they think you are a wimp.

And those non-aligned voters you mention? They should be able to sort the mess out pretty soon, all the evidence is on the table, so what is their hold-up?

If they are so turned-off by my passionate words they vote to spite me, that is their mistake.

I get the feeling what you are really want to say is something to the effect, "I don't like where my own party is going, but please don't try to force me to change my mind, I will do it on my own."

No matter how bad it gets while wewait for you to come to your senses instead of your political prejudices?

How many more innocent people will die while you frame you gentle persuasions?

Democrats have one plan they need to concentrate on; changing the power structure in Washington, ASAP. Everything else if speculation, and coming up with some list of promises and programs would be just as hypocritical as Newt's "contract on America."

And probably just a impotent.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

KAS -- Now you're in on the joke. the neocons don't care about national security. They have made billions on no-bid contracts while starving and destroying the military.

Privatization and profit are truly the only things they care about.

This is another reason to vote for Dems -- to take profit out of the public sector. No one should be making a profit off soldiers dying, and no one should be making a profit for delivering necessary services.

Btw, we will be in Iraq much longer than that, because they are building permanent bases, as a center of military operations. The reason for that is our previous base, Saudi Arabia, asked us to remove all our troops from there the day after 9/11. And their good buddy bush did exactly that.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The MSM can spin it all it wants but the fact is, out of both parties, its the Dems that lack any message.

While most of you aging hipsters are at home puffin on your hookas, the rest of us will be out to the polls on Nov. 7.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2006 2:13 PM | Report abuse

For those of you touting Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% in this nation, think about the effect its having on the Dept of Defense and its ability to wage the war on terrorism - the so called ideological struggle of our time. I've worked for DoD for 25 years and it is completely broke! Military installations have been reduced to closing mess halls because they can't afford to pay contractors to run them. Depots are overflowing with equipment and vehicles that need repair from the war in Iraq but there's no money to do it. How long can we sustain this nonsense of executing a war and continue to give tax cuts to the rich? Now they are saying the GOP is planning (yeah, right!) to have troops in Iraq until at least 2010!!

Posted by: KAS | October 11, 2006 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kind words Toshiro. I admit, I am usually more rabid than that, but like I said, I am literally sick of complaining.

>>>This kind of language will get you to the White House in 2008.

You were more right than you know, I ripped some of that language from Hillary's appearance in Ohio for Sherrod Brown (thank you CSPAN). :)

Posted by: F&B | October 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

What do you all mean...the Democrats have "no principles"?

We believe in people. You know, human beings.

Also, I get a little miffed at the description of liberals being a dirty word.

I believe in war, when necessary. I think termination of pregnency should be rare but available. I beleive in a balanced budget. I believe in a strong defense.

I believe if a congressman (Democrat or Republican) is corrupt get rid of him. I believe in God
and you can too if you want too...or not.

What's so dirty about that?

Posted by: Madelyn110 | October 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"there's a world out there full of people playing for keeps"

I'd love to take you big, tough guys down into the 'Hood.

If you think you have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan to see the third world mess that your Republican ideals have created, just visit your nearest major metro inner-city.

"But right now the Democrats speak with a voice that is BITTER, ANGRY and CLOUDED."

No, we are just urgent for change, if the volume seems a bit high, its because there is so much background noise that diverts us from those changes.

This was a classic;

"not YOUR justice"

???

Justice stands alone, you think protecting against voter fraud is my personal justice?

I could care less about revenge, I have posted numerous times I would be happy to let them all off the hook if they would just tell us the hwhole truth, so we can make sure it never happens again.

And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

However, it is not likely they will ever tell the truth if they are not subject to punishmment to force them to testify against each other.

Its too late for the pretense of civility, our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, are dying in Iraq, more of them every day.

So if we seem urgent, it may be that we REALLY have something at stake, something human and real, and not just out political prejudices.

Every day we wait to change our direction makes us that much more guilty.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Our government is failing the people of this great nation, and if we don't so something in this election to change who is in charge Washington (and in places like Des Moines), it will continue to get much worse than it already is"

JEP-- again you answered with a negative -- advocating what *not* to do instead of what to do. But you get partial credit for not mentioning Bush. It's a step in the right direction.

But take notes from F&B instead. Now he hasn't said too much yet, but he's being very succinct and rational. Those aren't the only issues out there, but they are important. By speaking with a voice like that, we can get closer to knowing that what the Democratic Party stands *for*-- not against. And millions of Americans who are uncommitted in their vote (mine included) want to know what Dems are going to do (not what they're *not* going to do) to solve them. This kind of language will get you to the White House in 2008.

You might say "what the harm in complaining in a blog, I am pissed off after all". True enough, and from your perspective, I don't blame you. But these same uncommitted voters are watching your behavior and it reflect on the legitimacy of your party. It can help convince uncommitted voters that you guys are really worth following-- or not. Be mindful to the audience. There are a huge number of people who do not see the world like you -- and they're not all hardcore Republicans.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"I'm just stating that it is a definate benefit that Republicans offer that Dems generally don't."

I think Dee might agree with me, ever-lowering taxes are a greed-driven, knee-jerk cop-out, especially when wealthy people are the only ones who really benefit from them.

Fear of taxation is just poorly disguised anti-social greed.

Same with fear of raising the minimum wage.

These are standard economic tools of a thriving free-enterprise economy.

But they will not see the light of day in a monopolist culture like the one these neocons are thrusting upon us.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Dee

I'd agree that lower taxes require spending cuts. I would argue though that there is plenty of funding for many of the important programs that you mentioned if the Congress would stop wasting money in other areas.

I just think that people and private organizations are much better at spending money wisely than government. I can only speak for myself here, and though it might be an idealistic view, I'd hope that people would use the little bit of money that they save in taxes and put it to good use (e.g. charitable organizations). You mentioned Katrina as an example . . . If you had your $100 tax savings to donate, would you want to give it to FEMA and the Federal government or would you rather give it to a trusted organization such as the Red Cross. Without tax cuts, that $100, as "little" as it was, would be in the hands of an inefficient organization when it comes to spending money (i.e. the Federal government).

Posted by: Paul S | October 11, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I love the way you list all the dumb slogans and then mispell intelligence.

and X-files knows for certain so many things yet a jury has never actually found this. Typical Lib knows more than the rest of us and has better instincts than our courts, our pols, our soldiers.

D - nice rant. "there's a world out there full of people playing for keeps" - yes there is. Why are you the only Dem who sees this?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

drindl--

You sound like Billy Joel in 'We Didn't Start the Fire'. Stop it please. I was serious. Those are just bullet points. Tell us what your intentions behind each of those words are. We need a discussion here.

JEP-- now we're getting somewhere. If you want to investiate what happened for the sake of justice -- not YOUR justice, that of the future of America, I'm all for it. But ditch the bitterness now. The grudge stuff doesn't nothing for you or the rest of us. It gets you so spun up and PO'd that you just sound like a jibbering heap of nothing. But you Dems are supposed to be SMART--so DON'T...DO...THAT.

I want Democrats to be STRONG-- if nothing else, it keeps Republicans more on their toes. I want their voice to be POSITIVE. I want them to speak with VISION. The country needs it. But right now the Democrats speak with a voice that is BITTER, ANGRY and CLOUDED. Please, Please! For the countries sake, right the ship before the 2008 election.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

pdoggio:

Your question about a 50-50 split in the Senate is a very important one - and one that we haven't really talked about here. I think that the Dems taking 3 seats in the Senate is what they really need to aim for - with that they have enough to prevent the Repubs from really screwing something up like a Supreme Court nominee - with at least 48 seats, they will only need 3 to cross over - and I personally think there are 3 that would in the event of a really radical nominee. With Bush a lame duck and low low approval, there isn't much he can threaten those senators with. The Dems need at leasr 48 seats, though, especially as there very well may be a nominee in the next two years. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, control, or at least close control (48 or so seats with 3 or 4 pretty liberal Repubs) is all you need (granted, not that simple).
As much as I would like it, I don't see the Dems taking the Senate or getting to 50 - I think things would be pretty much ok with 48 seats. Just not setting myself up to be disappointed.

Posted by: star11 | October 11, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Well, I agree, sturmgrenadier-- not to the same degree.

But they still frame every issue with republican talking points, even though it's more subtle. and they still have a ratio of more than 2:1 in terms of republicans vs. dems as guests, and take the sides of R's FAR more often.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Toshiro
"Centrist for both the Dems and the Repubs don't vote for people who act crazy. The vote for people who have something coherent to say"

...how's this for coherence;

Our government is failing the people of this great nation, and if we don't so something in this election to change who is in charge Washington (and in places like Des Moines), it will continue to get much worse than it already is.

Which is pretty much the theme of all our "crazy" talk.

Sounds coherent to me.

Also, thanks for that last post D., you sure cleared everything up for us.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Supreme Wu: "Low taxes are like the chewy milk bone this party uses to distract you while they castrate you."

Its not distracting me from anything - I'm just stating that it is a definate benefit that Republicans offer that Dems generally don't. Just like Dems offer more social programs and Republicans generally don't. I was simply surprised that it wasn't on the list.

Posted by: Paul S | October 11, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Toshiro,

Im a Lib who is sick of bashing Bush. I dont want to HAVE to complain about all of the madness that has ensued in the last 6 years.

That said, we often have very substantive debates on here that, unfortunately, gets sprinkled with bizarre commentary and deflection away from reality and facts no the ground by nutcases like Zouk and bhoomes here.

Dems want to engage in a nation-wide initiative to support the growth of the renewable energy sector. We want to reduce the debt of our country to foreign entities. We want to make health care affordable and available for every US citizen. And we want to protect the homeland by enacting each of the 9/11 commission's requests.

There it is, plain and simple. 4 massively important reasons to vote for Democrats in '06/'08:

- energy independence
- fiscal responsibility
- reducing the burden of health care costs on the middle class
- and homeland security.

If you dont want that, by all means, vote Republican. If you DO want that, vote Democratic... And along with that, we will address a litany of other issues (environmental responsibility, protecting civil liberties, ending a falacious war/occupation, ending corruption in Congress, on and on...).

It really is a simple choice to promote a humane and positive agenda. And that's the whole kit and kaboodle.

Posted by: F&B | October 11, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

'But of course they've got an army to do that for them...Fox, ABC, Russert, Matthews, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Clear Channel, Scarborough, Robertson, McCain, Dobson, the lilst goes on and on and on and on...'

Drindl,
I was somewhat surprised to see you place 'Matthews' and 'Russert in that list. The rest clearly are in basically the same mold, but these two not nearly to the same degree. Rather interesting

Posted by: sturmgrenadier | October 11, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Pdoggie,

I don't think there is a chance (unfortunately) that Chaffee (who is my favorite Republican) will cross party lines under the circumstances you outline after all the support he received from Republican party in the primary. He even accepted the use of misleading advertising from the RNC to use against his conservative rival, so in a sense he is doubly indebted to the Republicans.

I don't see another Jeffords on the horizon. For example, Olympia Snowe has only now broken away from the Bush stance on the war and is still tremendously popular in Maine despite this being a year where New England, in particular, is tilting Democratic.

Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter is more likely to bolt (over habeas corpus and other constitutional issues)than other Senate Republicans, but I would not hold my breath. If his actions matched his rhetoric, there might be a chance, but he usually turns out to be a paper tiger.

Lieberman is another story, but I believe the Democrats offer to allow him to keep his seniority if he wins, should sideline him from jumping the partisan divide. Also, there would be a big hew and cry that he received Democratic support in the general under false pretenses. Besides, his voting record is more Democratic than that most moderate of Republican Senators, Chaffee.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 11, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- That's fine that you disagree with all of the priorities that Ms. Pelosi articulated. Policy debates are good, and respectfully I would suggest that an overwhelming number of Americans will favor Democratic ideas on all those issues. To paraphrase a GOP talking point from '94, these are 60-40 propositions in that at least 60% of the population supports them.

As to the time of its release, I would remind you that:

1. Republicans released the Contract with America 6 weeks before the elections, so the timing of THIS PARTICULAR release is pretty normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

2. Additionally, Democrats have put out multiple other releases regarding their agenda before now.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/27/campaign.2006/

Finally, the original link I cited doesn't articulate a full plan for Iraq because it's what Democrats would accomplish in the FIRST 100 HOURS - or slightly over 4 days. In light of what the GOP has accomplished in 6 YEARS, it strikes me those would qualify as pretty substantial actions.

Posted by: Colin | October 11, 2006 1:08 PM | Report abuse

'Reality-based' says the kouk!

Oh migod, LOL....

Posted by: jana | October 11, 2006 1:06 PM | Report abuse

toshiro - nice try but trying to get something rational out of these folks is an exercise in futility. Instead they will attack you. you can bet that not a single moonbat will respond to my critique of Pelosi - because what I write is true and based on sound academic standards. they reply by guessing at my "motivations" as a method to shield themselves from having to justify a single vapid thought that emerges from thier socialist-addled brains directly to the keyboard without any intervening process. If they really feel like something different they will cite a poll or tell you about a R friend that agress with them, proving that they are to be reckoned with. but this comes from the top. clinton, Dean, Reid, Pelosi and all the rest do the exact same thing. Better to stick with Colin and some other marginally reasonable ones than the total left-field wack-jobs that are the most vociferous here. you may stand a chance of getting something based in reality and fact from them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"Hating Bush..."

????

I don't hate anyone.

And you are voter fraud enabler.

"The country needs you Dems to forget about 2000. Forget about 2004."

Is there some sort of "statute of limitations" on election deception? Or are you more concerned about Democrats gaining power than the democratic process.

Let me pose a hypothetical test of your Constitutional constitution.

If you knew for certain Blackwell, for instance, committed voter fraud, would you be willing to defend him?

What if evidence is exposed in the next week or two that proves that very fact? What if someone came forward with eyewitness proof of it, and like Foley, it just can't be denied?

Would you still tell us to forget 2004?

Forget 200 and 2004?

Cheat me once, shame on you, cheat me twice, shame on me.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

'ONE REASON to vote democrat in 2008?'

Competence. The middle class. Healthcare. Education. Foreign Policy Sanity. Sane energy policy. Accountability. Rationality. Religious freedom. Inteligence. Most of all,

THE CONSTITUTION.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Hee-hee.

Regulars here, huh? Ya know all the players, and ya also watch ER for the human drama, that an the chance ta see a human chest ripped open now and again, just for the voyeuristic thrill.

I'm a Democrat, a political junkie, and nothing more than a damn drop-in. You kids enjoy your fun. And Zouk, when you're not busy puttin your favorite substance into yer hookah, you might remind these kids there's a world out there full of people playing for keeps, and I'm not talking about Washington. People who inhabit these opiate dens may like to pretend otherwise, but there are lots of places in the world where murder is casual and people get to vote in real elections ... maybe never in their lives. Places where Hobbes is unheard of but he still pegged em with nasty, brutal, and short. Places where American protestations of virtue are mocked and scorned ... and also admired by people our purists and puritans wouldn't wish to be admired by. Places where puritans and purists die bad, early deaths and are remembered by people who form cults and commit murder or murderous suicide in their names. Places where really bad guys stand between the good guys in their country and the end of the western oil economy. It's called reality testing, and all you sweet lefties in your Birkenstocks and Timbas, the survival of your virtue depends on the compromises the rest of us make so that you can go on pretending you're innocent of that oil economy.

Righties? All I have for you is my amusement at faint hopes that the split of your nightmares, the one between the libertarians and the Bible thumpers, is only just beginning. But you know better. It's been under way practically ever since the Wingnut political movement came of age, from the moment it admitted a divorced man into the Small Tent of the Saved because he was so damned telegenic, and I ain't talkin about Rockefeller, either.

Compromise is for sissies, huh? Well, I'm one sissy who's here to tell ya that my freedom ain't open to compromise. Most of the rest of life may well be, but such freedom as I have gathered around me is something I'll fight for. Gay, yes; effeminate, well, the last 30 years have been partly about stereotypes busy dying for the right to exist, after all; but sissy? Now, now, Butch. I see those popbeads yer twistin, an they ain't exactly family jewels, either.

Posted by: D. | October 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

JEP -- I'm just hoping you guys get your heads screwed on straight sometime soon. Hating Bush might get you and your ilk through the day. It may even win you a presidential election in 2008 -- but don't count on it. Your rabidness, combined with your supposed intelligence (that all Dems say they possess), makes you guys look like crazy people-- just like the Clinton haters of the late 90's. And guess what? Centrist for both the Dems and the Repubs don't vote for people who act crazy. The vote for people who have something coherent to say, something creative and people who believe in what they say and will stand behind it in the face of strong resistance. The country needs you Dems to forget about 2000. Forget about 2004. We need you guys to shelve the 'Bizarro Bush' policy and come up with a real vision to tackle the issues we're facing. Bush didn't breed Islamic hatred of the West and neither did he create Jong-Il. He didn't maintain the levees of New Orleans for the past 30 years. The country needs better ideas than 'Bush sucks'.

Besides 'Bush sucks' can you give me one reason-- ONE REASON to vote democrat in 2008? Here's the catch -- don't use the word 'Bush', 'W' or any derivative in your reason. Show me you guys aren't crazy. I desperately want to believe it.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Excuse the unsophisticated entry, but what is the conventional wisdom regarding the response on the part of a moderate Republican senator to a 50-50 election outcome? Would Chafee (or anyone else) move across to prevent Vice president Cheney from casting the deciding vote for Senate Majority Leader?

Posted by: Pdoggie | October 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

There are more than two parties.

With registered Republicans at about 33% or the country's voters and registered Democrats at a similar percentage, don't you think it's about time to acknowledge the Libertarians and Greens?

Or is that the real "Fix"?

Posted by: Nicholas Sarwark | October 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Nor'easter;

I know for certain Kook isn't what you suspect.

The RNC may be devious, but they are not ignorant.

While I disagree with their agenda, their policies and their cover-up of pedophilia, the top end Republicans would never, NEVER let someone like this speak for them in any official capacity.

The reason I know for certain this is not an RNC trick is that I have invited more than one Republican friend to join this discussion, because they actually know what they believe in and can make a serious argument for their beliefs.

Most of them are quite fed up with the neocons, but not the Republicans. So they are staying out of it for now so they don't enable these war mongers and child molesters.

They don't want us Dems to win, but they don't trust Bush and his wrecking crew, either.

Those who have actually read this blog tell me they "feel sorry for Tina" because as far as they are concerned (we disagree)her heart is in the right place, but her arguments are so simple-minded

But they believe bhoomes and zouk represent a level of ignorance and intractability that is just plain embarrassing to thier party.

While none of them is actually "in" the RNC, they are professionally and personally involved in politics at the state and national level.

They consider the trolls on this blog to be an embarrassment to the Republican Party. I'm sure the brighter strategists in the RNC agree.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Zouk... Exactly what do you know about SS "reform" except what the GOP spins?

In just their first three budgets, the GOP Congress and Bush spent $480 billion in SS excess payroll taxes, no "lock box" conservatism for them.

And, the cost of the Bush's war of choice in Iraq is well over $500 billion and a cost of a trillion is forecast...

Reform needs to start in November.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

A new Ohio poll - Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron - shows DeWine ahead of Brown by 1.3% among all voters and by only 0.2% among likely voters.

This sounds like pollsters are bothering 16 year olds, felons and people like my next door neighbor who've never voted, proud of it, but complain all the time about those lying @#$% politicos? when the only opinion worth registering come from those who regularly show up to vote.

"The [Bliss] poll is a random sampling of 1,073 Ohio adults who were interviewed by telephone between Aug. 20 and Sept. 29. Of those, 477 were identified as likely voters." ohio.com

Could this possibly be a joke? only 44% of those polled actually know their polling place? And, it's polls like these that politicos are using to divine the direction they should take our country?

"In the DeWine-Brown race, 14.3 percent of likely voters remain undecided." ohio.com

So they've got a 0.2 spread between 'em, but as of now there are still 14% of "likely voters" who don't know their elbow from their . . . amazing.

So, Dewine is the USA's strongest supporter of tobacco smoking - top money pit for the tobacco lobby (now that Delay is out of the pic, that is) thus the champion of slow death by cancer. BTW Ohio is NOT a tobacco growing state. And, Brown's vote on the Iraq War (most important in a generation) was "present." Damn that's no different than voting 'too hung-over to get out of bed.' Course, I'd bet not 0.1% of Ohioian's know these two facts. But, the point is whoever wins this race - the story will still be the same - Ohio is the loser.

What ever happened to that nice kick-ass Jarine legal eagle Dem from downstate Cincinnati way, Paul something, who wanted to run against Brown in the primary? He's the type of politico this Republican would have campaigned for!

Posted by: OhioRepublican | October 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's hear it for the GOP's "Culture of Life". 655,000 Iraqis "liberated", and counting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_2.html

Get why people want to kill us yet, wingnuts? Think hard on it. Who knows, you might discover brains you never knew you had.

Posted by: B2O | October 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, I am most excited to see this forum on November 8 when KOZ et al will be forced to eat crow after the Dems win at least one chamber in Congress. Course, then I suspect we will not see any of them here. If it's too hard to face the facts now -- that Republicans lie about their policies (we now have a bigger gov and bigger deficit) and are hypocritical about morals (not to mention that gov should be "limited" with social causes but huge when imposing religious-right morality into American everyday life) -- can you imagine the spewing empty accusatory rhetoric we will hear on Nov 8?

Posted by: dc voter | October 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans writing here forget one thing: When Clinton lied, no one died! Not only that, but the republicans are in Iraq for two thing: oil, of course, and the no-bid contracts that are making those affiliated with Halliburton and Carlysle multi-billionaires-with the blood of our children. Conscience? When it comes to money,Republicans have NO conscience!

Posted by: Bernadette Bay O'Shaughnessey | October 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Colin - thanks for that link. finally 30 days before the election the secret Dem plan has emerged. Let's look at the ruin these measures will leave our country in:
1 break lobbyists - so much for free speech and the ability to redress the government. no sense gathering for demonstrations anymore. In fact if you want a voice in government, you are out of luck
2 enact 911 commission - regardless of cost or effectiveness - arrogant big government policies set by pols despite ground realities
3 raise min wage - price fixing again?? didn't you learn from the carter years?
4 - cut student loan interest - perfect, punish banks for entering into contractual agreements. result - no more student loans
5 - government negotiates drug prices - don't know enough about this one but it sounds like the pharms will be punished for creating the world's best R&D
6 - stem cell research - steam roll over moral objections and the free market to create more government
6 - pay as you go - translation - raise taxes since they never cut anything ever "Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized." translation - we will try to blame any problems on the opposition."We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added." translation - punishing and regressive transfers of wealth from the productive to the special interests that run the Dem party.

Yeah - those sound like something I really don't want to get in the next Congress. Thanks for making my case so easy. funny, didn't hear anything about the war in Iraq, the SS mess, the education failure.

summary - Dems will raise taxes, increase government and not accomplish anything as a result. they will continue to ignore the actual problems this country faces. they will try to punish anyone with the temerity to succeed. And you are proud of this????


Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

This is rich;

"I'm a centrist Repub and I tire of the rabid anti-Bush Dem rants. I tired of my father-in-law's anti-Clinton rants."

Then why on Earth would you want to read this blog?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Billy: My suspicion is that Zouk sits at a desk in a backroom at the RNC, and is one of the people paid to blog the party lines.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

As I recall, one of the ten items in the Contract with America was term limits. So why are all those Republicans who were elected in 94 running for reelection?

Posted by: NoVA | October 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

the idea that JEP and drindl are centrist is just too preposterous for words. state one centrist policy you support. this is just like saying the press supports the right. All this from a man who can't distinguish between the X-files and the Bush admin.
do you favor SS reform, tax cuts, school vouchers, affirmative action. etc. now look which party votes which way on these issues and then try to claim you are not a total socialist, like most of the posters on this site. Ha ha ha. made me laugh.

D, are you the smoking man, sent here to spy on us and ruin our reputation?

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

D--

Don't let the guy bother you. I'm a centrist Repub and I tire of the rabid anti-Bush Dem rants. I tired of my father-in-law's anti-Clinton rants. Maybe it's just that these forums are as much for complaining (if not moreso) as a place to exchange practical ideas.

There is a lot going on in the world and I find it sad, sad, sad, that intelligent people can't find a way to shelve their biases and views and discuss the true nature of things.

It's this kind of behavior that causes politicians to hide the imperfections of their histories-- because the country has made to provision for accomodating them (even though every Dem to Repub has these imperfections).

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Colin thanks but you know this will just bounce off his damaged brain. Do you suppose zouk is on disability, or simply unemployed, living in his mother's basment? He can't have ajob -- this is all he does!

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"It's nice to have an ideology, but meanwhile, the rest of us have lives in which we have to test our values on a regular basis."

How egocentric!

Sounds like all of us fit into that big tent.

What are you suggesting, that people with passionate beliefs don't have lives or do not have to test their values, daily?

Are you are suggesting that only wishy-washies really exist in your "real world"?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Report abuse

My heart goes out to you, Dee, I'm afraid the truth is that R's do not care about anyone but themselves. That's kind of like the motto of the party -- 'me first'. Shove the women and children out of the way, i'm on the lifeboat first.

It's typical of everything they do. It's all about self-gratification.

As for religious social services, all they do is tell you to 'pray'

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Nancy Pelosi put out a list of what Democrats will do the first 100 HOURS after they take over the house. Not sure how Democrats can be more specific than that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

As to the vaunted Contrac with America, rather than talking about what Republicans PROMISED to do more than a decade ago, why don't we talk about what they actually DID DO. Hmmm, that term limits thing didn't actually happen, did it. Ditto on ending corruption in Congress, cutting the deficit (that only worked when the "evil" and supposedly "liberal" Clinton was around), and shrinking government (the GOP has grown government more than anyone since LBJ over the last 6+ years).

Again KOZ, I would invite you to discuss the GOP's actual RECORD rather than the slogans they use. SLOGAN - GOP is the party of limited government. TRUTH - the GOP grows government, spends like drunken sailors, AND pays no heed to civil liberties. SLOGAN -- the GOP stands for family values. TRUTH -- the GOP values protecting its power more than it does protecting our children. Indeed, it encourages suspected pedophiles to run for re-election so as to eliminate the chance of losing a Congressional Seat. SLOGAN -- the GOP is tough on terror. TRUTH -- the GOP has irrationally spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on a war of choice while IGNORING the 9-11 commission's recommendations on protecting our ports, nuclear sites, etc.

Posted by: Colin | October 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Actually, KOZ, we want to preserve those things already in the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, which Monkey Boy (Bush) and company are trying so hard to destroy. He keeps saying his job is to protect this country when his oath says he will "preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION." As Bugs would say, what a maroon!

Posted by: KAS | October 11, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

D.

Sorry, I don't believe you are what you claim to be.

Nothing personal, but if you think those of us on this blog who post all the time are "lefties" either you haven't been reading this blog long, or you are a provocateur.

"Centrist" is a good description of most of us, except maybe Che, All of my Republican friends and the Democratic candidates I have worked for consider me a solid centrist. And to be honest, as a father and grandfather I am actually somewhat conservative about things like pedophilia.

That we argue vociferously against these trolls doesn't even suggest we are right or left or centrist. Your assumption of our "leftie" leanings belies your own thinly veiled right-wingedness.

And, by the way, if you are one of those who chooses to compromise about war and torture and election fraud and child molestation, you are every lousy thing our trolls accuse Dems of being.

But, then, compromise if for sissies, according to our trolls.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Castor, thanks for your comments. I agree with you on the supposed role of the "faith-based" garbage-- which I strenuously oppose. My girls and I are Jewish (my husband's Catholic), and I do NOT want funds for my child coming from an agency with a philosophy that is not compatible with ours. By the way, my husband agrees with this.

As for my very sweet and beautiful daughter, she will be just fine. Maryland is actually one of the more "enlightened" states in that regard-- programs were set up in the late 1980's and 1990's (under Democratic governors) to help kids like mine. I'm taking a lot of action now, so that when she "graduates" at age 21, she'll be assured of a job of her choice ready and waiting for her. But, inspired by her, I was a special-ed teacher for a while and sometimes still substitute at a special-ed school. My heart grieves for some of those children, who are living in group homes and institutions, and have no one to love them or advocate for their needs, as I do for my daughter.

I don't know where you live, but in Maryland, the Republican governor, running for reelection, established a cabinet-level department for disability services. The same lady who is the Secretary of that department is his nominee for lieutenant governor. (She is herself blind.) Yet for all the high-level profile that's being given to disability services by this man, funds were cut every year. So much for actions and real commitment! I do not know ONE person in the disability community who plans to vote Republican this year. In fact, one of the speakers yesterday, after mentioning that funds were cut to the Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, gave a heartfelt plea to make sure to register to vote, and vote for those who would help her agency (which will help my kid ond others). She obviously couldn't give an outright endorsement of the Democratic candidates, but it was pretty obvious that that's what she meant.

Posted by: Dee | October 11, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

'We had the contract with America which promised ten pieces of legislation that would be brought to the house floor'

..which of course was all proven to be lies, like everything the Grand Old Pervert party does.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Well, Dems have to thank 'W' for one thing-- since they couldn't come up with a consistent party platform/policy of their own, he did it for them-- the Bizarro Bush policy. It's easy to do too-- anything that Bush favors, you are against. Anything bad that happens-- Bush's fault.

Yep, without Bush, the Democrats would be nothing. He's like the Joker to your Batman. He has saved the Democrats a lot of time and effort to use all those expensive PhD's and wot not to come up with a coherent policy-- I think some thanks are in order.

Posted by: toshiro | October 11, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Ted Kennedy and company have fought bitterly against building a fence on the border.
As for spending, both of California's Democratic Senators want the federal government to give the taxpayers' money to agricultural producers who lost money because of the recent recall of contaminated spinach that spread sickness and death to people in a number of states.

Maybe financial losses will help get some of these agricultural producers to clean up their act before their produce sickens and kills more people. But liberal Democrats want to throw the taxpayers' money at irresponsible behavior, whether by farmers, foreign aid recipients or people on welfare.

they want to create new "rights" that are nowhere in the Constitution or the Geneva convention.
Whatever the Democrats' new-found rhetoric about "supporting the troops," their track record for more than a quarter of a century has been one of consistently voting against military appropriations and appropriations for the intelligence services, as well as hampering the intelligence services with restrictions.
On foreign policy, Democrats continue to argue as if talking with our enemies is the magic formula. We should keep talking with Iran while they keep building a nuclear bomb"

- the great Tom Sowell

See there are important policy differences. How about you frivolous Seinfelds defend some of your "brilliant" ideas for a change.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Castor, thanks for your comments. I agree with you on the supposed role of the "faith-based" garbage-- which I strenuously oppose. My girls and I are Jewish (my husband's Catholic), and I do NOT want funds for my child coming from an agency with a philosophy that is not compatible with ours. By the way, my husband agrees with this.

As for my very sweet and beautiful daughter, she will be just fine. Maryland is actually one of the more "enlightened" states in that regard-- programs were set up in the late 1980's and 1990's (under Democratic governors) to help kids like mine. I'm taking a lot of action now, so that when she "graduates" at age 21, she'll be assured of a job of her choice ready and waiting for her. But, inspired by her, I was a special-ed teacher for a while and sometimes still substitute at a special-ed school. My heart grieves for some of those children, who are living in group homes and institutions, and have no one to love them or advocate for their needs, as I do for my daughter.

I don't know where you live, but in Maryland, the Republican governor, running for reelection, established a cabinet-level department for disability services. The same lady who is the Secretary of that department is his nominee for lieutenant governor. (She is herself blind.) Yet for all the high-level profile that's being given to disability services by this man, funds were cut every year. So much for actions and real commitment! I do not know ONE person in the disability community who plans to vote Republican this year. In fact, one of the speakers yesterday, after mentioning that funds were cut to the Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, gave a heartfelt plea to make sure to register to vote, and vote for those who would help her agency (which will help my kid ond others). She obviously couldn't give an outright endorsement of the Democratic candidates, but it was pretty obvious that that's what she meant.

Posted by: Dee | October 11, 2006 11:48 AM | Report abuse

this poll about democrats reflects deeply on the message of Rabbi Michael Lerner and his book The left hand of god

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2006 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I just realized, some of our trolls didn't read Cilliza's post at all, they just went to the comments section and started spouting their ignorance in response to posters wh were engaging about the issues in the body of Cilliza's article.

Otherwise they would not be attributing Cilliza's words to one of us posters.

I wonder how often they do this, just jumping into the argument without even reading the original post?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Hey Seinfeld party - We had the contract with America which promised ten pieces of legislation that would be brought to the house floor. Please tell me what you will do if the voters are fooled into electing you. general broad statements like eliminate fraud, restore oversight are not policies - they are slogans. show me the beef. (conflated demand from decades of TV). feel free to start with a random selection of the 7 slogans that have failed for you so far this year.

Here's a start - Dems will make no movement on SS which is scheduled to pay out more than it takes in starting in 10 years.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Re: earlier comment, "Uh Tina, Ted Turner does not own CNN any longer. Try again." I may be mistaken, but I believe Ted Turner is still the single largest shareholder in AOL Time Warner? That's a pretty big share of CNN, I'd say. Last time I looked, Ted Turner was a centrist Democrat. Sorry, lefties, there are still a few of us centrist Democratics around, even living in DC, and we hold our noses at your emissions only slightly less often than we cuss when Bush, et al., show up on TV. Without us, you go back to the wilderness with the troglodytes and Bible thumpers. Can you say ... compromise? (Sorry. I have offended you.) To wingnuts on both sides if the aisle: It's nice to have an ideology, but meanwhile, the rest of us have lives in which we have to test our values on a regular basis. There's a good reason it's called reality testing. For the rest of you, I've just read that the old antipsychotics are at least as effective as newer drugs. I'm told that Stellazine or Haldol remain most attractive candidates for ... your election.

Posted by: D. | October 11, 2006 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"eventually you will torture the data enough to get it to tell you what you want."

Are you talking about Cheney's data mining for evidence about WMD's here?

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Do you realize this zouk person must be on welfare? otheriwse how could he post so often... look at the times... like every 2 minutes. He sits in his pajamas and types all day -- no wonder he's so crazy...

Posted by: Billy | October 11, 2006 11:35 AM | Report abuse

These polls are a moving target, and hence useless. They only feed the hard core of either side day to day, with self-fulfilling justification for what sounds like more extreme positions. The closer we get to the election, the more intense and rabid the flailing of the polls. It's beginning to sound like the whiny alarmists on the "Evening News". Everything is a crisis!!! Or, if not, WE'LL MAKE IT ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: L.Sterling | October 11, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Partisan Democrat that Robinson's piece on 'Family Values' was very good yesterday. In addition, I suggest folks read Dionne's complementary piece on 'Family Values' published last Friday.

It's interesting that the two most articulate spokesman for Democrats are black men-- Barack Obama and Harold Ford. The former seems the most adept at expressing Blue State Democratic Values, while the latter Red State Democratic Values.

It will be interesting to see if Ford and Webb win their elections, because it will indicate whether the electoral realignment which seems to be occurring (formerly moderate Republican house seats are tipping to Democrats in the states carried by Lincoln in 1860). This seems to be a harbinger of the break-up of the Sunbelt Coalition of the Republican Party which traded in part on racial code words to succeed since the late 1960's.

If economic issues are beginning to trump value issues (as a recent article on Ohio races), this indicates that a family-oriented working class agenda (as spellt out in Jared Bernstein's book All Together Now), is the way to create a more highly defined profile for Democrats that can sell in Red and Blue states.

In addition, to Bernstein's Common Sense policy prescriptions, I believe, there needs to be enunciated a vision of the nation as a family, as Cuomo did at the 1984 Democratic convention and Obama at the 2004 Democratic convention. This needs to go beyond generalities to how they can practically be embedded in social movements, given over-stressed families with static incomes and the rise of violence in the schools and its relation to issues like positive youth development, etc.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 11, 2006 11:26 AM | Report abuse

In the 1990s, the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, was the most frequent foreign visitor at the White House. The head of the PLO was the object of adoration by the Clintonites. It didn't matter to them that Arafat never revoked the PLO Charter calling for Israel's destruction. It didn't matter that he indoctrinated a generation of Palestinian children to become suicide bombers in jihad against the Jews. It didn't matter that he used billions of dollars of American and European taxpayer money to build the largest terror army in the world. Arafat showed up at signing ceremonies. He was the poster child of appeasement.

The Clinton administration tied itself to a policy toward the Palestinians which, like its policies toward North Korea and Iran, opened it to ever escalating blackmail. As the terror threat emanating from the PA-ruled areas rose, empowering Arafat became the obsession of the Clinton White House. He was showered with money, guns and love. No Israeli security consideration could hold a candle to the need to strengthen Arafat.

- Glick


talk, talk, talk, appease, coddle surrender. Dems official policy on the enemy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Dee-

I think this is where all the "faith based initiatives" were supposed to come in. Why with the Christian truisms and altruistic and generous nature of the folks that put Bush in office, twice, the coffers would be full of money and the love for our fellow man to take care of those in need, no?

What a steamy crock of horsecrap.

I'm sorry for the situation that you and your child find yourself in and sorry as well that I both know and know of WAY too many people finding themselves in similar situations.

Hopefully things can change for the better.

Regards,

Castor

Posted by: Castor | October 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

How long did it take you to come up with this nugget of enlightenment? this is what passes for solid analysis from Dems.

Cilliza wrote that, not us Dems...

Unless Chris is a Dem, but he would be well advised to never reveal his party affiliations, or register as an independent, because no matter what he writes, if he puts a "D" behind his name, none of the "R's" will even bother to consider the validity of his words, they will simply relegate them to their mighty scrapheap of Republican enabler ignorance.

More and more, the Republicans look like "enablers;" they enable pedophiles, they enable N Korean and Iranian nuke builders, they enabled election fraud, they enabled the neocons, they enabled Iran, they enabled the fall of the almighty dollar, they enabled the energy industry to black out Sacramento and jack up our fuel prices.

They have become the party of enablers.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Political junkies should read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20061011/cm_rcp/hasterts_illinois_approach_to

It explains a heck of a lot. For example, everyone here thinks Jefferson should be booted (although the Calcified Ones can't admit that, not surprisingly). Hastert's take:

"So, it was right in character for Hastert to come to the defense of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana when the feds discovered the $90,000 stocked in his freezer. Hastert gave us some high highfalutin baloney about the executive branch violating the principle of "separation of powers" by investigating a congressman, when it was a power structure and not the Constitution that really motivated him."

Partisanship in the matter of Dennis Hastert is for suckers and fools.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"voter interest is at its highest level in a decade" - so what? Is this what you call advancing a point of view. I call it desperately trying to find a poll to justify your existence. Keep polling. eventually you will torture the data enough to get it to tell you what you want. Like Kerry won the election. Like Dems can be trusted with the military and the purse. but when the real poll that matters (election day) rolls around, somehow, you always come up short.

put teenagers at risk just to secure a House seat - you mean like sitting on a story until it can do some real damage.

The challenge still stands. despite a long and boring repost of some tired old talking points, not a single idea from the moonbat brigade.

time to go back to ignoring moonbats and waiting for a Dem with some sense. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Paul, "low taxes" have harmed America greatly. We got somewhere around $25 to $100 as a tax break, as a family. In the meantime, state governments needed to RAISE taxes to make up for the loss from the federal government, or go into the red, or cut services-- or a combination of all three. The country might have been OK if, after 9/11, Bush had been wise enough to instantly reverse these idiotic tax cuts (which primarily benefited those making over $1 million, let's face facts). But after 9/11, came this terrible war based on falsehoods, and then, of course, Katrina.

I attended a "transition forum" yesterday, for parents of young people with disabilities who are approaching age 21 (my 19-year-old daughter is mentally retarded). You wouldn't believe the number of speakers who, when asked about funding for NECESSARY services (such as group homes, transportation to jobs, basic technology such as wheelchairs, etc.), grimaced and responded, "Well, it might take a few more months than it would have previously, because our funds were cut..."

And don't get me started on tales of Life as Parent of a Special Ed Kid, under "No Child Left Behind".

So that's where Paul's "lower taxes" have gotten us-- no funds for public transportation, no funds for the neediest in our society, no funds for higher education (my 21-year-old's college tuition has risen dramatically). Things are good if you work for Halliburton or are already wealthy!

And speaking of the neediest in our society, how do you suppose those seniors who've hit the "doughnut hole" in Medicare will vote in November?

Posted by: Dee | October 11, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

You said "As The Fix has said many times, this is the worst national environment for either party since the 1994 landslide election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in four decades."
--------------------------

This is exactly the type of subtle comment that Media Matters goes after all the time. The national enviornment is horrible, yes. The implication here is that the political environment is bad for both parties too, but it isn't. It's bad for Republicans. Only Republicans. Not Democrats. Only Republicans.

Bad for Republicans.

Bad for Republicnas.

Why is that so difficult to print?

Posted by: Deaniac | October 11, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I SALUTE BHOOMES FOR HIS CUNNING. I AM SURE I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE LYING TO A POLLSTER BEFORE, AND I AM EQUALLY CERTAIN THAT THOSE RUNNING THE POLL WOULD NEVER EXPECT IT. SHEER GENIUS, MY BOY. YOU'LL CERTAINLY HAVE THE LAST LAUGH. I WOULD ONLY SUGGEST THAT YOU DOUBLE THE FUN BY TRICKING THE POLLSTER INTO SITTING ON A FART CUSHION. BY DOING SO, YOU WILL BE STRIKING A BLOW FOR THE CLOSED-MINDED EVERYWHERE, AND IT WILL BE WICKED FUNNY.

Posted by: JIMMY | October 11, 2006 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"stand as strongly against corruption in their ranks as Democrats"

you must mean lie down and accept it then if you are using the Dem model - See Jefferson (LA - D). See Studds. See list of clinton pardons. etc.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Dana, Terry Schiavo DID have brain function!!! Bill Frist, M.D. said so assuredly after watching her on a video. She was crying for help, (and her Mom), remember?

Sigh................

"There's people at the Convention Center, who knew?"


Posted by: Castor | October 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"Quite obviously, whichever side is better able to lessen their perceived weaknesses while highlighting their image strengths will likely wind up in the White House come January 2009."
How long did it take you to come up with this nugget of enlightenment? this is what passes for solid analysis from Dems.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 11:09 AM | Report abuse

i think "liberal" and "conservative" are buzzwords which have outlived their usefulness. A successful policy, candidate, or elected official will need to address intelligently every aspect of the situation, without reference to idelogical correctness.

Posted by: meuphys | October 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

'Can anyone with a smidge of brain function put any faith in the ramblings of Ted Stevens especially surrounding fiscal responsibility in regards to Govt. spending?'

Yes but you forgot R's don't have a smidgen of brain function. It's the Terry Shiavo Party.

Posted by: dana | October 11, 2006 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"challenge for the day - find a single thoughful, reasoned argument advanced by any of the wacky moonbats on this website."

1. The Foley-page scandal has forced social conservatives to recognize that the Republicans have been cynically jerking them around, and forced moderates to recognize that the Republican leadership is so power-hungry that it would put teenagers at risk just to secure a House seat and hide the fact that gay people wield considerable influence behind the scenes in the Republican Party.

2. "Meanwhile, Republicans need to convince the electorate that they are not controlled by big business at the expense of the middle class voter and that they stand as strongly against corruption in their ranks as Democrats."

You mean, they need to convince the electorate that facts are not real."

3. Sounds like an even more-desperate version of what we've seen for the past 6 years.

Once again, let me reference Chris Hedges piece in Truthout, it should scare the willies out of all of us.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse

4. The poll shows that voter interest is at its highest level in a decade. That compares to presidential election years. And it is at similar levels to 94 when the GOP swept the house.

5. But I do know that Republicans hate Democrats far worse than they hate terrorists. Here's from a new book by a radical winger:

"There is no way to restore the culture without winning the war on terror. Conversely, the only way to win the war on terror is to win the culture war. Thus we arrive at a sobering truth. In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."

6. "Quite obviously, whichever side is better able to lessen their perceived weaknesses while highlighting their image strengths will likely wind up in the White House come January 2009."

And in control of Congress.

Both Houses


And the day has just begun...

Lets see if there's anyone on the "R" side who can meet our troll's ignorant challenge.

Tina's "argument" has already been shredded, it was the closest thing to an "r"-gument, and it was clearly based on familiar confusion, not facts or actual references.

Just more proof this isn't a debate, or it is preponderously one-sided, in order to match the truth.

It is really just a sad testimony to the fact that only ignorant ideologues will try to defend the Bush administration and their Republican enablers these days.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Remember when Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon? CUT AND RUN REAGAN.

I think it's fabulous too that Bush did nothing while Korea got nuclear weapons. NOTHING NOHTING NOTHING NOHTING NOTHING NOTYHING.

What did Bush do to about Osama?
What did bush do about Korea?
What did bush do about Katrina?
What did bush ever do about anything?

NOTHING.

THE BIGGEST DO-NOTHING PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS IN HISTORY.

Posted by: JAMA | October 11, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program "

-- from J Carter in NYT. and later
"Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement."

And of course Jimmy sides with the enemy. his solution:

"United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors."

fool me once, shame on me, fool me again, you must be a Dem. Talk, talk, talk. no wonder those hostages weren't released until a real president came into power. Jimmah and the Libs still don't get it. Remember when Reagan bombed Libya after two service men were killed in a Berlin disco. shot down two of their planes. never really were bothered by them again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris: we all enjoyed seeing you along with Chris "I used to cash my checks at Hill bars" Matthews on Hairballs last night, but you seemed a little uncomfortable, what with the hot lights and all. Maybe consider a polo shirt and shorts next time? Bob from Bowie.

Posted by: Bob from Bowie | October 11, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris: we all enjoyed seeing you along with Chris I used to cash my checks at Hill bars" Matthews on Hairballs last night, but you seemed a little uncomfortable, what with the hot lights and all. Maybe consider a polo shirt and shorts next time? Bob from Bowie.

Posted by: Bob | October 11, 2006 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Point of clarity - Stevens was Appropriations Cmte. chair during the timeframe discusssed, not now.

Posted by: Castor | October 11, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

In the interest of fairness I just read the Allen rebuttal to the latest Webb ad. Now I realize that Ted Stevens is head of the Appropriations Cmte. so his name is all over this kind of spending stuff but still, I was almost shocked that Allen would reference Stevens in any sort of way.

From the Allen rebuttal, (explaining his no vote), about not funding body armor via the bill sponsored by Chris Dodd:

Sen. Ted Stevens, WWII Veteran, on the amendment. "What Senator Dodd's amendment does, though, is it adds money to accounts we have already plused up, and it takes it from money to bring the troops home. He has attacked the exact wrong part of the bill." (Congressional Record, October 2, 2003)

Can anyone with a smidge of brain function put any faith in the ramblings of Ted Stevens especially surrounding fiscal responsibility in regards to Govt. spending? Senator Stevens has lorded over a committee that has decimated funding for things like brain injury research and long-term care at the V.A. Tough choices have to be made because of "more important " priorities (my emphasis added) in spending bills.

First and foremost #1 issue to deal with is the fact that the 50 residents of Gravina, Alaska have been denied their rights as Americans by way of not having a $212,000,000 bridge built to connect them (as earmarked and demanded for by one Ted Stevens) to the bustling metropolis of Ketchikan, Alaska. Right now they have to take a ferry that only runs every 15 MINUTES!!!! HORRORS!!!!

So if George Allen wants to hitch his cart to Ted Stevens and ADMIT IT he must be even more brazen, shallow or stupid than I thought.
And one more thing on Sen. Stevens' quote, isn't the mere suggestion of wanting to bring troops home suggesting we "cut and run" thus emboldening the terrorist thugs and killers?

Senator Stevens, why do you hate America and freedom?

Posted by: Castor | October 11, 2006 10:51 AM | Report abuse

It is a simple choice for voters in this election, (and probably all in the future). Do you value honesty? Is lying(WMD and countless other lies), cheating (two elections), stealing (Abramoff and countless others including the Rove officemates), pedophiles (family value), hypocrites (soooo many gay republicans in the closet and bush bush bush bush bush...) wars without end and no meaning and death. The economy on a credit card. It is no longer polite cocktail conversation with polite disagreements, when you have soo many wars based on lies, nearly 3000 deaths(not even starting to count the Iraqi death count) 20,000 plus seriously wounded...and bringing the world to the precipice of destruction based on a childish inability to negotiate, then it is war.

Posted by: Jan | October 11, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

who's this facts-denying kingofzouk? no sense arguing with a drunk, or a koolaid drinker.

Posted by: kim | October 11, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Paul - Low taxes are like the chewy milk bone this party uses to distract you while they castrate you. It's a dangling treat that most people will be enamored by to the point that they simply don't care what the future becomes. Until they look around one day and see the country they're living in and wonder how things got to this state and who's to blame.

Posted by: Supreme Wu | October 11, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

a new version with corrections;

Chris;
Good to see you on Olberman's show, at least he doesn't inrerrupt everyone after he asks them a question, like Matthews is so compelled to do.

That was a very good segment, Olberman's qickly becoming a true Hero of Democracy, (wish we had a medal for that). I hope he lasts at MSNBC until '09, but even if they can him, he'll find a way to make his statement.

And Drindl's absolutely right, just look at the paragraph she posted from your article.

It's obvious, Chris, the Republicans will have to lie and deceive and manipulate and spin everything like a top, in order to accomplish what you have, quite astutely, observed.

But, what's new about that?

Sounds like an even more-desperate version of what we've seen for the past 6 years.

Once again, let me reference Chris Hedges piece in Truthout, it should scare the willies out of all of us.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse

Hedge's seems to be quite qualified to present the argument. And if it is true, it is truly frightening.

The neocons will not easily give up their control, they want perpetual world-war-for-profit economy.

Beware the cornered beast...

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

WaPo photographer gets outed as WalMart propaganda hack:

'The anonymous Jim from Edelman's "Wal-Marting Across America" RV tour is James Thresher, a photographer for the Washington Post.

From BusinessWeek:

Here is the story behind Wal-Marting Across America: Jim, 58, and Laura, 42, aren't married, but they have been living together for eight years in Washington, D.C. Between them, they have three children. Jim wouldn't reveal his last name or his identity. He says he wants to protect his employer. He would only say that he's a professional photographer.;

http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/identity_of_wal_marting_across_america_rver_revealed/

Funny to watch the morons that come here, hang out 24 hours a day and complain about how no one who comes here has any 'ideas' --apparently the IQ-challenged have no comprehension of irony...

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Whether there are internment camps being built, I have no idea. But I do know that Republicans hate Democrats far worse than they hate terrorists. Here's from a new book by a radical winger:

"There is no way to restore the culture without winning the war on terror. Conversely, the only way to win the war on terror is to win the culture war. Thus we arrive at a sobering truth. In order to crush the Islamic radicals abroad, we must defeat the enemy at home."

See, fellow Dems? We are the enemy. They want to crush us. Just like Hitler demonized liberals, cons demonize liberals. Maybe if republicans could find the energy to hate osama bin ladin instead of democrats, they might have been able to kill him in the last five years, instead of whining about democrats.

But whining I guess is about all they're capable of.. except maybe being child predators.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

vote Dem - the Seinfeld party. the party "about nothing".

Proclaiming that the press is in any way affiliated with or supports a conservative agenda demonstrates that without a doubt, you are a total moonbat.

Interesting isn't it though that fox news beats CNN and MSNBC combined. that Rush doesn't even compare to Air (head) America which is unviable. It is because there is no sense bringing up thoughful ideas in a liberal environment. they have no shelf life there.
challenge for the day - find a single thoughful, reasoned argument advanced by any of the wacky moonbats on this website.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Lots of effect from Woodward's is rippling book across the blogs, but the Bush cult apologists are trying to claim he's a turncoat for writing two fluff books about Bush, then blasting him with the unadulterated truth in the third book.

Can I get a group "DUH!"

If Woodward hadn't written the first two fluff books, he would have never had access to the information for this third book.

He was positioning the whole time to gain their trust in the WH, then he took the truth they so trustingly gave him and used it to expose the glaring flaws most of us have seen all along. But there was also some "new" news to all of us.

My biggest surprise was that old Henry the First is still at work in our executive branch.

"Stay the course" Kissinger is still promoting his Viet Nam agenda, and Bush's boys seem to have bought into it, lock stock and a barrel of oil...

Woodward's ruse worked marvelously, and the proof of it is Bush's outright hostility towards the staff members who fell for Woodward's simple deception.

Bush was a patsy, too, he wouldn't talk to Woodward today, but a few short months ago, Woodward even had Bush eating out of his hand.

Woodward's a genius.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Report abuse

But that's a fact, Andy, R's don't like facts -- they just confuse them.

Posted by: drndl | October 11, 2006 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Sorry didn't get to finish that

The poll shows that voter interest is at its highest level in a decade. That compares to presidential election years. And it is at similar levels to 94 when the GOP swept the house.

Posted by: Andy R | October 11, 2006 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Tim Russert is not owned by big business or beholden to the Republicans. He is one of the best hosts of a political show, far better than liberals like Larry King or a Democrat like Chris Matthews,who worked for Tip o'Neil. Even George Stefanopolous on ABC is still a Democrat at heart, and his bias peeks out once in awhile.

LOL--Tina, if you think a pundit is 'good' then I know they're good for nothing. Chris Matthews, the McCain cultist, a Dem? You must be joking... Stefanopolous is a traitor and a con. What a joke you are.

' I suspect there are many conservatives who are lying to the pollsters because they share the same disdain for them that I have.'

No, it's just becuase lying is all you people know how to do...

And as, for taxes mine have gone nowhere but up for six years -- what kind of fantasy world do you neocons live in? Never mind, the same one you always lived in. LaLa Land.

Oh, and the *press* stifles voter turnout -- hmm, since the press and the republican party are virtually the same entity, you could be right about that.

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,
Are you serious? You think that republicans are lying to Pollsters? Look face the facts that the Republicans are going to lose the House (Foley cover-up sealed that for the Dems) and might lose the Senate.
Also another poll by CNN shows that shows voter interest is at its highest leve

Posted by: Andy R | October 11, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"First of all, this generic poll stuff is a waste of money."

Unless, of course, it leans towards Republicans, then it must be accurate.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Live by these silly polls and die by these silly polls. I haven't been polled yet, but if/when I do I will most surely lie to the pollster to throw off the polls. I suspect there are many conservatives who are lying to the pollsters because they share the same disdain for them that I have.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 11, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I'm shocked that low taxes wasn't a reason cited in favor of Republicans. I remember when Bush passed his tax cuts, enacted retroactivly, early in his first year. I got a pretty nice tax refund, and my taxes have stayed low since. Beleive me, as someone who is definatly not "rich" or "affluent," I remember. I'm surprised others didn't.

Posted by: Paul S | October 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I have to correct my last post, the link to the "American gulag" accusations came from a comment posted to Hedge's article, Hedges doesn't actually suggest the "13 district" concept.

Sorry for the mix-up, but Hedge's story is still worth reading.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the JEP and drindl mutual admiration society. Look for facts and analysis elsewhere.

since the Dems have absolutely no issues to run on, all they can do is hope to stir up enough general disgust with incumbants. the willing press does its best to stifle r voter turnout. this is the only tactic left that has a chance of winning for the dummycrats. sad really.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 11, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Uh Tina, Ted Turner does not own CNN any longer. Try again.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Chris;
Good to see you on Olberman's show, at least he doesn't inrerrupt everyone after he asks them a question, like Matthews is so compelled to do.

That was a very good segment, Olberman's qickly becoming a true Hero of Democracy, (wish we had a medal for that). I hope he lasts at MSNBC until '09, but even if they can him, he'll find a way to make his statement.

And Drindl's absolutely right, just look at the paragraph she posted from your article.

It's obvious, Chris, the Republicans will have to lie and deceive and manipulate and spin everything like a top, in order to accomplish what you have, quite astutely, observed.

But, what's new about that?

Sounds like an even more-desperate version of what we've seen for the past 6 years.

Once again, let me reference Chris Hedges piece in Truthout, it should scare the willies out of all of us.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601009_bushs_nuclear_apocalypse

According to Hedge's article, the detention camps are already built, and they are planning to round up dissident Americans so we can start a world war to control the Middle East. And that our nation will be divided into 13 regions with checkpoints at every major highway.

Who really knows how much truth there may be in Hedge's story, he seems to be quite qualified to present the argument. But if just a fraction of it is true, it is frightening.

The neocons will not easily give up their control, they want perpetual world-war-for-profit economy.

Beware the cornered beast...

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Report abuse

In yesterday's Post, Euguene Robinson produced an excellent opinion piece about the Republicans' phony "culture war." It was only a matter of time before that party's fraudulent and incoherent coalition between extremist conservatives and moderates was exposed to voters. The Foley-page scandal has forced social conservatives to recognize that the Republicans have been cynically jerking them around, and forced moderates to recognize that the Republican leadership is so power-hungry that it would put teenagers at risk just to secure a House seat and hide the fact that gay people wield considerable influence behind the scenes in the Republican Party. The Emperor has no clothes, and we can only hope the terms of the debate will change.

Posted by: Partisan Democrat | October 11, 2006 10:03 AM | Report abuse

First of all, this generic poll stuff is a waste of money. The people across the nation might think Congress has a few crooks, and a jerk or two. But when it comes to their OWN member of Congress, most people continue to support them. The competitive seats are the open ones, and the mood of the nation might decide the results on election day. But very few people WHO VOTE are angry at their own member of Congress. There are 15 to 20 seats up for grabs, with a thin chance of the Dems getting control of the House.

Let's have a bit of reality in here. That generic poll is proof of nothing.

Tim Russert is not owned by big business or beholden to the Republicans. He is one of the best hosts of a political show, far better than liberals like Larry King or a Democrat like Chris Matthews,who worked for Tip o'Neil. Even George Stefanopolous on ABC is still a Democrat at heart, and his bias peeks out once in awhile.

There are also a few wealthy business people who are helping the Democrats, look at the Terry McAuliffe millions offered to pay for the Clinton's New York mansion. The public outcry pushed the deal into a bank, like the rest of the normal people in life.

Ted Turner is big business, and he is no Republican. So that sort of blows the silly debate out of the water that Republicans are owned by business.

Posted by: Tina | October 11, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse


GOP Senator Mike DeWine's campaign is refusing to say whether a soldier appearing in one of the campaign's political ads is an actor or a real member of the military. The ad -- which ran roughly in the last week of September and the first week of October and is right here -- pictures family members of soldiers praising DeWine. For about three seconds, what appears to be an actual soldier is visible in uniform. But Defense Department spokesperson Stewart Upton has now told Election Central that "all military personnel...are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events." Upton viewed the ad, and said that he'd "forwarded this matter over to the Army for review."

Posted by: Desparate DeWine | October 11, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

'Meanwhile, Republicans need to convince the electorate that they are not controlled by big business at the expense of the middle class voter and that they stand as strongly against corruption in their ranks as Democrats.'

You mean, they need to convince the electorate that facts are not real.

But of course they've got an army to do that for them...Fox, ABC, Russert, Matthews, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Clear Channel, Scarborough, Robertson, McCain, Dobson, the lilst goes on and on and on and on...

Posted by: drindl | October 11, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"Quite obviously, whichever side is better able to lessen their perceived weaknesses while highlighting their image strengths will likely wind up in the White House come January 2009."

And in control of Congress.

Both Houses.

Posted by: JEP | October 11, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company