Democrat's Final 2004 Issue Starts to Dissolve

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 130
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    There isn't enough laughter in the history of the world to adequately respond to your post.



    Maybe because it's not that funny?
  • Reply 102 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    How can you tell me the thread title's premise is wrong? I notice you have no answers. What else is there other than attacking Bush on Iraq?



    The idea that the economy is improving, and that will take away one avenue of attack for the Democrats is fine and dandy. The idea that the economy is the only area the Democrats can attack is blindly partisan.



    What else is there? If you weren't so enamored with Bush you could see plenty of problems with his administration. You're not a swing voter. The Democrats can't and shouldn't try to show you what's wrong because it wouldn't help.



    What else is there? Bush just opened the abortion can of worms. Iraq is a problem. Afghanistan is dissolving. The Mid-East peace process is flailing. North Korea is pissed. Ashcroft and the Justice Department have started abusing the Patriot Act and using it against non-terrorists as opposed to how it was intended. Environmental regulations have been rolled back. Gas prices are up.



    Who the hell cares? It's just partisan and silly to think that the Democrats have no issues to campaign on.
  • Reply 103 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    The idea that the economy is improving, and that will take away one avenue of attack for the Democrats is fine and dandy. The idea that the economy is the only area the Democrats can attack is blindly partisan.



    What else is there? If you weren't so enamored with Bush you could see plenty of problems with his administration. You're not a swing voter. The Democrats can't and shouldn't try to show you what's wrong because it wouldn't help.



    What else is there? Bush just opened the abortion can of worms. Iraq is a problem. Afghanistan is dissolving. The Mid-East peace process is flailing. North Korea is pissed. Ashcroft and the Justice Department have started abusing the Patriot Act and using it against non-terrorists as opposed to how it was intended. Environmental regulations have been rolled back. Gas prices are up.



    Who the hell cares? It's just partisan and silly to think that the Democrats have no issues to campaign on.






    You're missing the point. Even if all the above issues were as you described them (and they're not) people are going to vote on peace and prosperity.



    As for your "issues":



    Bush signed the partial borth abortion ban. I'm sorry bunge, but there is no person on this planet that can argue it's a humane or medically necessary procedure.



    Iraq is a problem. True. The question is, where will it be a year from now? There is a security problem. Other than that, casualties are still very low. We've occupied and are rebuilding an entire nation that was neglected for 25 years, and we've lost about 400 lives doing it. I'm not discounting those lives, but that's a very low number. We'll see how it turns out, but this alone will not be enough for the Dems. They're also going to have to be careful how they use the issue (if they even can) to avoid looking bad by criticizing Bush will troops are on the ground.



    Afghanistan is not "dissolving". You're insane.



    Middle East: Well, I agree it is a mess. But what do we do? The Dems will have to answer that to use the issue.



    Environmental Regulations: "Rolled back" isn't really a fair term and you know it. Bush suspended some truly last minute regs put in place by executive order by his predecessor, and has made efforts to do away with some of the truly insane policies of the same (gee, why do we have those fires in the West again?).



    Gas Prices: They're still a little high....but I don't see how they are going to impact the election.



    Justice Department: Perhaps you are right...but will people care?
  • Reply 104 of 130
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Running on "the economy" or "jobs" was always a fundamentally dishonest idea anyway, so in a way, it serves them right if they thought that would do it for them.



    Let's all agree that the short-term economic situation is something the president has little, if any, control over. Bush didn't cause the recession and he didn't get us out of it. That's for the no-nothings that the political campaigns will try to sway. "Duh, recession, it must be Bush, let's throw him out. Duh, growth, it must be Bush, let's re-elect." That may be how some view it, but we here on AI are too smart for all that nonsense. Right?



    So then, what does a government actually have control over? A: The fiscal situation. Are we running the government responsibly, paying for what we spend, and not burdening the future with debt? Under Bush, the answer to that is a resounding NO.



    The responsible platform to run on is the issue that will be there for them anyway: the deficit. Clark, the Clinton disciple, has talked about making the deficit a big issue. Gephardt's spending programs seem to me to be too large to really win on that issue. Not sure about Dean, but he does talk about balancing his state's budget.



    I think the Democrats need to study the model the Republicans used in California very carefully. They got Davis thrown out of office largely on that issue. I think "Recall Bush" ought to be the 2004 Democratic election motto.
  • Reply 105 of 130
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    SDW says:

    Bush signed the partial borth abortion ban. I'm sorry bunge, but there is no person on this planet that can argue it's a humane or medically necessary procedure.



    Oh, I've seen a few medical professionals on this very discussion board mention a few circumstances where partial birth abortion is both humane AND medically necessary. A certain abnormal swelling and filling of fluid of the cranial cavity that threatens the life of the mother and the other siblings residing in the womb is best dealt with through partial birth abortion.
  • Reply 106 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You're missing the point. Even if all the above issues were as you described them (and they're not) people are going to vote on peace and prosperity.



    As for your "issues":




    So your thread missed the point then. There never were 'issues' to dissolve, so there is no final issue to dissolve. The whole thread is a joke. If the only issue that ever matters is 'peace and prosperity,' what were the previous issues that already dissolved?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Bush signed the partial borth abortion ban. I'm sorry bunge, but there is no person on this planet that can argue it's a humane or medically necessary procedure.



    I could.
  • Reply 107 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You're missing the point. Even if all the above issues were as you described them (and they're not) people are going to vote on peace and prosperity.



    As for your "issues":



    Bush signed the partial borth abortion ban. I'm sorry bunge, but there is no person on this planet that can argue it's a humane or medically necessary procedure.



    Iraq is a problem. True. The question is, where will it be a year from now? There is a security problem. Other than that, casualties are still very low. We've occupied and are rebuilding an entire nation that was neglected for 25 years, and we've lost about 400 lives doing it. I'm not discounting those lives, but that's a very low number. We'll see how it turns out, but this alone will not be enough for the Dems. They're also going to have to be careful how they use the issue (if they even can) to avoid looking bad by criticizing Bush will troops are on the ground.



    Afghanistan is not "dissolving". You're insane.



    Middle East: Well, I agree it is a mess. But what do we do? The Dems will have to answer that to use the issue.



    Environmental Regulations: "Rolled back" isn't really a fair term and you know it. Bush suspended some truly last minute regs put in place by executive order by his predecessor, and has made efforts to do away with some of the truly insane policies of the same (gee, why do we have those fires in the West again?).



    Gas Prices: They're still a little high....but I don't see how they are going to impact the election.



    Justice Department: Perhaps you are right...but will people care?




    Well it seems that others have beat me to the punch in outlining this for you. The idea that the democratic chances are hanging by a threat is a joke! Further more I think it is people like you that are bad for the republican party. Ignoring the truth, expecting everyone to think just like you, and when you're backed into a corner not much good for anything but acting smug and slinging mud.



    By the way I'm registered independent so it's not "my party ". I just want a president who we can trust and has our best interests at heart. That ain't Bush!
  • Reply 108 of 130
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Oh, I've seen a few medical professionals on this very discussion board mention a few circumstances where partial birth abortion is both humane AND medically necessary. A certain abnormal swelling and filling of fluid of the cranial cavity that threatens the life of the mother and the other siblings residing in the womb is best dealt with through partial birth abortion.



    I'm not blatantly pro-life on this, but this procedure is WRONG. That's all there is to it. And as for the "it's needed" argument, that's the same one that pro-abortion groups use (i.e. "what about rape, incest, heatlh of the mother?"). Those may be valid exceptions, but did you know that over 97% of the abortions in this country are performed when it is there is NOT a "special exception" like the above? That's over 1,000,000 dead fetuses a year for no reason other than birth control.



    bunge:







    Quote:

    So your thread missed the point then. There never were 'issues' to dissolve, so there is no final issue to dissolve. The whole thread is a joke. If the only issue that ever matters is 'peace and prosperity,' what were the previous issues that already dissolved?





    These are the issues people vote on and if you can't see that I don't even know what to say. The problem here, bunge, is that you can't remove yourself from the academic debate process. Sure, there are a million other relavent issues....but not ones that are going to matter to most of the electorate on election day. I'm simply making observations here, and I'm not personlizing it. Take a step back for second and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to say.



    Jimmac:



    Read what I told bunge above. It's not about what you think is an issue. It's not even what I think is an issue. It's what's going to matter to msot of the electorate, and "it" is both peace and prosperity.



    The econoym going well is not good for Dems. I can't believe you can;t admit that. Now, the public perception on Iraq is that it's not going too well (though overall, I'm not sure that's accurate). That MAY be a postive for them.



    I can see them running on the deficit, perhaps the deficit situation, problems in Iraq (but again, I don't know where that will be in a year).



    Again..I'm asking: What else can they really run on? I'm honestly looking at this from the standpoint of a Demcratic leader. If we were writing a campaign strategy to beat Bush, what would it be?



    If you can't separate what you WANT to happen from what is LIKELY to happen, then we can't even discuss the issue.







    Quote:

    By the way I'm registered independent so it's not "my party ". I just want a president who we can trust and has our best interests at heart. That ain't Bush



    Oh goody! There it is again! Bush loves the rich! He hates the poor! He's an oil whore! Dean loves me! Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!
  • Reply 109 of 130
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Quote:

    If you can't separate what you WANT to happen from what is LIKELY to happen, then we can't even discuss the issue.



    Pot, meet kettle.
  • Reply 110 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    These are the issues people vote on and if you can't see that I don't even know what to say. The problem here, bunge, is that you can't remove yourself from the academic debate process. Sure, there are a million other relavent issues....but not ones that are going to matter to most of the electorate on election day. I'm simply making observations here, and I'm not personlizing it. Take a step back for second and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to say.



    You started the thread saying that the last of a list of issues the Democrats could rely on was dissolving. You later stated that the only issue that mattered was peace and prosperity. I considered these two ideas mutually exclusive.



    Rest assured that the recent explosions in Saudi Arabia show that we still don't have the peace you're expecting.
  • Reply 111 of 130
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    [B]I'm not blatantly pro-life on this, but this procedure is WRONG. That's all there is to it. And as for the "it's needed" argument, that's the same one that pro-abortion groups use (i.e. "what about rape, incest, heatlh of the mother?"). Those may be valid exceptions, but did you know that over 97% of the abortions in this country are performed when it is there is NOT a "special exception" like the above? That's over 1,000,000 dead fetuses a year for no reason other than birth control.



    I suppose i'm getting blatently off topic by responding to this, but I will anyways.



    People seem to be under the impression that there are late-term pregnent moms who just decide they don't want to have the baby. This isn't the case...late-term abortions are done for specific medical reasons.



    An example is a mother who has a one-in-four chance of conceiving babies with a certain kidney problem that leads to certain death of the child...however, this kidney problem cannot be detected until late in her term...the mother had one child before who was born with the kidney disease and died within a few months. She and her husband wanted to try and have another baby on the premise that if the kidney disease was detected, they would be able to cancel the pregnency. Of course, now this is not an option, and the mother has a 1 in 4 chance (the odds of the baby having this kidney problem) of having a baby who will die within a few months of being born.



    I guess this particular ban will keep people such as the mother above (true story) from even attempting to conceive. I guess this is progress?



    This didn't really even mention protecting the mother's health, the foremost reason for opposing the total ban. There is no provision for protecting the mother's health, despite that severe and disabling illnesses such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, high blood pressure, kidney disease and immunity disorders can occur late in pregnancy.



    Nobody likes to see little babies die, and it is really easy, after seeing pictures and stuff the anti-choice groups put out, to vehemently oppose late-term abortions. However, these are not procedures done on a whim. They are relatively rare and doctors do not perform them simply because the mother doesn't feel like having a kid.
  • Reply 112 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not blatantly pro-life on this, but this procedure is WRONG. That's all there is to it. And as for the "it's needed" argument, that's the same one that pro-abortion groups use (i.e. "what about rape, incest, heatlh of the mother?"). Those may be valid exceptions, but did you know that over 97% of the abortions in this country are performed when it is there is NOT a "special exception" like the above? That's over 1,000,000 dead fetuses a year for no reason other than birth control.



    bunge:











    These are the issues people vote on and if you can't see that I don't even know what to say. The problem here, bunge, is that you can't remove yourself from the academic debate process. Sure, there are a million other relavent issues....but not ones that are going to matter to most of the electorate on election day. I'm simply making observations here, and I'm not personlizing it. Take a step back for second and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to say.



    Jimmac:



    Read what I told bunge above. It's not about what you think is an issue. It's not even what I think is an issue. It's what's going to matter to msot of the electorate, and "it" is both peace and prosperity.



    The econoym going well is not good for Dems. I can't believe you can;t admit that. Now, the public perception on Iraq is that it's not going too well (though overall, I'm not sure that's accurate). That MAY be a postive for them.



    I can see them running on the deficit, perhaps the deficit situation, problems in Iraq (but again, I don't know where that will be in a year).



    Again..I'm asking: What else can they really run on? I'm honestly looking at this from the standpoint of a Demcratic leader. If we were writing a campaign strategy to beat Bush, what would it be?



    If you can't separate what you WANT to happen from what is LIKELY to happen, then we can't even discuss the issue.











    Oh goody! There it is again! Bush loves the rich! He hates the poor! He's an oil whore! Dean loves me! Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!






    So you think people are just going to forget the war in Iraq was based on a false premise? You think they're going to forget about the debt tripling? Let's just sum up by saying that they are going to forget about all the crap he's pulled while in office? You must really think people are sheep. While that might have been true at one time I think people are better educated now days.



    As advise I think you had better reread the last part of your own post.
  • Reply 113 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    Pot, meet kettle.



    Nail on the head.
  • Reply 114 of 130
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not blatantly pro-life on this, but this procedure is WRONG. That's all there is to it. And as for the "it's needed" argument, that's the same one that pro-abortion groups use (i.e. "what about rape, incest, heatlh of the mother?"). Those may be valid exceptions, but did you know that over 97% of the abortions in this country are performed when it is there is NOT a "special exception" like the above? That's over 1,000,000 dead fetuses a year for no reason other than birth control.



    bunge:











    These are the issues people vote on and if you can't see that I don't even know what to say. The problem here, bunge, is that you can't remove yourself from the academic debate process. Sure, there are a million other relavent issues....but not ones that are going to matter to most of the electorate on election day. I'm simply making observations here, and I'm not personlizing it. Take a step back for second and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to say.



    Jimmac:



    Read what I told bunge above. It's not about what you think is an issue. It's not even what I think is an issue. It's what's going to matter to msot of the electorate, and "it" is both peace and prosperity.



    The econoym going well is not good for Dems. I can't believe you can;t admit that. Now, the public perception on Iraq is that it's not going too well (though overall, I'm not sure that's accurate). That MAY be a postive for them.



    I can see them running on the deficit, perhaps the deficit situation, problems in Iraq (but again, I don't know where that will be in a year).



    Again..I'm asking: What else can they really run on? I'm honestly looking at this from the standpoint of a Demcratic leader. If we were writing a campaign strategy to beat Bush, what would it be?



    If you can't separate what you WANT to happen from what is LIKELY to happen, then we can't even discuss the issue.











    Oh goody! There it is again! Bush loves the rich! He hates the poor! He's an oil whore! Dean loves me! Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean!




    Another thing we don't have either peace or prosperity. You think Bush is going to slide by on the the electoral college like he did last time don't you?



    That was a very close race and I wouldn't count on voter apathy this time. There are many people out there pissed at dubbya! Sections of the country that normally vote republican aren't very happy with dubbya right now. I don't think there is nearly enough time to alter that feeling before next November.
  • Reply 115 of 130
    Quote:

    There are many people out there pissed at dubbya!



    You mean like these people?







    As clarke said, bush JUNIOR is going to need brothers in 49 others states to pull this one off...
  • Reply 116 of 130
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,789member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Rest assured that the recent explosions in Saudi Arabia show that we still don't have the peace you're expecting.



    Being from the Great White North, I usually stay out of the American political threads. But c'mon Bunge, we're really going to blame George W. Bush now for a lack of World Peace?



    Stuff has been getting blown up in the Mideast since whoever invented dynamite.



    Bin Laden objected to the U.S. presence there and is still blowing people up in a civilian neighborhood even though there's now no U.S. military presence there.



    Numerous U.S. presidents, including Clinton, tried and failed to bring peace to the area. Unless we're talking about Iraq specifically, I can't see how a lack of Mideast peace would factor into the U.S election.
  • Reply 117 of 130
    Well when the gambit was to go to war and bring democracy to Iraq... with middle east peace the bonus.



    That's what people were saying before the war. Any unrealistic expectations can be blamed on the Bush doctrine.



    It's like hitting a bees nest with a big stick and expecting the honey to flow... and not get stung.
  • Reply 118 of 130
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,789member
    I understand your point chu_bakka.



    but the Iraq war began on March 19 THIS YEAR. I'd think it unreasonable for anybody's policy to bring full mideast peace inside of nine months.



    And while your President has his faults, I don't remember him promising anything of the sort.
  • Reply 119 of 130
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Being from the Great White North, I usually stay out of the American political threads. But c'mon Bunge, we're really going to blame George W. Bush now for a lack of World Peace?



    Stuff has been getting blown up in the Mideast since whoever invented dynamite.



    Bin Laden objected to the U.S. presence there and is still blowing people up in a civilian neighborhood even though there's now no U.S. military presence there.



    Numerous U.S. presidents, including Clinton, tried and failed to bring peace to the area. Unless we're talking about Iraq specifically, I can't see how a lack of Mideast peace would factor into the U.S election.




    It just happened to be the most timely example. Al Qaeda is still active, that's my point. I'm not blaming Bush for unrest in the world. I'm saying he'll be held accountable for any Al Qaeda activity since he made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda. Anything short of that is a failure.
  • Reply 120 of 130
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,789member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    It just happened to be the most timely example. Al Qaeda is still active, that's my point. I'm not blaming Bush for unrest in the world. I'm saying he'll be held accountable for any Al Qaeda activity since he made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda. Anything short of that is a failure.



    I guess this is where we'll have to disagree. Al Qaeda predates Bush. Clinton also tried and failed to do anything significant about them. And I don't think Bush made it his job to rid the world of Al Qaeda.



    September 11th did.
Sign In or Register to comment.