I also think Bush's conservative base won't come around like people assume. This has been anything but a conservative president. Clinton was arguably more conservative than Bush. If the Republicans lose their base, it's death for them.
While Bush has whored away America's fiscal future, and is thus less fiscally conservative than Clinton, he's been a red-meat throwing fanatic for the social right, which is increasingly the dominant faction of the Republican establishment. The religious right has pushed the principled, small-government, libertarian right out of the GOP's driver's seat once and perhaps for all in recent years.
Bush has governed like a member of the religious conservative movement, not the traditional conservative movement. Because those religious nutballs get out and vote far more uniformly than the more thoughtful and principled conservatives who were once led by Bob Dole, the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
I have a feeling that the Dems won't need to take federal election funding this time around. And of course Bush won't. Bush will massively outspend the Dems, but that's no different than normal.
No, both parties will take general election funding. While there's no political will out there to hold people to the line about primary election funding, for either party to eschew general election funding would blow open a debate on election financing that neither side wants.
hehe. Yeah! All those terrorist attacks on our soldiers are distracting the press from reporting on how well everything's going!
Cheers
Scott
yes, of course
but......
you can't tell me that the news coming out of Iraq is doing much else than focusing on the negative.
On the KBR thing---that outfit is only one of only a handfull of companies who work on that scale---they've been present in every administration. Clinton hired them in Bosnia, etc.
...and I don't remember Bosnia being a bed of roses either.
That's the same argument. If it weren't for all the negative stuff happening in Iraq, people would be hearing about the good stuff that's going on....
Cheers
Scott
Somewhat true, but if it bleeds it leads. The system is wieghted against "good news".
We wouldn't hear about it even if it were the only thing happening. Even if W and co. had gone in, had an immaculate reception/changeover in power, the Old Gray Lady and it's staff of factcheckers would have still found the gray lining in his silver cloud. Somewhat akin to the tepid reaction to what we did in Afghanistan.
I think it's odd that anyone would assume that the press, in any incantation, is in any way capable of staying "nuetral" past the first or second printing of whatever it prints.
While Bush has whored away America's fiscal future, and is thus less fiscally conservative than Clinton, he's been a red-meat throwing fanatic for the social right, which is increasingly the dominant faction of the Republican establishment. The religious right has pushed the principled, small-government, libertarian right out of the GOP's driver's seat once and perhaps for all in recent years.
Bush has governed like a member of the religious conservative movement, not the traditional conservative movement. Because those religious nutballs get out and vote far more uniformly than the more thoughtful and principled conservatives who were once led by Bob Dole, the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Kirk
Can you give some examples? He signed the "partial birth" abortion bill, but any Republican would have done that. He proposed, but really didn't implement the religious charities changes. I really can't think of how he's played to the religious right.
About the federal funding: we'll see. The fact that Dean went without it in the primaries, and the fact that Bush will be able to raise such massively incredible wads of cash, makes me think he'll forego it.
Somewhat true, but if it bleeds it leads. The system is wieghted against "good news".
Maybe in your simplified world this is a full explanation
Quote:
Somewhat akin to the tepid reaction to what we did in Afghanistan.
This is just stupid
Quote:
I think it's odd that anyone would assume that the press, in any incantation, is in any way capable of staying "nuetral" past the first or second printing of whatever it prints.
It's too much power.
Yes. You are right. And Murdoch is taking full advantage of this. Now CNN is trying it's best to look 'center,' so it publishes the drivel coming out of bush officials as if it's cold hard fact.
Of course, it's also due to laziness.
Those are the two things really leading mainstream TV news: attempts to be 'center' (meaning pandering to the delusions of bush zealots) and laziness.
Maybe in your simplified world this is a full explanation
This is just stupid
Yes. You are right. And Murdoch is taking full advantage of this. Now CNN is trying it's best to look 'center,' so it publishes the drivel coming out of bush officials as if it's cold hard fact.
Of course, it's also due to laziness.
Those are the two things really leading mainstream TV news: attempts to be 'center' (meaning pandering to the delusions of bush zealots) and laziness.
I dunno giant, something is up with the way the country looks at the news. The guys on the left seem more cagey, you drop a pin and they go for blood. I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR the other day, Alec Baldwin was on there, and wizzed all over this "new scrutiny" everyone is giving him. Everyone remembers the Tim Robbins "chill wind" speech at the washington press club.
I suspect we are returning to a time when we have REAL debate in this country. Moving away from a time when everyone sat and eat whole whatever Walter Cronkite spooned across the desk, to a time when a site like drudgereport (yes right leaning---but willing to call Bush or Ashcroft a spade from time to time) is the busiest site on the internet.
Look at the press when John Adams ran for his second term. "Arguements" that ran in the papers back them would make this forum look like barbie.com---and would probably put someone like Baldwin into therapy.
I am just completely blown away by you, jimmac. As always.
Your steadfast refusal to see aything positive at all for Bush (and everything negative) shows what a blind partisan you are. I have presented an extensive list of things the President has going for him...a list that many responsible Democrats are right to be concerned about.
The economy is now is very good shape. There is no argument against that anymore. Further argument on your part just makes you look like an ass.
Bush will capitalize on his tax cuts and campaign on making them permament. I personally believe they did work, but even if you don't, he WILL use it to political advantage because...say it with me...THE ECONOMY IS IN RECOVERY AND PEOPLE WILL CREDIT THE CUTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY DID THE JOB. Please God, help jimmac see this.
Dean is a Leftist. He will attempt to come to the center for general election. Dean can also not win the general election.
Bush will be seen by most people in this country as a strong wartime leader. Maybe not by you, but by the majority.
Bush will capitalize on the medicare bill. there won't be enough time to delve into its intricacies.
Bush is running unopposed. Bush will raise lots of money. Bush will spend lots of money.
There is no strong third party candidate.
Bush has not broken a no new taxes pledge like his father did.
And now Bush will be credited for getting Saddam. Iraq will be under a provisional government by June.
If you honestly can't see these things...if you are so blindly partisan as to not see why all this is bad for the national disaster that is the Democratic party right now, than I seriously, seriously, pity you. Support whomever you choose...but admit reality.
And a partridge in a pear tree!
Look I just tell it like it is. Don't blame me for Bush's short comings. The economy appears to be doing better however jobs aren't following like they should. Without new jobs there is no long term recovery. Period.
I will say something positive about our drug taking, money spending, deficit building, lieing, DUI, warmongering president. It appears he's not an axe murderer!
Think about what you are saying, considering right-wing talk radio, tv personalities and the weekly standard (not to mention certain admin officials).
And that gentle soul, James Carville.
But...
Stick to your guns! Never give up! Don't compromise your principles! Stick them right in the face of the Ignorant, Stupid, Not-As-Educated-As-You-Are-American People!
It's up to you to keep waving the flags of discontent! Wave them right in their bourgeoisie faces! The proletariat cries out for your help and only you, (YOU!) can save them!!! Tonight, go to your window! Open it and GIVE VOICE TO YOUR RAGE AND OPPRESSION AND FRUSTRATION AND TELL IT, TELL IT TO THE NATION, THAT YOU'RE AS MAD AS HELL AND REGARDLESS OF HOW EVERYONE ELSE VOTES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANOTHER TERM OF GEORGE BUSH AS PRESIDENT!!!!!
THE OVERTHROW OF THE BOURGEOISIE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE SWAY OF THE PROLETARIAT! GO TO WHERE THE WORKERS ARE AND SHARE THE MESSAGE, SHARE THE VISION!
BLEND YOUR BEING WITH THE CAUSE, THE EXISTANCE, THE SHEER BRILLIANCE OF YOUR CANDIDATE! YOURS IS THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE!
(Pretty good, eh? At least Jesse Jackson Class. BTW: I'm not responsible for any injuries you incur or for your death if you do actually do or believe any of what I've written above. Hint: Some of you might want to arrange some kind of Intervention come November 3, 2004; have friends take sharp objects and such from your reach.... Just trying to help.)
"And they still won't change the fact that Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to see a net loss of jobs on his watch"
Funny. I never questioned this stat before last week. Look at the BLS and you'll see we have a had a net INCREASE in jobs over Bush's term. I know it sounds insane but it is true. Here's one link...not the one I'm really looking for.
What's your point. The 138.6 million figure was the one I was looking for. Go back and look at the data for when Bush took office re: total # of employed persons and you will see there are about 2 miilion more NOW then there were then. No shit. So someone explain to me how Bush has lost 3,000,000 jobs. Sounds good in a campaign, and until now I believed it too. Not only hasn't there been a loss, there's been a big gain. I'm telling you it isn't true. It's a godamn fabrication.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
I also think Bush's conservative base won't come around like people assume. This has been anything but a conservative president. Clinton was arguably more conservative than Bush. If the Republicans lose their base, it's death for them.
While Bush has whored away America's fiscal future, and is thus less fiscally conservative than Clinton, he's been a red-meat throwing fanatic for the social right, which is increasingly the dominant faction of the Republican establishment. The religious right has pushed the principled, small-government, libertarian right out of the GOP's driver's seat once and perhaps for all in recent years.
Bush has governed like a member of the religious conservative movement, not the traditional conservative movement. Because those religious nutballs get out and vote far more uniformly than the more thoughtful and principled conservatives who were once led by Bob Dole, the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Kirk
Originally posted by BRussell
I have a feeling that the Dems won't need to take federal election funding this time around. And of course Bush won't. Bush will massively outspend the Dems, but that's no different than normal.
No, both parties will take general election funding. While there's no political will out there to hold people to the line about primary election funding, for either party to eschew general election funding would blow open a debate on election financing that neither side wants.
Kirk
Originally posted by midwinter
hehe. Yeah! All those terrorist attacks on our soldiers are distracting the press from reporting on how well everything's going!
Cheers
Scott
yes, of course
but......
you can't tell me that the news coming out of Iraq is doing much else than focusing on the negative.
On the KBR thing---that outfit is only one of only a handfull of companies who work on that scale---they've been present in every administration. Clinton hired them in Bosnia, etc.
...and I don't remember Bosnia being a bed of roses either.
Originally posted by dmz
yes, of course
but......
you can't tell me that the news coming out of Iraq is doing much else than focusing on the negative.
That's the same argument. If it weren't for all the negative stuff happening in Iraq, people would be hearing about the good stuff that's going on....
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
That's the same argument. If it weren't for all the negative stuff happening in Iraq, people would be hearing about the good stuff that's going on....
Cheers
Scott
Somewhat true, but if it bleeds it leads. The system is wieghted against "good news".
We wouldn't hear about it even if it were the only thing happening. Even if W and co. had gone in, had an immaculate reception/changeover in power, the Old Gray Lady and it's staff of factcheckers would have still found the gray lining in his silver cloud. Somewhat akin to the tepid reaction to what we did in Afghanistan.
I think it's odd that anyone would assume that the press, in any incantation, is in any way capable of staying "nuetral" past the first or second printing of whatever it prints.
It's too much power.
Originally posted by Kirkland
While Bush has whored away America's fiscal future, and is thus less fiscally conservative than Clinton, he's been a red-meat throwing fanatic for the social right, which is increasingly the dominant faction of the Republican establishment. The religious right has pushed the principled, small-government, libertarian right out of the GOP's driver's seat once and perhaps for all in recent years.
Bush has governed like a member of the religious conservative movement, not the traditional conservative movement. Because those religious nutballs get out and vote far more uniformly than the more thoughtful and principled conservatives who were once led by Bob Dole, the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Kirk
Can you give some examples? He signed the "partial birth" abortion bill, but any Republican would have done that. He proposed, but really didn't implement the religious charities changes. I really can't think of how he's played to the religious right.
About the federal funding: we'll see. The fact that Dean went without it in the primaries, and the fact that Bush will be able to raise such massively incredible wads of cash, makes me think he'll forego it.
Originally posted by dmz
Somewhat true, but if it bleeds it leads. The system is wieghted against "good news".
Maybe in your simplified world this is a full explanation
Somewhat akin to the tepid reaction to what we did in Afghanistan.
This is just stupid
I think it's odd that anyone would assume that the press, in any incantation, is in any way capable of staying "nuetral" past the first or second printing of whatever it prints.
It's too much power.
Yes. You are right. And Murdoch is taking full advantage of this. Now CNN is trying it's best to look 'center,' so it publishes the drivel coming out of bush officials as if it's cold hard fact.
Of course, it's also due to laziness.
Those are the two things really leading mainstream TV news: attempts to be 'center' (meaning pandering to the delusions of bush zealots) and laziness.
Originally posted by dmz
Somewhat true, but if it bleeds it leads. The system is wieghted against "good news".
While I agree that the news gravitates toward the sensational, you must admit the following:
if it didn't bleed quite so much or so often, happier stories might be reported. But it does bleed. Seems like every day.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
Maybe in your simplified world this is a full explanation
This is just stupid
Yes. You are right. And Murdoch is taking full advantage of this. Now CNN is trying it's best to look 'center,' so it publishes the drivel coming out of bush officials as if it's cold hard fact.
Of course, it's also due to laziness.
Those are the two things really leading mainstream TV news: attempts to be 'center' (meaning pandering to the delusions of bush zealots) and laziness.
I dunno giant, something is up with the way the country looks at the news. The guys on the left seem more cagey, you drop a pin and they go for blood. I was listening to Fresh Air on NPR the other day, Alec Baldwin was on there, and wizzed all over this "new scrutiny" everyone is giving him. Everyone remembers the Tim Robbins "chill wind" speech at the washington press club.
I suspect we are returning to a time when we have REAL debate in this country. Moving away from a time when everyone sat and eat whole whatever Walter Cronkite spooned across the desk, to a time when a site like drudgereport (yes right leaning---but willing to call Bush or Ashcroft a spade from time to time) is the busiest site on the internet.
Look at the press when John Adams ran for his second term. "Arguements" that ran in the papers back them would make this forum look like barbie.com---and would probably put someone like Baldwin into therapy.
Originally posted by midwinter
While I agree that the news gravitates toward the sensational, you must admit the following:
if it didn't bleed quite so much or so often, happier stories might be reported. But it does bleed. Seems like every day.
Cheers
Scott
I agree
Originally posted by dmz
The guys on the left seem more cagey, you drop a pin and they go for blood.
Think about what you are saying, considering right-wing talk radio, tv personalities and the weekly standard (not to mention certain admin officials).
Originally posted by SDW2001
I am just completely blown away by you, jimmac. As always.
Your steadfast refusal to see aything positive at all for Bush (and everything negative) shows what a blind partisan you are. I have presented an extensive list of things the President has going for him...a list that many responsible Democrats are right to be concerned about.
The economy is now is very good shape. There is no argument against that anymore. Further argument on your part just makes you look like an ass.
Bush will capitalize on his tax cuts and campaign on making them permament. I personally believe they did work, but even if you don't, he WILL use it to political advantage because...say it with me...THE ECONOMY IS IN RECOVERY AND PEOPLE WILL CREDIT THE CUTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY DID THE JOB. Please God, help jimmac see this.
Dean is a Leftist. He will attempt to come to the center for general election. Dean can also not win the general election.
Bush will be seen by most people in this country as a strong wartime leader. Maybe not by you, but by the majority.
Bush will capitalize on the medicare bill. there won't be enough time to delve into its intricacies.
Bush is running unopposed. Bush will raise lots of money. Bush will spend lots of money.
There is no strong third party candidate.
Bush has not broken a no new taxes pledge like his father did.
And now Bush will be credited for getting Saddam. Iraq will be under a provisional government by June.
If you honestly can't see these things...if you are so blindly partisan as to not see why all this is bad for the national disaster that is the Democratic party right now, than I seriously, seriously, pity you. Support whomever you choose...but admit reality.
And a partridge in a pear tree!
Look I just tell it like it is. Don't blame me for Bush's short comings. The economy appears to be doing better however jobs aren't following like they should. Without new jobs there is no long term recovery. Period.
I will say something positive about our drug taking, money spending, deficit building, lieing, DUI, warmongering president. It appears he's not an axe murderer!
Originally posted by giant
Think about what you are saying, considering right-wing talk radio, tv personalities and the weekly standard (not to mention certain admin officials).
And that gentle soul, James Carville.
But...
Stick to your guns! Never give up! Don't compromise your principles! Stick them right in the face of the Ignorant, Stupid, Not-As-Educated-As-You-Are-American People!
It's up to you to keep waving the flags of discontent! Wave them right in their bourgeoisie faces! The proletariat cries out for your help and only you, (YOU!) can save them!!! Tonight, go to your window! Open it and GIVE VOICE TO YOUR RAGE AND OPPRESSION AND FRUSTRATION AND TELL IT, TELL IT TO THE NATION, THAT YOU'RE AS MAD AS HELL AND REGARDLESS OF HOW EVERYONE ELSE VOTES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANOTHER TERM OF GEORGE BUSH AS PRESIDENT!!!!!
THE OVERTHROW OF THE BOURGEOISIE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE SWAY OF THE PROLETARIAT! GO TO WHERE THE WORKERS ARE AND SHARE THE MESSAGE, SHARE THE VISION!
BLEND YOUR BEING WITH THE CAUSE, THE EXISTANCE, THE SHEER BRILLIANCE OF YOUR CANDIDATE! YOURS IS THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE!
(Pretty good, eh? At least Jesse Jackson Class. BTW: I'm not responsible for any injuries you incur or for your death if you do actually do or believe any of what I've written above. Hint: Some of you might want to arrange some kind of Intervention come November 3, 2004; have friends take sharp objects and such from your reach.... Just trying to help.)
Aries 1B
Originally posted by chu_bakka
huh? was that satire?
No, it was encouragement.
Blend!
G'night to you.
Aries 1B
Funny. I never questioned this stat before last week. Look at the BLS and you'll see we have a had a net INCREASE in jobs over Bush's term. I know it sounds insane but it is true. Here's one link...not the one I'm really looking for.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Originally posted by chu_bakka
so look at Novembers numbers.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
What's your point. The 138.6 million figure was the one I was looking for. Go back and look at the data for when Bush took office re: total # of employed persons and you will see there are about 2 miilion more NOW then there were then. No shit. So someone explain to me how Bush has lost 3,000,000 jobs. Sounds good in a campaign, and until now I believed it too. Not only hasn't there been a loss, there's been a big gain. I'm telling you it isn't true. It's a godamn fabrication.
Is the population of the U.S. a static number?