since Bush's rating have been stuck under 45% for weeks/months now, we are seeing the fence sitters get off the fence. How to swing them to the Dem side is a question, and the GOP Media will do all it can to keep that from happening - demonize Dean and Conyers, continue to use "Liberal" at each and every opportunity. But thats life. My main question is what is Karl Rove going to do to turn this around, get W. even back to the high 40's, so anything can be accomplished for the NeoNutConservative base from here to 08. Or, does he just not have a plan....for anything? From what I see, he's great at cheating elections and not much else.
Posted by T2 at June 17, 2005 08:50 AMInteresting. Todays poll on MSNBC was running about 95% saying Bush mislead the public on Iraq. And now, like magic, that poll vanished, replaced by a Tom Cruise poll. Wow, that GOP Media Control is awsome.
Then Rove announces a Bush national chat in a week to tell us all what we need to understand about Iraq. Can't wait. Of course, no change in policy will be forthcoming, just a rousing pep talk, you know, "stay the course".
Steve,
"We are at a critical point where the Democrats can pull people back over to their side with a clear argument about what they can do for the country if more of them are elected next year."
I agree, but what I'd really like to hear from you - as a memeber of the left - is how you'd pitch the Democratic Party to those mid-list voters. Because I don't think you really want to pitch mid-list causes and actions to them: I think you really believe you can convert them to your end of the political spectrum, and I think you're wrong to think that.
Is the country falling out of favor with Bush's policy/war in Iraq? Yes. Is that becuase we're suddenly becoming a progressive nation? No.
Vietnam ended because the people in the middle of the political spectrum turned against THAT war, but they didn't turn against war or national security or even dumbass military excusrsions like Grenada. We may be getting to a tipping point on Iraq, but that doesn't mean America is becoming pacifistic, and I'm worried that that's what you on the left are going to conclude, because you are at times as deluded as those on the far right.
So: what's your recipe for reaching out to the MODERATE VOTERS who are now mistrustful of Bush and the Republican Party? How do Dems appeal to these voters without asking for or expecting too much? And can you and your peers on the left recognize that small gains could yield big benefits for yourselves and our planet if you can refrain from gloating or demanding that moderate voters show some spine, get some balls, or generally turn into Deaniacs?
Curious,
I see nothing wrong with being "Deaniacs". Howard Dean is just telling it like it is -- that we have a corrupt and incompetent party in the White House and the Congress.
The most urgent domestic issue is not Social Security. The major domestic problems are:
- Solving the crisis in Medicare;
- Reducing the budget deficit (caused by Bush's tax cuts for the rich);
- Upgrading our education system to become more competitive in the world;
- Controlling the escalating cost of health care;
- Etc.
Similarly, the most urgent foreign policy issues are:
- Getting out of Iraq;
- Mending fences with our traditional allies;
- Bolstering the UN;
- Etc.
Democrats should focus on these points.
Jonathan
Posted by at June 17, 2005 10:28 AMJonathan,
"I see nothing wrong with being "Deaniacs"."
I know you see nothing wrong with it, which is my point. If you want those middle-of-the-road votes, you can't fess up to being a Deaniac any more than the Republicans could have fessed up to being corporate whore/fundamentalist radicals and taken Washington. Good for you for your convictions, but if you really believe that the country is moving toward your views you're wrong. The country is moving very, very slowly back to the MIDDLE after being a bit too far to the right during post 9/11 hysteria.
The left is still going to have to reach out without scaring anyone, and saying, "I'm a Deaniac and I'm proud!" isn't going to cut it.
Posted by Curious at June 17, 2005 10:59 AMCurious:
Can you show me where I have been "gloating or demanding that moderate voters show some spine, get some balls, or generally turn into Deaniacs"?
And I, as much as anyone here, don't confuse the public's changing views on Iraq with any supposed pacifism emerging from the populace. But I am not going to bite on a Peter Beinert/DLC argument here that the left is wimpy because it is against Iraq. That's bogus.
There is nothing inconsistent about supporting:
-the full completion of the Afghanistan mission;
-the pursuit of terrorists through a "security first, democracy later" approach with neighboring countries;
-an increase in our anti-terror efforts through the Special Forces using forward bases in selected countries;
-a total commitment to facility security here at home; and
-being totally against the Iraq war.
It would also help if we didn't undermine our credibility by treating Iran and Egypt's election efforts differently, and if we didn't undermine our moral authority to lecture others by running detention centers that drag us into the gutter along with those we claim to be superior to.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 17, 2005 11:07 AMThese are interesting figures. However, I wish some of the polls would show some internals to these numbers.
How many think congress isn't conservative enough, how many disapprove of how Bush is handling the war because he is holding back the military, etc. I just wonder how many Michael Savage types are out there complaining about Bush for being a liberal...
Posted by Tex at June 17, 2005 11:27 AMTEX..I don't know a bunch about Conservatives..but I know enough to know BIG Government is a problem for them, and Bush has created the Biggest Government ever. I know they are against the Government snooping into their private lives..hello Patriot Act. I know they are against the Federal Goverment telling the States what to do...Bush election 2000, Schiavo. I know they are against Nation Building...hello Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be that the internals you seek would show conservatives dislike a lot about the Bush's regime. But what are they to do?
Posted by T2 at June 17, 2005 12:03 PMIsn't it dangerous to offer any piece of legislation that can be voted on and then gutted in the Congressional reconciliation process? I was under the impression that the Republicans cannot be trusted to keep any legislation intact.
Posted by wary at June 17, 2005 12:24 PMThings are going so well in Iraq that GI's are starting to kill each other..notch up another success for Bush Policy..... oh and Oil Prices just reached an all time high today...another triumph for Bush and Cheney Secret Energy Program.
Posted by T2 at June 17, 2005 12:25 PMT2, what are we to do? Pray for a middle of the road demo or repub, who will not get us into conflicts thru deceit, and waste our human and monetary assets. Protect our borders and bring our soldiers home. I am ready for a minority candidate. Liberals and conservatives must work together to accomplish the difficult tasks ahead. We all want a decent place for our children and grandchildren. I am sorry for all the mistakes and bad decisions I have made.
Posted by Uneducated White Cracker at June 17, 2005 12:38 PMI think whoever runs for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 should propose much higher income taxes, and introduce the idea of a national sales tax. Take more money from people, and give it to the government where it truly belongs. Then we can offer more benefits and entitlements for the poor, illegal immigrants, etc.
Posted by muckdog at June 17, 2005 01:59 PMT2,
What are conservatives to do? Well, did they not know what they were voting for?
It isn't about liberal or conservative, it's about fundamentalists reactionaries vs. common sense.
Muck,
You obviously don't have a problem with taxes since Bush raised yours 27%.
Just saw Sen. Jeff Seesions Alabama On the hearing on Gitmo. I am ready to send him there for a few weeks as he describes it almost like Club Med. That’s why people opinions are so low for the congress. They are spending money like drunken sailors, Pass more laws yesterday than they do in weeks. Because there was the DSM hearing I guess they wanted to keep it out off site as no republicans showed up.
Tonight C-span 2 DMS repeat at 8. Saw the part, about that it the memos are true fixing the evidence to take this country to war is against the constitution and an impeachable offense, (Democracy now) There is also a movement starting in England to go after Blair.
I worry about the 52% approval rating on Terrorism. That was what Bush/Rove used to beat Kerry. (It didn't help that Kerry didn't have any of his own signatures issues and his IWR vote limited his ability to criticize Bush's war.) And Democrats must stop believing that nothing can beat something if the approval numbers for something are low enough. A majority of Israelis don't like Sharon, the French don't like Chirac and the Brits don't like Blair. Yet, they all won again.
Posted by Marie at June 17, 2005 03:07 PMMarie:
You make some very good points. We cannot rely on Bush's current unpopularity to win the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008.
The Democrats should offer specific solutions to specific problems, but we need an over-arching theme like the "Contract With America" that the Repuglicans used in 1994.
Perhaps we should study that particular playbook to see if there is something we can learn from it.
Jonathan
Posted by at June 17, 2005 06:02 PMThe poll numbers are interesting. Why is the terrorism approval rating so high juxtaposed against the others? We have been at "yellow" elevated since forever (with a an Orange for a day or two when politically expedient.) This means that the threat has never been reduced. We are no safer today than on 9/11 by our government's own admission.
At the same time, after 9/11 there has not even been a terrorist cherry bomb going off in post office box in four years. So maybe people think we must be successful in thwarting attacks. The truth, of course, is that the threat has been greatly exagerated for political reasons. BUT, the first time an American movie theatre, grocery store or school is attacked by some dimwit 'shoebomber' with a 1/4 stick of TNT, then what success is there to point to?
On one hand, for us conspiracy theorist skeptics, Bush needs a new attack now more than ever. On the other hand, a new attack would prove that our billions of Homeland Security dollars have been for naught.
Posted by Michael Alton Gottlieb at June 17, 2005 08:23 PM"TEX..I don't know a bunch about Conservatives..but I know enough to know BIG Government is a problem for them, and Bush has created the Biggest Government ever. I know they are against the Government snooping into their private lives..hello Patriot Act. I know they are against the Federal Goverment telling the States what to do...Bush election 2000, Schiavo. I know they are against Nation Building...hello Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be that the internals you seek would show conservatives dislike a lot about the Bush's regime. But what are they to do?"
"And let's not forget--let's not forget, Dude--that keeping wildlife...uh...an amphibious rodent... for, uh, domestic, you know, within the city limits... That ain't legal either."
Marie is taking this discussion in the right direction. When future polls seek opinions on the success of the president's campaign against terrorism, it would be good if the answers to three questions were available for recall by those being polled.
1. Exactly what steps has the president taken to prevent attacks by terrorists?
2. Of the steps mentioned in answer to the first question, which were forced upon the president by public opinion, e.g., the public's response to the report of the 911 commission?
3. What important steps has the president failed to take and why?
So where is the press?
JFD
Posted by Jack at June 18, 2005 03:59 AMThe terrorism numbers look high compared with the other numbers, but they are extremely low compared to the past. The terrorism numbers never dropped below 60% in the campaign, usually hovering around 63%. Only once did the terrorism numbers drop to the low 50s and that was during Richard Clarke's testimony at the 9/11 commission. So don't fret Bush's "high" numbers on terrorism. They are much lower than before and they can no longer sustain him or his party the way they did in, say, 2002.
Posted by Elrod at June 18, 2005 10:19 AMIf you want those middle-of-the-road votes, you can't fess up to being a Deaniac any more than the Republicans could have fessed up to being corporate whore/fundamentalist radicals and taken Washington.
You are ever so wrong. Here in the heart of the beast(dist22, or more precisly, Tom DeLays district) a lot of people like Dean just fine. Polls consistently show the majority of people are fiscally conservitive and social liberals.
That is what Dean is, and as a matter of fact he is a little too socialy conservitive for my taste.
But the main thing is...he is REAL....and as people sour on Bush, they will gravitate towards Dean or some one just like him.
But as the bug eyed crazies take over the Republican party and start their push for Biblical law, even some hard core conservitives will start to realiaze a little 60s flashback aint such a bad thing.
Even if they don't, where are they going to go?
Its kind of the same dilima the greens face today.
Posted by SnarkyShark at June 18, 2005 09:52 PM