If you consider the end of the Dot.Com bust, I agree.

But since February '03, you have to admit we've had solid growth. According to Democrats, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, Democrats said the exact opposite would happen in the years following February '03. I haven't heard the Democrats move from that prediction.

In fact, they keep pushing how bad the economy has gotten since February '03 and has said that Bush is lying when he says the economy has been growing since the Iraq War and ensuing Terror-Insurgency began.

Dutch: Show me one prominent Dem that has said Bush is lying that the economy is growing. You're just making that up. Now there have been plenty of critiques of who is benefitting from the current growth and as far as I'm concerned some of that is justified. Real wages for average Americans have declined until the past quarter.

I recently read what I think is a good explanation to the disconnect between economic numbers and the public's perception of the economy. The country is really separated between those that live paycheck to paycheck and those that don't. If you live paycheck to paycheck, regardless how much you make or how many possesionsyou have, this economy feels dangerous. Its very hard to find a long-term stable job and if you lose your job you lose your healthcare as well. Add to that rising gas costs that most people just have to absorb somehow and things feel more precarious for the individuals living paycheck to paycheck than the overall numbers might suggest.

I agree, I have never been a fan of Bush and his administration in general. Neocons do not mesh well with libertarians. But the greater enemy of libertarianism is socialism and I would rather run further away from that. I do not want people to have expectations of the govt to do something, because that always cost more money and get less results. This is esp. true when any president has "bi-partisan" support or high popularity, they feel they have a mandate of some sort. As far as foreign affairs, I believe that they alternate history would not have been any better, just a little different. Iraq would have been a major thorn one way or another; same for Iran. If not them, then it would be some other places. I want us to get back to doing more ourselves and taking more personal responsibilities and not ceeding more of our liberties to those taking our money and using it to bribe and extort.

I wonder if the Dems/liberals/libertarians are in for a bit of a sad suprise when this all plays out. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, I propose, not because the country has suddenly moved to the left. Bush's ratings are in the toilet because he is HORRIBLE at his job.

The disapproval is not with the neocon agenda--but with Bush's execution of that agenda. If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.

I just don't see how Bush screwing up makes people change their views on abortion, the environment, the judiciary, etc.

That is what the neocons are attempting to do, to paint it as the fault of Bush not being a real conservative (a couple of prominent radical righters have called Bush 'liberal' in the past couple of days). It's the Dem's job to show that it was a combination of incompetance and terrible policy. The nation loves the nationalistic part of the Bush presidency, but I don't think they like the domestic policy at all. Public opinion of foreign policy used to be the only thing holding Bush up back when he had respectable poll numbers.

Well a majority of the country already favors abortion and favors environmentalism (the latter is why the GOP needs to name bills that pollute the sky 'Clean Air Initiatives' and bills that cut down trees 'Healthy Forest'). I'm not sure of the public's opinion on the judiciary, but I would imagine that a population that is in favor of abortion in some form would want the same from their judges.

In some ways I'm with Albion on this one. I really think the Dems are counting on Bush's approval ratings, or disapproval as we stand now, too much. I think they really have to change their agenda to make it more popular. Bush didn't win the second time around because people thought he was doing a great job. His approval ratings were lower than 50%, when he was elected by more than 50% of the electorate. Clearly this should tell the Democrats that there was something wrong with their agenda in the 2004 election, at least wrong in the public's eyes.

I just think the Dems will be in for a disappointment if they are counting on Bush's appeal, or lack thereof, winning the day for them in the upcoming mid-terms. They need to address their message as well.

IIRC, Bush's approval numbers jumped just above 50% during the election. In any case, if he had 48% approval and got 51% of the vote, then if he has 30% approval he wouldn't get more than 35% of the vote, and there is practically no difference, electorally speaking, in the two. I'm sure the GOP is worried about it, several members will be dragged down by it. Hell, it looks like even a Dem (Lieberman) will be dragged down by it.

And the Dems do need a clearer message, but they don't need to change their agenda to make it more popular. On the big issues they seem to side with the majority of the American people according to opinion polls.

I don't know about that. What I mean by that is that I think Republicans can pull out different polls that show that they hold the majority opinion on abortion and the like. Polls on subjects like that vary based on the language used in the questioning, the specific categories offered, and more. II think a lot of folks don't want abortion banned, but do believe that there should be reasonable constraints applied to the practice. So they agree with part of the Dem party line on the subject in saying that "abortion should be legal and available", but differ on the Dem party line that defends abortion constraint with the ferocity of the NRA using the same "slippery slope" argument.

The point I'm making is that while 30 something percent of the public approve of Bush's performance, probably a much higher percentage of people would still vote for him over Kerry or another Democrat candidate. I'm saying that I don't think Bush was elected because people believed in him, they just believed that he was the lesser of two evils. The Dems haven't really modified their version of "evil" since then, and I think they need to if they want to really take advantage of Bush's poll numbers.


On the other thing you touched on.
I hope Lieberman isn't "pulled down". He's one of the few good Dems left, in my opinion. Of course I consider McCain to be just about the best thing about Republicans too, so apparently my opinion doesn't mean too much to hardened partisans in either party.

That's fuzzy math.

:)

Actually, you can't can't count on it being that cut-and-dried. There are many people who will vote against the dems no matter what Bush's approval rating might be.

I agree with you. There is something about the system that has made it tough for the best candidate to get the nomination, IMO.

I don't see how you can get that Bush would have anything near to 50% of the vote now that is approval is 20% lower than when he actually got 50% of the vote, but we could probably argue about that all day.

Well yeah, that makes sense to me, since Lieberman and McCain are both conservatives of one sort or another, especially on foreign policy. I used to like McCain, but the most incorrect meme ever is that he is some straight talking moderate. He is actually to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy: for example, he wants to send MORE troops to Iraq, and is a huge hawk. Being against torture does not make one a moderate, that used to be the accepted position of 95% of the country.

It is so odd to see clear thinking in a political thread on the fofc. I'm a little flabbergasted.

I really dislike the linear political spectrum concept and think it gets way overused in American politics. Wanting to have more troops in Iraq didn't mean McCain was "to the right of" Bush, it means he was not an idiot. We clearly were unable to maintain basic law and order. You either need to get enough troops in there to do the job or get the fuck out. I don't see how that has anything to do with left and right. At this point I don't know that more troops are going to make a difference, but McCain was right when it mattered..

Along similar lines it bothers me to see McCain and Lieberman lumped together here (as they often are). They probably occupy a similar space on a linear political spectrum, but are otherwise night and day. McCain is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (or least he has been so far, we'll see how this speech at Liberty U. comes off). Lieberman is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative (IMHO the worst of both worlds), and stupid most of the time to boot...

I'm not sure I agree with this. First of all, you're assuming that a significant proportion of Americans actually understand the neocon agenda. Secondly, you're assuming that a majority of Americans actually agree with that agenda.

Thirdly, I don't think the GOP and neocon agendas are the same thing, unless you're saying that they are because the neocons have hijacked the current GOP to their own aims. I rather doubt GOP faithful of the Reagan stripe are wholeheartedly behind the neocon agenda, to say nothing who agree with even older GOP ideals.

The neocon agenda preaches an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that strives to achieve American hegemony throughout the world (I'm generalizing). Given the current context (an apparent failure of this policy in Iraq - apparent to the majority of the American electorate that is), I'm not sure that a continued execution of this policy would result in 80%+ approval ratings. Especially when your average American voter is going to say "What, invade X like we did Iraq? Cousin Jim Bob went to Iraq and came back with no legs. Fuck that!"


Approval ratings are a reflection of the public's perception of the actions of the President. Those actions may be objectively good, objectively bad, or objectively irrelevant to the success of the nation as a whole. When asked to rate the President, the pollee is going to ask themselves a multitude of questions, amongst which might be: "Do I agree with his goals?" "Do I agree with the methods he uses to achieve these goals?" "Are his results good for me?"

Given that context, it's difficult for me to see how a vast majority of the populace (the 80% you indicate) would answer in the affirmative if a GOP/neocon strategy was executed, even executed well. Especially when that strategy isn't anything close to Reagan or Clinton saying "Let it ride" and getting lucky with the stock market. That strategy pushes a specific worldview, specific mechanisms to make it come about, and works for specific results, all of which I doubt 80% of Americans agree.

This is a well thought out post, and I agree with it. My only real point above is that I don't see that the social dynamics in this country that gave the GOP a majority of the popular vote in the last major election have changed much. And that the Democrats should understand that disaproval of Bush does not necessarily equate to people getting on board with the Democratic plan or jumping ship on the GOP plan. It may simply mean that people have picked up on the fact that if Bush flipped burgers as well as he ran a country he would probably get laid off from Hardees.

We were apparently losing WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were defeated in the Phillipines and Europe was apparently losing when Nazi Germany was 20 km from Moscow. But the reality was quite a bit different than the perception, wasn't it? The fight isn't done. I don't like the thought of defeat while our troops are still in Iraq. We will win this fight and the Iraqi government survives. The question is, when we do win the fight and Iraq stands on it's own legs backed by a democracy, will you give the US credit for a job well done? I think we should give the US a lot of credit, but I'm skeptical that we will.

Also, If I may object, the average American voter does not know somebody who lost his legs in Iraq. Vietnam maybe, WWII definately, but not Iraq.


I do agree. I don't think the GOP stands a chance in hell in the next election and it's because the President has not done a good job of getting his agenda out to the people. On the other hand, the liberals have done an outstanding job of getting people to understand their agenda. The middle 33% (read: fence sitters) won't be aware enough to do anything other than vote for Hillary or abstain. The end result; Democrats really don't have to change their approach at all to win in 2008. 2006 elections should be pro-liberal as well.

I almost choked on my desert when I saw that trio. While I believe certain Dems (mostly those in the past) can be libertarian-minded, liberals (by definition) cannot be. There is no one prominent for the Dems that carried on the works of Proxmire for whenever there is a hint of budget reductions or cuts or slowing increases, it seems like there is a solid block coming out in opposition. I've seen this not only at the federal level, but in several states as well. Just take a look at those opposing state-wide initiatives/amendments to restrict taxation or other reductions in revenues.

I am not sold on that a true "neocon" agenda would be libertarian-minded because what they want to achieve costs money, a lot of it. One could argue that a true "liberal" agenda would cost far, far more but I think once it reaches a certain point, the effect of inefficiencies, wastefulness, recklessness and corruption, not mention the power obtained through extortions and briberies, becomes mind-numbing.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, and I'll expand on that when I reply to Dutch in a sec.

I disagree with this completely. I still think the main Democrat message is "We're not Bush." If Democrats can make their views understood and they resonate reasonably well with the people, they should do well in 2006 and 2008. They way they are going currently, I don't see them gaining a large number of seats. They still seem bent on destroying Bush's political capital rather than trying to generate their own.

I have said this before, but I really think the democrats should embrace and run on the concept of accountability. The current combination of the Bush administration and congress has really slipped away from "the buck stops here" philosophy and I think that is something that the democrats could really use to their advantage.

Realistically, something like accountability could stick with swing voters, much like morality did with them in 2000 and 2002, and decisiveness did in 2004.

With that said, i do not see them doing that yet, and it may well be too late to pound that concept into voters' minds.

I wish you'd stop comparing Iraq to WWII. We've been over and over this and they're two completely separate things.


Fair enough. A point I wanted to make with this, though, was that I've met a fair number of Republicans who plan to sit out 2006 because either a) they're Reserve/Guard and got screwed over by Iraq or b) they have family in the Armed Forces and have suffered a loss. This isn't by any means an overwhelming majority of the electorate, but it's part of the GOP "base" they're losing this time around, due to this issue.

And yes, there are probably still plenty who think we're doing the right thing (as you do) and will vote to keep it that way.


I think there's a difference between 2006 and 2008. The 2006 election will be, for better or worse, a referendum on the GOP in general and the Congressional scandals and Bush's performance in specific. While the odd compelling GOP candidate may be able to overcome this (and obviously those in safe seats don't have to worry), a good number of Reps and Senators in hotly-contested seats are going to pay for this, largely through the function of Republicans staying home from the polls. This particular dynamic has played itself out many times before, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again.

Given this, the correct strategy for the Dems in 2006 is to continue to push the "GOP Reps & Senators are crooks, and Bush is an incompetent" message. It fires up the base, and as the message heads out into the mainstream, it will probably keep enough moderate Republicans home.

Having said that, I think 2006 will be a little underwhelming for the Dems. If you look closely at the numbers in the races, it's very unlikely the Dems will pick up enough seats to control either chamber in Congress, so they'll be in much the same position (though they can probably cause even more trouble in the Senate, with some pick-ups).

For 2008, however, this won't be a winning message. Maybe if the GOP candidate was Bush, or maybe if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone with close ties to Bush. If the Dems want to win in 2008, their candidate needs to show up with a positive message. At that point the electorate will have had roughly 6-7 years of trouble, from terrorism to the economy, and want to hear that someone has a plan to lead the country to better times. I think, frankly, that's the message that will win in 2008. Sadly (as a Democrat), I'm pretty certain it's a message that Hillary won't be able to deliver, or at least deliver convincingly.

Thus, the 2008 election will be all about the candidates and their own charisma.

Japan was apparently losing WWII when Hiroshima was bombed. Nazi Germany was apparently losing when the Russians were 20 km from Moscow. The South was apparently losing when Sherman burned Atlanta. Saddam was apparently losing when American tanks rolled into Baghdad. The reality was pretty much in line with those perceptions, wasn't it?

Yes, things can be turned around. But that doesn't happen magically, and the odds are against it.

I agree, to a point. I think it depends on how the Democrats go about it. In 2004, it seemed that the message the Dems were saying wasn't "This is what we stand for" and more "We hate Bush", which isn't, and won't work, despite the negative opinion of the President right now. Too many people in the grass roots of the country have a tendency to support a sitting President, regardless of who that person is.

So, yes, the Dems have a great chance to taking back not only the Presidency, but alot of Congress, but only if they go on issues, and not on a hatred of the opposition.

The big difference is that the US military is under no threat of surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Politically, I agree, it's a little up in the air. I hope GWB stays the course.

No, McCain is in favor of sending more troops to Iraq RIGHT NOW, not when it would have mattered during the invasion. Only in retrospect does he feel that more troops should have been used in the beginning, he didn't say it at the time. The 'rogue state rollback' foreign policy that we have right now was actually stolen from McCain back during the 2000 election, before 9/11. Attacking countries pre-emptively only with huge armies is not be the 'moderate' position of foreign policy. It is very much to the right.

Why would you hope that George would stay in the same losing course?

You seem to be taking a position that going on hatred of the opposition is just a losing strategy. But it works very well for the Right, so maybe the Left just isn't as good at it as they are.

Well, we're gonna disagree with your contention that the Right ran on hatred. They ran on the idea of core family values, which appeals to a large number of people from rural areas.

So, yes running based on the hatred for the other side, specifically against a sitting President, doesn't work. The Republicans tried it during Clinton's second term, and it didn't work for them either.

I actually liked Dole's campaign, I think 9 times out of 10 it would win - he was just up against a machine.

I think if Dole would have shown the personallity he did after he lost the race during it, he would have done better.

Still would have lost, but would have done better.

I wouldn't.

I dunno - there's something like 25% of this country which believes the greatest threat facing them (as per the last election) is "family values", which too often translates to "I hate gayz they're icky" - I think the worst thing that core can do for the GOP is potentially stay home, and I don't think they're likely to do that given what's at stake.

But you just said...whaaaa?

I would gather that the number is greater than 25%.

And, FWIW, I think it's less "gays are icky" than "gays shouldn't marry" and a religious belief that condemns it. Say what you will about that opinion, and religion/politics, but the idea strikes a chord with a good number of people. Democrats have a tendency to stay away from that, and side away from Christians and stricter Christian beliefs, and that's why people, especially in rural areas, side more with Republicans.

"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

The immigration issue does not break down left/right lines cleanly.

To counter:
Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush
Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order
Stupid White Men
449 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said

And that was just browsing through Amazon for a couple of minutes. My point is both sides do it. Both sides, and more recently the Dems have done alot of the badgering.

Concerning the "Swiftboat" thing, the Dems put false documents in Dan Rather's hands in the closing weeks of the election. Again, while both sides are guilty, perception is that the Dems are overly negative, and it bit them come election time.


I'm not sure what you mean by "plusses and minuses". I mean, I personally think the GOP is bending over backwards in their immigration bill -- much more than I would, in that they're allowing illegals to stay here. I'm not sure what more the GOP can do.

The first book is critical of the press. The second book was written by someone that I have never heard of. The third one's insult is "stupid", not really up to par with 'traitor', 'evil', 'death', etc, in terms of inspring hatred. And none of those first three generalizes the opposition at all like the ones I mentioned (liberals, Democrats, etc). The last one has a Democratic counterpart, hardly an example of a partisan author with hatred of the opposition.

I don't remember it being a Dem that put the false documents in Dan Rather's hands. I also don't remember it being presented as fact on prime time cable news shows long after it was discredited.

Plusses and minuses refers to the good and the bad things that come from illegal immigration. The GOP is bending over backwards because their corporate business donor base is very much opposed to restricting illegal immigration.

george W is my homeboy

I'm not a big "Family Values" voter, but I'll tell you what. "Family Values" isn't code for anything. It doesn't translate to we hate gays. It means a lot of specific things, but I think it is more of a general resistance to the decay of values in society. A good number of people feel that some elements of society are committing crimes and investing their life and time in self gratification(drugs and other pursuits contrary to responsibility) because they didn't grow up in a functional healthy family. Family Values is about focusing or investing in the core principle of "family" and the benefits conveyed to both individuals and society as a whole.

When those on the left attack "family values, and reduce it down to homophobia, it doesn't win them friends on the right or the middle.

Also you have all of this bullshit about how the Republicans push hate. The left ran a campaign of demogoguery against Bush in 2004, and it didn't work. I love the cartoon from the day after the election that had the donkey waking up in bed with Michael Moore with a caption saying "How did we end up here?" You throw out the Swift boat guys, but Bush distanced himself from them..he didn't embrace their message. The freaking DNC ran ads attacking Bush on the essentially baseless AWOL business, along with the favored son bit. They ran those on their own website. The Dems certainly can't hold their heads up high and say they don't campaign on hate.

I didn't reduce it to homophobia, I reduced it to homophobia and sexophobia. Glen I must have missed when the GOP was talking about a Constitutional Amendment to ban drugs, or pushing for Supreme Court justices that wanted to outlaw self-gratification. I remember the big issues being gays marrying and abortion. I'm sure a lot of people feel the way you are portraying them as feeling, but that is not what is bringing them to the polls.

I love how you throw out the swift boat stuff because Bush distances himself from it, then use DNC ads to say all the left is bad (essentially baseless? I missed where Bush provided evidence of where he was). Is Bush the entire Right spin machine? Talk about a straw man. The Swift Boat guys were paraded around on Hannity, O'Reilly, and FoxNews for months.

Can you please cite examples of demogoguery against Bush in 2004? Keep in mind that the GOP spent the entire year of 2004 calling most liberals traitors, I want to see something of that nature from a major source, i.e., not Ward Churchill or some other podunk professor from the midwest.

http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html
"Essentially baseless"? Those were just the revelations from one day.

We aren't losing.

You're kidding me? Dole's campaign was one of the worse in the past 35 years. We're talking Mondale bad.

Glen, I'm no fan of the Dems - hell, a GOP without the religious right is more along the lines of my party - those people scare me. Yet they proposed a frigging amendment to the constitution that would ban "gay marriage" - more than any other issue, that was the brainchild of the religous right. I certainly agree with you that "cultual decay" may be a larger part of the problem, but its manifestation in politics appears to be primarily on the gay marriage issue - as Bigglesworth pointed out, compare the political steps taken against the other issues you cited, compared to gay marriage.

Worse than Kerry's in 2004?

I don't know why I'm asking, since I know what the answer will be, but what is "surrendering Iraq to the terrorists"?

Hey Kerry was in the running. Of course he wasn't up against Clinton, so maybe the comparison is lacking.

The proposed amendment on Gay Marriage...How hard has that been pushed? The Amendment to ban abortion, that was also one of the GOP "Planks" in 2004. How far has that been pushed? There have been more bills proposed to encourage families to stay together than there has been to ban marriage and abortion(partial extraction excluded).

The people who equate "family values" to homophobia are just participating in a smear campaign.

Again for those who blame homophobia for bringing voters to the polls and winning Bush the election in 2004. I think you need to reexamine the facts with less than the rose colored glasses that you wore during your previous analysis. The left arrived at the conclusion that the gay marriage question won the day for the right by bringing out the base. I'm saying that John Kerry was enough to bring out the base, and that the gay marriage bit is convenient because it allows the left to believe that there was nothing wrong with their positions. They can claim it was those "damn dumb predjudiced blue staters that cost us the election." I would submit that they and you are wrong.