Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by g5man, Oct 19, 2003.
Same thing happened to Clinton.
Except the hatred for him was largely based on a few accounts of oral sex, which is a failing any man could have.
Bush has really done some horrible things as president, failings that only the president could have, like starting aggressive wars.
Exactly. Clinton had his shortcomings, but they only affected the nation because a select few people were spiteful and wanted to make sure that they affected everyone. Bush has just plain f***ed up. It's obvious, it's open, and few people seem to care.
Good article -- thanks for posting it.
Brooks is at least somewhat right -- once the opposition to Bush becomes about superficial personality traits and mannerisms, the argument against Bush is effectively neutralized. This is similar to when Republicans tried to use Clinton's habit of biting his lower lip as proof positive that he was completely insincere.
I want to see the Democrats take on Bush issue by issue, because that's where I think they can beat him.
True very true, however those who hate Bush have not used the courts or congressional investigations to back up their claims. Everyone has an opinion, but unless they can sway public perception it will not become reality. Like IJ Reilly pointed out, the Democrats need to beat him on the issues in order to win.
The question than remains; How can they turn the hatred and strong opinions into wins at the ballot box?
all we have to do (imo) is point out the facts.
we have gone from a several trillion dollar surplus to a several trillion dollar deficit in three years thanks largely to bush's ->unbalanced<- tax cuts and his two wars.
civil rights have been severely eroded under his administration. you can now be held indefinitely without charge and without access to a lawyer.
he has squandered what goodwill we had acheived under clinton with our international allies. england is squarely on his side, but ~180 other nations seriously question our motives. (not the best argument to use against conservatives who don't give flying **** but might help get the liberal vote out)
he straight up LIED in his *State of the Union* address about iraqi purchases (or non-purchases as turns out) of enriched uranium from nigeria.
if we call him out, we can't let up. continue to point out verifiable lies and misrepresentations. preferably in 10-ft letters in front of the white house. don't let conservatives fluster us. they're better at that particular game than liberals. don't let them lead the debate either.
liberals tend to have just as short memories as conservatives. what other lies have come out so far that the media has ditched because the story has been past its prime?
The article also made this point:
"The other side is getting upset as well. David Brooks, the former Weekly Standard writer who recently became a New York Times columnist, took vigorous exception to Chait's piece, writing that
"the quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. . . . The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.""
Sadly, this is a point that I think is well made. The same was also true of the "Clinton-haters" during his administration. They seek so fervently to defame the President that they overlook any good attributes that are present.
Just remember as you talk about the President, whoever may be occupying the office at the time (it doesn't matter), be it positive or not, that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States and for that alone deserves respect. That goes for President Bush now, and for whoever replaces him later.
Patently ridiculous. The threat to democracy is not the President who stole an election? It's those that calls him on it.
So, it's not the administration that tries to silence political dissent, it's those who exercise their democratic rights. Not the AG who attacks the Constitution, who selectively prosecutes political activists, it's those who seek civil rights.
I take Brooks' point, at least as I understand what he's saying. Democracy should be about issues, not who find who to be more personally repellent. Leaving aside the repulsive behavior of Republicans during the Clinton years (and to this day), the culture war aspects of this really do represent a seriously dangerous trend in our politics.
You missed the point I was trying to make. People expend far to much energy looking for evidence to confirm what they already believe, namely that the President is a terrible person. They are so focused on confirming their opinion that they fail to take notice of any good things that President might have done. This is true of Republicans and Democrats alike. That's what the article was trying to communicate.
Dunno, the interview with the 'definition of 'is' is' is pretty bad.
Agreed. We are seriously turning into a Disunited States.
What will be Bush's undoing is the expansion of federal government and powers. Good thing the Patriot Act has an expiration date.
Reagan's tax cuts did give a good burst in economic activity, maybe Bush's tax cut will do the same thing. So far, it looks to be working, and kinda the same as with Reagan's. Economy did not pick up until into Reagan's 3rd year, pretty much the same with Bush.
Reagan also ran pretty large budget deficits, in military spending too.
So if I understand you correctly, those who do not like Bush are basically left with the plan of staying on message (as described by you above) and keep repeating it over and over again.
This of course can be very persuasive if further evidence appears to back up the claims made. On the other hand this strategy can also come across as too negative, especially if most people give him the benefit of the doubt.
What I don't seem to understand is why someone who dislikes the president so much can not approach this from a different angle. A little praise along with some constructive rebuke followed by a positive agenda may change peoples minds.
The issue of federal deficits regardless of who is to blame or how large they are is not something a regular person really cares about. This message would only hit home if suddenly a family is financially hit and the deficit can be blamed for the hit.
This is just one example of how this political game plan can not lead to a winning result.
this is one of the most retarded graphics, sorry. People vote, not square miles...and then in a county that Bush won, they add all of Gore's votes to Bush's account...
It is easy to distort/hide the truth with graphics.
praise for what exactly ?? Just curious, I can't find anything right now...
Sometimes the American electorate baffles me, like CA electing the governator. You bring up a valid point about being too negative, but I'm also trying to think of the conservative agenda and response.
So far, their agenda seems to have been, misrepresent, distort, repeat. If something is repeated often enough it "becomes" truth. Al Gore never actually said he invented the internet. link (if you consider salon.com reputable) He said he helped fund it in its infancy. Bush has linked Saddam and Osama so thouroughly in the minds of the people that a fair number of them actually believe Saddam actually helped plan 9-11. if you consider macrumors a credible source My plan involves disputing every word that comes out of the White House, and having solid evidence to back it up. Whereas the Dems have tended to drop issues, the Neocons have kept hammering away until their warped version is the only one being heard.
I agree that Americans would get tired of hearing the same message "Bush is a liar" over and over again. And I'm sure Bush would manage to make them look like they're quibbling or nitpicking over inconsequentials. Like whether Iraq actually bought uranium. (Pretty big quibble, imo)
I think that any praise given by the Dems to the Reps would be spun as "look! even they admit we're doing it right!" and I don't believe the Dems can give any ground right now. They've gone along with the president quite long enough, and it's far past time to stand up and speak out.
On the issue of federal deficits, I think you're right again. The average American can't see past his own nose, so doesn't really care about the long term consequences of running such huge deficits.
I guess I figure that whatever strategy the Dems have been pursuing hasn't worked, and if distorting, attacking and repeating works for the conservative element, then I'd hope that showing the plain truth, attacking and repeating would work even better for the liberal element.
And this political game plan seems to have worked fairly well for the conservatives so far. Except for the whole truth and proof part.
My opinion of the American people isn't so high right now. They'll probably happily eat whatever Rove feeds them and ask for more.
"We must win the war on terror!"
Like we won the war on drugs?
"We must invade Iraq because they're about to attack with WMD's, uh, because they're in league with Osama, uh, because Saddam is violating resolution 1441, uh, because we *want to free the Iraqi people!* yeah, that's the ticket, who can argue with freedom?"
Apparently John Ashcroft, check out what the ACLU has to say about his policies.
I disagree. I think it's a very informative graphic. I was curious as to how Gore won most of the Texas counties bordering Mexico, myself. It also speaks as to where each candidates power bases are. Gore in the cities and Bush rurally.
It shows a tendency, cities vs rural regions. So yes, you can still get some information out of the graphic, and I admit I have actually seen more retarded graphics before
But if a county had a 49%/51% split, then I would hardly call that a 'power base' for anybody, so the information remains limited.
However, the main point of the graphic is "Bush won 81% of the total area of the country"...which neatly hides the fact that he only won by few votes. How about listing actual voting results alongside 'murder rate' , growth, population of counties etc. ?
Quite right. This thematic map exploits a classic trick in presenting spatial statistics. Your eye fools your brain into drawing conclusions that the numbers do not bear out. In order for a graphic like this be visually meaningful, the areas of the counties would need to be standardized for population density. Such maps do exist.
It doesn't even tell you that, unless you can accurately add layers of data to the map from your own knowledge. Very few people can do that, and more importantly, a viewer should not be expected to do so.
The graphic was meant to illustrate the divide in the electorate, rural vs urban. It had the side effect of pointing out the area difference between the two sides.
That has been done too. Murder rates in rural areas are much lower than in the urban areas.
Just ask the people of Afghanistan and Iraq who have been freed from tyranny. Sure, conditions are far from ideal, but all change, even change for the better, is difficult. Give it time.
Whatever it was meant to illustrate, it did not succeed. The map provided no information to the viewer about which parts of the country are rural or urban, and the area distinctions are meaningless.
Where did I hear that before? ...
Oh, yeah, when we were hot on the trail of the WoMD in Iraq! Any day now!
You only continue to prove the point that people spend too much time finding fault with people they don't like to give them credit for anything they've done right. If you honestly took a look, you would find something that the President has done that you agree with. Most simply won't. That's what the article said, and I agree. (see my first post)