Comment on In the Middle of America
Re: your last two paragraphs
It would be easy to replace the word Democrat with Republican.
For 6 months now polls have said that Americans trust Democrats over Republicans, in every major issue of the day.
We all know about how low President Bush's polls are.
Americans now want out of Iraq by 62%.
The Republicans have spent their time pushing social issues, which the majority of Americans disagree with, pushing amendments to the Constitution, which a majority of Americans disagree with, ignoring the deficit and the debt, which the people and the markets are now getting nervous about, and on, and on.
No doubt that the Democrats are in confusion, but the American people see BOTH parties as unable to solve the problems of the day and in the end will simply vote for a change.
I agree with commenter Time's last paragraph. At the moment, I don't personally know anyone satisfied with either of the two major political parties. Granted, the Dems I know are moderates.
it is unfortunate that many dems and repubs are looking at marginal candidates in order to send a message to the rabid right wing who have hijacked the republican party. while 2 wrongs don't make a right(no pun intended), i have a feeling that the repub party is going to feel a backlash until that anger has subsided. if that means a few radical lefties- i guess it's a price this country will have to pay in order to even itself out.
betmo:
I think that to a degree, but the radical left wing that is trying to capitalize off this and has hece hijacked the Dem party is going make the entire thing a mute point.
I dont think you'll see this huge pendulum swing that all the Dems are predicting... they just are not pushing an agenda that America is happy with.
See, after Clinton, the Repubs capitalized on the pervasive feeling of disgust with the Dem party and were able to push in a slightly more conservative agenda than would otherwise have been acceptable.
The Dems learned from that, and are trying to do the same thing... but they're going too far, and pushing too much. The gone so far left of the middle it's almost unrecognizable anymore, and the fact that they are now booting out candidates that were concidered "moderate" and mainstream shows that.
I think that ditching Leiberman was a huge mistake. I think he will still win his seat, only now he is completely unbeholden to the Party, and can really vote/say anything he wants.
Heck, they'll let Howard Dean run around as their poster child even though he's made more gaffes than anyone, yet kick out the former VP candidate because he supported some policies of Bush... I'm still shaking my head, and trust me, the GOP is high-fiving over this one.
i don't know if the disgust is with repubs of all stripes or just the neo cons who run things with an iron fist. i think that this election will not be about righting things- it will be about anger. anger at people who don't listen and who only seem to care about their own agenda at the expense of everyone else. let's hope that the dems can see that they are part of the anger. people will vote the opposite and they will vote out incumbants. i think lieberman had less to do with lamont than voter anger at the status quo. i think that that is the message out there now- vote in new blood no matter what. i just wish more people trusted third party candidates.
Leiberman is still getting (per polls) the majority vote in Conn.... only in the primary did that anger show... I'm still thinking that a lot of the anger is directed a few, and not a party, and that it is held by a far smaller audience than most liberals think.
I dont think "America" is angery, I think that the liberal left is angery, and trying to project that out on America. I dont think it will work, and I think it is just scaring off more voters.
I'm calling the shot now: IF the Dems keep going down this path of "we're angery as hell!", they will lose more seats in November, and wont gain a thing.
I disagree that wanting the troops out of Iraq is a sentiment that belongs only to the far left as opposed to a growing percentage of Americans.
I don't happen to belong to that camp (yet), but I also recognize that "staying the course" is not a winning strategy for our security, our elections, or for Iraq. We are understaffed and overwhelmed in Iraq because of Bush's arrogance and
utter failure of execution.
And I don't see anyone coming forth with a third way in Iraq.
I firmly believed the Kerry would have been able to garner more international support to help us get the job done, simply by not being Bush. For a guy who came into office with a reputation as a deal maker, Bush has certainly forgotten the principle of win-win when it comes to our allies. Kerry would have had their respect. Anyhow, that chance is LONG gone, and perhaps all that is left is the breakup of Iraq.
I still have a lot of friends in CT, and my sense is that Joe was no longer seen as a moderate. He did not lose this race on his support for the war. He lost this race on his support for Bush, and the way that he responded to criticism of the administration in the face of reality.
Lisse, I dont equate disagreement with the war, or desire for the troops to come home as a "liberal" issue.. .that one is really bi-partisan. But the absolute anger seems to be bi-partisan.
I think this entire thing is still a knee jerk reaction lingering over from when the GOP worked to impeach Clinton. I think that the left is trying "fire up the crowd" to support a revenge tactic should they take control of Congress.
And while Joe may not be seen as a moderate to your friends, every poll done shows he's growing the gap in his majority support. The GOP have tossed up a joke, and now radio boobs like Hannity are actually saying not to vote the GOP candidate, and that Republicans should vote for Leiberman too.
He'll win, and the entire movement that is trying convince everyone they're the majoirty will have lost it's first real battle.
To pin the reasons for Liberal anger on the impeachment is to be unfairly dismissive of all the legitimate reasons non-neo-cons have to be angry.
Impeachment is a distant memory, and a ridiculous one at that.
From my perspective the anger is at the administration and their intolerable power-grab. The loss of American credibility around the world and the expensive, embarrassing, utter failure that is the war on Iraq, as well as the lies and abuses that got us there.
Members of legislature, in abdicating their responsibilities in regard to the war, awarding no-bid contracts to Cheney's cronies, not being firm about outlawing torture, are seen as abetting the dangerous growth of the executive branch, and this executive in particular. Most Democrats remained paralyzed in the name of "patriotism." Leiberman has been actively complicit in supporting the mistakes made and then excoriating those who would point them out as mistakes.
Leiberman may win because Republicans support him. That's not necessarily the same thing as being independent or even mainstream.
To pin the reasons for Liberal anger on the impeachment is to be unfairly dismissive of all the legitimate reasons non-neo-cons have to be angry.
Lisse: Here is where I see that it is something trumped up:
From my perspective the anger is at the administration and their intolerable power-grab. The loss of American credibility around the world and the expensive, embarrassing, utter failure that is the war on Iraq, as well as the lies and abuses that got us there.
Do you mean this versus the "Clinton and Lewinski" brand condoms in China? Does that not drip with mocking the US and our image? Or maybe Somalia and the now obviously failed Kosovo war/conflict/police action?
and aside from the pomp and fluff, what exactly has Bush done that's a "power grab" that is out of line with previoud Presidents during a war time situation (which this government is still operating under, reguardless of how we feel about it)?
This is what I'm talking about. Bush has made some serious mistakes, and he continues to do so... I, along with many many others will be none to happy to see November '08 come along... however, Bush is not the worst, nor the first President to ever make these mistakes, or to ever carry out his Administration in this fashion.
And make no mistake, the "rumor" of impechment procedings being discussed has EVERYTHING to do with revenge for Clinton.
And with Lieberman, it really doesnt matter how many Republicans support him, because Conneticut is, was, and always will be a primarily Democratic state.
I suggest to you, that you take a look at Cheney and Rove, look at the actions you see a so terrible, and then compair them to Clinton's admin using the FBI to wreck havoc on the lives of those that accused him of sexual misconduct, other political opponents, and then the whole Whitewater scandle.
This is politics in the big-leagues... right or wrong, it is how they play the game, dont let anyone fool you into thinking that the Dems run their political agendas any differently.
Remeber, there are quite a few Democrats that are nervous about Abramhof's arrest too.
I've no problem talking about Washington being corrupt, but I get my hackles up when anyone points to one party as the culprit, and then by ommision exhonerates the other.
Pagina molto bello Saluti Vaterschaftstest avg anti virus com pittore de whisky in the jar tabs
hoodia gordonii diet hoodia gordonii diet hoodia gordonii diet // and loan bank and loan bank and loan bank
Commenting by HaloScan
