Impeach Bush? The Dems Just Dont Get It. (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Impeachment, of course, is a politica process, not a criminal one. The Republicans own the House AND the Senate. You would think that if the Democrats had any sense, they would put their time and money into the 2006 and 2008 elections, instead of wasting it all on a pipe dream.

Is it just me, or are the Democrats really that dumb? I dont like Bush either, but while tilting at windmills might be a "feel good" activity, it accomplishes nothing at all except to waste resources instead of using them where they might do some good.

Now I know why the Democrats keep losing elections.

 

[Connecticutter]

Yeah. I'd like to see the dems focus more on ideas and less on President Bush himself. What's going to happen when Bush is out of office? All of the democratic campaign slogans will become useless.

I'd also like to see the dems move in a more libertarian direction, and try to gain voters from both the right and the left. Then again, that's just another Pipe dream. Truth is, I'm open to having the democrats win my vote, but I don't feel that they have seized the opportunity.

 

[danarhea]

Yeah. I'd like to see the dems focus more on ideas and less on President Bush himself. What's going to happen when Bush is out of office? All of the democratic campaign slogans will become useless.

I'd also like to see the dems move in a more libertarian direction, and try to gain voters from both the right and the left. Then again, that's just another Pipe dream. Truth is, I'm open to having the democrats win my vote, but I don't feel that they have seized the opportunity.

The Dems can never win my vote. My hope is for the real Conservatives in the GOP to kick the Bushneviks out and take back the party.

 

[cnredd]

Yeah. I'd like to see the dems focus more on ideas and less on President Bush himself. What's going to happen when Bush is out of office? All of the democratic campaign slogans will become useless.

I say we start making new Democratic slogans for the Democratic Party for 2008...

"Anybody but whoever the Republicans nominate!"

 

[KevinWan]

Dems are currently bankrupt of ideas. Its kinda sad, that Bush and Republicans are currently unpopular, and the Dems aren't making any leverage on that. 2006 could be such a democratic year... but radicals like Howard Dean and Michael Moore just kinda ruin their chances. Republicans are playing it safe and moving away from the President, to at least try to win in 2006. Democrats seem really stubborn... they aren't changing their views/rhetoric at all. It lost them in 2004, and they don't seem to get it.

 

[Connecticutter]

The way things are going, I can see the democrats fizzling out into a third party and the republican party dividing into 2 separate parties. This has precedent - when the federalist party kind of fell apart some time after the war of 1812, the democratic-republicans got so big that they began to split up.

 

[cnredd]

Dems are currently bankrupt of ideas. Its kinda sad, that Bush and Republicans are currently unpopular, and the Dems aren't making any leverage on that. 2006 could be such a democratic year... but radicals like Howard Dean and Michael Moore just kinda ruin their chances. Republicans are playing it safe and moving away from the President, to at least try to win in 2006. Democrats seem really stubborn... they aren't changing their views/rhetoric at all. It lost them in 2004, and they don't seem to get it.

Agreed....

Funny how they accuse Republicans of being corrupt, arrogant, incompetant, warlike, greedy and incoherant....

And then they lose to them....

Even if EVERY accusation was true...Then the Demos should be looking inward, and not at others, as to what the problem is...

But instead they continue to shout and inflame...Everybody's wrong but them...

 

[Navy Pride]

Dems are currently bankrupt of ideas. Its kinda sad, that Bush and Republicans are currently unpopular, and the Dems aren't making any leverage on that. 2006 could be such a democratic year... but radicals like Howard Dean and Michael Moore just kinda ruin their chances. Republicans are playing it safe and moving away from the President, to at least try to win in 2006. Democrats seem really stubborn... they aren't changing their views/rhetoric at all. It lost them in 2004, and they don't seem to get it.

Kevin you are exactly right.........All the democrats can do is criticize the president........They have no answers of their own to problems facing this country.....You can see it from most of the liberal democrats that post to this forum......They hate President Bush and are not over the 2000 presidential elections......

There is nothing this president can do or say short of committing suicide that would satisfy the Bush haters...........As long as thye continue to think like this they will continue to lose elections.......

 

[kal-el]

Kevin you are exactly right.........All the democrats can do is criticize the president........They have no answers of their own to problems facing this country.....You can see it from most of the liberal democrats that post to this forum......They hate President Bush and are not over the 2000 presidential elections......

There is nothing this president can do or say short of committing suicide that would satisfy the Bush haters...........As long as thye continue to think like this they will continue to lose elections.......

Well, when you say impeachment will never happen because of the GOP control, that might be true, but they do want their jobs. As a matter of fact, as seen already, alot of them are trying to distance themselves from this President. They don't want to go down with him. W knows he's a sitting duck, now, so he can pretty much just sleep behind the wheel (as if he wasn't already). And as to dems bashing Bush- it's too easy not to pass up. I mean c'mon, an illiterate idiot, who some of the time dosen't even make sense, and mangles the English language, is too hard to pass up insulting.

 

[KevinWan]

The way things are going, I can see the democrats fizzling out into a third party and the republican party dividing into 2 separate parties. This has precedent - when the federalist party kind of fell apart some time after the war of 1812, the democratic-republicans got so big that they began to split up.

Ya know, I actually think it would be the other way around... Republicans seem to be solidly on message. They are united on message, with a few exceptions like John McCain, Swartzenegger, Guiliani, and other liberal Reps... I don't think they're going to split nor are they going to fizzle out. If anyones going to split, it will definatly be the Democrats. There are two factions to this party all ready - the radical leftists (Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, etc.), and the moderate liberals (Bill Richardson, Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, etc.). Theres already problems within the party. A radical liberal can hardly ever win a national election- they're simply too liberal, radical. A moderate can win over independents, however, the radical base of the Democratic party puts immense pressure on a moderate nominee. Kerry experienced "flip-floppy," likely due to this. The democrats will indeed likely split. The radicals will fizzle out, while the moderates could actually gain ground over the Republicans, slightly.

 

[danarhea]

Ya know, I actually think it would be the other way around... Republicans seem to be solidly on message. They are united on message, with a few exceptions like John McCain, Swartzenegger, Guiliani, and other liberal Reps... I don't think they're going to split nor are they going to fizzle out. If anyones going to split, it will definatly be the Democrats. There are two factions to this party all ready - the radical leftists (Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, etc.), and the moderate liberals (Bill Richardson, Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, etc.). Theres already problems within the party. A radical liberal can hardly ever win a national election- they're simply too liberal, radical. A moderate can win over independents, however, the radical base of the Democratic party puts immense pressure on a moderate nominee. Kerry experienced "flip-floppy," likely due to this. The democrats will indeed likely split. The radicals will fizzle out, while the moderates could actually gain ground over the Republicans, slightly.

I think your analysis is mostly correct. However, I believe this is contingent on the Conservatives reigning in the Neocons and kicking them out. If that doesnt happen, you can look forward to the Libertarians and Constitutionalists making enough of an impact in 2008 to give the Dems a decent shot at taking it all back. However, knowing the Democrats, they will probably end up in a position where the Greens will ruin those chances.

For everything to make sense, Conservatives need to take back the GOP, and the Democrats need to get a backbone and go back to their true ideology and stop trying to be Republican Lite.

In the end, however, we most likely are going to end up with the same choices we had in 2000 and 2004, which is basically the same old bullshit. And whose fault is that? Ultimately, it is the fault of We the People for allowing such mediocre choices to come about in the first place.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What Democrats can’t seem to get these days is that like always, they win on ideas. When polled consistently for over 50 years, the Democratic position on a broad range of issues has more public support than the Republican position. However, what Republicans win elections on is wedge issues. Joe Redneck could give a rats ass about supply side economics, but he sure doesn’t want “queers getting married” so he votes Republican. However, the Republicans he votes for generally have very low approval ratings. Why? Because by and large, the majority of Americans don’t like how they govern. Clinton despite his personal failings had the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR. Bush is doing to good to get 4 out of 10 Americans to like how he is running things.

That tells you something: Progressive Pragmatism wins over Right Wing Ideology any day.

 

[danarhea]

What Democrats can’t seem to get these days is that like always, they win on ideas. When polled consistently for over 50 years, the Democratic position on a broad range of issues has more public support than the Republican position. However, what Republicans win elections on is wedge issues. Joe Redneck could give a rats ass about supply side economics, but he sure doesn’t want “queers getting married” so he votes Republican. However, the Republicans he votes for generally have very low approval ratings. Why? Because by and large, the majority of Americans don’t like how they govern. Clinton despite his personal failings had the highest approval ratings of any president since FDR. Bush is doing to good to get 4 out of 10 Americans to like how he is running things.

That tells you something: Progressive Pragmatism wins over Right Wing Ideology any day.

Tax and spend? I dont think so, but since Bush is spending like a drunken sailor already, I admittedly wouldnt have a leg to stand on if I were to accuse the Dems of the same thing, while supporting Bush. Of course, I dont support Bush, so I will feel free to bash your position.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Tax and spend? I dont think so, but since Bush is spending like a drunken sailor already, I admittedly wouldnt have a leg to stand on if I were to accuse the Dems of the same thing, while supporting Bush. Of course, I dont support Bush, so I will feel free to bash your position.

Clinton never proposed a budget with an over 3% increase in spending over the previous year.

Bush has averaged about 8% increases over the previous year in his budget proposals.

Reagan averaged 11% increases in his proposed budgets.

Like I say, pragmatism always wins out over right wing ideology (or raw left wing ideology for that matter).

 

[danarhea]

Clinton never proposed a budget with an over 3% increase in spending over the previous year.

Bush has averaged about 8% increases over the previous year in his budget proposals.

Reagan averaged 11% increases in his proposed budgets.

Like I say, pragmatism always wins out over right wing ideology (or raw left wing ideology for that matter).

Clinton never did because he didnt have a chance to. In 1994, Newt Gingrich and the new Republicans took over, and kept Clinton's spending in check. Dont forget that it was Clinton who wanted to break the budget before that with socialized medicine, and had Hillary presenting the proposed product, the Card.

So you see, you cant give Clinton credit which he is not entitled to. However, you and I do share a postion on Bush. His spending is absolutely insane.

 

[KevinWan]

I think your analysis is mostly correct. However, I believe this is contingent on the Conservatives reigning in the Neocons and kicking them out. If that doesnt happen, you can look forward to the Libertarians and Constitutionalists making enough of an impact in 2008 to give the Dems a decent shot at taking it all back. However, knowing the Democrats, they will probably end up in a position where the Greens will ruin those chances.

For everything to make sense, Conservatives need to take back the GOP, and the Democrats need to get a backbone and go back to their true ideology and stop trying to be Republican Lite.

In the end, however, we most likely are going to end up with the same choices we had in 2000 and 2004, which is basically the same old bullshit. And whose fault is that? Ultimately, it is the fault of We the People for allowing such mediocre choices to come about in the first place.

Yea, 3rd Parties always cause problems in a close election. And I think 2008 will be no difference, the election will be close. Now, what do you mean by "Republican Lite?" I'll can agree with that, it just depends on what that means. If you're saying democrats should sway to the hard-left, with Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy, then I'd say you're wrong. Very few American Independents tolerate anything radically left or right. However, if you're saying that Democrats should support their traditional policies that Republicans don't, then you're right. A Bill Clinton-type seems good.

 

[taxpayer]

Impeachment, of course, is a politica process, not a criminal one. The Republicans own the House AND the Senate. You would think that if the Democrats had any sense, they would put their time and money into the 2006 and 2008 elections, instead of wasting it all on a pipe dream.

Is it just me, or are the Democrats really that dumb? I dont like Bush either, but while tilting at windmills might be a "feel good" activity, it accomplishes nothing at all except to waste resources instead of using them where they might do some good.

Now I know why the Democrats keep losing elections.

xxx
Geez! The Dems are looking for a good political advisor. Give them a call.
Woopsssssssss! Never mind. I said that they were looking for a GOOD political advisor. That rules you out!

Besides, many Cons are alwready sick of Bush. And the more Bush opens up his mouth the more damage he does to the Repubs. By 2008 almost all Repubs will be:
A, Cut off from WELFARE.
B, Tired of Bush giving only to the rich.
C, Looking for a DEM to fix all of Bushs SCREW UPS.
D, Looking for a DEM to give them Gov handouts.

DEMS are a shoe in, in 2008. Bush is making sure of that all by himself.

 

[kal-el]

xxx
Geez! The Dems are looking for a good political advisor. Give them a call.
Woopsssssssss! Never mind. I said that they were looking for a GOOD political advisor. That rules you out!

Besides, many Cons are alwready sick of Bush. And the more Bush opens up his mouth the more damage he does to the Repubs. By 2008 almost all Repubs will be:
A, Cut off from WELFARE.
B, Tired of Bush giving only to the rich.
C, Looking for a DEM to fix all of Bushs SCREW UPS.
D, Looking for a DEM to give them Gov handouts.

DEMS are a shoe in, in 2008. Bush is making sure of that all by himself.

Yea, Republicans should grow tired of Bush playing "reverse robin- hood", as he takes from the poor and gives to his fat-cat buddies.

 

[danarhea]

xxx
Geez! The Dems are looking for a good political advisor. Give them a call.
Woopsssssssss! Never mind. I said that they were looking for a GOOD political advisor. That rules you out!

Besides, many Cons are alwready sick of Bush. And the more Bush opens up his mouth the more damage he does to the Repubs. By 2008 almost all Repubs will be:
A, Cut off from WELFARE.
B, Tired of Bush giving only to the rich.
C, Looking for a DEM to fix all of Bushs SCREW UPS.
D, Looking for a DEM to give them Gov handouts.

DEMS are a shoe in, in 2008. Bush is making sure of that all by himself.

Well, I will agree with you that Democrats will probably make some gains in 2006, but in 2008, the Greens could take them out unless they can come up with a cohesive message for a change. Being Republican Lite, as Kerry tried to do, wont cut it.

On the Republican end, if they can get rid of the Bushneviks who currently run the party, they have a shot. Failing that, however, I think I can agree that the Dems might end up taking everything back that they lost. To me, that would be unacceptable, but I find the Neocon stranglehold on Washington just as unacceptable.

I can tell you dont like my political position too much, but you and I do have one thing in common. We both believe that the Bushneviks have to go. We can always squabble later.

 

[KevinWan]

xxx
Geez! The Dems are looking for a good political advisor. Give them a call.
Woopsssssssss! Never mind. I said that they were looking for a GOOD political advisor. That rules you out!

Besides, many Cons are alwready sick of Bush. And the more Bush opens up his mouth the more damage he does to the Repubs. By 2008 almost all Repubs will be:
A, Cut off from WELFARE.
B, Tired of Bush giving only to the rich.
C, Looking for a DEM to fix all of Bushs SCREW UPS.
D, Looking for a DEM to give them Gov handouts.

DEMS are a shoe in, in 2008. Bush is making sure of that all by himself.

Republicans are already opposed to most types of welfare. I think you'll see 2006 be a somewhat Democratic year. I do think though, that Republicans will seperate from Bush and maybe not loose so badly... However, I think this current Katrina crisis has the ability to change the political environment of our country, depending on how both parties react. Liberals blaming the President for the rise in hurricanes is a MAJOR turnoff... its extremely in-sensitive. I don't think Dems are a shoe-in in 2008. Hillary Clinton is most likely the nominee, and she's far from a shoe-in. Shes extremely divisive and polarizing. Its hard to win that way.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, when you say impeachment will never happen because of the GOP control, that might be true, but they do want their jobs. As a matter of fact, as seen already, alot of them are trying to distance themselves from this President. They don't want to go down with him. W knows he's a sitting duck, now, so he can pretty much just sleep behind the wheel (as if he wasn't already). And as to dems bashing Bush- it's too easy not to pass up. I mean c'mon, an illiterate idiot, who some of the time dosen't even make sense, and mangles the English language, is too hard to pass up insulting.

I was reading your post until the end and then your blind hatred for this president came out...........You liberals are being consumed by your hatred......Let me give you some advice.....You really need to seek professional help.....There are some good shrinks out there that can help you deal with your hatred.........Please seek it before its to late my friend.............

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Republicans are already opposed to most types of welfare. I think you'll see 2006 be a somewhat Democratic year. I do think though, that Republicans will seperate from Bush and maybe not loose so badly... However, I think this current Katrina crisis has the ability to change the political environment of our country, depending on how both parties react. Liberals blaming the President for the rise in hurricanes is a MAJOR turnoff... its extremely in-sensitive. I don't think Dems are a shoe-in in 2008. Hillary Clinton is most likely the nominee, and she's far from a shoe-in. Shes extremely divisive and polarizing. Its hard to win that way.

This is my take on it.

1. I doubt Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. With the Republicans, you can many times take the early favorite and pretty much put money on them being the eventual nominee. This has never been the case for Democrats. Moreover, even a lot of Dems don’t like Hillary. They liked Bill Clinton, but there is a lot of ideological difference between Bill and Hillary. Plus, he was just a lot more likable then she is.

2. Bush’s performance is his biggest problem. If anyone were doing their job as bad as Bush is in handling the relief efforts for New Orleans, they would be fired for incompetence. It’s absolutely disgraceful and an embarrassment for every American who loves his country.

3. Most Americans are not very ideological. However, the Republican Party has become extremely ideological. They got up in the middle of the night to vote on the Schivo bill, but waited days to get a hurricane relief bill. People don’t want the government in their personal lives. They would rather have higher taxes then have the government in their bedrooms. They want pragmatism over ideology and abstract reasons for wars and the like.


4. People are now seeing that there is still another side to America. They now see in New Orleans the level of poverty that still exists in America. The right just ignores it and chants doom and gloom every time a liberal tries to draw attention to it, but its front and center now and I think that it will be a rude awakening with many Americans.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is my take on it.

1. I doubt Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. With the Republicans, you can many times take the early favorite and pretty much put money on them being the eventual nominee. This has never been the case for Democrats. Moreover, even a lot of Dems don’t like Hillary. They liked Bill Clinton, but there is a lot of ideological difference between Bill and Hillary. Plus, he was just a lot more likable then she is.

2. Bush’s performance is his biggest problem. If anyone were doing their job as bad as Bush is in handling the relief efforts for New Orleans, they would be fired for incompetence. It’s absolutely disgraceful and an embarrassment for every American who loves his country.

3. Most Americans are not very ideological. However, the Republican Party has become extremely ideological. They got up in the middle of the night to vote on the Schivo bill, but waited days to get a hurricane relief bill. People don’t want the government in their personal lives. They would rather have higher taxes then have the government in their bedrooms. They want pragmatism over ideology and abstract reasons for wars and the like.


4. People are now seeing that there is still another side to America. They now see in New Orleans the level of poverty that still exists in America. The right just ignores it and chants doom and gloom every time a liberal tries to draw attention to it, but its front and center now and I think that it will be a rude awakening with many Americans.

And then you have those on the left like you that will make this terrible disaster a political issue instead of pulling together with all Americans..........:roll: .

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And then you have those on the left like you that will make this terrible disaster a political issue instead of pulling together with all Americans..........:roll: .

It is a government issue. Thats the job he signed up for and now, when we need him as a nation more than ever before, he has failed us thus far. If anyone performed this way in a job in a time of crisis they would be fired for incompetence. This is America, the greatest nation in the history of civilization and we have thousands of people 5 days later dying in filth.

And dont get me wrong, we need to pull together. My wife and I have given generously so far. But, the government, this is its purpose.

 

[KevinWan]

This is my take on it.

1. I doubt Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. With the Republicans, you can many times take the early favorite and pretty much put money on them being the eventual nominee. This has never been the case for Democrats. Moreover, even a lot of Dems don’t like Hillary. They liked Bill Clinton, but there is a lot of ideological difference between Bill and Hillary. Plus, he was just a lot more likable then she is.

2. Bush’s performance is his biggest problem. If anyone were doing their job as bad as Bush is in handling the relief efforts for New Orleans, they would be fired for incompetence. It’s absolutely disgraceful and an embarrassment for every American who loves his country.

3. Most Americans are not very ideological. However, the Republican Party has become extremely ideological. They got up in the middle of the night to vote on the Schivo bill, but waited days to get a hurricane relief bill. People don’t want the government in their personal lives. They would rather have higher taxes then have the government in their bedrooms. They want pragmatism over ideology and abstract reasons for wars and the like.


4. People are now seeing that there is still another side to America. They now see in New Orleans the level of poverty that still exists in America. The right just ignores it and chants doom and gloom every time a liberal tries to draw attention to it, but its front and center now and I think that it will be a rude awakening with many Americans.

I can agree with you to some degree... under most circumstances in the Democratic party, the early frontrunner rarely comes out on top. However, I think Hillary Clinton is an entirely different story. In my opinion, she may be scandalous and corrupt, but she IS a MASTER politician. She is already in a perfect position financially and politically, and her ability to manipulate and lie her way to office is supreme. I do think, in the end, she will likely be the nominee. It seems difficult for anyone to catch up to her. She is definatly no Howard Dean.

I agree, so far, as the Katrina crisis develops, the President does indeed seem to be lacking in performance. I do agree that is a problem for him, and potentially for the entire Republican party.

I also agree that most Americans are not ideological. However, the Republican party is not the only ideological party. The Democratic party is just as ideological. They object and obstruct too much legislation supported by Bush, particularly judges, ambassadors and other nominees. They nit-pick for some obsurd reason to find opposition. Thats ideological.

The country may see the poverty in New Orleans. However, I don't think the media will make much of it, in the end. Inturn, I don't think it will be a huge issue in any upcoming campaigns.