On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered a horrible attack under George W. Bush's presidency. Over 3000 Americans died. Democratic politicians in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate publicly supported President Bush. They didn't criticize him for the hours it took him to respond; for the fact that he flew around in Air Force One most of the day before returning to Washington, D.C.; they didn't call for investigations into what his administration knew before the attack; and they certainly didn't send out fund-raising letters in an attempt to raise campaign contributions from the death of thousands of Americans.
Nor did former Vice-President Al Gore issue denunciations of the Bush Administration's strategy for dealing with terrorists. Vice-President Gore did not emerge from some dark lair to say that all that mattered to the Bush Administration was getting tax cuts for their rich contributors and that this preoccupation had led to lax security for Americans. Indeed, given the fact that Al Gore had lost a presidential election because of a United States Supreme Court that was dominated by Republican appointees, two of which were appointed by his opponent's father, Gore's response was incredibly generous, at least by today's standards.
Now, contrast the Democratic response to 9-11 with the Republican response to the attempted attack on the airliner over Detroit. We have heard Republicans use the attack to try and score cheap political points at the President's expense and we have seen the sickening sight of Republicans using the attempted attack to raise campaign funds. We have seen the propaganda arm of the GOP, otherwise known as Fox News, criticize Obama for using words like "allegedly", as if using that word was somehow in itself a weakness.
And, of course, we have seen former Vice-President Cheney give at least one interview in which he claimed that Obama's pre-occupation with "transforming" American society had somehow led to the Detroit attack.
So here is my conclusion, and it was difficult for me to come to, but I believe that if a 9-11 attack took place under Obama, we would see a much different reaction from the GOP than we saw from the Democrats on that fateful day. We wouldn't see statements invoking national unity or calling for support for President Obama. We wouldn't see former Bush administration officials calling on Americans to support President Obama. Instead we would see Republicans Representatives and Senators rush to the studios of Fox News to denounce Obama. We would see campaign consulting firms grinding out fund-raising letters for Republicans even as Americans were burying their dead.
It pains me to come to this conclusion. I hope that we never have to find out if I am right, and if such a horrible tragedy occurs again, I hope that I am wrong about the Republican response. But given their actions over the last week or so, what other conclusion can I come to?
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Friday, October 12, 2007
Reports Out Gore Has Won Nobel Peace Prize-Should He Run?
AlterNet has an article out raising the idea that since Gore apparently has won the Nobel Peace Prize, he should now consider running for President. What is interesting about the story is that writer references the derision that Gore suffered when he first criticized the Iraq War in 2003 and the way the Washington press corps wanted Bush, not Gore, to be president in 2000.
The reason why that is interesting is that it is one of the few articles on this subject that point out how shabbily Gore was treated by the so-called "media elites" in both the 2000 election and the early stages of the Iraq War. Most articles make a passing reference to the problems that Gore had with the media and then act as if those problems have gone away. We are not so sure about that.
Most writers urging Gore to run in 2008 assume that the Washington media establishment now realizes (1) how much of a disaster Bush has been and (2) how much better off America would have been in Gore had been elected in 2000. What such writers overlook, though, is that while Bush has negatively impacted America, he has positively impacted the after-tax income of owners of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. He did that with his breathtakingly reckless tax cuts. Combine that fact with the fact that as a group Washington media insiders are arrogant, out of touch elitists and we are not so sure that Gore wouldn't face the same problems with the media in 2000 that he had in 2008.
Of course, this is one reason why we wish he would run in 2008. He is probably the only person who could tell the Washington media to go to hell and still have a chance at winning the presidency. Getting back into the pit of politics, though, after you have been out for eight years is a lot easier for those who won't have to crawl through the slime. If Gore doesn't make that choice, all of us who voted for him in 2000 should understand why.
The reason why that is interesting is that it is one of the few articles on this subject that point out how shabbily Gore was treated by the so-called "media elites" in both the 2000 election and the early stages of the Iraq War. Most articles make a passing reference to the problems that Gore had with the media and then act as if those problems have gone away. We are not so sure about that.
Most writers urging Gore to run in 2008 assume that the Washington media establishment now realizes (1) how much of a disaster Bush has been and (2) how much better off America would have been in Gore had been elected in 2000. What such writers overlook, though, is that while Bush has negatively impacted America, he has positively impacted the after-tax income of owners of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations. He did that with his breathtakingly reckless tax cuts. Combine that fact with the fact that as a group Washington media insiders are arrogant, out of touch elitists and we are not so sure that Gore wouldn't face the same problems with the media in 2000 that he had in 2008.
Of course, this is one reason why we wish he would run in 2008. He is probably the only person who could tell the Washington media to go to hell and still have a chance at winning the presidency. Getting back into the pit of politics, though, after you have been out for eight years is a lot easier for those who won't have to crawl through the slime. If Gore doesn't make that choice, all of us who voted for him in 2000 should understand why.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Arrogance of the Media's Emphasis on "Character Issues"
If you run a search on Google and use the words "Al Gore" and sighing, you will find that there are approximately 21,500 entries returned by Google's search engine. If, however, you run the terms "George W. Bush" and "lack of intellectual curiosity" you will get a return of 719 entries. This example illustrates the problem with the emphasis on so-called "character issues" by the media.
The range of the media's concern with "character issues" is very limited. Did the candidate ever cheat on his or her spouse, did he lie to someone about something important, is he or she hypocritical, did the candidate ever do a favor for a contributor, are about all the questions asked by the media regarding "character." Almost none of them, however, relate to the policies that such a candidate will adopt if elected, and there is no indication that the public really cares about the answers to those questions.
The illustration given above shows the problem with the media's approach. Did it matter at all whether Al Gore was condescending to George W. Bush during their debates? Does it really matter at all if Al Gore is condescending to his political opponents and thinks that a lot of them are idiots? Would such character traits impact on the policies he would have pursued if elected? The answer is "No, they wouldn't."
Contrast that with George W. Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity. Almost every mistake made by this administration can be traced to the fact that George W. Bush never questions the adoption of policies that seem consistent with the beliefs he held before becoming President. As he once famously said, "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Nowhere in that statement is any appreciation for the concept that actual facts may challenge a person's beliefs. Yet, almost no member of the media reported about Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity prior to him becoming President in 2000.
One reason is that it is a hard concept to illustrate by example. People close to Bush aren't going to talk about his lack of intellectual curiosity and such a character trait isn't apparent from a distance. Intellectual curiosity shows up in the books a person reads, or in conversations, or in who a person has discussions with and the topics discussed. It is shown over time and is not easily verifiable.
Contrast that with sighing during a debate. There you have proof since the sighing was done during a televised debate. It is a singular event in time. It is easily understood by the public. In short it is ready made for media analysis. The same is true about cheating on a spouse, once one of the people involved is willing to talk about it, or about doing a favor for a contributor, once the favor is discovered.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign millions of words will be written and/or spoken by the media about so-called "character issues", and almost none of them will have any relation to policies that the winning candidate will adopt once elected.
The range of the media's concern with "character issues" is very limited. Did the candidate ever cheat on his or her spouse, did he lie to someone about something important, is he or she hypocritical, did the candidate ever do a favor for a contributor, are about all the questions asked by the media regarding "character." Almost none of them, however, relate to the policies that such a candidate will adopt if elected, and there is no indication that the public really cares about the answers to those questions.
The illustration given above shows the problem with the media's approach. Did it matter at all whether Al Gore was condescending to George W. Bush during their debates? Does it really matter at all if Al Gore is condescending to his political opponents and thinks that a lot of them are idiots? Would such character traits impact on the policies he would have pursued if elected? The answer is "No, they wouldn't."
Contrast that with George W. Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity. Almost every mistake made by this administration can be traced to the fact that George W. Bush never questions the adoption of policies that seem consistent with the beliefs he held before becoming President. As he once famously said, "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Nowhere in that statement is any appreciation for the concept that actual facts may challenge a person's beliefs. Yet, almost no member of the media reported about Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity prior to him becoming President in 2000.
One reason is that it is a hard concept to illustrate by example. People close to Bush aren't going to talk about his lack of intellectual curiosity and such a character trait isn't apparent from a distance. Intellectual curiosity shows up in the books a person reads, or in conversations, or in who a person has discussions with and the topics discussed. It is shown over time and is not easily verifiable.
Contrast that with sighing during a debate. There you have proof since the sighing was done during a televised debate. It is a singular event in time. It is easily understood by the public. In short it is ready made for media analysis. The same is true about cheating on a spouse, once one of the people involved is willing to talk about it, or about doing a favor for a contributor, once the favor is discovered.
During the 2008 Presidential campaign millions of words will be written and/or spoken by the media about so-called "character issues", and almost none of them will have any relation to policies that the winning candidate will adopt once elected.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Why Media Doesn't Like Al Gore or John Edwards
Over at Talking Points Memo, Reed Hundt, who was on the FCC during the Clinton administration, has a post about how Gloria Borger and Gwen Ifill on the PBS show "Washington Week in Review" or whatever it is called now were dissing Al Gore.
Over at Daily Kos this past week, there was a post about how the media is attacking John Edwards for his supposed hypocrisy because he wants to help the poor and lives in a big house. That followed the attacks on him for his haircut and the attacks on him for consulting with a New York hedge fund.
These attacks are happening because Gore and Edwards are attacking the traditional media (Gore) and the way America treats the rich compared to the poor (Edwards). This makes the major corporations which own the media companies very unhappy. This in turn is going to be known to the reporters who work for those media companies, which will lead to negative stories about Edwards and Gore. Such stories will, ironically, prove Gore's point that he made in his book "The Assault on Reason."
The traditional media realizes that it is under attack from the left. Reporters are used to being attacked from the right, but these attacks from the left are really ticking them off. Just look at the reactions of people like David Broder of the Washington Post to bloggers. People like Broder realize that more and more readers are using the Internet for news and leaving traditional media like the Post.
The Post, for example, is suffering a decline in readers even though its only competition in D.C. is the Moonie paper, the Washington Times. Its not that the Times is picking up readers at the Post's expense. More than likely younger people, and Washington is a pretty young city demographically, are using the Internet and not the Post for information.
This lost of readers to the Internet threatens the Post's parent company's bottom line, which impacts Broder's salary. It also threatens the self-image of the Post, which prides itself on being one of the nation's premier papers. The Post's self-image, in turn, is probably important to Broder's self-image. It is hard to maintain that self-image if the Post is losing readers to bloggers.
There will be more such attacks in the future. Any politician, like Gore, who is seen as supporting the use of the Internet in public discourse runs the risk of being the subject of such attacks. Maybe what Democrats should do is create a website where such attacks are listed and any candidate who is not being attacked by the traditional media shouldn't be supported by Democrats.
Over at Daily Kos this past week, there was a post about how the media is attacking John Edwards for his supposed hypocrisy because he wants to help the poor and lives in a big house. That followed the attacks on him for his haircut and the attacks on him for consulting with a New York hedge fund.
These attacks are happening because Gore and Edwards are attacking the traditional media (Gore) and the way America treats the rich compared to the poor (Edwards). This makes the major corporations which own the media companies very unhappy. This in turn is going to be known to the reporters who work for those media companies, which will lead to negative stories about Edwards and Gore. Such stories will, ironically, prove Gore's point that he made in his book "The Assault on Reason."
The traditional media realizes that it is under attack from the left. Reporters are used to being attacked from the right, but these attacks from the left are really ticking them off. Just look at the reactions of people like David Broder of the Washington Post to bloggers. People like Broder realize that more and more readers are using the Internet for news and leaving traditional media like the Post.
The Post, for example, is suffering a decline in readers even though its only competition in D.C. is the Moonie paper, the Washington Times. Its not that the Times is picking up readers at the Post's expense. More than likely younger people, and Washington is a pretty young city demographically, are using the Internet and not the Post for information.
This lost of readers to the Internet threatens the Post's parent company's bottom line, which impacts Broder's salary. It also threatens the self-image of the Post, which prides itself on being one of the nation's premier papers. The Post's self-image, in turn, is probably important to Broder's self-image. It is hard to maintain that self-image if the Post is losing readers to bloggers.
There will be more such attacks in the future. Any politician, like Gore, who is seen as supporting the use of the Internet in public discourse runs the risk of being the subject of such attacks. Maybe what Democrats should do is create a website where such attacks are listed and any candidate who is not being attacked by the traditional media shouldn't be supported by Democrats.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Responses to Our Question: "Should Al Gore Run for President in 2008?"
Hello:
Below are the responses we got to our question from people who responded to our question by email. We also had people who gave their responses directly by posting them as comments to the original entry. The original entry and the comments can be viewed here.
All told we had 27 responses to our question. Of those 27 responses, 14 were for a Gore candidacy; 11 were opposed; and the other two were entries that were mixed. Thanks to all who responded. We will be posting similar questions in the future and look forward to your responses.
Joyce
______________________________________________________________
JOYCE.....NO. He should not seek the nomination. He should be appointed SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. His interest, study, research, and extensive volume of knowledge about the earth and it's environment, would best serve the earth, world,and the United States preserving life on earth, both human and animal . GALE NORTON was the puppet of GEORGE BUSH destroying the environment and all therein. BARABK OBAMA, his wife, and family are the compendium of today's society,and current very complex global issues. They represent life in today's world. Barack was born of biracial parents, his father black from Kenya, and his mother white, a highly educated anthropologist from Kansas. They understand today's crises in education,cultures,relationships, health care, environment,the work ehthic, and are not endowed with politics as usualEnough of the BACK ROOM scratching backs and " GOOD OLE BOYS " politics. We need to break the cycle, and BARACK OBAMA is the one to do it. HILLARY CLINTON did not stand up to BEORGE BUSH, which to me showed intimidation which has no place in a leader. OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW ! A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN .
___________________
By the way I don't think Al Gore should be nominated I fear he'llturn into wuss material again. Al Gore would at least do better than Hilary and Obama. Though we all know if my boy Edwards doesn't make it there will be a continuation of the mourning I'm already in
___________________
I think Al Gore's time and energy is better spent on his cause to save the planet and the global warming issues. He is effective and passionate about the message and we certainly need a spokesman like him to give this issue the priority it needs.However, as a presidential candidate...I say no. I just don't think he's got what it takes to beat the well-oiled Republican machine. And we definitely need someone that can. The question is, who is that person?
___________________
I would Love to see Al Gore run for President. I believe that he would have a good chance at winning . The other candidate that I really like is Barack Obama. I am looking forward to watching the Democrats Presidential candidates debate this Thursday. Wouldnt Al Gore and Barack on a ticket be phenomenal? What about Barack and Hillary? Wow!
___________________
Should Al Gore run? In my humble opinion, He does not have a fresh image, even with his documentary , environmental expertise and experience as VP.
___________________
no he should not .Back Edwards
___________________
I would not want Al Gore to run for President. While he certainly has the credentials, I don't believe he could win. He doesn't have the ability to excite people, to make them want to get out there and stomp for him. His movie is commendable but he needs to stick to that sort of thing, not run the country. He can do much for the next presidential candidate by exploiting what environmental problems have mushroomed since the Bush administration has taken over.
Of course, Al Gore hasn't had a $400 haircut; maybe that would help...I like Edwards but stuff like that hurts him and our chances to regain the White House...Hillary needs to get a voice; I haven't heard much from her...maybe she should be on The Daily Show...
___________________
Hi Joyce,
Gore is an appealing candidate, but, in my opinion, should run only
if he is driven to do so by his own conscience. That is, he should
not be drafted.
___________________
Gore should run and probably would win. It would be really good to see Bill Bradley as his running mate or possibly Edwards as VP again. Either VP choice would give an intelligent, trustworthy choice for VP.
___________________
Yes, I think Al Gore should run.
___________________
We are backing John Edwards. If Al Gore entered the
race we would give him strong consideration and
probably back him if Edwards was still in third place.
Obama is too inexperienced and Hillary is too
divisive.
____________________
Joyce:
If Al Gore entered the race, I think that he would be the immediate
odds-on favorite, and deservedly so. He has the right experience and comes
from the right area of the country. I just don't have any sense that he's
going to do it.
___________________
Simply - YES - (2 votes) (Our 3 teenagers agree too, but they aren't old enough to vote yet!)
__________________
Will Gore fight for it if they attempt to steal another election?
John Kerry didn't. Gore didn't fight long enough in 2000. We can't risk another candidate that will allow the theft of our presidential election, and worse yet, not speak of it later. I've personally put the evidence documents in John Kerry's hands in 2006, the evidence of his stolen election. My brother gave them to John Edwards in 2005. Yet neither man has uttered a syllable about this election theft. NEVER AGAIN! They must not concede if they won, or they are part of the problem. What does Gore have to say about the elections now? I've not heard him address it. I am very glad he is addressing the environment.
Thanks for asking, and for all you do Joyce.
__________________
To be honest, I do not believe that he could win the presidency. I also do not believe that Hillary Clinton could win.Gore's newfound "celebrity, actor status" (which, in my mind, he is not an actor, but it is the way the R's will cast him - forgetting of course Ronnie Raygun playing with Bonzo, and the Terminator, and Sonny Senator....) will be used against him - even though many folks are starting to wake up to the fact that human activity has raped and plundered the earth (Jim Morrison was singing about this decades ago). You have my nickle.
Below are the responses we got to our question from people who responded to our question by email. We also had people who gave their responses directly by posting them as comments to the original entry. The original entry and the comments can be viewed here.
All told we had 27 responses to our question. Of those 27 responses, 14 were for a Gore candidacy; 11 were opposed; and the other two were entries that were mixed. Thanks to all who responded. We will be posting similar questions in the future and look forward to your responses.
Joyce
______________________________________________________________
JOYCE.....NO. He should not seek the nomination. He should be appointed SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. His interest, study, research, and extensive volume of knowledge about the earth and it's environment, would best serve the earth, world,and the United States preserving life on earth, both human and animal . GALE NORTON was the puppet of GEORGE BUSH destroying the environment and all therein. BARABK OBAMA, his wife, and family are the compendium of today's society,and current very complex global issues. They represent life in today's world. Barack was born of biracial parents, his father black from Kenya, and his mother white, a highly educated anthropologist from Kansas. They understand today's crises in education,cultures,relationships, health care, environment,the work ehthic, and are not endowed with politics as usualEnough of the BACK ROOM scratching backs and " GOOD OLE BOYS " politics. We need to break the cycle, and BARACK OBAMA is the one to do it. HILLARY CLINTON did not stand up to BEORGE BUSH, which to me showed intimidation which has no place in a leader. OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW ! A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN .
___________________
By the way I don't think Al Gore should be nominated I fear he'llturn into wuss material again. Al Gore would at least do better than Hilary and Obama. Though we all know if my boy Edwards doesn't make it there will be a continuation of the mourning I'm already in
___________________
I think Al Gore's time and energy is better spent on his cause to save the planet and the global warming issues. He is effective and passionate about the message and we certainly need a spokesman like him to give this issue the priority it needs.However, as a presidential candidate...I say no. I just don't think he's got what it takes to beat the well-oiled Republican machine. And we definitely need someone that can. The question is, who is that person?
___________________
I would Love to see Al Gore run for President. I believe that he would have a good chance at winning . The other candidate that I really like is Barack Obama. I am looking forward to watching the Democrats Presidential candidates debate this Thursday. Wouldnt Al Gore and Barack on a ticket be phenomenal? What about Barack and Hillary? Wow!
___________________
Should Al Gore run? In my humble opinion, He does not have a fresh image, even with his documentary , environmental expertise and experience as VP.
___________________
no he should not .Back Edwards
___________________
I would not want Al Gore to run for President. While he certainly has the credentials, I don't believe he could win. He doesn't have the ability to excite people, to make them want to get out there and stomp for him. His movie is commendable but he needs to stick to that sort of thing, not run the country. He can do much for the next presidential candidate by exploiting what environmental problems have mushroomed since the Bush administration has taken over.
Of course, Al Gore hasn't had a $400 haircut; maybe that would help...I like Edwards but stuff like that hurts him and our chances to regain the White House...Hillary needs to get a voice; I haven't heard much from her...maybe she should be on The Daily Show...
___________________
Hi Joyce,
Gore is an appealing candidate, but, in my opinion, should run only
if he is driven to do so by his own conscience. That is, he should
not be drafted.
___________________
Gore should run and probably would win. It would be really good to see Bill Bradley as his running mate or possibly Edwards as VP again. Either VP choice would give an intelligent, trustworthy choice for VP.
___________________
Yes, I think Al Gore should run.
___________________
We are backing John Edwards. If Al Gore entered the
race we would give him strong consideration and
probably back him if Edwards was still in third place.
Obama is too inexperienced and Hillary is too
divisive.
____________________
Joyce:
If Al Gore entered the race, I think that he would be the immediate
odds-on favorite, and deservedly so. He has the right experience and comes
from the right area of the country. I just don't have any sense that he's
going to do it.
___________________
Simply - YES - (2 votes) (Our 3 teenagers agree too, but they aren't old enough to vote yet!)
__________________
Will Gore fight for it if they attempt to steal another election?
John Kerry didn't. Gore didn't fight long enough in 2000. We can't risk another candidate that will allow the theft of our presidential election, and worse yet, not speak of it later. I've personally put the evidence documents in John Kerry's hands in 2006, the evidence of his stolen election. My brother gave them to John Edwards in 2005. Yet neither man has uttered a syllable about this election theft. NEVER AGAIN! They must not concede if they won, or they are part of the problem. What does Gore have to say about the elections now? I've not heard him address it. I am very glad he is addressing the environment.
Thanks for asking, and for all you do Joyce.
__________________
To be honest, I do not believe that he could win the presidency. I also do not believe that Hillary Clinton could win.Gore's newfound "celebrity, actor status" (which, in my mind, he is not an actor, but it is the way the R's will cast him - forgetting of course Ronnie Raygun playing with Bonzo, and the Terminator, and Sonny Senator....) will be used against him - even though many folks are starting to wake up to the fact that human activity has raped and plundered the earth (Jim Morrison was singing about this decades ago). You have my nickle.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A Question for our Readers: Should Al Gore Run in 2008
If you click on this entry's title you can read an article from a British newspaper about how supposedly a secret team of Al Gore advisers are assembling in private to put together a Gore campaign. The theme of the article is that Gore isn't backing this group but isn't telling them to stop either. This article, along with Bill Clinton's mention of Gore possibly running in 2008 on the Larry King show the other night, is bound to trigger some political speculation.
There are a lot of reasons why Gore would be a strong candidate:
1. Last time he won the popular vote and almost won the Electoral College vote;
2. He already has great name recognition;
3. He has already staked out a position on the environment that resonates with a lot of voters;
4. He was against the war from the start;
5. He can raise money; and
6. He is identified with the successes of the Clinton administration and has none of Bill Clinton's personal baggage.
There are also some reasons why he shouldn't:
1. The media doesn't like him and would be attacking him for his supposed flaws;
2. The conservative press would be all over him; and
3. His life is going pretty good so why put himself through all that crap?
Tell us what you think by posting your comments.
There are a lot of reasons why Gore would be a strong candidate:
1. Last time he won the popular vote and almost won the Electoral College vote;
2. He already has great name recognition;
3. He has already staked out a position on the environment that resonates with a lot of voters;
4. He was against the war from the start;
5. He can raise money; and
6. He is identified with the successes of the Clinton administration and has none of Bill Clinton's personal baggage.
There are also some reasons why he shouldn't:
1. The media doesn't like him and would be attacking him for his supposed flaws;
2. The conservative press would be all over him; and
3. His life is going pretty good so why put himself through all that crap?
Tell us what you think by posting your comments.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Check Out This Article on Huffington Post
John Neffinger has posted an article on www.huffingtonpost.com that should be read by every Democratic candidate and campaign worker. It is about how non-verbal communication influences voters, especially swing voters. He quotes from several studies that show that voters will pick someone they feel comfortable but whose policies they may not agree with over someone whose policies they agree with but whom they don't feel comfortable with or don't like.
The theme of his article is that Democrats and liberals have a hard time with this concept. They keep insisting that policies and programs matter more than personality. Meanwhile we keep getting beat because we nominate candidates whose policies we like, but who can't relate to the American people on an emotional basis. Candidates like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The one candidate we nominated since 1980, Bill Clinton, who could relate emotionally to the American people won two presidential elections in a row, the first Democrat to do that since FDR and only the third Democrat to do that since 1860.*
Speaking of Clinton, he once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. The quote is not original with him, but you get the point. We need candidates who can emotionally relate to Americans, not just give them position papers.
____________________________________________________________________
*The only Democrats elected to the presidency since 1860 were Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Cleveland won two terms, but they were separated by one Republican term. Wilson won two in a row, FDR won four in a row, and Clinton, as noted, won two in a row.
The theme of his article is that Democrats and liberals have a hard time with this concept. They keep insisting that policies and programs matter more than personality. Meanwhile we keep getting beat because we nominate candidates whose policies we like, but who can't relate to the American people on an emotional basis. Candidates like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The one candidate we nominated since 1980, Bill Clinton, who could relate emotionally to the American people won two presidential elections in a row, the first Democrat to do that since FDR and only the third Democrat to do that since 1860.*
Speaking of Clinton, he once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. The quote is not original with him, but you get the point. We need candidates who can emotionally relate to Americans, not just give them position papers.
____________________________________________________________________
*The only Democrats elected to the presidency since 1860 were Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Cleveland won two terms, but they were separated by one Republican term. Wilson won two in a row, FDR won four in a row, and Clinton, as noted, won two in a row.
U.S. Attorney Firings Had Origins in 2004 Presidential Election
Politico, an online website devoted to politics, has a story that claims that the origins of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys are to be found in the 2004 Presidential election and even perhaps in the 2000 election. The story claims that the Bushies were upset in 2000 when people questioned the black robed coup that led to his becoming President. In particular they were upset that Democrats were arguing that had all the votes of Afro-American voters been counted, Gore would have won Florida.
In order to make sure that such accusations were not made after the 2004 election, the Bushies wanted to use the U.S. Justice Department to gather evidence of what they call "voting fraud", targeting organizations that were registering poor and minority voters. According to the article Republicans kept pushing this theme with the media, but could produce little evidence of such activities. The Bushies hoped that the U.S. Justice Department could provide such evidence. Such evidence could then be used to push for voting restrictions that would make it difficult to register voters opposed to Bush. Restrictions such as voter identification requirements, limiting the activities of organizations engaged in voter registeration, while, at the same time, making sure that such restrictions didn't prevent Republican allies from carrying out their own voter registration drives.
Those U.S. Attorneys who didn't get on the program, especially in "swing" states made King Karl and Bubble-Boy angry. This anger probably intensified when they lost control of Congress in 2006. Lo and behold, we get a bunch of fired U.S. Attorneys for what appears to be crass political reasons.
Bush won by over 3 million votes. Although Democrats may wonder about what happened in Ohio, very few people have argued that the popular vote didn't show a clear Bush victory. Ironically, taking action to avoid so-called "voter fraud" has led to Bush and Rove looking like they are manipulating the U.S. Department of Justice for political reasons.
In order to make sure that such accusations were not made after the 2004 election, the Bushies wanted to use the U.S. Justice Department to gather evidence of what they call "voting fraud", targeting organizations that were registering poor and minority voters. According to the article Republicans kept pushing this theme with the media, but could produce little evidence of such activities. The Bushies hoped that the U.S. Justice Department could provide such evidence. Such evidence could then be used to push for voting restrictions that would make it difficult to register voters opposed to Bush. Restrictions such as voter identification requirements, limiting the activities of organizations engaged in voter registeration, while, at the same time, making sure that such restrictions didn't prevent Republican allies from carrying out their own voter registration drives.
Those U.S. Attorneys who didn't get on the program, especially in "swing" states made King Karl and Bubble-Boy angry. This anger probably intensified when they lost control of Congress in 2006. Lo and behold, we get a bunch of fired U.S. Attorneys for what appears to be crass political reasons.
Bush won by over 3 million votes. Although Democrats may wonder about what happened in Ohio, very few people have argued that the popular vote didn't show a clear Bush victory. Ironically, taking action to avoid so-called "voter fraud" has led to Bush and Rove looking like they are manipulating the U.S. Department of Justice for political reasons.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Bush Doesn't Ask for Tax Increase for War
According to the Bloomberg Reports, George W. Bush, aka Bubble-Boy, is the first president in 150 years not to seek a tax increase to finance a war.(You can read the whole Bloomberg article by clicking on this entry's title.) This is going back to the Mexican-American war in the 1840s. All other presidents were smart enough to realize that you can't fight a war without a tax increase unless you are willing to go into debt. Now, the Republicans will try to argue that the national debt is going down. This is because the national debt doesn't count intra-governmental debt, ie, what the American government borrows from the Social Security trust fund to finance the government.
If Democrats wanted to go after Bush on the deficit, the first step would be to resurrect the lockbox concept that Al Gore talked about in 2000. This means passing a law that prohibits Social Security and Medicare funds from being used for anything other than those two programs. The immediate effect of this would be to illustrate how bad off the government finances are and to force reality into the debate about our government's spending and tax policies. It would also put the Bush administration into a real bind. They couldn't support such a move and opposing it would be politically unpopular. It would also reinforce the Democratic Congress's reputation as a defender of these two very popular programs.
If Democrats wanted to go after Bush on the deficit, the first step would be to resurrect the lockbox concept that Al Gore talked about in 2000. This means passing a law that prohibits Social Security and Medicare funds from being used for anything other than those two programs. The immediate effect of this would be to illustrate how bad off the government finances are and to force reality into the debate about our government's spending and tax policies. It would also put the Bush administration into a real bind. They couldn't support such a move and opposing it would be politically unpopular. It would also reinforce the Democratic Congress's reputation as a defender of these two very popular programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)