Absent amnesia—which only happens on soaps—Democrats will be fine.
Comment: It seems I can't post my Daily Kos blog webpage address without it being cut off.
Try typing this http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/28/162114/27
or just go to http://www.dailykos.com and search for Newt's diary
Comment: Discuss the potentially devastating loss next year if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination: http:// www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/28/162114/27
Comment: Discuss the potentially devastation if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/28/162114/27
Comment: Hillary Clinton is the GOP's best GOTV strategy
Thank you, Karl Robe, for the wake up call to blue America. If Democrats want to win the 2008 presidency and, more importantly, achieve a landslide takeover of Congress next fall, we need a team that won???t stir up the negative passions of conservatives. Even with the Iraq war and lying, cheating and stealing (war profiteering and record oil profits) firmly tied to Bush Admin policies, the left wing response is dismal. The left simply doesn???t use its majority voting clout. Next year there is more at stake than just the presidency. Progressives have a potentially historic opportunity to take back the Senate in 2008. We need to be careful not to reinvigorate the faltering conservative movement with a bad choice in the Democratic primary. Democrats banking on failure in Iraq and awareness of what the disastrous Bush Admin policies have done to our country in the past six years support any candidate who says they???ll do things differently. Democrat contenders are riding the anti-war, anti-Bush movement. But savvy voters can proactively calculate how the election will go next year if our candidate strikes a hugely negative chord with Middle America. If Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination she will inspire conservatives to vote as no one else could. Right-wingers don't just dislike her, they actively despise her! They'll vote in droves to ensure she doesn't win the presidency. Anyone but Hillary is the Republicans' best GOTV tactic, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. While at the polls, they???ll also vote for all those rubber-stamping Republican Senators that progressives would like to fire. For that matter, plenty of people would vote against Barack Obama simply because he???s black or against Bill Richardson because he???s Hispanic. While we should not dismiss either of them just because racism stands in their way, Democrats should be realistic about their prospects as number one on a presidential ticket.
It???s time for progressives to face reality: A split vote between Obama and Edwards will likely result in a huge loss next fall. If progressives want to enact change in Congress to achieve true election reform, get big business out of our government and move to an independent Iraq, we need to decide on a team that can truly win, before the Democratic Primary occurs. If Molly Ivins were alive, perhaps we could ask her to publish her pick for president and vice president and try to create a solid voting block that way. She said, ???There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times.??? If Democrats can identify a winning team before the Primary elections, Edwards, Richardson, Obama or even Dennis Kucinich have a chance to do what???s right and team up NOW to help Democrats take back both the Senate and the presidency in 2008.
Discuss this online: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/200
Comment: Right on Markos! I have been reading some of the unremarkable comments coming directly form the other 30% that have blindly been following the failed Bush Presidency even when 7 painful years have passed. Instead we are sadly subjected to the inexcusable lies and implausible outcomes of traitors like Karl Rove and his ???BFFL??? Bob Novak. We now know that the despicable act of outing a CIA operative was one of the lowest moments in our history and that anyone would consider any advice from one of these traitors as unbelievable. To be devoid of reality and absent of facts other than your own is wrong. Misguided political gaming like I read in Rove???s article is always followed in lock step by the ???sheep??? that have nothing but praise for a traitor like Novak and Rove but in the same breath would dismiss the facts; that 7 out of 10 Americans are extremely unhappy with the direction of this county under the Bush regime will not be forgotten any time soon.
Comment: Right on Markos! I have been reading some of the unremarkable comments coming directly form the other 30% that have blindly been following the failed Bush Presidency even when 7 painful years have passed. Instead we are sadly subjected to the inexcusable lies and implausible outcomes of traitors like Karl Rove and his ???BFFL??? Bob Novak. We now know that the despicable act of outing a CIA operative was one of the lowest moments in our history and that anyone would consider any advice from one of these traitors as unbelievable. To be devoid of reality and absent of facts other than your own is wrong. Misguided political gaming like I read in Rove???s article is always followed in lock step by the ???sheep??? that have nothing but praise for a traitor like Novak and Rove but in the same breath would dismiss the facts; that 7 out of 10 Americans are extremely unhappy with the direction of this county under the Bush regime will not be forgotten any time soon.
Comment: The contrast between this piece and Karl Rove's is subtle, but stunning.
Mr. Rove understands campaigning; Mr. Moulitsas understands blogging. Rove outlines a strategy for Republicans to get 50.1% against Hillary Clinton, who will probably be on the ballot; Moulitsas exhorts Democrats to get angry at George Bush, who will certainly not be on the ballot. Rove has won 2 presidential elections he had no business winning; Moulitsas has made a business of backing losers.
Taken together, these two essays chart the way for Democrats to lose again in 2008. The question that should concern Mr. Moulitsas is not why Democrats are so much better at governing, but why Republicans are so much better at getting elected.
Comment: Once again, the "backing losers" theme so popular among wingnut welfare recipients and their peripatetic fans when talking about Markos Moulitsas, rears its ugly head.
Why? Because to the modern American right wing, there is no principle that can not be immediately sacrificed for the sake of gaining and holding power. Because Moulitsas acts out of principle and supports progressive candidates who are often long shots (guys like Jon Tester and Jim Webb, neither of whom were favored by the Democratic Party bosses in their primary campaigns, but who -- by the way -- ended up winning), his candidates don't always win.
But unlike the modern American right wing, even when his candidates lose, Moulitsas can still respect himself in the morning, having not whored his principles out to the powerful for the sake of winning.
Comment: Once again, the liberal disdain of campaign-craft rears its ugly head. Why do Democrats assume that running a competent race equates to sacrificing one's principles?
The truth is the reverse. If, God forbid, the Democratic Presidential nominee adopts the Moulitsas strategy, who pays the price of heroic failure? Will Mr. Moulitsas still respect himself, having whored the people out to the powerful for the sake of his principles?
Comment: The Dems seem a tad testy here. Welfare checks late again?
Comment: Way to lower the discourse. Do you have anything meaningful to say, or are you just here to troll?
Comment: To Tbetz: Please read my comments below. It will give you some food for thought.
Comment: No, just more grist for the mill.
Comment: Now I hear that Hillary is spouting off that the present economic climate can be compared to the Great Depression. During the Depression, the unemplyment was at 20% and nobody was hiring. Now unemployment is at 4 something percent and 180,000 jobs were created last month. We are not in a depression or even a recession, but Hillary feels she can present some boldfaced lies to the American people, and some sucker will probably believe it is the truth. and vote for her.
The ship ain't sinking, folks. The Clintons have always lied and with straight faces.
Comment: The government-stated unemployment rate is a joke, a propaganda tool, and has been since Republicans started jimmying the formula during the Reagan adminstration.
See:
http://www.exilemm.com/e-sub-realunemployment.shtml
... for a detailed and documented explanation of why the real unemployment rate is well over 20% today.
Comment: Was the employment rate during the Clintons tenures propaganda tools, too? Or it just when Republicans are in power when all these employment figures are cooked in your estimation? Go figure.
Comment: I did say "since", did I not?
No matter what he campaigned as, from a policy standpoint, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.
Comment: Democrats will be fine? Some must be wondering after 2000 how can we possibly screw this one up? Is anyone concerned yet that the last sitting Democrat U.S. Senator to be elected President was John F. Kennedy (49.7% to 49.5% in 1960)? The last Republican U.S. Senator was Warren G. Harding (1920).
The people may vote for their own Senators and Congress members but they don't like Congress. Won't any of the leading Republicans have it easy running against a U.S. Senator?
Comment: Great column; you nailed it.
Comment: But, neither side is ever honest in the "say-do" arena!
Comment: Financial Mess. Try looking at an administration and term for what they are. One Presidential mess is carried over to the next, your right...like the Clinton Administration and the lack of budget leveling, reduction of the Armed Forces, and Foreign Relations on uneven ground. Your right, your view point is correct...if you look at it with only one eye open.
Comment: Actually, Clinton left the nation in great economic shape (at least, compared to the declining economy handed to him by his predecessor, and especially compared to the dog???s breakfast GW Bush has made of it) , and had actually rebuilt our military from the force reductions overseen by his predecessor's Defense Secretary, Richard Cheney.
For example:
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s...The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s." According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 defense budget "kill[ed] 81 programs for potential savings of $ 11.9 billion...Major weapons killed include[d]....the Air Force's F-16 airplane." [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]
The Boston Globe reported on the impact of Cheney's cuts to armored tanks: "The Army's cupboard is left particularly bare. Coming in the wake of last year's killing of the M-1 tank and the Apache helicopter, the death of the M-2 means the Army will soon have virtually no major weapons in production." [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]
The 1990 Cheney budget proposal called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]
The LA Times reported in November 1991 that the number of active-duty military personnel had decreased by over 106,000, or 5 percent of the total forces. The National Guard and Reserves had been cut by nearly 38,000, instead of the 105,000 the Bush Administration sought. [LA Times, 11/2/91]
The reason our military looks inadequate now is that it has been abused by the Commander in Chief, who violated the Powell Doctrine (which prohibited the sort of idiotic long-term occupation in which our military is now engaged) around which the military had been structured.
The reason the Army can barely meet its lowered recruitment goals, despite lowering the bar significantly and signing up more convicted criminals than ever, is the same reason that so many career officers are retiring, decimating the officer corps: people don't trust this Commander-In-Chief to keep them out of wars of conquest that serve only to prop him up politically and to enrich his real constituents in military industries and on Wall Street.
Comment: The story says that Bush and cabal are the true essence of conservatism, I disagree because there is nothing conservative about what this administration has done to America. Conservatives call for less government but we have seen these people turn our government into the worst beaurocratic nightmare ever.
It is more intrusive into our lives without the required warrants and it even has the phone companies helping them spy on us. I would say that is government run amok and I say it is our fault collectively speaking.
We have allowed the government to get too far away from the constitution and our apathy is reaping what it has sown.
Comment: If Conservatives "are for less government", why is it that every time a self-proclaimed conservative obtains political power (as was the case with both Reagan and GW Bush) he grabs more power for himself and his cronies, disenfranchising the common man? Why is it that self-proclaimed "conservatives" always run up government debt to record levels (as Reagan-Bush I did), leaving it to "liberals" like Bill Clinton to balance the budget and try to clean up the conservatives' fiscal mess?
Admiral Rickover used to talk about the politician's "say-do" syndrome -- if a politician says that he supports something, he considers it to be done, even though all he has offered are words. When it comes to small, non-intrusive government and fiscal responsibility, self-proclaimed "conservatives" talk a good game -- but judged on their actions when given power to act, self-proclaimed "conservatives" usually, with very few exceptions, turn out to be simple lying, power-hungry hypocrites.
Comment: Does anyone know about the PNAC? Bush is a puppet! Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, wolfowitz, Perl? etc. they are the ones who run the country. Not a person. Bush runs the country no more than I do. He just has more power. Power corrupts. He is corrupt. Read, rebuilding ammericas defenses and search for "Pearl Harbor". They wanted 9/11. Bush got the memo and ignored it. Al Quaida was going to attack and he did nothing.
Comment: I think you should present facts here not the political BS you have written. We need to make our decisions based on facts not lies. Maybe we should get rid of our political party system so we force people to vote for the best person. Unfortunately belonging to a certain political party doesn't make a person automatically smart.
Comment: Rather than writing broad-brush slanders, how about identifying (and counter-arguing) at least one specific "lie" Moulitsas included in his column? It looked pretty factual to me.
Comment: Moulitsas actually made some intelligent points, while Rove just spewed lame old talking points.
Comment: Markos, I strongly agree, but would add that such issues as Health Care, Social Security, and the Economy should be contrasted and blown-up as Bush failures. Special attention should be given to the large expansion of the poor and uninsured, as-well-as the economic losses of the middle class.
Comment: I have heard of "Daily Kos" but I have not read any of your pieces before. Although I agree with the article's main point (closeness to Bush and his choices is a detriment for Republicans) the whole piece reeks of narrow-minded partisanship. The meaning of Ronald Reagan's words is grossly distorted and the childish faith in Democratic goodness ("Democrats ...are invested from the beginning in governing competently, efficiently and fairly.") makes the whole thing even more appalling. I'm sad to see Newsweek host such partisan trash. I am not a US citizen (I come from Greece) but I used to hold US journalism in high regard.
A recent visit to the US has confirmed what I have been suspecting for some time, that US media have, in recent years, become infested with partisan clowns, more interested in securing segments of the ad-watching public than in exploring the truth.
Comment: By the way, your complaint about the meaning of Reagan's words is pretty disingenuous.
It's pretty plain what one means when one says, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," especially when one also regulary says "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The single most consistent pattern carried through the Reagan administration and the two Bush administrations was the appointment of incompetent cronies to positions of critical importance, and the appointment to regulatory bodies political hacks lobbyists from the ranks of the regulated industries.
This behavior inevitably resulted in disaster after disaster; but for some reason, the core Republican authoritarian followers (lovingly known as "the 24%") seem incapable of recognizing this glaringly obvious pattern.
The rest of America is coming to see clearly that if you want good government, you don't vote for people who hate government.
Comment: What you complain about is kind of the point of this opinion piece. See the editors' introduction to this series of pieces from Moulitsas and Karl Rove at:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/71105
(Now I find out whether Newsweek will permit URLs in comments here.)
Comment: It takes quite an imagination or boat-load of wishful thinking to mistake the publics impatience with a lengthly -- and until recently mismanaged -- war for a validation of the Democrat party. The record low popularity numbers of the current Democrat Congress are evidence enough of this.
The only conclusion one can safely draw from such a generic poll question is that war is unpopular. The current discontent with the war in Iraq which may diminish with the success of the surge strategy is not a signal that we want another helping of the new deal or the great society. Liberal is still a dirty word.
If it turns out our Iraq adventure is ultimately successful and we gain a new ally in the Muslim world, we will have more influence in Muslim lands than ever before. It may even allow us to have permanent military bases in Iraq from which to contain Al Qaeda and Iran. If this happens, this gamble will be seen as at least as important as Reagan's defeat the Soviet Union. What has a Democrat president done on this level of importance since Truman? Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton -- not exactly giants in the pantheon of former presidents. Clinton deserves credit for NAFTA but it is not nearly as important in the overall scheme.
Comment: The "record low popularity" numbers you wingers love to cite are not of a "Democrat Congress" but of Congress as a whole, which, last I checked, was about 40% Republicans in one house, and 50% (51%, if we properly include Traitor Joe Lieberman) in the other. Polling (Gallup, Nov 4-5, 2007, released Nov 15, 2007) confirms that about 54% of Americans see Democrats favorably, and only 40% see Republicans favorably -- In fact, while only 9% of Democrats see Republicans favorably, 16% of Republicans see Democrats favorably, nearly two-to-one in the Democrats' favor, and among Independents, the comparison is 47% to 33% in favor of Democrats.
There are primarily two reasons why Americans hold this Congress in low esteem: 1) they have not cut off funding for the Iraq occupation, and 2) They have not impeached Bush and Cheney, with 3) Republicans are blocking all meaningful legislation bringing up a strong third place.
Wingers and Dittoheads who continue cling to that 11% approval rating as though it somehow applies to Democrats alone are whistling past the graveyard.
Comment: If there is such a strong consensus or cutting off funding for the war in Iraq, why is the Congress -- led by Democrats who are setting the agenda and control the money not able to do so? Don't they follow the polls? Or, are they too busy running from one anti-war rally to the next? Don't they know that cutting of funding for the Iraq war would guarantee them the White House and stronger majorities in Congress next year? No, they know cutting off funding for the war would banish them to political wilderness again.
Comment: Oh, there is one other reason -- expressed personally to me by my Congressperson.
Many in Congress worry the Bush is so deranged that instead of bringing the troops home after defunding, he would be obstinant and cruel enough to force them to stay in Iraq without adequate supplies, just as he sent them there without adequate supplies, or even sufficient numbers, and with no plan even to secure the weapons dumps that are now supplying the explosives for the IEDs that are killing our troops.
Those Congresspeople have a good point, too, though it is also inadequte, in my opinion.
Comment: The word placate immediately comes to mind ...
Comment: No, the Democratic leadership is mostly afraid of how their refusal to give George Bush more blood money for his failed occupation of Iraq, thus forcing him to bring our troops home -- which, given Britain's recent experience in Basra, is proving to be the best way to reduce violence in Iraq -- will be twisted by the talking heads in the employ of the warmongering media machine into "de-funding our troops" and "taking away their bullets" and other such vile lies.
And given the nature of the ownership of most of America's radio and television stations (hint -- it's six pro-Republican corporations) they have a good point, though it is insufficient in my book.
Comment: The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq is unlikely to gain any new friends in the Middle East. Nations in the region, who also suffered the effects of terrorism, generally supported military action in Afghanistan. Invading Iraq may have created counterproductive fears of "are we next? Incidentally, the Gulf War resulted in establshing a significant U.S. military presence in the area, including bases in Kuwait, Qatar, etc. As an Independent, it is interesting to observe the build-up to what could possibly be the second implosion of American conservatism. As you will recall, the Federalist Party handed its strongest tenets to the Jeffersonian Democrats, then marginalized itself into nonexistence, much as the modern Republican Party has migrated completely from its ideals of small government, protection of the rights of individual citizens, and land conservation.
Comment: Way to go KOS!! Great article!
Comment: Memo to Markos: George W. Bush isn't on the ballot in 2008.
As much as he claims to know about politics, you'd think Markos might want to focus Dems on running against the Republican candidate, not the lame-duck President.
Comment: You either completely missed the point of the essay, or you get it and it frightens you so you toss out a straw man for purposes of distraction. Markos's point is not that Democrats should run against Bush out of some sort of misguided irrational ire for a figure of fading relevance but that they should run against him because "he's the embodiment of modern conservatism" Bush/Cheney, their administration, their suppliant Republican Congress, and their Federalist Society bench have been the fully realized dream of Reagan conservatism, and they have proven that by its own logic it is an unmitigated disaster as a philosophy of government, if one can call such an internally contradictory collection of sentiments and ideas a philosophy at all. It has inevitably produced and institutionalized incompetence, cronyism, and corruption, and has left the country with a legacy of debt, division, and demoralization that will take us a long time to repair. It is that of what the Democrats should remind the electorate at every turn.
On a lighter note, it's funny to hear someone complain about the prospect of Democrats running against a man who is still in office when Republicans just never seem to be able to get enough of bashing Bill Clinton for all manner of ills. No sense of irony, I guess.
Comment: Your pt.? So he isn't running. All the reptiles though running supported his policies for the last 7 yrs. and that makes them all BV$HIVIKS.
Comment: But both "I tortured mobsters" Giuliani and "double Gitmo" Romney promise to be Bush on steroids -- the policies they offer consist entirely of more of the same madness, cruelty and criminality committed by Bush. That being the case, it's certainly valid to point out that the policies offered by the Republican candidates are as bad as -- or worse than -- the failed policies of the Bush administration.
Comment: Wow...logic ! Refreshing. George W. Bush has done everything a president can do...WRONG. Appointment after appointment of "Bushies" instead of competent people. He has tried time and time again to show America how well a smaller governent can work if many of its functions are outsourced to private corporations and time and time again, we "the people" have been screwed. We have seen favored Corporations fighting with each other to see who can be more corrupt and waste more of our hard earned tax dollars.
It seems that using the Republicans records, as President and the majority in Congress, should be a slam dunk for the the Democrats, but it has always amazed me how people can stand up and cheer for someone who is stabbing them in the back at the same time, but there are many middle-class Republicans who will.
Good article Markos !!!!
Comment: Wow...logic ! Refreshing. George W. Bush has done everything a president can do...WRONG. Appointment after appointment of "Bushies" instead of competent people. He has tried time and time again to show America how well a smaller governent can work if many of its functions are outsourced to private corporations and time and time again, we "the people" have been screwed. We have seen favored Corporations fighting with each other to see who can be more corrupt and waste more of our hard earned tax dollars.
It seems that using the Republicans records, as President and the majority in Congress, should be a slam dunk for the the Democrats, but it has always amazed me how people can stand up and cheer for someone who is stabbing them in the back at the same time, but there are many middle-class Republicans who will.
Good article Markos !!!!
Comment: If you read this carefully you might find a little liberal bias from the writer. what ever happend to fair and balanced reporting in my opnion thies it tantamount to libel.
Comment: There is supposed to be a iberal bias intentionally. You want conservative bias - that's why they hired Karl Rove as well for the conservative viewpoint.
Comment: There is supposed to be a liberal bias. If you want the conservative side go read Rove's article.
Comment: This is an editorial piece not a news peace. It's all about opinion.
Comment: Richard Clarke developed Homeland Security initatives now in place during the Clinton administration, beginning after the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Only the Bush administration can answer (and it certainly won't be to the American public) why they refused to acknowledge or implement the newly-developed anti-terrorism recommendations made by the Clinton administration--until after 3,000 people died. "Government" isn't a big blob--it's people. And government is only as good as the people we elect.
Comment: Richard Clarke developed Homeland Security initatives now in place during the Clinton administration, beginning after the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Only the Bush administration can answer (and it certainly won't be to the American public) why they refused to acknowledge or implement the newly-developed anti-terrorism recommendations made by the Clinton administration--until after 3,000 people died. "Government" isn't a big blob--it's people. And government is only as good as the people we elect.
Comment: Perhaps this is one of the reasons the Bush administration din't want an investigation of 911. They were warned but they ignored the warning? And when they finally agreed to a 911 commission, the investigation was hamstrung by what commission could and couldn't investigate.
Comment: What i find fascinating is that neither Kos nor Rove brought up the one issue that would carry any candidate straight to the White House - illegal immigration. If you want an example of how out of touch both parties and the media are, just try to find someone talking openly and honestly about this issue.
Comment: Writer and talk-show host Thom Hartmann talks about illegal employers (the real problem behind illegal immigation -- start imprisoning anyone who hires illegals and the jobs will dry up, and the illegals will go home) all the time. Unfortunately, this sort of honest talk about the real problem (and its real solutions) doesn't serve the corporatist media (owned by corporations who profit both from hiring illegals, and by using the threat of hiring illegals to help keep legal wages unnaturaly low) like the sort of fear-driven race-baiting drivel that drives Republicans like Tancredo and his followers.
Comment: While I agree the current administration is incompetent, laced with corruption and riddled with parasitic special interests, I want to remind everyone who longs for the good old days that there never was such a time. If we forget we need checks and balances and simply transfer power from the right to the left our nation is doomed.
If Americans can't find a way to rise above this pendulum pattern, we will go the way of Rome.
Comment: excellent column. why does this magazine allow the facts which have a liberal bias to be mentioned.
Comment: "Liberal bias" synonymous with "facts".
Comment: I don't disaprove of bush at all and I'm sure i'm not alone. He is the first president that did something about us being attacked on our own home ground. Before president bush all we had from carter and clinton was botched attempts and nothing.
Comment: I seem to remember that after the first WTC bombing, the Clinton administration got those responsible and they are sitting in prison now, rather than still hiding out in a cave somewhere like someone else we all know. He also didn't blame the previous president either. And what did Bush do when the FBI finally decided (too late for Clinton to do anything since he was leaving office) who was responsible for the Cole bombings? Bush did nothing..
Comment: Funny how, to this Bush-follower, Ronnie Reagan and GHW Bush (whose destruction of Carter's energy-independence plans, botched Iran-Contra scam, funding of the Afghanistan Mujahadeen -- where Osama bin Laden got his military training -- support for Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war, and the Saudi military bases established during the first Iraq war that set the table for the attacks of 9/11/2001) never existed. No, the Bush cultist must always blame the truth-telling Democrats of the past for our present problems, not the lying, scheming Republicans who actually made the present mess.
Comment: And that's worked out well...hasn't it ?
Comment: It's worked out well for their buddies running the international oil companies and the weapons manufacturers, and the bankers financing the growing national debt, to whom you and I pay the interest on that debt.
Yeah, it's worked out very well for them.
Comment: Newsweek is great
Comment: Later
Comment: I think Newsweek is engaging in political censorship. It evidently won't accept comments that counter it's positions. And it is happening again this morning. Looks like, write 'nice an acceptable' and you're OK. don't follow the line, and you get "can't be submitted at this time..."
Comment: You're just going to have to lay off the foul, racist language.
Too bad.
Comment: Hmm. Morning after, I'll state this again;
I think Newsweek has engaged in political censorship on this blog. I had a well constructed, respectful, comment written that directly countered Mr. Kos, and Newsweek's philosophy in general. When submitted, a comment came back , "Your comment cannot be submitted at this time. Please try again later". After a few dozen 'laters', and two+ hours, I gave up. My other brief comments were accepted.. Other bloggers evidently had no problem. I can't help but wonder, is Newsweek so insecure that they cannot accept counter comments? And being a computer professional, if there were 'technical' problems, I would like to hear those...
Comment: Hmm. Morning after, I'll state this again;
I think Newsweek has engaged in political censorship on this blog. I had a well constructed, respectful, comment written that directly countered Mr. Kos, and Newsweek's philosophy in general. When submitted, a comment came back , "Your comment cannot be submitted at this time. Please try again later". After a few dozen 'laters', and two+ hours, I gave up. My other brief comments were accepted.. Other bloggers evidently had no problem. I can't help but wonder, is Newsweek so insecure that they cannot accept counter comments? And being a computer professional, if there were 'technical' problems, I would like to hear those...
Comment: I'm not a political pundit, just an average American trying to read both sides, basically an Independent because I feel both parties are so divisive, as is evident by this article. Here's what I see: (1) the most offensive thing in this writing is for the President to be blamed for all ills in the country, especially for the death of people in mines -- for God's sake where is the logic in this? What a shameful continuation of blaming the federal government for every problem in America as if locally elected officials, business leaders, and citizens have no responsibility for outcomes. (2) conservatives fail to see that social issues are not the defining reason that average people like me will follow their ideology. Since when is it more important to focus so much attention on gay rights and abortion rather than on providing incentives for people to start their own businesses, young people to get an education, and protecting outselves from foreign radicals that want to kill our way of life? Let's get real here -- the right-wing religious groups' point of view should not be the litmus test for how we vote. I want a leader who is PATRIOTIc (unfortunately the Democrats are coming off as anti-American with their over-emphasis on all that's wrong, and the Republicans seem reluctant to wave the flag), FISCALLY responsible (plenty of blame to go around here for both sides), and STONG ON DEFENSE -- not offence! Where is a party that will serve all Americans without bankrupting the country by promising we will pay for the health care of everybody, and without alienating all those people that have opinions that differ from the religious right? Where do I feel each party is correct? The Democrats are more correct in trying to focus on the true role of the federal government as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution -- "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" although they are so NEGATIVE that it's hard to believe that they want this as the role rather than to build a social welfare state, and the Republicans are so hung up over trying to "convert the world" to our way of life, and do not respect its own citizens to live their personal lives without imposing stringent values, that they come across as oppressive rather than as true lovers of freedom. What are we to do? Vote for the lesser of two evils? There's no doubt that the main press (TV and newspapers) are terribly liberal leaning (that also comes across as anti-patriotic), that Harry Reed looks like a mad man who hates us all, and that Dick Chaney is a confused and conniving neo-conservative. I hope there are enough of us who can think for ourselves and read beyond the headlines promoted by the media, and object to all these politicians saying "what the American people want...." Nobody asked me!!
Comment: Shouldn't a correlation between mine safety and relaxed standards be noted? This was one of Bush's first acts as president to allow these standards to be lowered. Coming from a mining family, I knew what that meant. It was the same with reducing environmental standards with the "Clear Skys Iniative" which lead to increased mercury which led in turn to increased cases of autism. Facts are funny things.
Comment: About that 11% approval. That's asked about all of Congress. People elected the Democrats to end the war. But with an insane man for president, and Mitch McConnell pulling every corrupt parliamentary maneuver possible, they haven't been able to do that. That's why "Congress" is as popular as ants at a picnic. And when people condemn Congress, they condemn the Republicans in the Senate even more. The thing to watch is the generic Democrat vs. Republican preference, and that's when you guys are in epic trouble. So if you want to wake up on January 20, 2009 with 58 Democrats in the Senate, and an even bigger majority in the House, just keep your guys voting for more war, more destruction, and more and more trouble for America. With big majorities and a Democratic president, just watch approval climb.
Comment: ApolloKnowsNothing, People aren't going to be fooled by that crap from the Republic's, 70% of America want's us OUT OF IRAQ and the Republicans in Congress are OBSTRUCTING and alot more of them are going to lose their jobs in 08.
No matter what you say or do the Republic Party is RESPONIBLE for the last seven years of failed pilicies and broken laws (Karl Rove) and you're going to pay for it by losing the Presidential race in 08.
It's time for the Neocon nuts to go away for awhile....
Comment: 11% approval rating for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
Wow, now Newsweek is openly a left-wing nutcase ragazine. Hiring this guy demonstrates exactly Newsweek's political position/philosophy.
Truth be damned...Kos never did care about facts, only about the innuendo and rumors from his blog...preaching to the choir.
So will Newsweek hire a conservative, or even one moderate to help balance out its unbiased political reporting?
Why should they start now? They never have in the past.
Comment: Yeh, Mr. Know It All. Newsweek is so liberal they hired Karl Rover alongside Markos
Comment: "Jeff Y @ 11/19/2007 12:23:33 AM
Comment: Would you prefer Adolph Giuliani's views on gay marriage?, the Repugs are full of crap again, they've got nothing but the same old fear and smear tactics to run on." You probably have no idea of the profound irony there.
Comment: Well, trying to make Bush the issue, even though he is not running for anything, would be better for democrats than making the democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment" the issue as there is no democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment". Yup, you should probably go with that alright.. Good idea..
Comment: Unfortunately, the Publican Party is on pace to set a record by far for the most filibusters in any session of Congress, so you can say that the Publicans are responsible for being obstructionists. It was their clear goal to deny the Democrats any political victories so that they can go forth and deride the "Do-Nothing" Congress...nice try...but it's the Publican Party's fault that nothing is getting done.
Comment: Well, trying to make Bush the issue, even though he is not running for anything, would be better for democrats than making the democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment" the issue as there is no democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment". Yup, you should probably go with that alright.. Good idea..
Comment: Unfotunately for you Republic Party drones, THIS IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, not a congressional one ( the R's are going to lose more seats in Congress too for being obstructionists on Iraq ) and all you have to offer is a bunch Wingnut drones (Giuliani,Romney) who want to continue and expand Bushco's failed policies. I'm glad that you have KKKarl Rove writing articles on here because it will only remind people of the fascist government that we've had for the last seven years under the Republic Party reign.
Comment: Well, trying to make Bush the issue, even though he is not running for anything, would be better for democrats than making the democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment" the issue as there is no democrat congress's "Record of Accomplishment". Yup, you should probably go with that alright.. Good idea..
Comment: boy does this prove how newsweek is the magazine for democrats, look at the comments for rove and look at comments for moulitas, unbelievable!!!! this is why I finally had to cancel my subscription. the democrat party has been bought by the likes of daily kos and move on.org, this is sad. Kennedy is crying from Heaven.......
Comment: The republic Party has been bought and paid for Bush/Cheney/Fox Noise Channel, Rush Limpone etc.
Pull your head out, Americans aren't buying the GOoPers (Giuliani/Romney) fear and swmear tactics anymore, you can call Hillary all the names that you want but the last seven years of f-ups have belonged to the REPUBLIC PARTY.....not Hillary.
Comment: Oh my..... how narrow minded can one be to oppose Mrs. Clinton because of gay marriage? Why would anyone care about gay marriage who is not gay? This is a Karl Rove-invented wedge issue and for some reason that I can not fathom seems to work on otherwise normal people. Maybe you prefer Mitt Romney who backed gay marriage when he run for Mass. governor and opposes it now?
Comment: Would you prefer Adolph Giuliani's views on gay marriage?, the Repugs are full of crap again, they've got nothing but the same old fear and smear tactics to run on.
Comment: I do not prefer Hilary. Not because she a woman, but because of her views on gay marriage...
Comment: Marriage is both a religious and civil ceremony. As far as the religious homosexuals are concerned, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So what verb don't you agree with, "make" or "prohibiting." We've already got laws on the books that prohibit discrimination against any racial or religious creed. Stop with the outrageous and unseemly hostility toward those who understand that ethics and morals were well defined by a Jewish rabble rouser in a eastern Mediterranean Roman colony a couple thousand years ago: "don't judge others, you're not qualified to do it." Let freedom continue and as Ben Franklin wisely admonished, "Mind your own business."
Comment: I'd like to hear the GOoPers tell us what new they have to offer us that isn't a continuation of Bush/Cheney?
Hillary hasn't been the Prez the last seven years...a-holes
Comment: I'd like to hear the GOoPers tell us what new they have to offer us that isn't a continuation of Bush/Cheney?
Hillary hasn't been the Prez the last seven years...a-holes
Comment: What's hilarious is that the Clinton machine will make certain she's the nominee, and if I was an Obama, I'd honestly be looking over my shoulder (over concern for both my political and physical life). Hillary's entire life, marriage, etc. have been about her becoming president. The sad truth for libs is that she's unelectable. At least you admit that your party prays for negative developments in hopes of winning by default, not issues.
Comment: This is worrisome; I have been trying to post a well thought through comment for a couple of hours. It is well written, just not flattering for Kos or Newsweek.
I very much appears that Newsweek is practicing censoring of comments. Anyone else ever seen this kind of behavior?
Comment: Seems if on enters a comment here that is not very flattering to Newsweek, it does not get posted. Respectable comment, just not flattering.
I think biased "news" reporting is gettign out of hand.
Comment: I agree with Markos, I don't think either Bush or Regan will be elected next year. Nice job Newsweek, it seems as though your star from the intertubes is fighting the last war. He lost that one if you will remember.
Comment: Congratulations Newsweek, bagging the leftwing Koz will shore things up nicely. And to Mr. Koz, I too believe the Dems will make more political inroads in 2008, mostly due to Iraq. But I differ when you suggest that turning out GOPer's means that Americans want regressive Liberal policy circa 1976. Since 1980, the economy has been operating very well under polices that are largely rightwing while the government and all its resources under the realm of the redistributionist left. Any outrage over government shortcomings is to ignore government shortcomings in general (Big Dig, N.O. levies, NYC infrastructure, literacy rates in Chicago, NY, Boston, Hoboken et al???public schools, Brooklyn???s Farragut Houses, Chicago???s Robert Taylor housing project, CIA/FBI wall Frank Church Hearings, Stagflation, hot coffee lawsuits, Sarajevo, Rwanda???, do you really want to debate this?). Additionally, the empirical case for socialism is Europe and most of Asia, both are embracing policies more of Reagan than Obama, with success.
Comment:
kimoco,
I will declare victory when the government of Iraq has a monopoly on the use of force, meaning that the militias are substantially dissolved or absorbed into govt forces. I realize that U.N. forces will have to stay a while longer to help Iraq defend its boarders. But in effect that will really be only a victory lap!
Comment: When bush announced his plan to improve airline travel this past week, I had to chuckle. Think of it. This is the man described in this column who has done so many, many marvelous things in his time in office. I say look out airlines and travelers--bad winds ahead!
Comment: If the Dems in Congress are in the majority, why do they insist on continuing to blame the Republicans? They could pass the legislation to stop the war, they simply won't.
We are now winning in Iraq and if things continue to improve, they don't want "we were on the wrong side" hung around their necks come the next election.
Both parties are the same, the major difference is the Dems want to give my money to those too lazy to earn their own and the Republicans want me to keep my own money.
I will vote Republican every time, if only for that reason.
Comment: You would do well to learn a bit about Senate rules, particularly a term called "cloture". Republicans have made it their policy since the 2006 election to block in the Senate any meaningful legislation, and then to lie about a "do-nothing Congress." You seem to be in the front line of perpetuating that lie for them.
Comment: I find it sad that almost 5 years after Bush started the unnecessary war in Iraq there are still some Republicans (the 24%ers) that insist that Iraq is 'extremely winnable'. Wow.
I wonder what these folks think winning is. At this point it seems the current Iraqi government is not working well, while violence is down, it is not gone. I would love to hear what you 24%ers think winning is.
After all, didn't Bush delare Mission Accomplished over 4 years ago?
Comment: fkfkfk
Comment: Blaming the absolute inability of a Democratic led Congress to make headway in approving, supporting, and implementing positive change, since they won the leadership role just 12 months ago, and were sworn in just 10 months ago, ALL THE WHILE STYMIED AT EACH AND EVERY STEP BY BUSH AND HIS CONGRESSIONAL PUPPETS USING EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO OBFUSCATE, DEMEAN, AND PROCEDURELY THWART REFORM, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW COURSE, is the height of Rebublican arrogance! I'm sorry, but to try and blame the Democrats for what is NOT happening in Washington is laughable, if not supremely cynical, at best. Markos has it right, and the Republicans are stuck with it!
Comment: The Republicans are in great shape, the Liberal Congress is in tough shape! The Gallup poll means nothing regarding Presidet Bushes approval rating compared to what the Liberal Congress rating mean to the people of the U.S.! Iraq is not a quagmire and is extremely winnable, the decimated housing market was foreseen wen President Clinton insisted every American shoud own a home and everyone with an ounce of brains could see the foreclosures coming in the not to distant future after Pres Clinton left office, some people never should have been able to own homes beause they COULD NOT PAY for them! The economy is in great shape despite Liberal biased press and declining dollar, and th wealth gap is what keeps the poorer people in the U.S. from totally going under inspite of what you the Liberal Pess think, the the Image of America is fast coming back to what it should be after the U.S. Liberals tried to demolish it, but counties like Germany and France saw through them and are lining up behind the greatest government in the world, again despitethe Americal Liberals! There is no reason for conservatives to distant thmselves from President Bush, he is not running again! There is much political progress as well as infrastructure progress in Iraq and the Liberals know it, that is why they keep saying there isn't, trying to convince themselves! SCIP is not denying healthcare to anyone, and it will not be covering the people who do not need it inthe first place, namely adults and richer Americans that want to leech off te system! The Demos have amnesia,they do not reme,ber 1996! Go ahead and remind the people of Bush's record that will seal a conservative victory! Ronald Reagan was right abou government being the problem not the solution, they stil are as you can see by the Congress rating! You can ramble on ad on about everything Conservative, but the Libs will bite the dust again in 2008 and will not win Congress or the White House back until they realize the American public is not as dumb as they thik they are!
Comment: Step right up ladies and gentleman. We have for your observation and consternation a rare but caged example of a neo-paleo wingnutus twentypercentus. Careful! Careful! Not too close now! It's angry and may bite or scratch.
Comment: You can always tell when someone gets their news from FOX ("the we distort you decide channel") and talk radio. Blame Clinton, the liberal media, blah, blah, blah. Wake up! Yeh, Gallup Polls mean nothing.
Then again, neither does the will of a majority of Americans to George Bush. Do you ever watch C-Span and actually listen to the so calles "liberal" and "conservative" congressman"? Have you ever read any of the signing statements George Bush attaches to federal laws? Basically he states that he will obey federal statute only insofar as he thinks it's constitutional, as if he is supposed to decided what is constitutional. Oh yeh, he is the "decider" after all. You are correct that S-CHIP does not refute anyone health care. The president and his congressional allies do. The president claimed he wanted to keep CHIP for poor children. That's a bold faced lie or he is absolutely clueless. Medicaid is for poor children. S-CHIP is for middle income families who can't afford health care or insurances. And what happened in 1996? Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job? To the self-righteous that preach family values, Bill and Hillary Clinton have maintained their marriage despite his infidelities. More than we can say for Knewt Gingrich or Rudi Giulliani or Fred Thompson. But I guess it's okay to lie a country into war, as Bush and his administration have done, than to lie about something as personal as adutlery. And why are Germany and France lining up behind the "greatest government in the world"?. To attack Iran? To spread democracy around the world? To let corporations write their laws? What exaclty? Give me a break!
Comment: Cmicah - I wouldn't waste my time nor energy trying to explain or enlighten someone with a fixed and narrow agenda. Focus on people who have still care about being coherent.
Comment: The comment by stephenkla at 4:57 PM, raisies eyebrows at the comment that "[Democrats] thus are invested from the beginning in governing competently, efficiently, and fairly." I have to agree that it has a touch of Pollyanna. Perhaps it would have been more balanced to write, "Democrats thus are invested AT the beginning..."
But that may illustrate the point even more starkly. Do you want to elect politicians who start off with some ideals and have to be seduced through a slow process to become corrupt? Or would you rather elect season
