Make the Bush Record the Issue

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.

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.

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.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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!!

excellent column. why does this magazine allow the facts which have a liberal bias to be mentioned.