Drove into Austin today on one of those days (equinoxal, I guess) when radio reception is very odd. I could get Fort Wayne, IN and Little Rock, but not Austin or San Antonio radio in the car... Someone out there somewhere remarked dolefully, in a discussion of the presidential race, that even the Democrat with the highest numbers is 10% behind Bush, oh woe.
OH WOE???!!! Seems to me that a president with the machinery, money, and war Bush has, 10% ahead of unknown Democrats doesn't look very good to me, ought to make Republicans worry.
At this point in Clinton's presidency -- given Monica etc. -- what percentage was he ahead, in the polls, of Bush and McCain etc.?
Ditto Papa Bush?
Anyone have any numbers to compare?
Talk of the Nation today seemed to have devoted its first hour to Wesley Clark. Only heard a few minutes of it; sounded interesting. Available at npr.org.
Tartarin, don't even bother to listen to them that has problems. It has really turned into a big joke - the comparisons that is. I don't even think it is a argument unless your boy is better than that being argued
I don't have the figures at hand, but Bush's current numbers are not materially different from his predecessor's at the same relative point in his first term, though the slight edge there is goes to Bush in most categories. Polls being what they are, well .... polls are what they are, especially early ones. Suffice it to say the previous incumbent won re-election regardless his position in the polls at this corresponding time.
From an interview with Paul Krugman by the blogger
Calpundit.
The key players in the "drive to destroy much of what is best in our country" are almost exclusively members of the liberal elite. (Paul Krugman is their poster child.)
"Elite: the choice or best part, as of a body or class of persons."
Exactly. And Paul will be pleased too!
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat, go back to bed.
Sorry, no can do. I have a 2 week old here who insists on turning me into a morning person. Hope you are braced for the storm.
Scrat wrote:The key players in the "drive to destroy much of what is best in our country" are almost exclusively members of the liberal elite. (Paul Krugman is their poster child.)
Dubya, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld!!!
They are members of the liberal elite???
I don't think so!
How is it that the conservatives are able to twist things out of kilter by 180 degrees and still think they are making any sense? That really confuses me!
Savage, Limbaugh, Murdock, Horowitz - need I say more
Its all perspective and perception, c.i. ... a lot of it is pot-and-kettle stuff. The greatest challenge the Dems face, IMHO, is finding a way to get beyond their negatavism. The current campaign is shaping into a replay of '72, it seems to me. The closeness of the 2000 election, and the clear message sent by the '02 Mid-Term election, were lost on The Democratic Leadership, I believe. Rather than court the center, they are distancing themselves from it, under the banner of differentiating themselves from The Republicans, and I feel they do so to their own disadvantage. I could be wrong of course, after all, its just a matter of perspective and perception.
Thank goodness we all have opinions - and none are right, or is it, all are right. I guess neocon negatavism is good and lib negatavism is bad - too deep a subject for my little mind!
Timber
In the end the outcome of the election may boil down to one basic concept.
"It's the economy stupid"
If the economy has bounced back by election time Bush is a shoo in. If not it's a crap shoot
As for negativism Isn't every campaign based in part on negativism. The idea being to denigrate the opponent in every way possible..
timber, I know it's all "perspective and perception." What makes it hard to understand is that the far right and the far left can't be all right or all wrong, but on primary issues the gap seems rather too large to rationalize. Admittedly, there are greys in most things, but not on issues such as "why this war was justified." How is it that most Americans can switch from one justification to the next without questioning why the justification has changed? That's what I don't understand.
Again, just a matter of personal opinion, BillW, but I see little of the negativism flying around comming from the conservatives. I suppose some can be found out toward the fringe, but I don't see from The Mainstream Right the shrill, downright nasty disparagement, the invective and ad hominem attack which appear to have become the norm for the liberal camp's campaign. I truly expect The Electorate to react negatively to that approach.
Good points. au. I agree both in principle and particular. The worst of all possible eventualities for the Democrats would be a clearly recovering, expanding economy. Its a given more folks vote by pocketbook than by conscience.
Just so you understand, Timber: many of us seriously see Bush as not a fascist but getting very close. So when I read supporters of the status quo writing the rest of us off as "negative," I'm caught between pride and horror. Horror that an American would see fighting nascent fascism and imperialism as "negative," and pride that at least a substantial group of Americans are able to see more clearly and take responsiblity for opposing, each in his own way, the degeneration of values which you represent.
Speak for yourself Tartarin, I seriously see the Bush Regime as Fascist/Imperialist and moving further right at an increasing pace - and, I am positive of this (no negativism allowed
).
Timber, war is a negativism - when all else fails. The pivot point of the right is war - it appears in all right stands. Sorry, your basic platform hinges on a negative.
$500 billion deficit is a negative and drawing the economy down, high unemployment and growing is a negative, lying is a negative - gotta get some truth telling in there. Hmmmm, reporting on this doesn't make the messenger negative!!!!!!!!!
