Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Couldn't agree more, Blatham, but I also believe this "hate Bush" mantra is very misleading -- deliberately misleading -- Limbaugh-esque. Hate implies some sort of personal tic or defect. In fact, from the FL vote onward, those who oppose Bush have ranged from very wary to outraged. It's not a personal thing, it's a political and moral issue. The Bush administration is indeed ugly -- a very good word.

If I'm heartened by anything in the US, it's that so many people have been awakened to a new and genuine patriotism. They've got their history books out, they're studying the opposition very carefully, and they are committed to removing a real cancer on the right and its falsification of everything from Bush's record to the meaning of patriotism.

Tart, I think what's got The Left so riled up is that they are neither in the majority nor in power; and are quite upset to discover same, and thouroughly incapable of understanding both conditions have been visited upon them by themselves. "Bush Hatred" is beautifully symptomatic of that; "We're the epitome of good, therefore, if we are at disadvantage, the only possible cause is the influence of evil".

timber

You keep making that argument (out of power, therefore pissed) but I think it tells us more about how you think than it being an accurate description of why folks are angry.

If your argument were correct, then it would be merely American democrats who were riled, concerned, and frightened. But Tartarin's or Lola's or PD's opinions and responses are matched in Canada, England, Germany, France, etc....just look at the posters here, or the press from the rest of the world.

It's not about power...it's about the deeply dangerous misuse of it.

In a larger sense, blatham, I surmise the grander Global Left is in much the same situation. What is happening is the overall decline of Socialism in the face of the ascendence of Libertarian Mercantile Capitalism (for lack of a better term). The Left indeed is endangered, but it is not The Right that has occaisioned their endangerment, it is their own actions and failed policies. The swing to The Right is not confined to The US; Conservative Politics are gathering support, and governmental influence, throughout The Developed World. The Left is alarmed, outraged, and, ultimately, doomed. People vote their wallets, their security, and their freedoms. The Left offers little to endorse in such regard.

Thomas - Good citation and comments. I thought I'd just point out that a lot of people on the right did the same thing with Clinton. It was stupid and irrational then, and it is now.

I agree this is a disgusting trend, but I don't think this particular disgusting trend is specific to the right. I think it's just the way you gain political power in society that gets most of its news from TV and talk radio. For example, contrast a hard-hitting, conservative pre-TV pundid like the funny and intelligent Mencken with a TV age pundid like Limbaugh.

Then compare the modern scares from the right with the modern scares from the left. By that I mean widely propagated nonsense like the claims that abolishing the minimum wage will hurt the poor, or that American jobs need to be protected against third world imports, or that privatizing Social Security would automatically harm the elderly. I'd say the inventions of TV and talk radio made a much bigger difference than party lines do.

Paul Krugman, my personal hero, has an impressive record of waging thermonuclear war against that kind of scares by the left, much like he is fighting the Bush administration today. He was almost entirely right about Kuttner and Reich, just like he is almost entirely right about Bush. But based on his success at changing people's minds then, I'm not sure about his effectiveness at changing people's minds now. This is a problem because in a Democracy, you win by changing people's minds, not by being right.


I agree. But being correct doesn't win you elections.


I agree Dean did a great job mobilizing Democrats to get involved. But making liberals vote Democratic with a passion doesn't win more votes than making liberals vote for the Democrats without a passion. You win elections by winning over moderate conservatives and moderately apathetic non-voters. That's an entirely different game, and it remains to be seen whether Dean is any good at it. I'm skeptical, but admit that Dean has surprised me before. He may well surprise me again.


I agree. And I think you could get a lot of conservatives to agree too. No conservative I know wants to see the federal government get bigger the way it currently does. No conservative I know wants to see civil rights and due process perverted like they currently are. No conservative I know wants to see the perfectly respectable conservative agenda abused as an excuse for a mutual enrichment game between corporate insiders and the government. If the Democrats could come up with a Clinton minus the sleaze, a lot of these conservatives would come to see that they are being had for a ride by the Bush clique, and switch camps. I like Dean personally, but doubt he can do that. I also doubt he can mobilize enough non-voters to make up for it.

We'll find out though.

I think The Conservatives' support for The Current Administration is in large part not so much an endorsement of Bush the Younger or his crew per se, but more a conviction, aided greatly by the Clinton embarrassments, the perceived Democrat campaign against traditional core values, and the perceived Democrat fiscal and foreign policy shortcomings and weaknesses, that the current team is by far the lesser of two evils.

timber, I would prefer Clinton-type embarassmanet over what this administration has done to world politics and warfare. Most Europeans laughed at the US for making the Clinton US-based embarassment such a big deal. They're not laughing now.

Timber -- What "core values" (whatever that means) do you believe this administration upholds? One of your long lists, please!

I don't posit The Current Administration upholds any "Core Values", I posit they are perceived by many to do so. The core values to which I refer revolve mainly around the Judaeo-Christian moral code, the Puritan work ethic, and a commitment to American strength, sovereignty, individualism, self sufficiency, and leadership. Whether or not those valid core values, is moot; they are perceived by the Right to be so, and the Right, again, with or without justification, perceives those values to be under attack from The Left.

So would I, as I think you know. The thing to understand here -- and I didn't understand it until recently myself -- is that American conservatism is not about the Bush gang, and the Bush gang is not about American conservatism. American conservatism has a lot to offer that American voters like. The Bushies don't -- you can't fool all people all of the time.

But because Democrats don't understand the distinction, they mistake the growing anti-Bush sentiment for a growing anti-conservativm sentiment, so they succumb to the cranks of the left. (Anti-NAFTA, anti-globalization, pro-affirmative action, pro-minimum-wage). That, and the fact that Mr. Lieberman is such a bore, leaves mainstream conservatives with no Democrat to vote for.

On the other hand, because conservatives don't understand the distinction either, they ralley behind a president even though he cynically highjacked their agenda.

Trying to explain the distinction between the Bushies and conservatives isn't a campaign trick by this liberal. Okay, that's part of it too. But mostly, I think both sides would benefit from recognizing this distinction.

blatham - Can you give us some examples of what you call "fear-mongering, demonizing, exaggerations and deceit, ... simplistic black/white dichotomoies" put forth by the right?

I suspect I could match every VALID one with at least one such example from the left (and then some).

Remind me when the Republicans last argued that Democrats want to kill the elderly, are racists, want to destroy the environment, want to poison the water, want to starve children, want people to die from AIDS... I'm old enough that my memory is starting to fail, so I probably forgot.

I don't dispute that this is done by conservatives, but it seems to be the ONLY tactic the left has. (MY bias probably plays into this viewpoint, but I sure see a lot more terrible hateful lies from the left.)

Or conversely you can explain to me how my examples above are NOT examples of the disgusting tactics about which you feel so strongly. Do you dislike lies and fear-mongering from any source, or only conservative sources?

On Judaeo-Christian morals, I have a conflict with how many this administration has been responsible for killing in Iraq of innocent men, women and children. As for soverignty, I see our invasion of Iraq as imperialism. As for "world" leadership, I think this administration has failed miserably. All the others can be agreed by most Americans - I think.

CI - More people died every year under Saddam than are dying as a result of liberating them from him. Wake up and smell reality. If my house is on fire and one child dies when the firemen rescue my family, would you argue that all should have been left to burn?

Scrat, Just because some tyrant kills people does not justify our killing innocent people. Your analogy of your house burning to Saddam is not logical.

As I've said at least three times, the title of this thread needs to read "...2008".

In the meantime, Ted for governor (MI) in 2006!

long haired creep

Why a creep there dys? Don't you hunt elk?

Hmmm...Ted Nugent, racist. homophobe, psychopath, draft dodger. Just the sort of man the republicans favour.

Ted's no racist, that's a myth, he holds the majorities opinion on gays, and is a huge supporter of the military. Psycho is a matter of opinion. He's also a master archer.

God, guns, and rock & roll. Yowza.