0
   

The Democrats Gloat Thread

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 01:01 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
But lets return to your point. The fact that the demented brutes as well as the civilized sane may consider themselves good does not make it so. The question is should the civilized sane refrain from war simply because there is no overarching authority to render the claims of the demented brutes invalid?

As you agree that there have been, are, and will always be ugly brutes in the world who wish to dominate people by force, how do you propose that the civilized sane thwart their goals when violent free efforts prove ineffective?


finn

You avoid the primary dilemma. It isn't about an over-arching authority, it is about how a community can be (will be?) blind when viewing itself.

It was you who introduced the notion that all player think of themselves as righteous. Now you presume that one player who thinks of itself as righteous must be deceiving itself. Granted, one or both may be be doing this very thing in the context of a given conflict, but it seems that you will not acknowledge that in some matters one or the other player is for the purposes of history and human consideration...the Good Guy.

I know you have a problem with my use of "post-modernist" and "moral relativism," but this seems to be a perfect example of the application of these concepts to a real world situation:
Two nations go to war. Both consider themselves righteous. There is no supreme judge on the matter but you put it to the players that they must judge themselves. Yep - no problem. The problem develops when you assert that it is, perforce, a dilemma. You are inclined, by your Lib nature, to assume that any group or community that believes itself to be righteous, must be self-deceiving. Sorry but there are, in this world, the righteous and the sinful.

The Allies in WWII were righteous, and the Axis were sinful. Does this mean that everything done in the name of the Allies was righteous and that every individual within the Axis was sinful? Of course not. However your insistence upon finding a dilemma where none exist is a perfect example of paralysis induced by Liberal thought. Carry everything to it's most basic components and you will never find an over arching principle. This is an interestingly ironic concept of post-modernist thought. From a scientific perspective, the Post-modernists abhor deconstructionism, and yet on a political and social level, they seem addicted to the concept.


One way you use to avoid this is by defining the two sides as the "ugly, demented brute" and the "civilized sane". Setting up the options in this manner puts you (or Osama) in the wonderful position of knowing immediately which definition applies to you and which applies to the other side. Who tortures prisoners...civilized sane or ugly brute?

I, and America are the civilized sane. Osama and his jihadists are the ugly, demented brutes. If you find the certainty of this chacterization troubling, I am not surprised, but neither am I moved.

Yes, among the righteous there are a few who are sinful, and among the sinful there are a few who are righteous, but I don't define systems by their exceptions.


Communal self deception is the dilemma. de Tocqueville, writing about American's self-regard, said, "...it is impossible to conceive of a more troublesome and garrulous patriotism." Why would de Tocqueville, a lover of so much he saw in America, find this version of patriotism so tiresome and troubling? Not merely because he responded the way we all do to a loud braggard, but surely also because he recognized that such cliched self-regard with its simplistic "we are good" assumptions (quite uninvestigated) can be counted on to blind one to the ways in which one's nation might be seriously wrong about something(s).

How the hell do I know what was roiling around the mind of de Tocqueville? That he was a lover of America doesn't mean that his criticisms of America are on point and irrefutable.

Are there instances of America fooling itself through blind patriotism? Undoubtedly. The question is does this self-deceit represent America or is it an unfortunate side-effect? It seems clear that you believe this to be a systemic pathology. Perhaps you are a misanthrope and not simple Anti-American. Is there a people on this earth who fulfill your expectations?

Blatham, it appears clear to me that you are on of those hopeless Romantics who expect too much from America and become heart broken cynics when America farts.

Why do you care whether or not Americans puff up their chest with chauvinism? Is America, on balance, a force for good (order) in the world or is it a force for evil (chaos)?

Don't worry, America is perfect capable of reigning itself in from the path of world domination without the iconoclastic voice of a Canuk.

Feel free to voice your concerns. In some small way you contribute to the forces of restraint, but understand the context of blatham in the great wide world.


So that is the primary problem...mistakes in self-regard through patriotic or ideological blindnesses. If it weren't for this prior dilemma, there would be no need for checks and balances on power. Solving this leads you to "overarching authority" arrangements or to suspending relatively equal power groups at odds with each other (your government system, theoretically).

Quite properly, if your executive branch, say, took it upon itself to disempower the judicial and legislative branches, you would consider this a dangerous move towards authoritarian control. Dangerous because of human tendencies we all understand and which your founders explicitly sought to compensate for with a balancing of power.

Why would their wisdom suddenly count as a foolishness when considering the international level?

Because the international level is a whole lot more chaotic and dangerous than the domestic level.

You would have us believe that there is equivalence between the Executive Branch in America dispossessing the Supreme Court, and America routing tyrants in foreign lands?

I'm sure you are not so naive to believe that squashing Saddam is, in some way, similar to squashing the US Supreme Court, and yet this is the conclusion to which your argument seems to lead.



0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 01:10 pm
I'm sure even JW will agree that the public disgruntlement over Bush's Iraq policies that the polls show has an impact beyond the (un-reelectable) person of Bush Jr. himself...

Quote:
Two-Thirds of Americans Say Bush Wrong on Iraq

(Angus Reid Global Scan) - Many adults in the United States believe George W. Bush is not proceeding correctly with the coalition effort, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 66 per cent of respondents have a negative view of the job the U.S. president has done in handling the issue of Iraq. [..]

Polling Data

Overall, how would you rate the job U.S. president George W. Bush has done in handling the issue of Iraq over the last several months?

Positive
32% Oct. 2005
34% Jul. 2005

Negative
66% Oct. 2005
64% Jul. 2005

Not sure
2% Oct. 2005
2% Jul. 2005

How confident are you that U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful?

Confident
24% Oct. 2005
23% Jul. 2005

Not confident
61% Oct. 2005
59% Jul. 2005

Not sure
15% Oct. 2005
19% Jul. 2005


Source: Harris Interactive
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,833 American adults, conducted from Oct. 11 to Oct. 17, 2005. Margin of error is 2.5 per cent.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:32 pm
Interesting...wonder whether it will reflect necessarily on the Repubs, if they end up nominating a more reasoned candidate?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:37 pm
Looks like Americans are waking up from their snooze. Americans are finally beginning to realize that our 2,000 military men and women sacrifice for an unknown benefit is too high a price to pay - especially when the end is not known.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 04:26 pm
dlowan wrote:
Interesting...wonder whether it will reflect necessarily on the Repubs, if they end up nominating a more reasoned candidate?

Well, presidential elections are not up for another three years. But there's Congressional elections next year. And another poll came into my mailbox just now: a new "Battleground Poll" (a poll that's periodically done, in collaboration, by a Republican and a Democrat pollster, overseen by the George Washington University). And whats interesting about it is that it didnt just ask about Bush (which got the by now familiar stark negatives), but also asked the respondents to make a direct comparison between "the Republicans in Congress" and "the Democrats in Congress" on a number of issues.

But first, this is how the respondents ranked the issues that face America in importance:

Quote:
What do you think is the number one problem for the President and Congress to deal with -- that is, what is the problem that you and your family think is most important for the President and Congress to deal with?

21% War in Iraq
14% Economy/taxes
8% Terrorism/national defense
6% Energy/ energy costs
5% Deficit/ budget deficit
5% Health care issues
4% Unemployment/jobs
3% Immigration
2% Education
2% Social Security
29% Other/ Unsure


OK, here's the comparison on the issues, sorting them roughly in order of the importance attached to them above:

Quote:
Please tell me, for each one, who would do a better job of handling this issue or better represents this quality -- the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress.

Setting the right priorities

41% GOP
47% Dems
7% None
5% Unsure

Dealing with Iraq

43% GOP
42% Dems
8% None
8% Unsure

Keeping America prosperous

41% GOP
48% Dems
6% None
5% Unsure

Holding the line on taxes

49% GOP
40% Dems
5% None
6% Unsure

For the middle class

33% GOP
59% Dems
5% None
3% Unsure

Safeguarding America from a terrorist threat

51% GOP
31% Dems
8% None
11% Unsure

Homeland Security

50% GOP
35% Dems
7% None
8% Unsure

Holding down federal spending

35% GOP
49% Dems
11% None
5% Unsure

Ending corruption in Washington

29% GOP
36% Dems
22% None
13% Unsure

Making prescription drugs affordable

24% GOP
59% Dems
10% None
7% Unsure

Creating jobs

37% GOP
54% Dems
5% None
5% Unsure

Improving education

35% GOP
53% Dems
5% None
7% Unsure

Strengthening Social Security

31% GOP
58% Dems
6% None
6% Unsure

Shares your values

45% GOP
46% Dems
4% None
6% Unsure



Basically, the only areas the Republicans score better on are homeland security and the war on terrorism.

They also got taxes, but the greater trust in them on that score is neutralised by the fact that, in the end, the respondents believe both America's prosperity on the whole and middle class interests specifically are in better hands with the Dems.

Both on Iraq and on values, the Republicans have lost their advantage.

On all other issues, the Dems lead big.

Now, a few years ago homeland security and the war on terrorism alone would have been enough to guarantee a landslide. But in the priorities list, those have sunk to third place with a mere 8%. It's Iraq that's on people's mind now, and next up the economy.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 04:37 pm
So...we can predict a whole bunch of terror threats just prior to the congressional elections and a campaign run on "Dems will raise taxes".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 04:45 pm
The GOP tactics have worked pretty good in the past. Why it won't work in the future is anybody's guess. The public's memory is short.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 06:42 pm
There was a poll a year ago dealing with college graduates.

What the poll showed that those college graduates in teaching and research fields favored Kerry and the Democrats, those in the management fields favored Bush and the Republicans.

This is where I think Bush and the Republicans are going to suffer permanent damage.

The war in Iraq, even though it was promised to go quickly, was probably supported by managers because, in their experience on the job, they no doubt instituted procedural changes that seemingly went badly at first, then gradually straightened out so that in the end, things improved. So supporting a war which seems to be "tough sledding" at first would not faze these people much.

But as the years go on, and things do not imporve, these people are slowly beginning to realize that this is one policy that is not going to work out. Hence the slide in Bush's numbers, from people who were willing to give him time for things to work out.

Hurricane Katrina was the eye opener, I think, for these people. Obvious mismanagement, followed by finger pointing on a grand scale. I think this is where Bush really lost the managers.

I have no figures to back this up, but if the same kind of poll ever is published about managersversus researchers/teachers, see how many managers lost faith in Bush and the Republicans. In my opinion, that is the group where he likely lost the most.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 08:14 pm
kelt, Sounds reasonable from where I'm sitting, but politics is a fickle matter. Even many managers can be fickle - especially in the area of politics.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 11:01 pm
nimh wrote:
I'm sure even JW will agree that the public disgruntlement over Bush's Iraq policies that the polls show has an impact beyond the (un-reelectable) person of Bush Jr. himself...


Well, now, I just wonder :wink:

I've been traveling and out of the 'loop' of politics for a few days, but I've given some thought to what could happen in '06.

I think there's a poll out today that shows the percentage of respondents who like and approve of the job their own congress person is doing is well over 60%. (Take a look at Arizona where the Republican incumbent is trouncing his Democrat opponent 2-1).

Despite how people choose to respond to the questions asked in the poll you referenced, nimh, I still think it will come down to just a few issues. Gas prices, the economy and Iraq (not a problem if it stays on the current trajectory).

Would I be surprised if the Dems picked up a seat or two? Nope. But looking at it realistically, I think most of the incumbents will do just fine. Don't forget that most in this country still don't know what the Democrats are for. We know that they're against almost everything. but that usually won't win elections.

The hard-left fringe on this website think Katrina/Rove/Libby/Miers will turn the electorate. Look again. If the economy holds strong and gas prices come down, the Democrats will have little to celebrate.

It's really quite simple.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 12:53 am
JustWonders wrote:


Don't forget that most in this country still don't know what the Democrats are for.
You mean you like to pretend you don't know what they are for.

Clearly, we are for ending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, which will close the deficit and put America on a sound financial footing, which we certainly are not on now.

This will enable the country to save Social Security, which Bush is trying mightlily to disable and get rid of entirely on the grounds we can't afford it. This is simply not true. With even minimally competent management, we will be able to afford it. However, a few more years of following BUSH and we won't be able to afford it. That's why Bush doesn't care how much he drives up deficits.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/GreenspanDeficitB.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 04:23 am
JustWonders wrote:
Don't forget that most in this country still don't know what the Democrats are for. We know that they're against almost everything. but that usually won't win elections.

Don't confuse your own perspective with that of "most in this country".

Even just according to this one poll, "most in this country" know pretty well what they trust the Dems to do well on. Over 50% of them say they think the Dems would do a better job on strengthening Social Security, improving education, creating jobs and making prescription drugs affordable.

Those are all pretty positive agenda items, not just "we're against Bush / the war". An ample relative majority even thinks the Democrats can be trusted (more) when they say they're for holding down federal spending.

I agree with you, sadly, that the whole Plame thing, or the Delay thing for that matter, wont in the end shift many votes; it only has an impact in the sense that it adds to a general sense of malaise. (For proof of that general sense of malaise, check the 66% - yes, two-thirds of the people in your country - in the same, bipartisan poll who say "things in this country have they gotten off on the wrong track". Up from 53-57% in the past two years).

People with a sense of general malaise tend to rebel at unexpected moments, look at what happened in '94. "Unexpected moments" means I'm not sure if it'll happen in '06 either. But your insouciance can't in any case be argued on the basis of what "most in this country" purportedly know or don't know; on that count, the numbers contradict your rhetorics.

Iraq, finally - "not a problem if it stays on the current trajectory"? Only 24% - yes, that's less than one in four - still is "confident that U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful". Your confidence there is definitely not shared by "most in this country" of yours.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 08:42 am
nimh - I think Scott Ott's take on polls most closely resembles mine Smile

I just wish that poll you referenced had asked those same respondents to try to name one (just one) creative idea the Dems have come up with in the past 11 months.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN Poll: Bush Would Lose Election or Be Arrested
by Scott Ott

(2005-10-25) -- If a presidential election were held this year, George Bush would either lose to an anonymous Democrat or win and be jailed for violating the term-limit provision found in the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup/Nabisco/Toys R Us Poll released Tuesday.

In the hypothetical matchup between the increasingly-unpopular two-term president and an unnamed Democrat, 75 percent of respondents said they liked the views, character and personal hygiene habits of the unnamed opponent better than those of the illegally-incumbent president.

In related news, a hypothetical CNN poll shows that 95 percent of Americans would give a pollster misleading answers "just to jack up the results."

The make-believe phone survey of 832 Americans also revealed that 97 percent of respondents strongly agree with the statement: "I'm sorry we can't come to the phone right now, but if you leave a message, we'll get right back to you."


http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002368.html
0 Replies
 
John Drury
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 08:51 am
Its hard to be happy about Bush's failure

I did not want him re-elected but I wnat my country to succeed.

It slike when you want a football coach fired...its hard to handle the losing even though you know it might lead to his dismissal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 09:36 am
If you want our country to succeed, Bush has taken us into an abiss that will take several future administrations to clean up - if not longer.

Bush's legacy is the war in Iraq that is going very badly; we've lost over 2,000 men and women in uniform. The twin towers lost 3,000; and that was accomplished by al Qaida, not Saddam.

We have more middle-class falling into poverty; and more families without health insurance.

Bush tried to reduce/revise/remodel social security to take away the only security left for most Americans, and he failed.

We lhave ost most of our allies because of Bush.

Bush has created such a huge federal deficit, it's only a matter of time when uncontrollable inflation kicks in; that will happen after he's gone from office.

This administration wants congress to approve torturing of prisoners; the first time in American history where the adminstration wanted the legal approval for abuse of prisoners.

Bush with his illegal war against Iraq has been responsible for the killing of 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.

Bush has been responsible for over 15,000 men and women in uniform that have returned with injuries. It is estimated at the very least that one-third of those returning from combat will have some menal illness, while this administration has cut and reduced veteran's benefits.

Many veterans are now walking our streets homeless.

I present the president of the US, George W. Bush.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 10:18 am
c.i. - you forgot to blame Bush for this year's hurricanes.

I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part LOL.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 11:34 am
Well, we can't blame him for the hurricanes, but we can for his failure to quckly respond the this tragedy. He selected the director of FEMA, a horse show manager without any clue as to how to handle emergency response to a national crisis.

Incompetence is Bush's middle name.

It's a good thing Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court, another Bush crony.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 11:46 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's a good thing Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court, another Bush crony.


It is a good thing. Now, perhaps he'll name a nominee that will unify Senate Republicans.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 11:57 am
JustWonders wrote:
nimh - I think Scott Ott's take on polls most closely resembles mine Smile

Somehow I dont remember you being as sceptic back when the polls still spelled good news for Bush ... ;-)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 12:23 pm
Hey, nimh, you have a good memory. LOL
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/12/2025 at 04:11:54