AND, IF ELECTED, I PROMISE . . .

One issue should be how we work with other countries in achieving our goals. The current problems in Iraq are a great example of what can go wrong when we go it alone (or with one other country, the UK).

Ultimately, this is also about treaties and other agreements that the current administration has chosen to withdraw from. It's all about foreign policy.

....not to make any promises, bdcause it's the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me..... c.i.

How about actually and really and trully not only denoucing the ways of Washington, but doing it also!!!!!!!!!!

I think foreign policy should be avoided by those wishing Bush should be replaced, not because I'm a fan of his foreign policy (I'm the type who cares more about foresign policy than domestic simply as a matter of being more interested in geopolitics and I think this administration is among the worst at foreign policy of all time) but because it's a very weak issue for the Democrats.

I'm not faulting the Democrat's foresign policies but simply noting that a significant portion of the American public thinks it's either non-existent or soft.

I really dislike the objections to the Iraq war based on cost but I think it's sound political strategy. It ties into the economy, which is, IMO, this Administration's weak spot. I find this odd because I do not fault this admnistration for the economic state. But in any case I think this is where the opposition needs to make their political hay.

I agree with Setanta in that "it's the economy stupid" is the best strategy. I'd not, however, press for details on how the tax cut has created more jobs for two reasons. First of all it can be circumvented with the "have patience" shite and it would be partly true. Secondly tax cuts, even foolhardy ones, have a loyal following among those willing to believe it means more in their pockets.

In regard to teh economy I'd keep the focus on budget bleeding. It ties into the tax cut but in a way that Joe Blow doesn't confuse with conflicting wishes (i.e. the wish to pay less taxes).

There should be a repeated attempt to bring the buget fiasco to the public's attention. This is one area that this administration's policies can be clearly held responsible.

After that I'd keep the focus on the current economic slowdown. Even though I do not fault Bush's admin for this the public seems to fault the current admin for any economic difficulties and as a rule this has few exceptions in politics.

Going back to foreign policy I'd use it carefully, as Setanta suggests. I'd not take the Iraq war head on but rather deal with some of the low lights.

The perceptions about Afghanistan are a key one and Iraq is shaping up with the same perceptions. I'd stay away from the WMD question as it can and will blow up in anyone's face if they try. In regard to foreign policy I'd highlight the declining trust in the veracity of statements made by the US administration and highlight that Bush has taken the country from a time in which America enjoyed a great outpouring of sympathy to a point in which animosity against Amerioca is at a peak. This would be tied in to foreign policy blunders and the way this admin has created rifts with reckless abandon.

A chicken in every pot.

A car in every garage.

(That hasn't already been done, has it?)

Pretty close, but still not 100 percent.

In todays world it must be two cars and a side of beef!

You mean two SUVs in a three-car garage...

Hey, watch it, bub, before you find yourself disparagin' the Americans' God-given right to conspicuously consume in fuel-chugging buggies for no other reason than ego gratification! Don't Tread on Me!!!

To do that you'd have to show that the same things would not be happening to a broader coalition. Your premise seems based on that assumption, but I know of no reason to assume that it's true. What makes you think we would not have the same "current problems in Iraq" with a larger coalition force? And what evidence can you offer that the UN has shown any talent at managing these kinds of situations?

Lastly, we can't always work with other countries; sometimes our goals are not theirs. I want a leadership in this country that is willing to put our interests first. That France did not want to lose the financial ties they had to Saddam is not a compelling argument for the US to allow him to remain a threat. Their interests were not ours. That does not mean we had none, nor does it mean we should have subordinated ours to theirs. Working together is only possible when you share a desired goal. France had shown for years that they cared far more for the money Saddam could make them than for the people he murdered. If the US had been arguing to leave Saddam in power because he was good for business, I suspect I'd find you on the other side of that issue (but I could be wrong).

Anyway, all of that aside, I do agree with your core statement: Democrats need to tell the people what they would do differently and why. Hopefully they will do so this time. Historically, they have tended to prefer only to tell people what is wrong with what Republicans have done, rather than what is right with the Democrat way. (Of course, there's plenty of this on both sides!)

Park Service Suffers Falling Budget, Maintenance Backlog

Despite President Bush's pledge to eliminate a $4.9-billion maintenance backlog, the National Park Service continues to battle deteriorating roads, sewage systems, infrastructure and natural resources. At the same time, the number of visitors to national parks is up and the park service's budget is down. Hear NPR's Elizabeth Arnold.



http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=3&prgDate=current

Well, one thing that would not be happening is the daily attacks on US soldiers! A more diverse force would spread the casualties around...

Bill, thanks for adding the parks issue. I had heard that report on NPR yesterday, and i recall thinking this could be used against him if properly handled. A clever opponent could make much of the Shrub's constant tactic of trying to be all things to everyone.

D'art, try to ignore Scrat, who is just attempting to derail the topic at hand--it ought to be obvious to anyone familiar with it's posts here that it does not have this topic at heart, but is simply looking to pick a fight. Thank you for your earlier contributions. Let's do some more work on how the Shrub's disasterous term can be terminated.

The most qualified person for the post is someone who wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot battle-ax.

Me? I'm writin' in Setanta...

I'd say something more serious, but I'm pressed for time. My theory on how Bush got where he is today is that the GOP knew that Gore was unelectable: any idiot could beat gore. so they put up any idiot.

My deepest fear for the nation is that the Dems will do the same damn thing.

Just tryin' to cheer us up, right, Seal?

Part 2 of the National Parks NPR blurbs is about the way Bush wants to "fix" the Parks - use all available money to do a study of commercializing the jobs. Interesting listening:



More money for his buds!

I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt is spinning in his grave. The Park System grew out of a devotion to preserving a natural heritage, but the Shrub, clueless as usual, wastes money which could be be used for facilities maintenance for a study, the purpose of which would be to surrender this trust to private interests. It was precisely to keep such lands out of the hands of private interests that the park system was created.

A savvy contender could make great political hay out of this.

I'm not sure that I see that as an improvement, but I can't fault your logic.

The only truth about this whole fabrication, a must read!