-
I think some of you are missing the point of how Rove uses words. He often uses them to mean precisely the opposite of what he means. So he'll say he wants to help more Americans qualify for Pell grants, or he'll say we must end our addiction to foreign oil. And when Bush speaks these lines, I swear, looking at him on my HD TV, I can see in his eyes the contempt he is working so hard to mask.
God help the United States of America. May she wake up from this nightmare soon.
Posted at February 1, 2006 3:11 PM in response to What nation has he been leading?
-
Slap-in-the-face post.
I went to bed thinking, "Kaine was great -- no hint of patrician condescension, genuine, perfect."
Boy was I wrong. Selling "competence" won't work any better today than in did for Dukakis. People want leaders who make them proud. No one's going to be proud of having competent leaders. The voter-candidate relationship is just more emotionally charged than that.
We need to put forth individuals who project a clear sense of what the future will be like under Democrats. Not just "republicans and democrats coming together to provide good service." It ain't a drive-thru, this country of ours.
And hey, I didn't even mention his eyebrow. (Woops!)
Posted at February 1, 2006 11:51 AM in response to COMPETENCE GAME
-
If Matt were our leader, we would all know that "the Alito vote showed the Democrats are back as a united force" was THE talking point that every man, woman and child Democrat would be parrotting over the next few days.
Instead, we have no leader (apologies to Reid & Pelosi, who do good jobs in their roles, neither of which is party leader).
Posted at January 31, 2006 12:30 PM in response to Unity, If You'll Take It
-
Before we get bogged down in whether Canadians get their bridgework coverd, let's have an Accountability Moment(tm).
In every SOTUS so far, Bush has babbled on about how we need to provide our families/children/seniors/goldfish/etc. with the healthcare they need. He is always full of passion at this point. You can tell he really cares! Every year for five years now, it's his top, super #1 priority! Yay!
So let's stop for a moment, us libs, and remind the voters of the progress this guy has made, what with having control of three branches of government and the fourth estate. So far, their big acheivement seems to be that have confused the bejesus out of Uncle Ed down that Rite Aid about his prescriptions. And they've managed to get a whole bunch of military types off the rolls of those who get healthcare. Oh! They've done nothing to stop the Clinton program of enrolling poor children (which Bush opposed as Tex. Governor -- before he supported it).
So let's just pause here and focus on the big picture. Bush professes a hot passion for gettin' us the healthcare we need. Then why oh why has he so far failed to deliver so spectacularly? Could we liberals have put a curse on him? Does Hillary have a little voodoo doll of the Preznit?
After this bit of fun, then we can figure out if the co-payment slides from $15 or $30.
Posted at January 30, 2006 12:55 PM in response to Size Matters
-
First, protection of Americans' constitutional right to liberty is obviously an important issue for us. But it is not central -- red meat, as you like. The fact that you can see casting it in various ways shows that it is not in fact central.
Secondly, to even be a useful 2d tier issue, family pluralism and reproductive freedom are terms and ideas that should be tossed. Try "protecting our right to privacy," or "ensuring individual liberty," or something that shows that these are issues that matter to all Americans, not just "special interests."
Think "death tax." (!)
Posted at January 22, 2006 5:13 PM in response to Is it a choice?
-
This is more pushing peas around on our plate. In order to change the subject, or show Americans we can better protect the country, we need a leader whose personal qualities show all that.
Reagan did it for them. Not Goldwater, not Dole, not Bush I.
Posted at January 13, 2006 1:57 PM in response to Shaping the Issue Landscape
-
Why can't we find a democrat Senator to point out plainly that Mr. Alito has a demonstrated track record of saying things he doesn't really believe in order to get ahead professionally, to say nothing of his demonstrated disregard for undertakings made to this very body in the course of a previous confirmation hearing?
Is there anything else to say? Isn't everything this man says in these hearings tainted by his record of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear?
Am I missing something? Let's keep this simple.Posted at January 10, 2006 9:39 PM in response to Alito
-
I certainly side with those who favor picking a battle here. But I think it only makes sense if we stick to a message that promotes our big ideas. I think standing up for less deference to the executive, or "liberal judicial principals" (whatever they might be!) will do more harm than good.
We need to think about how the other side will respond. We should get up and say Judge Alito should not be confirmed because he opposes a woman's right to choose. He should be opposed because he is against the rights of working Americans. He should be opposed because he believes that the rich and powerful know what's best for America, and doesn't trust regular voters.
If we can't elevate our message to this level, then let's turn the whole she-bang over to Biden and plan our next "Better Luck Next Time" party now.
Posted at January 9, 2006 1:02 PM in response to Carts, Horses, and Judges
-
Most of the right-wing Repubs can't even spell the word shame. But there are still plenty of moderates Repubs -- our future allies, remember -- who are intimately familiar with it. In fact, that is our greatest weapon.
But the more important point is the patent weakness of our own leaders. I can't think of a single dem in high-ish office who exudes even an ounce of charisma. I'm hoping Senator Obama will start to show some cohones before too long, but for now his newbie status has muted him.
The truth is we progressives are at war with the corrupt leadership of our own party, and we will not win until we start to elect leaders who share our passion for progressive values.
It seems almost an overwhelming task: fighting against the out-of-control power-hungry right-wing, and simuataneously creating a new paradigm of left-wing leadership that is very much at odds with the entreched gang. But I have no doubt we will win. It's easy to forget in these times that being right matters, but it's always been true and always will be. It's only a question of time until our society returns to the business of moving forward.
Posted at November 19, 2005 4:48 PM in response to Topic for Discussion
-
I think this thread is beginning to limn the coming debate which we will win: we have twisted the original federal scheme into non-recognition in order to acheive the social ends we require. Scalia, Alita & Co. are right: the commerce clause jurispruence is fraudulent. It has been cobbled together by a judiciary that sees a legislature trying to pass responisble laws. But the truth is that the constitutional framework is totally out of date, imagining as it does the states as somehow sovereign. As a society, we have been rejecting this idea for 200 years, and the original fount is well past spent.
We will in the coming decade or two meet these conservatives fair and square on the political field, and the American people will decide whose vision they value more: their backward-looking vision of fear and despair, or our vision of a bright and hopeful future.
Seems like a slam dunk for us to win.Posted at October 31, 2005 11:33 AM in response to Slouching Towards Armageddon
