JDG wrote:
I hear Bush warning us of financial instruments of mass destruction and I remember how lousy the analysis was the last time he offered a big warning about mass destruction. Fool me once, shame on me...
Oh good grief. Does noone in the Democratic Party have any shame?
About what?
Don't Democrats feel just a little dirty when their position on Social Security changes 180 degrees based on which Party is in the White House? The Baby Boomers begin retiring in 2012 - unless the plan of the Democrats really is to do nothing (take note of that one Dr. Brin! - your vaunted Party of Solutions! ;-), then the time to do something about Social Security is *NOW.* Sorry, but you guys LOST, and you can either throw the country's finances on the funeral pyre of your own misery or you can at least pretend to be honest and consistent I'm not holding my breath, though.....
I wasn't speaking for the Democratic Party. Or losers.
"...the time to do something about Social Security is *NOW.*" sounds to me like nothing more than arguing your premise.
And BTW, please explain for me the difference between Bill Clinton's views on WMD's and the Bush Administration's views of WMD's in Iraq..... Did Bill Clinton fool you once, shame on you??????
Views? Views? How about the views of flag-draped coffins? Clinton didn't even try to justify a war. That's seeing things differently.
Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I think the GOP invented ugliness in politics, I'll say that I think it's a product of the power of big media in our time, not politics.
This is, of course, as opposed to the crisp, clean politics we had in this
country before Big Media?????
Good point. Upon considering this, what I meant was the reduction of public political discourse to little more than such ugliness is a fruit of Big Media's oligopoly.
The GOP's successes of late are the result of doing best at taking advantage of it, I think.
Of course it is. The GOP is simply better at manipulating the "big media." It couldn't actually be that a majority of this country agrees with Republican Ideas and disagrees with Democratic Ideas, could it?
If polls tell us anything, that's not the case. Bush is popular and respected, but when it comes to policy, we are at best deeply divided.
Is the country heading the right direction? http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=136
Bush's performance on economy and jobs: http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=95
Bush's performance on Foreign Policy: http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=131
Bush's Performance on Iraq War: http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=96
And on and on.
And it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that in the first election after the largest attack on this country in over 50 years, and while this country is embroiled in war for the future of the Middle East, that the Democrats some nominated a former peacenik antiwar activist, one who had previously opposed perhaps the most successful war in American history, with an ironclad UN authorization and perhaps the largest coalition the world had ever seen? No.... I get it.... you lost the election because of Fox News.
Quite a leap there, it seems to me. When did I suggest that the media is responsible for who won the election? I was talking about the origins of ugliness, not saying that ugly politics yields Republicans victories. I think Big Media has everything to do with who the candidates are, not who wins.
Oh, and I'm not convinced that the future of the Middle East is in our hands. Or that it ought to be.
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
