Skip to main content

WSJ poll finds rift in GOP supporters over Bush's agenda.
After winning re-election on the strength of support from nine in 10 Republican voters, the president is seeing significant chunks of that base balk at major initiatives, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows. One-third of Republicans say Democrats in Congress should prevent Mr. Bush and party leaders from "going too far in pushing their agenda," and 41% oppose eliminating filibusters against Mr. Bush's judicial nominees -- the "nuclear option" that Senate Republican leaders are considering.

The Schiavo case has opened another rift. Though Mr. Bush and Republican congressional leaders acted to maximize the opportunity for reinserting Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, 39% of Republicans said removing the tube was "the right thing to do," while 48% said it was wrong. About 18% of Republicans say they lost respect for Mr. Bush on the issue and 41% lost respect for Congress. The survey of 1,002 adults, conducted March 31-April 3, has a margin for error of 3.1 percentage points in either direction; the error margin for Republicans alone is 5.2 percentage points [...]

To be sure, Mr. Bush's agenda isn't the only development giving some Republicans heartburn lately. So are controversies surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. After a closed-door meeting yesterday in which Republicans generally rallied around their leader, former House Ethics Committee Joel Hefley said, "I hear a lot of negative stuff" about Mr. DeLay from constituents. In the poll, Mr. DeLay's negative rating among Americans overall inched up to 24% from 20% in January; his positive rating was unchanged at 17%, while 50% said they were neutral or had no opinion about him [...]

The economy remains a concern for all Americans. Amid rising gasoline prices -- ranked as the second-most-closely watched issue of recent weeks after the Schiavo case -- 53% of those surveyed disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, up from 47% in January. The national mood has darkened somewhat in recent weeks, as 51% say the country is heading "on the wrong track" while just 34% say "in the right direction."

A third of Republicans want Democrats to slow the Bush agenda? There's a way they can help us do that. Don't vote for fucking Republicans.

The filibuster numbers are encouraging as well. Like the Shiavo affair, only the extremists in that party are eager for that sort of fight.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:20 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gas prices (3.66)
    Look poised to go higher. I think that's going to hurt them more than anything else.
    •  Gas prices are compared to the Euro... (none)
      As some people fear may happen, the gas prices will shoot up as will prices of everything in general.  I had dinner with a friend of mine liast night who is a Tax law professor and he was telling me all about it.  Scary stuff.

      Does anyone think it might help the dems in 2006 if they invoke the nuclear option??? I makes them look totally power hungry and insane!! Just a thought.  

      Its not easy being a Floridian.

      by lawstudent922 on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:20:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush (none)
      Was supposed to be the oilman-cheap gas president, right?


      Yeah.  right.

    •  that really (4.00)
      isn't a great thing.  what will happen to gas prices after a dem gets elected?

      the concern over gas prices is a sad reminder to me of why democracy is not the final word in systems of government.

      •  The repubs just blame the environmentalists. (none)
        I heard a Republican complaining on CSPAN this morning crowing about voting for Bush twice but raging on high gas prices and that something had to be done.  He did question whether we could get more oil out of Iraq but then blamed the Democrats and those damn environmentalists for the problem.

        The republicans are going to play this to the hilt to get rid of environmental legislation, get ANWAR, and their stalled energy package.  The oil crisis will fuel inflation (pun intended)which will mean higher interest rates as the Fed takes stronger action and stall the economy even more.

      •  Gas price hikes are inevitable (4.00)
        Petroleum is a finite mineral on earth. Eventualy we will run out. As we approach the end of the supply with no change in demand, prices will spike. Doesn't matter if the government is run by Republicans or Democrats. All we can do to avoid the high price of gas is not to buy any, to use different fuels.

        Had Al Gore been rightfully given the Presidency in 2000, we would be getting started on alternatives.

        New idea for Comedy Central game show: Kick Ben Stein's Ass

        by bobinson on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:20:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  gas prices (none)
        until Americans give up their precious, behemoth SUV's there's no hope
    •  Getting mileage from gas prices (none)
      It's time for Democrats to get more creative on this issue.  We need to discourage gasoline consumption for the sake of national security and the environment while taking seriously the enormous hardship the high prices cause to people who have to drive. What about imposing a gas tax only in metropolitan areas that is rebated per capita? Then people with access to mass transit who use it would get some help with the ever higher transit fares and people in the middle of the country would not be negatively affected - and could even see prices fall if urban demand fell.
      •  That's horrible, horrible advice (4.00)
        Gas prices are a loser of an issue for us.

        People like thier SUVs.  The most basic reaction will be "we should just drill in Alaska then".

        Discouraging gas consumption means (in many people's minds) banning SUVs.

        Plus, you are talking about increasing the gas tax.  Oh yeah, that will help us.  Not.  Hell, Democrats in California are talking about reducing the gas tax (in a complicated plan that will raise the sales tax to make up for the lost money-I'm against the plan, although I think it might be good politically).

        All of your advice is, while good policy, is simply horrible politically.  This is the type of thing a popular Democratic president should propose-it is absolutely not something to propose when we are deep in the minority in the House and Senate and don't have the presidency.

        The best way to tie gas prices to Bush is to say, "The Iraqi war has made the Middle East unstable, which causes speculation on oil prices to cause them to rise".

        •  SUVs (none)
          You're undoubtedly right about introducing a tax, even a small metro-targeted one, but how about proposing a per capita rebate of the existing Federal taxes?  Somehow, there should be some reward for people who drive small cars or take mass transit.  Here in NYC, they just raised the fares on the subway and the commuter buses again, and people are pissed about it. To just eliminate the existing gas taxes is to pander and people can smell that.  
          •  Thing is (none)
            People who take mass transit already vote Democratic.  We don't need thier votes.

            People who buy fuel-efficent cars (Prius, etc.) already vote Democratic.  We don't need thier votes.

            Again, good policy suggestions for when we are in a safe, majority position.  None of which will get those SUV drivers to vote for us.

    •  still cheaper (none)
      than Europe.  It still only costs about half as much.

      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

      by guyermo on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:24:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  cheaper gas than in Europe. (none)
        This is true but with a declining dollar buying more expensive oil, added to the very real possibility of oil being priced in euros going forward, how long will euro oil be more expensive? Seems to me, that at least their government manages to extract taxation from it which fills the coffers as well as encourages economy.
        •  nearly every country (none)
          in europe is also operating with deficits.  theirs are actually large enough to be in violation of the EU charter, if memory serves.

          "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

          by guyermo on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:11:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  deficits (none)
            Indeed france and Germany run budget deficits somewhere in the order of 3.5 to 4% of GDP. Compared to the us deficit of 6.9% of GDP, which curiously does not include any expense item from the war in Iraq.
             Further the US has a debt to GDP ratio of over 45%. Clearly if Standard and Poors were independant, the US would be considered for a debt credit rating downgrade.

            Thank god for France

            by OAS on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:03:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  What in hell is going on? (none)
    Looks to me as if the hypnotics put in the water supply last November 1 are beginning to wear off...

    "Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22

    by wozzle on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:15:46 AM PDT

  •  Nuthin new here. This is bad. (4.00)
    Just means more of the same.  Forever, people have agreed w/Dem positions, when polled.  

    They vote for Republican marketing.

    •  We can market also (4.00)
      What Rove does is not create issues. He looks at what already exists, does precise polling and testing, maybe throws it out in a smaller election here and there. He does this with many wedge issues, and takes those that perform the best and uses them nationally. We should be looking at wedge issues for ourselves. I don't know if that issue, science, will work or not. But if you have several to use and filter, you'll get something that works well to split up the base. Remember, you only need to knock a few points off the GOP electorate to kick them to the curb.
    •  If a third of Republicans (none)
      want Democrats to slow the Bush agenda, doesn't that mean by their logic that 33% of Republicans hate freedom?  

      That should screw up the marketing a little bit.

      (media) cynicism is the appropriate response to hypocrisy --- Benjamin Ginsburg (BC-04)

      by otho on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:43:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do the Republicans have the votes (none)
    for the nuclear option?  Are there any Democrats on record as supporting it?
  •  Nationwide vs. Local (none)
    In order to see if these nationwide results reflect a real trend at the grass roots, there needs to be more local polling.

    We just won't know until we start seeing polling for critical House & Senate seats.

    What you are seeing is Americans once again, becoming uncomfortable with the radical.  Conservatives have always prided themselves on how their followers truly LOVE their agenda.  What, in fact, they actually loved was the contrast conservatives provided to a seemingly radical left.

    Now, the left is beginning to look moderate in comparison.  

  •  Filibuster fight ... bring it on (3.85)
    The Republican leadership in Congress is demonstrating a mind-boggling inability to read the electorate.  My sense is that they see the filibuster issue as a way to replay Newt Gingrich's government shutdown with the roles reversed.  There's just one hitch ... the Gingrich shut down was about GOVERNMENT SERVICES.  Reid's shut down will be about LEGISLATION.  After the Schiavo fiasco, the public will probably celebrate a moratrium on new laws.
  •  Sen. Specter and nuclear option (none)
    I just got a request from "Move On" to contact Sen. Specter to oppose the nuclear option.  "Move On" must be targeting all PA members to try and put pressure on Specter to do what is right.  Considering that the Repubs just do not have the majority in the Congress and in the nation to legally and properly overcome negatives and precedents to get their extreme wishes, they now want to break the golden piggy bank , so to speak, to get their fanatical ideas passed.  That can only lead to true problems later in such a closely divided nation!  Do it the right way or don't do it should be the new matra!

    Evidently, "Move on" feels the choice on whether to proceed with the nuclear option mistake or back off will eventually come down to Specter's vote!!  

    Political censorship is the root of all evil! It is the antithesis to a functional democracy!!

    by truthbetold on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:24:44 AM PDT

    •  i recall (none)
      when specter was first made senate judiciary chair, there was talk that he would not support bush's extremist nominations followed by a brief show-down.

      i have a feeling specter is very vunerable on this issue.

      "Several influential conservative Republicans indicated yesterday that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee next year, has not succeeded in tamping down the furor he created last week when he appeared to warn President Bush not to select Supreme Court nominees who oppose abortion rights."

      WaPo Nov. 7, 2004

    •  re: "Move On request" (none)
      I got one to contact Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow!  (Seems like Move On may be pulling out all of the stops.)

      The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

      by Street Kid on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:21:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how people think... (none)
    A third of Republicans want Democrats to slow the Bush agenda? There's a way they can help us do that. Don't vote for fucking Republicans.

    well, most of the country seems to like the idea of a government divided enough that it can't make too much trouble.  usually they seem to do this by electing a bunch of the other party during midterms, or splitting the branches, but maybe they're just now waking from their brainwashed torpor to remember that they value some wrestling...

    Those who would trade an essential freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security. ................ Benjamin Franklin

    by redfox1 on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:25:06 AM PDT

  •  Coming from the rural side of things... (none)
    I would be happy if they just didn't vote for Movement Republicans.  

    Privatize This, Mutha Scratcher.

    by chanupi on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:25:45 AM PDT

  •  Hypocrisy or stupidity? (4.00)
    A third of Republicans want Democrats to slow the Bush agenda? There's a way they can help us do that. Don't vote for fucking Republicans.

    I just can't stand it.  And then when you call them on it, they look at you blankly, like you were speaking Hittite or something.

    •  to vote = to take action (none)
      i think of it this way.  to vote is to take action.  there is only one action when you vote -- you elect.

      if you don't agree with your elected officals, what actions are you taking to correct it?

      with 59,000,000 people voting for Bush, i hold them all accountable for their actions.  if they don't like his agenda, they must take action.  otherwise, they fail in their civic duty as Americans to participate in our democracy.

  •  They want our help... (4.00)

    Suck it up, boys. You wanted to be in power. Ok...knock your socks off. Or is running the country too much hard work?

    Go ahead...FILIBUSTER! Go ahead...reform Social Security! Go ahead...cut Medicare and all those other programs you hate so much! Go ahead...pass a right to life piece of legislation! Go ahead...pass the bankruptcy bill!

    This is YOUR agenda. Or don't you stand by it? What DO you believe in anyway? Your supposed to be the Party of FIRM direction...just like your leader. God is on YOUR side. Don't worry...I'm sure He'll vote for you. I'm not so sure about everyone else, though.

    Go ahead...keep attacking the Judiciary. Show America how much you LOVE and RESPECT the Constitution!

    Oh, by the way...has the armor been delivered for our fighting men and women that YOU ALL love so much? You got the money, right?

    Yes. I SUPPORT you. Fulfill your DESSS...TIN...NY.

  •  Sports (4.00)
    I truly believe that politics have been regulated to a sporting event in the mind of most Americans.  I have spent my life rooting for the Red Sox.  No matter how bad they got I supported them.  Now the one the world series I am elated.  Sure some people left some trades were made I don't agree with.  Even the mighty Curt Schilling is a Bush supporter and campaigned for him but all that doesn't matter.  I still root for the Red Sox.  I go to the games, watch them on TV and use them as an analogy in on-ling postings.  I think most Republicans are Republicans because thats "their team."  

    What the Dems need to do is appeal to the Americans that pay attention and vote issues.  Not give an inch when they attempt to remove our civil rights, courts, educational freedom etc.  FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! For awhile we may be the wild eyed but people will start to come around.  It might take time but the pendulum will swing.

  •  Disturbing.... (4.00)
    Santorum: Frist will go nuclear
    By Alexander Bolton

    Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, has reassured conservative activist leaders that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to triggering the "nuclear option," stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees.

    Santorum met the leaders Tuesday to dispel growing anxiety among conservatives that Frist was wavering over what some Republicans call the "constitutional" or "Byrd" option -- a procedural tactic that would disallow judicial filibusters by a ruling of the Senate chair and a ratifying majority vote.

    Read the whole article at

    It does not require a majority to prevail, yet a tireless minority keen on setting brush fires in peoples minds. - Samuel Adams

    by historical wit on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:39:54 AM PDT

    •  GOOD! (none)
      Let the American People see the true face of this Party. A party that advocates violence against judges, terrorist militias running amok in our states and "flat earth" evangelicals that would tie American lives and freedoms to the edicts from Rome.
      •  results? (none)
        something about overexposure to congress has left a bad taste in the public's mouth.

        breaking poll -

        WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's standing with the public is slumping just three months into his final term, but Americans have an even lower regard for the job being done by Congress. Bush's job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by the Republican-controlled Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.

        The number supporting Bush's handling of some domestic issues dipped between March and April, to 42 percent for the economy and 38 percent for issues like education and health care, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

        Support for the president's approach to his top domestic priority, Social Security, remained at 36 percent, while 58 percent oppose it.

        Young adults are supposed to benefit the most from Bush's Social Security proposal, but a majority of that group, 54 percent, opposes the president on that issue.

        •  Glad to see that! (none)
          And now dubya is whining because he can't the people are actually thinking!  Thinking less of him, I might add.

          Wonder if he's going to pull that "God speaks to me b.s. again."?

          The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

          by Street Kid on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Regarding rome... (none)
        A party that advocates violence against judges, terrorist militias running amok in our states and "flat earth" evangelicals that would tie American lives and freedoms to the edicts from Rome.
        I think those same evangelicals would prefer to ignore Rome, seeing as a number of people are suspicious of the Catholic Church.
      •  Convinced that... (none)
        many people are thinking, "Oh shit, I didn't vote for this!"

        The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

        by Street Kid on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:24:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wait a minute (none)
        You really want them to run this once great nation into the ground?

        Hmmm, on the plus side, after a few decades of this country being destroyed, some of those 62 million morons might realize they voted for the wrong fucking person.

    •  I'm not surprised... (none)
      and he will probably start pounding the jungle drums on Monday.

      Terri has been cremated.

      The Pople has been planted.

      Everyone's bored to death with the Jackson trial.

      The Bolton hearings are about to begin.

      DISTRACTOR ALERT! DISTRACTOR ALERT! ((whoop whoop whoop whoop))

      [not that Frist will take the issue all the way to the mat, just raise enough of a dust storm to reduce visibility of the Bolton hearings.]


      George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

      by Joon on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  interesting (none)
    statistical proof for what i have noticed anecdotally.  i was just talking w/a coworker who used to work doing tech stuff for the GOP.  he is none to pleased with his party and leaders right now and is hoping for some turnover in the midterms to help balance things out.  they are drunk with power right now and way too corrupt.

    Yeah the revolution starts now..So what you doin' standin' around? -Steve Earle

    by juls on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:42:52 AM PDT

  •  As Usual (none)
    This is no surprise, nor, I think, particularly new.  Bush has won (sort of) two elections without any support for his "agenda."  People like it when he cuts taxes, and they like it when he gets revenge on terrorists, er, Arabs, er, Muslims, ah, you know, those America-hating people over there.  And some of them have a problem with The Gays (tm).  I don't think those people have ever been behind anything else that the party indicates an interest in.  And that all goes to the heart of why I don't think the Republican party is a particularly formidable foe, because it's pretty well-tuned as a Bushian cult of personality and not at all well-tuned as anything else.
    •  Yes (4.00)
      And it was just this way in the Reagan years.  Poll after poll showed his policies were decidedly not what the public wanted, but when push came to shove at election time, the voters punished neither him nor the Congresscritters who voted in favor of said unpopular policies.  

      The American public has been living in a state of cognitive dissonance for a quarter of a century now.  Will it finally end next year?  I hope so, but I have no great confidence that it will.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      by JJB on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:50:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bushian cult (none)
      I do think the conservatives have a very well-oiled political machine in place, from think tanks to propgannda-pushers to special interest groups to GOTV organizations.

      Given all that, and with the fact that the liberal political machine is rusty, unorganized, and is only slowly rebuilding itself, you would think the Republicans would have an even larger majority than they currently do.

      And I think that fact speaks miles about what American voters really want. As they saying goes, liberalism is much more popular than liberals, and the major reason the Repubs have the majority they do is the cult of personality of GWB. He speaks to a wide variety of Republican special interest groups, and does to with his down-home charisma.

      The GOP, as well-oiled as they are, don't have a similar candidate waiting in the wings. Jeb has no charisma. Guiliani will alienate the theocrats. Frist makes Jeb look like Bill Clinton. McCain has lost his maverick appeal.

      So even when the GOP is doing everything right, they still need the cult of personality to get them elected.

      So think about the majority the Democrats would have if they were as well-run as the Republicans, and new how to put forth new ideas and oppose the Republicans.

      •  So are you saying (none)
        that (in this one sense) Bush is like Pres. Clinton?       Clinton's popularity did not transfer to the party and went with him when he left office.  I hadn't looked at Bush this way, but I think you are onto something.  (Though for the life of me I don't get Bush's cult-of-personality at all).
        •  This may be true (4.00)
          We shall see.  The 06 elections should be interesting, the 08 ones doubly so.
        •  Much like Clinton (none)
          Yes, much like Clinton. And just as Clinton's 2 terms angered conservatives and helped fuel the conservative mahine, so too are Bush's years in office helping fuel the liberal one. And once the cult leader is gone, the opposition he helped create overwhelms his people.

          And I can see where Bush's cult-of-personality comes from. While many of us don't get it, conservatives respond to Bush the same way liberals responded to Bill Clinton (and just as we don't get why the love Bush, they don't get why we liked Clinton). Though I must say, their worship of Bush is much stronger than our liking of Bill Clinton.

          •  Yes I hope so. (none)
            As far as Clinton goes, I like him much more in retrospect than I did at the time...He wasn't the greatest by any means, but he is a great President in comparison to the current occupant of the office.    The thing is, love him or hate him, no one can deny Clinton's amazing skills at working a crowd and even charming his enemies.  I don't see Bush having any of that.  I think Bush's charisma is more like this.  The base that loves him so much projects an image of what they want collectively onto him, while Clinton was a Southern charmer and keenly savy.  The difference too is that most liberals I know begrudgingly liked Clinton (the worshipers were much fewer) while a lot of the  Bushistas seem to have a literally cult-like fawning devotion to  W.
  •  One-third (4.00)
    Here is why one-third of Republicans want Dems to oppose Repubs but continue to vote for the Repubs:

    Because up until recently, the Democrats were not opposing. Voters who are looking for an opposition party are not going to vote for pussies who roll over on every issue.

    Of course, it doesn't help that Bush ran on fighting terrorism and stopping gay marriage, then gets elected an announces his #1 priority is Social Security. Had he mentioned that little fact during the election, we'd be discussing the policies of President Kerry.

    •  Not in favor of Democratic agenda either (none)
      Don't kid yourselves.  Just because these folks don't want the Bushco agenda, doesn't mean that they want to implement the Democrat agenda either. I have come to believe that what most people really want is complete paralysis in gov't.

      Which is worse, the wrong thing getting done, or nothing getting done?

      •  You could be right (none)
        An anecdote:
        A friend of mine back in 1988, from Massachusetts no less, told me he was voting for Bush.

        "But why?" I asked. "The guy's a total incompetent!" (not realizing he was a freeking Einstein next to his son)

        "That's why," he said. "Dukakis is competent, and he'd get things done."

        A counter-anecdote would be the backslash against Eye of Newt when he "shut down the government." But I think, by and large, people do like paralysis in the elected parts of the government at least. That doesn't bode well for the looming oil crisis; people in general won't do anything (changing driving habits, dump SUVs, use public transport) until they're forced to -- probably by rationing. I expect to see rationing start in December 2008, after the elections (of course).

        Hatred is murder (1 John 3:15)

        by dirtroad on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:44:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shut up about rationing (none)
          Rationing NEVER has to occur-it's a horrible idea for a government to consider it.

          Supply/demand.  If supply is steady, and demand is rising, price rises.  That is what should occur, and what does occur if the government doesn't fuck with things.

          •  Hi (none)
            Have you been paying any attention at all? Uh, the little problem here is that supply isn't going to remain steady, in fact there is a serious crisis on the way. Demand is rising, not staying steady. Prices are highly volatile, in fact they are over $3.00 a gallon here in San Francisco - up sharply from this time last year.

            This is not a situation that tired, intellectually thin market mechanics theory will solve or steady, but I'm left wondering if your post was just a joke? I'm hoping it was, if not I would refer you to read the past 3,000 diaries here on Kos about peak oil, then return and tell us what you think of the situation.

            Maybe I'm just misreading your post, if so I apologize...

            •  Uh... (none)
              ...I have seen no indication that supply is falling.  It is steady.  Show me a scientific study that says supply is falling in the short to medium term (not a crackpot website about peak oil, real scientists really studying the problem).

              I said that demand was rising.

              If supply is steady, and demand rises, the price increases.  If supply is going down, and demand rises, the price increases more.

              My point is $10 a gallon gas is better than rationing.  The market does work, ladies and gentlemen.

              •  Oh, it works (none)
                and it might work so well that you may lack food, clothing, and transportation in an emergency. Not to mention your kids going to school, and a job.

                As well as heat, and light (well maybe not light, we have a lot of coal fired power plants).

                And did I mention food? Well, let me mention it AGAIN. Truckers deliver most of our food, and highly expensive gas/diesel means highly expensive FOOD.

                While you might not care if our entire economic system collapses, I do.

                •  None of this will happen if gas reach $10 (none)
                  I don't understand your point.

                  If it OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO RUN OUT OF GAS AND DIE, I disagree with you.  I think Peak Oil is bullshit.  The predictions of Peak Oil are similiar to the predictions of the downfall of social security-both are always going to happen x years from now, no matter what year it currently is.  That is, people were screaming in 1970's that we would be out of oil by 1990.  People were saying in the 1980's we would be out of oil by 2000.  It never actually happens.

                  It WILL happen eventually, but not for 100 years+, and by then we will be driving cars powered by farts or something.

                  •  what don't you understand (none)
                    EVERYTHING is transported, and almost ALL of it requires oil. If the cost of oil goes up THAT much, so will everything else. EVERYTHING.

                    Food, clothing, toys, medicines, raw materials for manufacturing, heating oil, EVERYTHING.

                    So now, what used to cost $2 costs $4. Or more. So where you used to spend $50/month on gas, you spend $150. However, you don't have any more MONEY.

                    So you don't spend on much of anything other than food. And you don't buy much of that, because you can't afford it. When people don't buy, the economy goes into the toilet. And so do jobs.

                    This is already happening. Food prices are up some. So is almost everything else. And gas hasn't gone up that much -- yet.

                  •  Are you (none)
                    An oil geologist? Because some guy saying he hasn't seen any indications or proof doesn't mean jack fucking shit unless his time is spent looking into such issues. I have seen no indication that nanotechnology is physically possible, but only because I don't study in that field. Does that make it impossible or untrue?

                    Also, you say that supply is steady, and the current hikes are due to rising demand. Well answer me this - from what I read demand is only up 1.2 percent from last year, yet gas prices have almost doubled in that year. Does this mean that in five years gas will be $96 a gallon, and strictly due to an increase in demand? If so, your lovely free market theory is a load of shit that we don't need regardless of whether it was "working" or not. As others have said if gas prices rise much more the cost of everything jumps, foreign investors bail out, and our already shaky economy as a whole simply implodes. The sad thing is people like you will be hit hardest since you didn't have the wisdom to protect yourself.

                    Maybe people did jump the gun in the 70s, but just because wolf was cried doesn't mean the beast isn't actually at our door.

                  •  Peak oil is coming soon (none)
                    Perhaps even this decade.
              •  okay fine (none)
                "The Market©" is responsible for the Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lays of the world. It is responsible for wars over oil. And it is responsible for the destruction of the middle class. A non-destructive and functioning market-driven system relies on the notion that people will always do good, which is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard. Is that what you're referring to when you say it works? Works for WHO? I suggest you go watch The Corporation for a lesson in the reality of "the system" you hold so dear.
                You can put your faith in robber barrons and money worshiping dickheads, I'll choose science. While you are left with a pile of useless paper wondering how it all fell apart, when you were so sure the market would sweep in like jesus himself and save us all, I will be surviving just fine because I followed the facts to safety, not lies told by those who only wanted my money and to perpetuate their system of take, take, take.

                We'll see how well the market works to bail us out of the deepest shit we've ever faced, because peak oil IS a reality. Bush would be so proud of your whole peak oil is a myth, let's see the real science argument. What a load of HORSESHIT. Hundreds of "real" scientists, including the oil industry's own scientists, have said peak oil is without a doubt real and frightening. Top executives for investment firms have said the roof is about to blow off the whole fucking system over this issue. Several top oil producing countries have already been shown to have peaked. DICK CHENEY HIMSELF has talked about peak oil... But people like you will NEVER listen to science unless it supports the conclusion you have already drawn.

                As a businessman myself, I do believe that a free market system can work, but ours is so corrupt and rotten to the core that there is little hope. Especially if it trumps all other sources of information, such as science and basic observation.

            •  $3.00 a gallon!!!!!!! (none)
              That means its going to get worse in MI around Memorial day and thru the summer.


              The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

              by Street Kid on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  "Don't vote for fucking Republicans" (4.00)
    HaHa! Best line in the story. Short, sweet and dead on.
  •  Republicans (4.00)
    This survey just proves what I always suspected: the Bush voters are idiots.

    We can make the world a better place by laying them by the heels. -- Sherlock Holmes

    by Carnacki on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:59:23 AM PDT

  •  Screw Them (4.00)
    They vote for the jerks then then want us to keep them in line.  Hell no.   They did the crime, let them pay the time.
  •  34% say on the right track (4.00)
    So that's the meager percentage of the population that is steering us off the cliff. 34%. I'm going to write that number down. How can one think we're on the right track?
  •  It's spelled "Schiavo" (none)
    Not to be a grammar nazi, but figured I'd point it out since this is a frontpage post and all.
  •  AP poll: More news for Chimp - 44% App (none)
    New AP poll mirrors this one...

    Approval: 44%!

    By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - President Bush's standing with the public is slumping just three months into his final term, but Americans have an even lower regard for the job being done by Congress. Bush's job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by the Republican-controlled Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.


    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:07:29 AM PDT

  •  These repubs who say they want (4.00)
    the Dems to slow down Bush and their party's leaders from pushing their agenda are like cult members. Even after having been lied to, had their pockets picked, had their civil rights undermined, had all their regular expenses explode through the roof, they still find a way to say the party they belong to is good and they still support the very leaders who have inflicted all this pain on them.

    Tricked, robbed, and forced to defend their hollow ideology by becoming even more hypocritical than they were already, they still labor under the delusion that they're behaving rationally.

    They are not. It's politics as cult enterprise. The king of the Washingtimes and UPI, Mr. Moonie himself, must be very proud.

    I may have gotten a little goofy here at the end, but the dynamics of cult brainwashing and thought reform are no different from this cognitively dissonant behavior of these repubs.

    Defeat the sound-bite.

    by sbj on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

    •  No joke (4.00)
      They really are like cult members. I have watched the cult programming/waking up process first hand, and I really do believe the same psychological dynamics are at work here. The fact that they have also adopted religious language adds that "God wants me in the cult" thing that can override "I hate the things these guys are doing" for years. Other things fighting against rationality are if your entire social group is tied up in the cult (you'll lose all your friends if you leave) and the self-anger: when you walk away, you're going to have to admit to yourself that you've been supporting the wrong thing for years.

      People do wake up, and they do go through those phases of self-hatred and loneliness when their "friends" shun them, so don't give up hope. It literally takes years and people going through it need a lot of support. I think the timing is just right for the 2006 elections. This spring is starting that kernel of doubt in a way that rhetoric from the Democratic side never could. Culties don't listen to non-culties.

      •  Yes! (none)
        I have a lot of direct experience with cult related issues as well, so these patterns of denial, cognitive dissonance, guided imagery, etc., are very easy for me to spot.

        Even in just good old fashioned con-jobs, many of these same patterns are recognizable.

        For instance, ask any fraud investigator or bunco squad guy, and they'll tell you that the single greatest obstacle they face in their inquiries is the reluctance of victims to come forward. And the main reason for this reluctance is that these victims are simply too embarrassed to admit they've been duped.

        This is probably the central problem with these repubs who want the Dems to restrain their own party's leadership. They would do it themselves except for the fact that to do so they would have to acknowledge they'd been tricked into backing the wrong horse.

        Obviously, there's a lot more to all this than just these few simple points, but, unfortunately, to describe how these swindles function adequately requires a lot of explanation, lots of detail. And sadly, there are a lot of short attention spans out there in the political arena who simply can't be bothered to pay too much attention to these sorts of things.

        Karl Rove knows all about it though, since it is sort of his main operational philosopy. It would not surprise me at all if he had a shelf of reference books, (i.e. cult recruitment manuals, sales program formulas, N. Korean and Nazi brainwashing and propaganda techniques). This is why the wingnut machine is so effective.

        And, as you say, bringing the God factor into it makes it's grip on the psychological autonomy of the public mind even more difficult to break.

        Defeat the sound-bite.

        by sbj on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 10:52:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Everytime I see the poll numbers go down....... (none)
    The more I fear another "terrorist attack".

    The universe is a strange and wonderous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans. -Richard Dawkins

    by rickeagle on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:11:56 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely (none)

      Hey, we haven't had an old-fashioned orange alert for a while. I'm sure there's some chatter that could be misinterpreted.

      Remember the modern-day GOP tactic. When the villagers start lighting torches, hysterically point to someone else for them to burn.

    •  Exactly... (4.00)
      Interesting now that the election is over we haven't seen any "orange alerts" or "red alerts" or whatever stupid Sesame Street color we are on. My guess is the "chatter" will increase around the time of the '06 elections and we will immediately be in grave danger from an impending terrorist attack.
      •  The War (none)
        on terror is an excuse to control our own people.  Whomever did the 9.11 attacks had very specific targets as they have been for years... iconic american symbols of power... WTC, pentagon, embassies even... housing of contractors in suadi arabia...

        They are not going to attack the Metropolitan Opera or the Little League playoffs... nor the holland tunnel.

        The attacks were at the seats of power and meant to scare the shit out of the smug Masters of the Universe and their Force Protection.

        Our trillions of dollars in defense, CIA intelligence proved that it was all a waste in the end.  Solidarity and the Pope knocked out the USSR... not the ICBMs which we paid hundreds of Billions for... nor the submarines .. nor the carrier groups.

        We have not really awoken to what this country is doing to the world and to our own people.  The rest of the world is moving forward and the USA is in decline.  The Iraq adventure is just another blow to our "self confidence" as a power.  We are not able to "defeat" a bunch of "towel heads"... unless we bomb the country into the dark ages.  As long as the US is in Iraq we will be bleed.. blood and treasure... and there will be no terror attacks... as we are losing to them on the battlefield.... why should they bother?

  •  And in further news (4.00)
    Nine out of ten Republicans, after being kicked sharply in the teeth by the GOP, state that they do not enjoy being kicked in the teeth.

    When asked why they vote Republican, 78% answered "because the GOP are the best tooth-kickers".

    After all, Americans respect a good tooth-kicker.  But only 54% have good dental insurance.

    Until someone can figure out a way to pull the Rubes out of this mindset, there isn't much hope.

  •  You know what's encouraging? (none)
    Maybe the best news in this story is that the Republicans are rallying around DeLay.  Please, please, back him to the death!
  •  Wake Up, Republicans (4.00)
    One-third of Republicans say Democrats in Congress should prevent Mr. Bush and party leaders from "going too far in pushing their agenda,"

    Here's a better idea. Republicans, why don't YOU:

    • Get your HEADS out of your fucking ASSES. There WERE no WMD. There WAS no al-qaeda/Saddam connection. Accept the fact that YOUR government LIED to you.
    • Stop watching Fox News. They are FULL of shit. READ some newspapers.
    • Take the fucking "Support The Troops" bumper sticker off your car and find out what you can do to REALLY support the troops: Bring Them Home
    • Stop worrying about gays getting married and focus on some REAL issues

    Don't ask US to do the work for you.

    It's your Democracy, too, and it only works when you GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.

  •  I think it shows (4.00)
    that the people who want to have a beer with Bush at their bar-b-q don't necessarily want him to be the one to drive them home.

    The Right - isn't.

    by moltar on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 09:16:30 AM PDT

  •  Not necessarily such good news (4.00)
    Knowing Dems, I can see this as a big boost for the DLC lovers, who will point to the numbers and say, "Wow, look at that: there's millions of Republicans out there we can get if we just don't make anybody mad by actually taking a stand on anything. Just keep sitting on the center point and keep your mouth shut, and we got it made."

    I have next to no interest in another Clinton, policy-wise, much less a Lieberman, but fear reports like these strengthen the hand of the appeasers and "compromisers" (ie, unprincipled sellouts). Time to go all out supporting the Deans types against the From types. Otherwise we're back to the same ol' future again.

  •  Branding (4.00)
    The repubs have branded themselves as the party success, wealth, self sufficiency, strength, defence, and morals.

    The dems have essentially tried to say ME TOO on these issues and FAILED to come out strongly as the party of the workers and the middle class.

    The middle class voters identify with the "american dream" of wealth and property ownership and see themselves with the upper class more than the working class and vote as if the are upper class.

    As said up thread it becomes a team thing, a brand thing and people have been voting against their real interests for decades and given the repugs the con.

    As the economy tanks and the AmDream fades, they can't avord to fuel their SUVs and their kids are coming back from iraq without limbs... they will be pushed to wake up and realsize that the repugs don't give a shit about the people, only getting their votes so they can enrich themselves with corporate welfare, hand outs, tax breaks and so on... When they understand that the repugs want to take social security away and turn it into a revenue stream for wall street as fees... and nonsense investment (lotto tickets called stocks) they will start to turn against them.

    The Shiavo thing showed that the paypack to the fundies backfired... if they read the polls.  Now the repugs are gonna have to find another issue... gay marriage?  immigration?  abortion?  to fire up the fundies...

    Repugs are extremly good at corruption and nepotism... and hopefully that will contributre to their downfall.

    The only hope remains in election fraud which they also excel at. In that case the vote is a charade and doesn't matter.  Don't discount their use of heavy election fraud to keep the con.

    •  Excellent post (none)
      and I agree with everything you said, except one. History shows that catastrophic events do not (at least haven't yet) lead to sweeping change for the better, in fact they almost always end in the utter chaos, confusion, and fall of a once great power you'd expect from catastrophe. There is no second chance on this, if the ball gets dropped out of reach, the country falls down hard and probably for good. We can't wait on impending catastrophy to effect the change we desire, our job is to alert everyone to the real dangers we face, and force the issue front and center rather than always playing catch-up to the GOP's non-issues. They are leading us around by the nose, and we've got to quit playing along.
  •  Internals (none)
    I hope we all realize that asking a poll question in different ways can lead to big differences in results. So though these numbers are indicative of a real effect, it may be a bit exaggerated.

    Here's the "slow down the agenda" question:

    Which of the following roles would you like to see the Democrats in congress play?
    A) Work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to help pass President Bush's legislative priorities so we do not have gridlock OR
    B) Provide a balance to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans do not go too far in pushing their agenda

    Results: A) 30% (Feb: 34%, Jan: 33%)
    B) 63% (Feb: 60%, Jan: 57%)

    There hasn't been a big change over the last 3 months. Even in January, voters were more comfortable with balance than one-party rule. What's interesting is the slow trend in B.

    Click on the "Poll Results" link on the WSJ article if you want all the gory details.

  •  The mystery of Republicanism (4.00)
    Up near Madison WI some years ago, Republican Tommy Thomson was governor and pushing like crazy to widen a highway (12? can't remember for sure) up to the big Indian Casino. Farms along the proposed expansion had signs all over the place about how the project would ruin family farms, and how everybody should support family farms, etc. etc. They got significant support from Madison liberals and lefties and environmental types. Tommy spent much of his political capital pushing the project through amid charges that he'd make some nice money from the deal. Finally the project passed and work started.

    Come election time, along the same routes, at the same farms, signs again sprouted. This time they were about voting for Tommy and the GOP. A friend of mine in Madison knew a couple of the farmers. In answer to his obvious question, they said they didn't want the liberals and environmentalists running things.

    The moral? Beats me.

    •  Great story (none)
      But depressing as hell.
    •  The moral is clear to me (3.50)
      The moral is:

      Large sections of the public (the third of Republcians in the first post, these farmers) hate Bush et al.

      But they hate "liberals" and Democrats more.

      What these voters want is Goldwater, or a Libertarian-lite.

      These are "don't fuck with me, lower my taxes" people.  These are businessmen who like low taxes and low regulation of thier businesses.  They are not religious loons.

      I suspect one third of the Republicans in the country are these "Libertarian-lites" and two-thirds are religious right wackadoodles.

      The only way to really win these people is to become traditional Republicans, or very close to it.  That is unacceptable.  The best we can hope for is for the Libertarian party to moderate itself and become a major force, to peel these guys away.  This, however, is rather unlikely.

  •  You see (none)
    as a Republican, I do not agree with alot of Bush's agenda (although I do agree with parts), but I absolutely disagree with the Democrat agenda/policies and therefore will not vote for them.  That is the problem, many Republicans may disagree with Bush, but the disagree with the Dems more so.
    •  If the Libertarian Party... (none)
      ...moderated themselves times 100, would you vote for them?
    •  Really? (4.00)
      Read the PIPA report, ignoramus.  Not only do most Americans in fact favor liberal policies, many Bush supporters actually ascribed false liberal characteristics to Bush (like support of strong environmental regulations, Kyoto, and labor standards in multilateral agreements).

      I'm so sick of having to carry the craven lazies of this country who happily, yet quietly, accept the fruits of liberalism (educational opportunity, labor standards, social security) yet deride liberals at every turn, or say stupid shit like "I disagree with Bush, but disagree with the Dems more."

      I'd bet money that you have no fucking clue as to what Republic versus Democratic policies are.  If you do, such would be a mighty feat, as it the incoherent GOP has no set of core principles nor any agenda or policy that is not designed for exclusive self-enrichment.

      You are a drain on this country.  You are preventing us from competing on a global scale and adjusting to modernity.  Words cannot express how much I resent having to carry the burden of people like you.

      •  Sure (none)
        I would favor national health care, super environmental protections, and a European style social safety net...until you attached the bill.  That report you cite does not attach a cost to the liberal policies you mention and so the survey is quite a poor source to extrapolate from.  If someone can establish a plan that will not 1) cost me more tax money, 2) eliminate or greatly reduce our military, 3) destroy the US economy, or 4) relinquish our freedoms to an outside body, I will happily listen.  Let us not forget that we essentially have subsidized those European social systems through our military and the Marshall Plan, without which, they would not exist.
        •  You don't get it (none)
          You are already subsidizing an extremely inefficient and immoral national health care system.  Our current system entails a large fraction of the population lacking access to primary care and thus slamming the economy with the cost of preventable catastrophic illnesses and productivity losses.

          Rather than absorbing a fallacious and simplistic "raise my taxes" analysis, why don't you concern yourself more with what your taxes (that anyone living in a modern civilized society should expect to pay) are being spent on.  

          How Halliburton must love you.

          •  We (none)
            subsidize many things in this country.  The problems with national health care (besides the baby boomers) are that Americans would be headed to the dr's for every sniffle if they didnt have to pay for it and would clog up our hospitals and doctors offices in much the way people have in Canada.  The other issue is it eliminates virtually any incentive to live healthily, as the government will pay for smokers, the obese, and the innactive without them seeing any financial repurcussions for their own vices.  

            I do agree with your last point on concern with where my taxes are going, as I believe every single program we have (including social ones) should be subjected to a zreo based budget every 10 years and should have its efficacy judged at that time as well, with programs that did not meet certain criteria being eliminated.  And to prevent people from bitching about cutting the "feed starving babies" program that feeds 100 babies at a cost of $5 million, all programs should be simply given a number instead of a name during this process.

            •  Strongly, strongly doubt/take issue with (none)
              several of your assertions.
              1. The type of person who heads to the doctor for every sniffle is called a hypochondriac.  This is a mental disorder which is unaffected by health care coverage or lack thereof (trust me, uninsured hypochondriacs merely cart themselves over to the local hospital emergency room, which is legally bound to treat everyone, insured or not).  However, we do want increased primary care visits, and less instances of "riding out" sicknesses, shortness of breath, diabetic symptoms, etc. because many illnesses like diabetes are treatable at a much lower cost than the cost of the catastrophic consequences of non-treated conditions.  And this is no less important than the moral implications of a society which would rather pay more to see people suffer illness and die from preventable illnesses.  What kind of barbarism are we living in?
              2. People don't choose to smoke, overeat, or engage in other habits because they have healthcare.  That's just stupid, and your logic on this point is almost pathologically punative.  Why not go down your slippery slope and formulate a punishment for those who insist on eating red meat daily, or who won't substitute lard with canola oil?  How about those who stay thin yet won't exercise?  Or who live in cities thus exposing them to more smog?  Shouldn't they be punished too?
              3. It's extremely intellectually dishonest to pretend that we cannot or should not assign a moral value to the various governmental programs that our tax dollars support.  Let me tell you, I'd rather flood federal money into school districts any day than hear about Halliburton's "oops, sorry, we must have misplaced the taxpayers' $8 billion dollars," or any of the various and sundry extortion schemes that the modern GOP has cooked up to swindle the American public.  I'll spell it out for you: tax money going to infrastructure like education which will ensure that this country has a chance of surviving the next century=moral, better, much more acceptable to me.  Tax money going to corporations with military contracts for things like torpedoes which purportedly can contain soldiers and shoot them onto the shores of a landlocked country=immoral, bullshit, stealing my money, totally unacceptable.

              You have quite a few things to think through.  Your dishonesty makes you a perfect target for the hustlers you support as they do all within their power to turn you into a serf.  Wake up and smarten up.
              •  Again (none)
                please do not insult me or my intelligence, a perfect score on the GRE would show otherwise.  To answer your points:
                1. I was not talking about hypochondriac's, but people who, just like in Canada, go to the doctor's for everything just to be sure (since its free).  Whether this is a common cold, the flu, or a sprained ankle (just to make sure there was to ligament damage/break), these things cost money, clog up the system, and do happen in countries with national health care.
                2.  People do not choose to smoke or overeat due to having health care, but they are less apt to change their lifestyle when they do not have to foot the bills for their poor regard to personal health.  That is the real issue.  The doctor can tell an overweight person to lose weight or they may get diabites, in our system that is a threat because the person would have to foot some of the costs, where in a national system it is not as big of an issue, because they won't have to pay a dime for treatment.
                3.  Without getting into specifics, studies have shown that more money spent does not equal better education (we actually spend more than almost any other industrialized country per pupil).  And i do not think we should assign moral values to all programs, and under my example, the Haliburton program would have failed too, as it would be accountalbe for the $8 billion.  The endearing names programs have are what keeps many inefficient and poor preforming programs funded in this country while the money could be better spent either elsewhere, or on a program that is designed from scratch with the same goal of the poor program in mind.
                •  a perfect score on the GRE (4.00)
                  simply means you take tests well. It doesn't mean you have any logical ability past test taking, nor does it mean you have any other ability.

                  Most of the civilized world has universal healthcare, they don't seem to have a problem with people 'overusing' doctors. Haven't you ever heard of preventive medicine? Or annual (or even semi annual) physicals?

                  People do dumb things. They always have. They always will. They will eat WORSE when they're stressed and overworked because they are stuck in a job they hate because it has benefits, or they can't afford to take their kid to the doctor OR buy the medicine that the doctor says they need.

                  You're right -- more money doesn't always equal better education. It certainly doesn't HURT though.

                  What DOES equal better education is parents who actually have enough time to care for their kids well, and who have a decent roof over their heads, and access to basic needs like HEALTHCARE. It's not an accident that military kids tend to do better in school -- their parents accept discipline, expect their kids to do the same and do well in school, and have a good support system.  In many neighborhoods, those things are lacking.

                  Bottom line -- most of the population of this country is under horrendous stress, all the time. They're expected to do everything well, with no time to do it, and no help. No wonder they eat lousy fast food, and don't exercise. They don't have time (or money) for much else.

                •  Crapola (none)
                  1. Were your "nationalized healthcare=epidemic of hypochondriacs" thesis plausible, such a large proportion of our adult population would not be obese.  I don't see a formalized national health care coverage system here, but I see plenty of adults and children suffering from obesity.  Your thesis is absurd and is probably the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard of why people overeat/smoke/don't exercise.

                  2. I don't give two shits what you've scored on the GED.  Imbeciles pass tests, get PhDs, GEDs, and MDs all the time.

                  3. And so because there may be waste in the educational system, no moral value may be assigned to different governmental programs and expenditures whatsoever?  What a load of bullshit.  Take some responsibility for your governmental choices and try to insert some honesty into your analysis.  Point blank: you'd rather pay hundreds of billions of dollars so that defense contractors may become bloated and rich from your earnings than pay for small children to be able to see the family doctor.  I call it barbaric; you consider it libertarian.  Whatever.  Give me a comprehensive list of governmental programs you deem inefficient and I might give some credence to your extremist "get rid of the commons" argument.
        •  ...until you attached the bill? (4.00)
          for a smarter, more employable workforce?

          for a better quality of life and level of living?

          for healthier children and adults?

          for a substantially-reduced infant mortality rate?

          for clean, safe drinking water and food?

          for clean air and reduced allergies?

          for above-poverty financial security for the elderly and retired?

          for the clean-up of toxic swamps and safe disposal of poisonous and radioactive waste?

          for safer communities with adequate numbers of first-responders to community disasters?

          I'll pay that bill--gladly.

          What "bill" is attached to your fat-cat, big business, every-man-for-himself, party?  It's called a massive and spiraling national debt--accrued by your folks, on their watch.  

          George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

          by Joon on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:17:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The irony is (4.00)
            that not only does your "bill" reflect morality, but actually will generate a net gain in the long run for all who are willing to pay it.  A healthy, productive society benefits us all.  An unhealthy, pathological society hurts us all, no matter our safe ensconcement in the middle class or luxury of the (non-parasitical) upper class (of course this does not apply to feudal parasites like Bush and his ilk).
        •  Your PAYING more taxes, pal.. (4.00)
          in usery fees and increased real estate taxes.

          There's NO FREE LUNCH. That is the problem that the poster is trying to point out. It is why this country is in so much trouble. Taxes are NOT inherently bad. AND tax cuts are NOT inherently GOOD.

          It's about WHO pays. The American People PAID for the biggest corporate and rich people feeding at the public trough in the nation's history.

          You want lower taxes and balance the budget. RESCIND the Bush corporate and rich people tax cuts. It ain't gonna cost YOU or anyone else in the Middle Class much...and it WILL go along way to at least stopping some of the leaks in this financial TITANIC that Bushco has made of the United States.

        •  What you don't get (4.00)
          1) cost me more tax money

          Of course, number one is taxes. God forbid you Republicans accepted a sacrifice to pay for your president's folly's overseas.

          I would favor national health care, super environmental protections, and a European style social safety net

          What you and your ilk don't get is that NOT having a healthcare plan, NOT having environmental protections, NOT having a safety net is ACTUALLY THE PROBLEM. It's what's destroying this country.

          Did I just use the word "ilk?"

    •  It is interesting (none)
      What is the "Liberal Agenda"? I am a liberal, but I suspect there's going to be (at least) two different lists: One defined by the goopers, another by the DLC, and the others?
    •  Lesser of Two Evils (4.00)
      Which parts of Bush's Agenda do you agree with?

      The part that didn't find any WMD?

      The part that didn't find a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda?

      The part that ignored the PDB?

      The part that said 9/11 Changed Everything (tm)?

      The part that decided torturing prisoners was good PR?

      The part that said we'd be greeted with flowers and chocolate?

      The part that relied on intel from a drunk?

      The part that took advice from Achmed Chalibi?

      The part that created the largest deficit in our history?

      The part that creates an energy policy in secret?

      The part that doesn't believe in Global Warming?

      The part that has its mouth on the ass of the extreme Christian Right?

      The part that rushed back from Texas in his pajamas to politicize a brain-dead woman?

      The part that said the brain-dead woman was "lucid?"

      The part that said he'd be a united not a divider?

      Seriously, pal, at some point, you've got to hang it up.

      I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but the litany of offenses by the Bush Administration is beyond belief.

      While I can see how after 9/11 so many people believed in the Republicans (I didn't agree, but I can see it), at this point we KNOW how they've failed. Completely failed us. They have failed WE THE PEOPLE.

      While you may disagree with the Democrats, we've become the lesser of two evils.

    •  Why waste time? (none)
      I absolutely disagree with the Democrat agenda/policies and therefore will not vote for them.

      Thanks for telling us this...what are you gonna point out next, that ice is cold?

      That is the problem, many Republicans may disagree with Bush, but the disagree with the Dems more so.

      Isn't this why they are, ugh, Republicans? Sheesh  

      It's only "a problem" for the people worried about trying to get people like you to vote differently than you do.....why waste time on "no hopers"? LOL....since the "donkey is dying" could ask you the same thing, but who cares?

  •  can it be cleaned up (3.50)
    Occasionally, i check out this site because i find it informative and helpful learning about issues that the mainstream media does not cover or covers with a very different slant.

    I imagine I will get clobbered for bringing this up, but i really don't see a purpose for using phrases as "fucking republicans".  This whole article that you presented was extremely interesting and important to highlight, but the namecalling really put a negative on it for me.  There are some republicans that i would vote for over some democrats in a heartbeat.  The arguments should be powerful enough to convince others to vote in a different direction without succumbing to the basest of tendencies.  I think some republicans may be thinking now about "jumping ship" as they see how their party has been taken over by a minority group espousing beliefs very different than the moderate republican.  Don't alienate them as well.  really, i expect more from this website than that.

    •  I don't think this site's (4.00)
      purpose is to somehow romance anyone craven enough to vote for the Bush regime.  In my view, this site spreads news and analysis for the purpose of strengthening the Democratic party, especially the strong grassroots portion of the party.  I certainly echo Kos' resentment of the GOP's constituency which actively facilitated the serious decline of this country.  Fucking Republicans.
      •  Civility is a virtue (4.00)
        No, the job of this site is not to "romance" Bush voters, but, as pointed out above, anyone engaged in politics is really engaged in persuasion. And you can't persuade anyone of anything if you start by calling them, their friends or their relatives as "fucking" anything. When you engage in name-calling, you are begging people to ignore you: people who disagree with you are instantly turned off, and people who agree with you learn absolutely nothing about how to articulate a persuasive case for liberal values. There's no point in resenting people who disagree with you -you are just harboring ugly feelings that make you feel agitated without doing an iota of damage to the causes you oppose.
        •  I take your point, (4.00)
          but I couldn't disagree more.  This site is aimed at a very specific group of people: Democrats who believe that reformation of the party coupled with vigorous attacks against Republican policies will lead to a much brighter American and international future.

          My resentment doesn't come from the fact that others disagree with me, as I am a unique person with a unique set of opinions; my resentment stems from the fact that a portion of this country chose to facilitate the political ascendency of a group of politicians so horrid that the fruits of their misdeeds will be felt for years to come.  The fact that this portion of the country now wants the reality based community to police the monster it created (in order to engage in gratifying gay oppression and holier-than-thous) really pisses me off, and I feel more than entitled to this resentment.

          •  Sigh (none)
            It certainly isn't my intent to tell anyone whether they are entitled to feel what they feel. And I am no happier about the Republican-conservative ascendency than anyone here.

            I guess my personal bottom line is that I'm just bummed that I can't discuss political ideas with fellow liberals without seeing my non-liberal family and friends being called stupid, hypocritical or fucking (insert label here).  

  •  Spineless Chafee (none)
    Too bad members of Congress don't take public opinion too seriously.  According to today's Boston Globe, Senator Chafee is ready to give Bolton the thumbs up next week.  Apparently, the vociferous opposition voiced by his constituents is secondary to "giving the President his guys."

    The next time you hear a fellow liberal say: "Chafee in the Senate is a good thing. His vote on various committees is invaluable," remember this horrendous vote.

  •  The big story here (4.00)
    is the number of repubs who "want democrats to intervene" to keep their guys in line. Several republicans have posted here to that effect, acting as though we don't have our shit together because we're not doing this efficiently enough, or smart enough for their liking. Never mind THEY are the fucking idiots that voted for these guys to begin with...

    They voted for someone they want the opposition to control? I would never, EVER vote for someone I thought needed policy oversight from the oppo to keep them from going over the edge. To the thinking adult, this is a sign that the candidate is too extreme and not good for America as a whole. In addition, spending every waking moment trashing the opposition for their efforts in doing said "animal handling" makes them obnoxious hypocrites.
    There is no issue they won't shift responsibility to someone else (including the feds) to deal with these days, which is pretty odd from a party claiming to be all about personal responsibility and smaller government. The republican party is dissolving in front of our eyes into the disconnected, feckless "exurbia" class in need of constant oversight and pampering.

    Essentially we're dealing with what I call the American Idol class. They look at voting as though they are simply voting someone off of the island, into a record contract, or into their living room for beers. To be so divorced from reality regarding the supreme importance of elections and their impact on us (and the rest of the world) says a lot about why they support the policies they do, as well. It certainly speaks to the true level of analysis they are willing to give any particular issue, and why our scientific, often fact-rich analysis blows right over their heads. To ask them to think about something outside the sphere of their own ego is unrealistic, and we should change tack accordingly in showing them our perspective on the issues of the day.

    They say the republican party is the "daddy" party, I say they are the baby-sitter party.

    •  Massive oversimplification (none)
      Your argument reads as though you assume the electoral process works like this:

      Joe Republican decides he likes Tom DeLay and votes for him.
      Then Joe has second thoughts and decides the dems should reign DeLay in.

      Of course, in most Congressional Districts, Joe never had a choice to decide whether he wanted Delay or not. He could only decide on the candidate in his district. So it should not surprise us when Republicans as a whole are against DeLay, because Republicans as a whole do not get to vote in his election. I imagine many of the Republicans in the poll are like my neighbors in the Northeast who vote for moderate Republicans, because they disagree with Dems a lot more than they disagree with DeLay. But that would not make them inconsistent or hypocritical to then think that it would be good for someone to restrain him.

      I'm disappointed that so many liberals insist on characterizing the American people as character-free dopes. No wonder they don't vote for liberals.

  •  diary whoring/other diary on this subject (none)

    We are not "compassionate conservatives." We are "fighting liberals." And we'll kick your ass.

    by Pachacutec on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 10:47:12 AM PDT

  •  Popularity at another all-time low? (none)
    Just what would happen if the terrorists hit us again on our homeland? Sure would make Shrub's popularity go up again as in that "commander-in-chief-of-an-attacked-nation" mindset the more weak-willed among us tend to adopt.
    I just got a feeling SOMETHING'S gonna happen to divert our attention from this popularity, "booing-at-the-Pope's-funeral," "no trust fund," DeLay and Martinez are goin' down in flames thing...I just WON'T trust these guys...
    There--just made a NEW tin hat. My wife used my old one for the Easter ham leftovers.
    •  Hmmm.... (none)
      It's hard to say which way that would go. Bush was pretty much blame-proof on 9/11 since he was new in office. If something happened now, he have to explain why three years isn't enough to improve security. On the other hand, an increase in the threat level might help him out. That should be easy enough to engineer!
      •  well,... (none)
        ...SOMETHING'S gonna happen. The Social Security battle is being lost via "there's no trust fund" and other idiocies, Bolton's on the bubble when it seemed he was gonna be a slam-dunk, there's DeLay, there's Cornyn, there's Guckert sweating his ass off on C-SPAN, the Martinez (not Darling's: MARTINEZ'S) memo mess, the whole shameful Schiavo spectacle, Arnold's getting in crap up to his abfab pecs...the GOOP'ers seem like they're unraveling and Hastert can't keep 'em in line because he now REALLY DOESN'T have the stones (sorry) to get Congress back in line, AND, moreover, most people (the non-hyper-partisans) are starting to wake up from their Rovian-induced comas and they don't like what Karl, Shrub, Rummy and Halliburton have done with the place.
        Think antennas would look cool on my tinfoil hat? Maybe I could paint some stars on it, too!
  •  it's shananigaii, actually (n/t) (none)
  •  Even TNR thinks he's nuts (none)
    a couple of weeks back, in their Social Security issue, Jonathan Cohn identified Klein as a "conservative" kook and dismissed his rants on MTP on social security.

    I can understand how maddening it can be to read this crap.  I know, I gave up reading Klein.  He says the most ridiculous things.  Just pick some columns at random from the previous year.  There one, right before Iowa, where he says that "Dean's had a free ride so far,"  how stupid.  Dean was an asterick, with no power base, when he started. and he was attacked by the war lovin, and bush lovin establishment  every step of the way.

    So there comes a time to step over the dog shit, as you walk on the political sidewalk - you don't want to get dirty and there are more important things to do.

  •  ROW- ROW- ROW YOUR BOAT- BUSH! (none)
    Kenichi Ohmae

    George Bush's approval ratings are sinking!! We are being eclipsed more ways than one! More are calling for impeachment, more petitions from the American people are being signed and presented to Congress in protest from ANWAR, Nuclear Option, Removal of Tom Delay, Voter representation for honest elections, Social Security reform, and many other issues vital to our well-being ! Voices are being heard through the Internet, and it almost sounds like a revolution. Ambrose Bierce described "revolution" as, "In politics, an abrupt change in the form of "misgovernment!" Personally, I like John Kenneth Galbraith's explanation, "The kicking in of a ROTTEN door!"
    Recently the media is talking about announcements of positions in the government in "New Iraq?" The Iraqis have been fast losing patience since the election with the new government getting nowhere fast! After public complaints, they knew they had to move and named the new officials! Those in the know have said in order to get the people off their backs; MANY discussions of their disagreements were postponed in order to present the appearance of unity! However, these issues must be faced sooner or later!  Success? is a bit premature! First, journalists in Iraq are banned from meetings when things are looking unfavorable. The news here or there, barely announces death and injuries of our soldiers {1545 and rising} or Iraqis! Journalists are inhibited from reporting other questionable news out of Iraq!  We are being "eclipsed" from half of the story! Meanwhile deaths and injuries continue!
    Where's Osama, or for that matter, al-Zarqawi? Iraq oil will pay for reconstruction? We have spent almost $300 billion and still counting! On February 7th of 2003, Rumsfeld said, "The war could last 6days, 6 weeks I doubt 6 months!" Yeah, right!

    THE KING IS IN HIS COUNTING HOUSE spending "capital" with his "mandate?" and a lot more! Better be nice to China, Japan, etc. they might call in our tremendous debts, with interest! The trillion dollar national debt doesn't seem to bother "What, me worry, George! The value of the dollar is going downward overall. In fact, a recent report stated 65 world central banks have been considering the "euro" over the "dollar" Start contributing to your grandkids and great grandkids piggy banks, they will need them!

     He's elected now {some say} but George isn't doing much about gas prices. Some say his pressure over his buddies isn't working; the U.S. is such a fat cow for the milking! He, is however, with his corporate buddies, wanting to ruin a natural resource with ANWAR a six month band-aid, at best!

    The Plame game blame has landed on reporters and it looks like the end of that investigation, the Silberman/Ross investigation blames the CIA as did its many predecessors, the Abuse and Torture scandals punish the soldiers, and of course, the Bush Administration comes out clean as pure driven snow! Will anyone ever balance the scales of justice? Not while Bush and his cohorts are in office!

    Speaking of balancing the scales, we watch checks and balances become weaker, one-party rule taking advantage of our system, and access of information being denied as more{75%} is classified, and more is denied under this Administration then ever before! Now the majority threatens the minority voice with a Nuclear Option!

    We better start turning this Government Boat around because on many fronts we are heading for dangerous waters and we could drown!

  •  if they identify with Bush (none)
    they'll vote Bush.

    Over and over.

    They'll hope the policy can catch up to what they believ in... identification.


  •  Bush re-elected on what? (none)
    Kos no offense but where have u been since Nov. 2004? Didn't u read then statistical report out just last week showing massive election fraud last fall wasn't in our imagination? Bu$H stole this last election just like he stole the one in 2000. These fascists don't play by our rules they make it up as they go along. Amerika is in the thrall of a criminal gang now not a political party.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

    by Blutodog on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:33:39 PM PDT

  •  "going too far in pushing their agenda" (none)
    I think partly this speaks to the famous and supposed middle-American dislike of "extremism" and the cultural value of the appearance of getting along.  The folks who have been voting Republican have swallowed the Repubs' fakery about "the center" and "reflecting American values".  Such a faked, spectral or phantasmatic "center" has been crucial to the tuning-out of so many otherwise thinking Americans to news and to the workings of the government, for they believed that the Republicans, in claiming that center, were looking out for most people's interests and that they valued "getting along."  In part the 41% response about pushing an "agenda" too far is a reflection of many Republican voters' unease with the current post-2004 election "let's spend the political capital" confrontational and direct politicking.  They just want everyone to get along, and they don't understand why that isn't happening, but they're beginning to suspect that that "mainstream values" shit peddled by the Republicans doesn't refer to real people who really value getting along.  
  •  uh (none)
    Sorry to break the news, but Americans ARE character-free dopes. Or did you not notice they elected the dumbest man on the planet not once but twice?

    Look, a THIRD of these idiots want us to clean up their mess, not just a few isolated people who had limited options in their own district. If they were willing to do their homework, i.e. weren't lazy citizens, they would have seen that the people they were electing were out of their fucking minds. If they were that concerned they could have worked together to find alternative choices to run for office, or just not vote at all in protest. The whole point of a Democracy is that if you don't like what is happening, you have the power to change it. Elected officials tend to rise from the seamy ranks within the party machine, but only because ordinary citizens don't put forth their own candidates and get actively involved. It's akin to bitching about the direction schools are headed if you are unwilling to attend a PTA meeting or otherwise get involved. You are leaving the issues for others to decide and therefore have no right to bitch about the outcome.

    Also, let's not forget that their party is in power and it is up to them to monitor and guide their own leadership if they feel they are out of control. We do it all the time with our leadership, and they respond. Instead they choose to whine about Democrats not doing their dirty laundry for them proving my point - lazy, disconnected exurbanites in need of a baby-sitter.

    They don't vote for liberals for two reasons: liberals don't promise to make them rich by screwing everyone else on their behalf, and we sure as hell won't intervene in everyone else's lives so these bored, power-freak suburbanites can feel like they are the puppet masters of our society. It is about power and money, everything else is a foot note. How's that for an oversimplification?

    •  I agree that (none)
      You are engaged in oversimplification, if not pure sophistry.

      It might be time to consider the possibility that people don't vote for liberals because they aren't convinced by our ideas. I'm rather amazed at the number of people who seem to think that X disagrees with me = X is stupid/hypocritical/ immoral.

  •  Sadly... (none)
    all of this is academic.  Bush got re-elected.  Nothing can change that.  He's free to pursue whatever right wing agenda he wants.  Well, whatever right wing agenda Karl Rove and Dick Cheney tell him to pursue.  Personally, I think he's only cognizant of the fact that he gets to fly around in his big blue jet for another four years.  And forgive me for hitting below the belt but Bush women (Laura, Barbara and the twins) look like window dummies that were donated to a local preschool for the kids to draw on with magic markers.  Somebody needs to put some chlorine in that gene pool.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site