Americans Want An Opposition Party

Via Digby , WSJ's Washington Wire reports this poll finding:

"Americans want Democrats to stand up to Bush," the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports. "Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party 'don't go too far.' Just 34% want Democrats to 'work in a bipartisan way' to help pass the president's priorities."

So maybe some of us Lefty bloggers weren't so crazy after all.

Update [2005-2-20 17:54:25 by Armando]: The finding is number 10 in the linked Hart/McInturff poll.

•  The Dean Years!

  Only give your money to your real friends.
  Think about it.

  by RichRandal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

  •  debate dean vs perle

    did you see the debate on cspan tween dean and perle?

    dean almost called for the ending of world hunger.

    dean acknowledged that we need to work to get the world to like us again.

    perle scoffed at the idea. later on fox he denied dean had any position about how to make america safer.

    we can only be safer when every child is safe.

    20,000 more terrified children starved to death today on earth.

    end hunger, end terror.
    

    by ari on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:19:23 PM PDT

•  aoeu

  All you baloney bloggers are crazy, you're the craziest of them all Armando.

  by TealVeal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:19:56 PM PDT

  •  Your link involves the cooking of Giblets?

    Sacrilege!  Abomination!  Giblets will destroy you unless you bow before him NOOOOOOW.

    by Mandos on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:21:35 PM PDT

  •  No, no, no

    He was asking about the Lefty bloggers, not the baloney bloggers. I'll be the first to admit that all the cold cuts bloggers--yes, even the pimento loaf @ blogspot people (sorry dad)--are absolutely nuts.

    by Antioch on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

•  america is a single party state

  considering that the u.s. has been a single party center-right state at the federal level since 1945 it is the least that the so-called democratic party can do.

  by cyclonejim on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:22:58 PM PDT

  •  If thats the case

    then its because 90% of the US is "center-right", or your definition of it.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

•  60 Percent??!!

  That's sounds like a SUPER MANDATE!!!.

  Not like one of those girlyman Bush man dates.

   

  by ron gauguin on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:25:11 PM PDT

  •  Gannon

    Is Gannon Bush's man date?

    Okay, that was really stupid.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:32:02 PM PDT

    •  Machismo

      Real men don't have to pay for mandates.

      by Addison on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:54:29 PM PDT

    •  Groan....

      Most. Overused. Pun. Ever.

      by redman on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:42:17 PM PDT

      •  Actually,

        to avoid alienating the Religious Reich, the term "mandate" has been updated to "man fishing trip".

        (Not original...I stole it from Don Asmussen of the SF Chronicle)

        by Cali Scribe on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:49:16 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget Shrub's approval

    rating is down in 40s (before Guckert/Gannon)... please tell me how 12%+ of the people came around since Nov. 2nd? They didn't change... Kerry won. Exit polls said he did... and this affirms it for me. Those e-voting machines have to GO people!

    by crone on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:48:45 PM PDT

    •  Not the e-voting machines exclusively

      here in Ohio, they used good old fashioned optical scan ballots, then put stickers over the Kerry votes before they put them through the machine.  
      http://www.rawstory.com

      I also remember reading something about the fix being in the tabulating computers of the optical scan system.

      It worked so well J Katherine Blackwell has ordered the whole state to buy optical scan voting machines.

      by Jesus was a Liberal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:39:02 PM PDT

    •  simple

      Polls are aggregates. Voting for president works on a state by state basis. Please see the US Consitution for more details.

      These conspiracy theories are making you look like the loony-left nuts the right paints you as.  I suggest you guys are mindful of the image you are trying to portray.  

      by notthegop on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:33:30 PM PDT

      •  Nothing is Simple. Except of

        course, some minds.

        by crone on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:59:23 PM PDT

      •  I Suggest You Guys Be More Mindful of the Image...

        You are trying to portray. Because it sounds for all the world like you would roll over if the election had in fact been stolen.

        Personally I don't think the election was stolen. Not decisively. But that's just a gut feeling. We know some fraud, chicanery, and miscarriage of justice was perpetrated at low levels and high. We KNOW this. Was it decisive? Unfortunately that's a matter of opinion not fact, as no substantial investigation has been made. Nor will one be made as long as people like "you guys" keep impeding the righteous indignation that would be required to make one happen in this climate.

        It doesn't matter if Bush would have won anyway. If some punks were beating up an old lady moments before a bus hit and killed her, does it not matter? Since she was going to be dead anyway, did they commit no crime?

        by NewDirection on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:44:40 AM PDT

    •  Sorry chicken little, the sky is not falling.

      Because they didn't like Bush but they liked Kerry less...  Because they are fickle and pay no attention to real issues...  Because they like social security...  There are about 1000 reasonable explainations.  

      Assuming Bush's polling numbers dropping means he stole the election using eVoting fraud is illogical.

      by jeff reid on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:20:01 AM PDT

      •  Going Around Calling People Chicken Little

        Is obnoxious. In my opinion. Don't you think? Why not do a little research on not only e-voting but the long string of so-called "Irregularities" attending this election, before mocking people earnestly wanting to make things honest.

        Ultimately its not a question of whether fraud was decisive. As I said above I personally don't believe it was decisive, but that's unsubstantiated opinion, just like yours is, and just like anyone who wants to go out on a limb FOR OUR CAUSE to allege that the fraud was decisive. There is nothing wrong with alleging something. It is a requirement for ever attaining justice. When someone alleges rape, we don't just all decide whether it's credible or not and fail to examine the alleged victim, investigate, give her a day in court.

        I mean, we are talking about not only our Democracy but the fate of Western Civilization and every other civilization that gets in BushCo's way. Don't you think you have better things to do than tar and feather people with the "chicken little" tag? When they are fundamentally on your side?

        by NewDirection on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 08:54:25 AM PDT

•  What I want to know is

   "Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party 'don't go too far.'

  who are the one fourth of the republicans who are afraid of Bush going too far and why are they worried about it NOW?

  by slackjawedlackey on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

  •  weird

    like Christine Todd Whitman until Jan to release a book about how the moderates feel disaffected. Why not do it in August or during the election?

    by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:37:05 PM PDT

    •  Simple

      We may not want Bush to continue the way he has, but that doesn't mean we'd prefer Kerry, either.

      Ultimately, we have more ability to control the government if our guy wins, even if he's not the ideal, than if we object to some of his policy during the election and it undermines his ability to win.

      It's the same calculus the Dems went through during the primaries when all we heard was that Kerry was picked for electability reasons more than actual agreement with his policies.

      by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:41:00 PM PDT

      •  So for you, it was ABK

        It was more Anybody but Kerry for you, I take it, than being inspired and dedicated to Bush ?
        You really believed he would change? Most of us knew if elected again, he would be even more reckless with nothing to lose. It is almost like a battered spouse feeling his or her abuser will change when in reality, the more people put up with abuse, the more empowered the abuser becomes and often the abuse gets worse.

        Well anyone who voted for Bush can have all the buyer's remorse they want, but it will not change the outcome. You get what you buy and for anyone who bought Bush's lines, should seriously consider looking at all the angles and not believe just talk radio and right wing talking points anymore than we believe all left talking points.
        

        by wishingwell on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:57:47 PM PDT

        •  Not at all

          It wasn't anybody but Kerry, it was that Bush is still closer to my beliefs than Kerry is, by far.

          And no, I don't necessarily think he'll change, but voting for Kerry would have demanded that I abandon a lot of what I believe in—far more than voting for Bush did.

          And I won't acknowledge who I ended up voting for (firm believer in secret ballots), but I will say I don't regret the fact that Bush won reelection. It's not buyer's remorse, it's that I wish there'd been better products on the market to begin with.

          I said, while watching the Dem primaries last year, that I wanted a Republican primary, and I think in some ways it's too bad we never had one; in others, it still holds that it's better for my beliefs that we had one stronger candidate who won than a better, weaker candidate emerging from a bloody primary.

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:54:36 PM PDT

          •  there is nothing

            in the republican platform that I could even begin to believe in.  Total abandonment of fiscal policies, total abandonment of helping the poor, total abandonment of women's rights, total abandonment of the environment ... no there is nothing there.  If his beliefs are where you are closest too, why aren't you on the freeper threads telling them how to change.

            by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:47:13 PM PDT

          •  You're too vague.

            Please detail some more what you believe in.

            by reform dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:01:47 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            "... voting for Kerry would have demanded that I abandon a lot of what I believe in--far more than voting for Bush did."

            I suggest that what you believe in is smoke and mirrors: the cliches of the past, long dead. You are afraid to admit to being played for a fool. And you have been. You and your ilk are proving to be quite the fools!

            You have no sympathy here. You must live with the knowledge of your delusions.
            

            by Jedgar Rove on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:16:25 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        You think Bush cares what you think?

        You got oil for blood?  No?  Then he don't care.

        Speaking as a former Republican.

        by TealVeal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:39:46 PM PDT

      •  I appreciate your honesty.

        Many Democrats were disappointed we didn't have more options in the primary. I certainly am disappointed Kerry conceded so quickly.

        Both political parties need reform, as does the electoral process... IMHO :-) Dems are counting on Dean to help us transform the Dem Party.

        I'm intrigued with your handle, RFTR... are you running for office or for the GOP or what?

        You'll find that dissent is tolerated here. Namaste

        by crone on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:12:02 PM PDT

      •  well

        if moderates like her think having Bush in power will further their moderate causes, pass me what they are smoking.

        by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:17:54 PM PDT

      •  oops accidentally

        replied to my own comment. If that's the case, Whitman needs to stop groaning about anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-huge deficit guys taking over her party. If she thinks they will further her moderate agenda, then she is crazy. Kerry at least was pro-choice, pro-environment, and fiscally responsible.

        by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:24:13 PM PDT

      •  Fine then

        send your kids to war not mine.

        by TXsharon on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:00:56 PM PDT

        •  My guess is

          ... that he has no kids since he is one.  But this is merely conjecture based on the content of his posts.

          by Jedgar Rove on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:45:30 PM PDT

    •  They should have spoken up sooner....

      before the election but these Republicans bowed to Bush and cowered in a corner..now they are having buyer's remorse.

      by wishingwell on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:53:04 PM PDT

    •  I agree Kerry had problems

      But he was pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-deficit. Whitman moans and groans how people who dont feel that way are taking over her party. Well, when you vote for them, I cant really feel sorry for you, Governor Whitman.

      by jj32 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:15:48 PM PDT

  •  These are the Republicans

    We encounter who are fearful that Bush will
    

    1. increase the deficit and continue spending money like a drunken sailor if not opposed
       
    2. Like a system of checks and balances, they want the White House but some secretly hope for a Democratic congress as a True Conservative Republican recently told me.
       
    3. Socially liberal Republicans who are fearful of the Religious Nuts influencing policy and do not trust their fellow Republicans not to cave.
       
    4. Those Republicans who do not approve of Bush's reckless foreign policy.

    I talk to Republicans in my moderate state who will not publicly condemn Bush but confide that they wish Democrats would keep Bush from going over the deep end . I think those are the Republicans who know some of Bush's policies are facist and also those Republicans who oppose Bush's budget priorities and especially his ideas for Social Security reform.

    by wishingwell on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:51:44 PM PDT

    •  I agree... sort of

      Those are the categories of Republicans represented by this statistic, but I wouldn't say they all fall into every category.

      Some pick and choose.  I, for example, fall into one and three, but not two or four (I don't think his policy is necessarily reckless, and if the Republicans are my type of Republican I have no problem with them controlling both branches—also I do not "fear" what you call "Religious Nuts," though I do not want ours to be the party of government-induced social restraint, either).  And I would be one who wishes that Bush will govern differently.

      by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:57:14 PM PDT

      •  Maybe in 2006,

        You may be then considering some Democratic candidates especially if the Republicans running are made of the same fabric as Bush and just recite his talking points and fall in line like a good Bush soldier? I was just curious? I do not mean for President but for the House and Senate perhaps?
        Republicans are one thing, neo conservative Bushites are quite another as far as many people are concerned. Democrats are now showing more spending restraint than the Neo Conservative Bushites.

        by wishingwell on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:02:34 PM PDT

        •  I'm not

          a party-line voter as it is.  No one knows who I've actually voted for, but I assure you that I've voted for more than a few non-Republicans, and I've abstained in races where I don't like either of the choices.

          I will always consider candidates on their own merits—especially if they are fiscally responsible (by which I mean they hold spending and taxation down).

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:05:59 PM PDT

          •  hold spending down?

            hahaha

            funny

            noone will ever hold spending down till the crash.

            by ari on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:21:37 PM PDT

          •  you like fiscally conservative candidates...

            yet you are glad Bush won? I'd find your hypocrisy amusing if I wasn't so utterly repelled by it. Yes, we tolerate dissent around here but unabashed champions of GW Bush should not be tolerated. Frankly, it sickens me that you dare to impugn John Kerry while excusing the actions of the most incompetent joke of a president our country has ever had to endure.

            by pacific city on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:39:08 PM PDT

            •  dissent

              RFTR hasn't even been given a chance to defend his/her beliefs...at least give rftr that opportunity before going after her/him...I'm deeply troubled by Bush's policies but I want to keep a dialogue going with people we disagree with unless they clearly show themselves to be reckless with the facts...

              by grrr on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:47:47 PM PDT

          •  RFTR -Who would be your ideal pick for President

            If you could choose from any person now living, any party?  

            What about that person makes you choose him or her?

            What do you dislike about Democrats?

            Who IYO were the top 5 US presidents?

            What are three "dealbreakers", things that a candidate must back to win your vote.

            I ask because I sincerely want to understand where you are coming from.

            Anyone else who cares to answer the questions, feel free!

            by Jesus was a Liberal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:51:20 PM PDT

      •  You and David Brooks

        David Brooks expressed the belief that after re-election Bush can be how he "really is."  I've thought all along that Bush has been acting as he really is.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:26:32 PM PDT

        •  dammit everyone is beating me on my posts

          i posted that RTFR IS David Brooks

          by christhughes on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:51:36 PM PDT

    •  Moderate Republicans...

      ...screw their employees only some of the time. They approve of torture only some of the time. They're for children going hungry only some of the time (just enough to keep us off balance).

      "Together we will stand, every boy, girl woman and a man"

      by hoplite9 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:15:30 PM PDT

    •  Loyal opposition

      
      Also, would Reagan have been Reagan without Democrats hounding him?  They gave him cover when he would not deliver on items that the base demanded.  The Reagan tax increase (which the Democrats argued for) was also precisely what the economy needed in the late 1980s.  Thus Reagan goes into history as one of the better Presidents while the Democrats keep their consciences and the legislature.  
      

      by Yamaneko on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:35:53 PM PDT

  •  it's about social security.

    all those old repubs don't want to pay taxes, but they want their social security to be secure. "too far" is when you take something away that they are already receiving.

    by yankeedoodler on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:00:01 PM PDT

    •  raise the limit

      make all income taxable
      not just the first 90,000$

      social security will have PLENTY of money then!

      we can house the homeless even!

      by ari on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:23:03 PM PDT

    •  I like

      the Joe Lockhart quote. Pragmatic to the core.

      by michigandemocrat19 on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:33:33 PM PDT

  •  Is it Social Security

    or other things that have turned people away from Bush and the Republicans?  What has changed?

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:24:02 PM PDT

    •  The huge deficit, the falling dollar?? n/t

      by reform dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:10:13 PM PDT

•  Stop being Lieberman Democrats

  Cooperating with these neocons only give you a SUCKER label.  Don't hold your breath for reciprocity.

  by groggy on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:26:08 PM PDT

  •  damn; you

    beat me to the Lieberman reference by 2 minutes.

    by jeff06dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:29:26 PM PDT

•  can we make sure

  Pelosi and Reid read this? Sending it to Joementum might finally decide which side of the aisle he wants to be on too. ^cough^cough^

  by jeff06dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:28:31 PM PDT

  •  Judging from Howard's performance

    in Portland, he's on it. He's a vigilant sentinel, and nothing is lost on him. He and Reid have no qualms about calling the Republicans out on their shenanigans, and this poll exonerates them.

    by bumblebums on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:33:05 PM PDT

•  Americans have always been fans

  of divided government. As to what the hell happened in 2004? Wartime is different, but nothing lasts forever.

  by DemFromCT on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Orwell pictured a world

    in which warfare was a permanent aspect of political control.

    by buckhorn okie on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:11:34 PM PDT

  •  I believe strongly

    that partisan gerrymandering is really hurting our system.  Also, I think that Democrats becoming Republican-lite has really reduced choices.  Why vote for a pseudo-Republican when you can have a real one?

    Democrats are finally becoming a real opposition party, and I think this poll proves that is what people want.  So maybe Ralph Nader wasn't so crazy in 2000 when he said there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:29:45 PM PDT

    •  That is why

      I get so uncomfortable with visiting republicans who seem to want us to put a brake on Bush, but won't put the brake to him themselves.  Are they fighting the fight within their own party? I haven't seen any fight there.

      These people seem, IMO anyway, want to lead us more to the right, to being like moderate republicans and thus hampering Bush.  Not to stop the republicans.  That should not be the goal of the democratic party.    

      by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:53:20 PM PDT

      •  Oops let me clarify

        It IS the goal of the dem party to  STOP  the republicans.  Not to become republican-lite to only slow the bushies.

        by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:54:48 PM PDT

      •  They're not allowed to fight within their own

        party.  Remember:  "You're either with us or against us."

        by reform dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:13:06 PM PDT

      •  Grammy

        i feel the same way - i posted upthread to RTFR on that...

        to moral / ethical repubs: "fix the GOP yourself - it is the right thing to do"

        by christhughes on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:46:41 PM PDT

•  Now Front Pagers Guilty

  This was Diaried on Feb 18th, by JohnnyCougar. I thought we were supposed to check Diaries before we put up new ones?

  by Chamonix on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:31:26 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    We get to be repetitive. The biggest perk really.

    by Armando on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

    •  Do as I say,

      Not as I do?

      by Chamonix on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:35:31 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        You got it.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:36:06 PM PDT

        •  What's the 2nd

          biggest perk? I guss this headline should be repeated over and over..you did get the word out against the Evil ProTorture Gonzales..Love how you stay on message. Viva Armando!! I stuck up for you yesterday and got flamed for it. First flame war and I got the scars to prove it.

          by Chamonix on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

          •  Heh

            2nd biggest perk - having folks like you stand up for them. Thanks. Much appreciated.

            by Armando on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:42:13 PM PDT

•  construction project

  Is there enough room in Congress for a million bloggers to fit?

  by S from Van on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:31:57 PM PDT

•  Is the pendulum --

  
   finally starting to swing back???

  Hopefully, yes.  On the other hanc, it's a damn shame it couldn't have happened last fall.  Of course, it likely would (could) have, had those 52 Warnings not been withheld from the public by the BFEE prior to the Election (and Rice's confirmation hearing).

  Anyway, Armando (re: confirmations, esp -- seems to be your specialty) and all, keep up the pressure on the MSM and Congress.  Tipping point
  may not be far away.

   BenGoshi
  _________________

  by BenGoshi on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately America

    goes through the same cycle over.. and over.

    Some event moves the country right. They gain power and implement all their policies.. which then send america to hell in a handbasket. The "left" colludes til eventually we are at the point of crisis.. and a leftist reformer takes power and leads the country farther left than it was in the first place. And we begin again.

    America moves slowly, in fits leftward historically. But each generation of intelligent, leftist thinkers have to see our ideals crushed at least once it seems before we can pick up the pieces of the nation and lead it towards the future again.

    by cdreid on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:10:17 PM PDT

    •  Hopefully

      the Democrats will be in the position to cash in once the pendulum swings leftward.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:31:12 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      It's anecdotal, but I've developed the impression reading U.S. history over the years that the country does seem to swing back and forth politically, but each time the overall move is further left. Abolition of slavery, women's sufferage, child labor laws, civil rights, labor laws, environmental protection, etc. seem to suggest this. Of course, it's hell in the mean time, waiting for the shift left again.  

      by Heartpine on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:31:28 PM PDT

  •  52 historical warnings

    Of course, it likely would (could) have, had those 52 Warnings not been withheld from the public by the BFEE prior to the Election (and Rice's confirmation hearing).

    Which 52 warnings are you referring to? The ones that still aren't being covered by the media 10 days after The New York Times broke the story? The ones that Condoleezza Rice would have claimed were "historical in nature," had she actually been questioned about them? Listen, just because the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to those memos precipitated the worst attack on our soil in American history is no reason for anyone to question their allegiance to the President. After all, Bush made up for that little oversight with his commanding presence at Ground Zero.

    by buddhistMonkey on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:48:03 PM PDT

    •  You're right . . .

      
       . . . that stuff's so 2004, or even 2001.  So not important.  If only we could get more updates on how Michael Jackson's doin', eh?

      BenGoshi
      __________________

       

      by BenGoshi on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 06:12:05 AM PDT

•  Crazy like a fox

  So all of a sudden we're the salvation party.  Sounds about right.  Does this mean our leaders can stop running for the right?  Hear that Hillary?  Maybe protecting a woman's right to choose can become the next flavor of the month crusade afterall.

  by caliberal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:32:44 PM PDT

•  REPLACE CONGRES with a blog

  by David in Burbank on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:32:54 PM PDT

  •  No sXXX, great idea

    Truly representative government without the middleman, er person. Just need to keep Diebold out of the process though.

    by towit on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:07:52 PM PDT

  •  Only one problem...

    The new BlogCongress would be run on Windows and when you typed in DailyKos.com into IE, you would be automatically redirected to gopusa.com

    ;-)

    by Espumoso on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:02:47 PM PDT

    •  I use Firefox

      by David in Burbank on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 10:25:12 AM PDT

•  This is probably the same 60%

  that said BushCo should govern differently in his second term.

  Why pray tell did at least some of them vote for him and repug members of Congress then? What makes them think BushCo would change?

  Voters are idiots. They went too far by voting for a party that systematically wants to strip away their rights and social benefits.

  by Cordelia Lear on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:35:33 PM PDT

  •  Just because

    we want him to govern differently does not mean we want him to govern the way Kerry would have.

    And we weren't given any other options.

    by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:38:09 PM PDT

    •  You did have other options

      You could have cast a blank for president in Nov.

      What's your voting registration? Could you have switched and cast a vote for someone other than Kerry in the primary?

      You could have encouraged other people to register as democrats and vote for someone other than Kerry.

      You could be a voice for a different primary system - perhaps one where it's not so skewed to IA and NH.

      You could be an advocate of a non-partisan redistricting process so the Congressional seats weren't so stacked in advance.

      Voting for Bush was a conscious choice that you were going to get more of the same.
      

      by Cordelia Lear on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:09:28 PM PDT

      •  A few problems

        I'm a registered Republican, because the Republican party, of the two viable parties, is closest to my ideals.

        I am NOT a Democrat, so switching to vote in their primary would be betraying my beliefs.

        Secondly, you have no idea who I voted for, and I have not once stated to anyone who I did vote for—I won't, because I believe in a secret ballot.

        by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:59:23 PM PDT

        •  do you come to argue policy?

          To persuade us that we should follow a more republican line? What?  What specifically do you want to change about the way bush is governing if he stands with your ideals so much.

          by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:59:08 PM PDT

          •  I've laid this out

            in some other posts on this thread...

            by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:15:09 PM PDT

          •  Between you and me, I think he's just trying

            to drive us nuts.

            by reform dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:24:04 PM PDT

        •  I submit ...

          That you registered Republican because your Daddy is a Republican and he, after all, is a Yale alum and the one who got you your legacy spot.

          The "ideals" you are closer to the Republicans on have to do with the rights associated with inherited privilege.

          by Jedgar Rove on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:44:42 PM PDT

    •  To be fair

      to us - Democrats, lefties, civil libertarians...

      We wanted Dean. The media colluded with the political aristocracy to destroy his candidacy and put their preselected boy , Kerry, in. Same thing happened to McCain, to Bush1 running against Reagan, to those running against Mondale, Dukakis.

      Our "two party" system isnt. Its a system where the powers that be decide between two of americas political aristocracy and then use Any means necessary to force that false choice on us.

      Thing is... your selection this time was a far right wing cokehead who lied to start a war, probably outed a CIA agent for political gain, has deep ties to Bin Ladin, to the Saudis funding him, to Enron/Worldcom, to Halliburton.. the company raking in cash on our boys blood.

      Your side supports communist china, fascism and the dissection of the bill of rights. How you can rationalise your vote for Bush knowing that is hard to fathom.

      by cdreid on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:16:15 PM PDT

    •  I see the Kos Republican firewall is down.

      How can you even compare the way Kerry would have governed compared to the way Bush had already governed?

      It's a hollow, (IMHO) losing point.

      "Four more years of hell!"

      by Pescadero Bill on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:25:32 PM PDT

      •  He's the civil Republican

        we allow. Him and doverspa.

        by Armando on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:30:05 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          I appreciate your defending my right to be here.

          And is it really only two of us?

          by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

          •  Yes you and Doverspa are very civil and respectful

            You two always state your views in a respectful manner and debate in a civil tone. That makes for excellent discourse and debate. You are not like the disrespectful , nasty trolls who come him to spew toxicity, anger and hateful rhetoric.
            Thank you for your civil discourse and respectful tone.

            by wishingwell on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:19:24 PM PDT

            •  He might be civil

              but to me s/he makes no sense whatsoever.  He likes all of Bush's policies, or most of them anyway, but doesn't like how he governs.  what part don't you like? The lying about medicare? The lying about WMDs? the lying about the deficit?  The lying about NCLB funding?  The paying of journalists? Paying fake journalists?

              by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:02:10 PM PDT

              •  no, you're assuming

                that I like most of Bush's policies, instead of reading what I'm saying.

                I like MORE of the GOP policies than I like of Dem policies.  That doesn't mean I like a majority of either, necessarily.

                by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:40:06 PM PDT

                •  Then I'm sorry but ...

                  ... you're a RINO.

                  Maybe you don't define yourself as such. But the Republicans do.

                  by cookiebear on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:30:14 PM PDT

            •  He writes like a Greek Oracle! n/t

              by reform dem on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:28:44 PM PDT

              •  Or like John Kerry

                by rayek on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 11:03:35 AM PDT

          •  All the rest

            of the dKos Republicans have seen the light. But anyone willing to be civil is always welcome here!

            by sidnora on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:23:14 PM PDT

          •  the 2 I know of n/t

            by Armando on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:35:33 PM PDT

          •  No, there are others

            As long as they are respectful and wish for dialogue.

            by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:36:36 PM PDT

        •  He is "respectful"?

          ... well, sort of ...

          Amazingly he never says anything of substance. He and his beliefs are an enigma. So he wastes space. He wastes our time. And he wastes machine cycles.

          There are so many cogent comments in this thread worth responding to. And they are ignored in favor of this "high class" troll. He doesn't engage in true argument since he is unwilling to risk his high ground of "knowledge" that he is unwilling to share with the rest of us. Everyone resorts to knee-jerk persuasion mode. You can't persuade someone who won't tell you where they stand other than to say they disagree with you. That, IMHO, is not at all respectful. It is disingenuous at best.

          One response to him was enough. IMHO he is a narcissistic attention seeker. dKos gets so mny of these. They should be dutifully ignored.

          by Jedgar Rove on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:42:54 PM PDT

      •  I haven't tried to

        and I apologize if it seems that way.

        But that's why I couldn't vote for Kerry, either.  By in large, he is completely contrary to my ideals.

        While Bush is not my ideal, and I do wish he'd govern differently in his second term, that doesn't mean I should support Kerry over him and betray just about everything I believe in.

        I've hesitated using this phrase, because I don't believe either is "evil," but it is a "lesser of two evils" situation for me.

        by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:01:25 PM PDT

        •  Argh!

          So starting a war on hyped incorrect data is the lesser of two evils in your mind?  What could Kerry possibly do that's worse?  Especially considering he would've been forced to compromise with a republican congress.

          by sgilman on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:00:19 PM PDT

        •  I would love to hear what you beleive in

          because the republican party that I am familiar with is represented by Bush I, Chaffee, Weld etc

          patrician, yes but at least there is noblesse oblige

          the thugs that run the party now are zealots and seem powermad

          seriously - post a diary on it (I had better check to see if you havent already) and I think that you will find that your beliefs have been betrayed unless you follow the Norquist/Deaver starve the beast bullshit....

          by christhughes on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

    •  But you knew he wouldn't

      and you voted for him anyway. So, regardless of whatever it was you "wanted," what you elected was more of the same.

      I find it laughable that that all those advocates of "personal responsibility" are now clamoring for the opposition party to bail them out of the mess they voted us into. Or, rather, I'd find it laughable if I weren't so busy rocking back and forth, moaning and wailing.

      by SingularExistence on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:26:52 PM PDT

      •  aoeu

        And should he have cast his vote for Bush he endorsed a policy of torture and perpetual debt.  Plugging ears and repeatedly prattling like a child changes none of the responsibility he took on.

        by TealVeal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:42:42 PM PDT

      •  No.

        As I've told others, you have no idea who I voted for, either for president or down-ticket.

        I have no desire to see Dems "bail me out."

        I want Dems to do what they believe in, because I think the two party system is a good balance for government—doesn't mean I want all, or even any, of your policies to win out.

        by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:03:03 PM PDT

        •  Your logic is weird

          I don't like what you stand for, but I want divided government?  What does that mean?

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:34:55 PM PDT

          •  Allow me to clarify

            I see what you mean, so here's what I meant to say:

            I don't want Democrats to dominate, because I do not support Democratic policies.

            But neither do I support Republican policies taken to the maximum (and I don't support some Republican policies at all).  Therefore, I want some voices of opposition in the legislative branch, if not necessarily a truly divided government.

            by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:39:30 PM PDT

            •  Nonsense.

              that makes no sense.  You want a weakened dem party, but not a disappearing dem party.  Is that about it?  And you want us to agree to this?

              by GrandmaJ on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:04:53 PM PDT

              •  Yes and no.

                That's what I want, and no, I don't expect you to agree to it.

                I was simply trying to clear up the fact that Republicans answering a poll that they want Bush to govern differently does not mean they have turned on him.

                by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:16:20 PM PDT

              •  I think I at least understand a bit

                He's one of the Republicans that doesn't want a one-party system, because he sees the evils of that sort of system..

                Reasonably, the opposition has to be strong enough to make the party in charge a bit moderate, rather than think they can do anything they want...I'd guess because that policy tends to backfire and swing momentum back over to the other party.

                Right now, Republicans run the show and think they have a mandate, they are taking that to mean they can do anything they wish (say, re-nominating all sorts of judicial nominees that were already rejected).  This sort of thing leads to recoil, backlash.

                Except for the part about the people in charge never changing, I can sort of agree and see his point.

                Honestly if the Democrats do take over again, I'd not want the Republicans to just vanish -- it might give cause for the Democratic party to become what they currently hate about the Republicans.

                Running - is this sort of what you mean?

                by Stymnus on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:21:20 PM PDT

                •  Pretty close

                  I do think the people in charge should change.. not sure what you meant by that part.

                  Other than that you're spot on.

                  by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:41:51 PM PDT

                  •  asdf

                    I mean that I'm assuming you don't want Democrats running things -- unless they are under a somewhat conservative platform, maybe.

                    Obviously I'm not saying you believe in a President For Life setup. :)

                    by Stymnus on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:10:23 PM PDT

              •  I see the logic

                Sure, it makes sense.  RFTR doesn't support most of the idealogy of the Democratic party, but he believes in the existence of the party as a check to possible runaway republicanism, some extremes of which RFTR doesn't agree with.  Plus, it stirs up (and publicizes) debate, which is healthy.  I may be on the other side, but I think the logic is completely sound.  

                by bevenro on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:25:39 PM PDT

                •  Bingo.

                  Thanks for the clarity, even if you do disagree.

                  by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:42:27 PM PDT

                  •  well hell why not police your own party?

                    wtf?

                    why do we have to do it for you?

                    there have to be some sane people in the party? not all of them are SA/christian brownshirts are they?

                    having a normal political party that doesnt use hate and fear as a common strategy just doesnt seem moral. Why do dems have to point this out?

                    by christhughes on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:17:55 PM PDT

                    •  it's that pendulum again

                      It wants to be in the middle, but there are forces pulling to both left AND right. So it swings. Wildly at first, to the extremes of both sides. Then it slows down, and comes to rest in the center.

                      The stronger the force on one side, the stronger the other force has to be to keep it in balance.

                      We weren't holding up our side. That's why we're so out of balance right now. If we get stronger, and voice our opinions rather than caving, it will moderate things.

                      Think of your kids -- they ask for the moon. They don't really want it, they're just seeing how much they can get away with. If you give in to everything they ask for, they ask for more and more just to see where the limits are.

                      We need to be better 'parents' and say no a few times. ;-)

                      by mmacdDE on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:08:56 PM PDT

                      •  my kid is 9 months old

                        he doesnt really any anything other than paper and cords to eat

                        but his screams remind of the Dean scream :) - maybe hes complaining about the debt and tax burden these GOP thugs are leaving him....

                        I did miss the pendulum swinging to left? when did that happen? New Deal or the 60's? My impression is that the 60's were more cultural than political pendulum swing

                        by christhughes on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 05:29:49 PM PDT

                •  Oh, I see the "logic,"

                  I just don't find it particularly compelling or persuasive.

                  You may not agree with a candidate on a particular issue, or on any particular issues. Most people don't fall 100% in line with their party on every single issue. But when you support that candidate or applaud his re-election, you are weighing the relative value of all of the issues he or she is for or against and deciding which are the most important.

                  RFTR may oppose Bush on gay marriage, torture, reckless deficit spending, or whatever - but he tells us he is "glad" Bush was re-elected despite his positions on all those issues. So I would question the strength of that opposition, because clearly seeing Bush in office was more important.

                  It's all very well and good to endorse strong debate from both sides. But that doesn't mean you can or should depend on that system to keep extremism in check.

                  by SingularExistence on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 01:14:59 PM PDT

            •  Are you waiting

              for other people to save you?  Hoping others will vote Dem?  That won't work.

              by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:45:18 PM PDT

    •  Better the devil you know

      Many people expressed to me that they were voting for Bush because at least they knew what he stood for (and a lot didn't like it).  However, they felt they didn't understand what Kerry stood for and how he was different.  I feel that is partially the fault of our silly press corps and partially Kerry's fault.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:34:05 PM PDT

      •  Agreed,

        and I suppose that's part of why I didn't like Kerry.
        In addition to that, I did understand a lot of Kerry's policies and don't support them.

        But the lack of clarity was certainly a downfall of his...

        by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:44:43 PM PDT

        •  Kerry's downfall...

          but Bush's greed and ignorance and incompetence and war-mongering and religious pandering and hostility to our allies and sleazy campaign tactics and exclusivity...all of those things are a-okay with you and you are glad he won in 2004.

          by pacific city on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:48:54 PM PDT

          •  Not fair.

            Obviously I think Bush is motivated by other things than you do...

            I don't think he's incompetent, though I also don't think he's perfect.
            I don't think he's a war-mongerer (I supported the war).
            I don't think he's pandering with his faith, I think he's expressing what he truly believes and acting out of that conviction.
            I think the allies were hostile to him, and he appropriately did not pander.
            I think that campaigns are often sleazy in general, and have not yet seen any evidence of anything attributed to Republicans that aren't mirrored by Dems (bear in mind, I'm also on a college campus where conservatives are regularly intimidated and threatened).
            And I dont' know what you mean by exclusivity, but invite you to clarify that one.

            Make sense?  Probably not to most of you, but then I'm here in part to help you understand, so I suppose that's to be expected.

            by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:55:56 PM PDT

            •  no, you don't make sense...

              because I cannot imagine how anyone could look at what Bush has done over the past 4 years and think that he is okay. He is a war-monger, especially sickening because he chose to send our young people into war though he avoided serving himself.

              Do you know anyone serving in Iraq? I do. No one loathes war more than the soldiers who must fight. And it is the civilian leaders' absolute moral obligation to avoid war unless absolutetly necessary. The Iraq War was Bush's war of choice, and he has the blood of thousands of people on his hands for making that choice.
              

              by pacific city on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:05:36 PM PDT

              •  Alright

                Stop responding to my posts.  You're never going to get anything out of my answers, and all you're trying to do is pick a fight.

                There are other people who ask sincere questions they want my answers to, you just ask the same things every time you read one of my posts.

                I don't mean to be rude, but none of what you're asking has anything to do with this thread.

                by RFTR on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:24:59 PM PDT

                •  Hey, I'm just getting my chops down

                  as part of the Opposition Party. That is what you want, correct? And I am not off-topic from the thread, because your comments took the thread in this direction. It is the way the blog works, you can't always predict where a conversation will end up.

                  I'm not picking a fight but I'm also not going to grovel at your feet simply because you aren't as outwardly rude as some right-wing trolls. I'll be blunt--I think your presence does more harm to the thread than my argumentative comments. I'd just like to see you justify your positions rather than spout empty ideology. It is a basic requirement for being a participant here.

                  by pacific city on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:45:55 PM PDT

•  No More Neville Chamberlain Democrats

  As far as I'm concerned, the DLC-types are from the Neville Chamberlain wing of the DLC.  They think that they will get "peace" by conceding on various issues.  But they won't get peace.  The other side will just keep taking more.

  by Power on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Here, here!

    I can't tell you how many arguments I got into with Democrat friends on nominating someone who is "electable" during the Democratic primaries last year.

    I'd rather lose while going down swinging for what I truly believe as a liberal Democrat.

    With Dean, we'll get some backbone as a party, but we're gonna have to help him stiffen it up on the grassroots level.

    by towit on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:11:49 PM PDT

    •  I too

      made the mistake of talking up the electabilty factor. I will never do that again.
      I ahve said here more than once---- Lets us have a LEADER and not a candidate for our future.

      by brown american on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:49:51 PM PDT

      •  Electibility

        I fell for it too.  I now realize I actually have no clue what is really electable.  Who could have guessed Hillary could have been elected to NY senate and now be the most popular politician in NY?  Not me.  I'm going to follow my heart.  In my defense, by the time the primary came here, only Kerry and Edwards were left.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:38:56 PM PDT

        •  lets

          stop talking about electability. That is just   politics.
          We are talking about the heart and soul of this country. The country that I love for what it always stood for but has seen the errosion of the ideals over the last decades.

          Lets talk about a leader. A leader like MK Gandhi,ML King, Nelson Mandela.Bishop Romerio.....

          Only when we have some one like them can we stand
          on our ideals and start fighting for this country and for humanity and world peace.

          Most people here are trying to second guess our politicians and mico managing politics,
          Lets get some true leadership.
          maybe we are too comfortable in our arm chairs with fat around our waists to fight for this country (I don't mean in the military). I mean like the people of third world countries You and I can not hold a candle to them. The people of Poland, Philipines,El Salvador(Kos own)Ukrine,  south africa,East temur,and the list goes on.The people there are on the streets while we sit  comfortably at our computer and wring our hands, splitting hairs, and doing mental mastrubation.

          by brown american on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:46:31 PM PDT

          •  its a joke

            Democratic party the opposition party! Give me a break. the two parties can be called by one single name The business party. They are like Coke and pepsi they are the same.
            I hope Kos raises above the fray and speak for the poor and the down trodden like his hero the bishop

            by brown american on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:11:42 PM PDT

    •  Please try not to

      use "Democrat" as an adjective (as in "Democrat friends"). This is a Republican frame. Luntz decided it sounds nastier than "Democratic", which, after all, is a difficult concept for even the most skilled spinmeister to smear.

      Even if it sounds fine to you, remember that others who hear you, especially Republicans, will take it to mean that on some level you've bought into their propaganda.

      by sidnora on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:30:25 PM PDT

      •  I'm kinda new to DKos

        but you're making my point that I've been voicing on this thread.

        When you (generically speaking) tell me not to use Democrat because the Republicans use Democrat to frame is tantamount to listening to what they are spwewing.

        Do you think the average American without health care insurance gives a fuck about that nuance.

        I AM A DEMOCRAT, DEMOCRAT, DEMOCRAT. DEAN SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        by towit on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:43:57 PM PDT

        •  I agree with Sidnora

          I'm certain that you did not use the term knowingly, but it is a Republican frame to use the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" when using the word as an adjective. An example would be "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party". This is done by Republican spokepersons intentionally and quite often, and is meant to belittle Democrats. I'm just waiting for some Republican spokesperson to pull this on Dean and for Dean to set them straight on it in some memorable fashion.  

          by Heartpine on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 08:17:10 PM PDT

        •  That's just the point:

          I know the average American without health care insurance doesn't give a fuck about nuance. But the Republicans do, intensely, and that's one of the reasons they've been able to get the average American without health care insurance to vote for them.

          That's why it's important for us to be aware of it. People who don't eat, drink and sleep politics aren't necessarily aware that their perceptions are being manipulated in this way, but they are nonetheless.  This is one of the Repugs' most insidious weapons, much more effective than an outright lie.
          

          by sidnora on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 06:14:12 AM PDT

•  No More Beating Around the Bush

  WSJ:"Americans want Democrats to stand up to Bush"

  Beat Bush

  by ROGNM on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:36:46 PM PDT

  •  Why does America hate America?

    by Volvo Liberal on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 02:50:39 PM PDT

    •  LOL!!!

      Best comment on the thread

      by cookiebear on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:55:19 PM PDT

    •  oh

      oh wow...I am so confuse now.