It's time to start putting all of these ethics problems together for the public....They hear Frist, Cunningham, Rove, Libby, DeLay, etc, and they think "politicians"....Our job is to make them think "Republicans".....It's not that hard to do, but we have to start now...We need to link the conservative "everyone for himself" ideology with the naked corruption that is the Republican party.....People hate corruption, but they don't neccesarily think of Republicans as more corrupt....We need to demonstrate they are
Well, anyhoo....This is a bluff...The GOP doesn't want a debate on ethics, character, or credibility after the horrible year they've had.....This would just give us fuel for 2006....Alito is out of the mainstream, and smart strategy will be able to show this to the electorate...Any smear attempts by the Republicans will backfire, as we'll be the ones concentrating on "the issues" while they're in the mud....
The only part of the healthcare debate that the Republicans control is the malpractice argument. This business about malpractice insurance driving up health care costs is bullshit, and we need to call them on it. 75 percent of Americans supported universal health care in the early 90s, and I would venture a guess that the number has not changed much since then. We'll disagree some on how to do it, but the principles are the same: everyone should have a basic level of access guaranteed. The GOP doesnt believe this. Period. Debate over, we win.
If we build our whole gameplan around Iraq, we'll get in trouble. Right now, the war is huge, but the GOP is putting plans together to bring some troops home. Sure, it's just a show, but it will make people feel better. Then, we won't have anything. If you ask me, 2006 should be corruption, corruption, corruption. Delay, Rove, Frist, Cunningham, Abramoff, Reed, etc. This stuff is hard to wash off, and the Republicans are hoping we don't make it an issue. It's also a lot easier to build party consensus. That's not to say we shouldn't call the GOP out for their Iraq idiocy and tell the country what our plan is, but the centerpiece of the argument should be: the Republican party is filthy, and you can't trust them.
...on the head! We have to be the anti-corruption party. Democrats have long wanted to get the money out of politics, now is our chance. It's not enough to point out the GOP's corruption. I also love the idea of linking conservative ideology with corruption. The Republican philosophy invites this kind of quid-pro-quo behind closed doors. When politicians are motivated by individualism, they will not act in the interests of the community. That's why we're better than they are, and voters need to understand. Get on it, guys!
Let's remember we haven't seen a lot out of Obama. He's run one major campaign, and that was against a right-wing wacko in a blue state. He hasn't had to withstand the slings and arrows of the GOP attack machine in a national race. Look at John Kerry: did okay in the primaries, but once he got in the ring with Rove and his thugs, he was in way over his head. Obama is a natural at this stuff, but he hasn't had a lot of experience in doing the things you need to do to win a presidential race. And if you think they tagged Kerry as a liberal, wait until they get ahold of Obama's record...
Not only is that a hard sell, but it's the wrong idea. Since Woodrow Wilson, Democrats have been committed to securing the globe for peace and prosperity. Ever since 9-11, you can't convince the public that we should just get into our shell and hope for the best. Strategic redeployment may be needed, but the U.S. needs to be a global force for change, and Democrats have traditionally been the guardians of this idea.
He needs seasoning. Personally, I'd like to see him spend very little time in DC. Maybe he ought to run for Gov. of IL when Blago leaves. Either way, he hasn't paid his dues yet, and we need to see how he holds up in the Senate. If we need a good VP who can bring in voters on the fence, though, he's our man.
The best way to beat the Religious Right is to co-opt their language. "Moral values" means being honest and accountable to voters and not cheating taxpayers. "Family values" means supporting schools and creating jobs. "Truth" means calling out corrupt politicians and lying Presidents. I say, the more people think about character and honesty, the less likely they are to vote for someone with an (R) after their name, especially in Ohio.
Those Vet benefits cuts should be at the top of our issues list next year, especially with all the Fighting Dems out there.....How could the GOP run against a veteran who's pissed off that Washington cut his benefits so that some billionaires didn't have to pay taxes?
nah....this is less of a social issue and more of a symbolic thing....hell, Feinstein co-sponsored a resolution proposing a flag-burning amendment, and no-one's calling her a social centrist....Do you really want a list of Democrats who have come out in support of bans on flag desecration? She has a 100% from NARAL, an 88 from the Human Rights Campaign (same as Schumer), and is strongly supportive of gun control...I haven't drank the kool-aid on Hillary, but lay off her on this one...
This hits on something that I think tilts the race in Hackett's favor: his lack of experience. If Ohio in 2006 is going to be all about reform and "throw the bums out", somebody like Hackett might be our best bet. He can make a case that he's back from the frontlines and ready to clean up Washington, as opposed to Brown, who's a career politician (albeit a reformer). Someone dissuade me...
The very fact that some members of the GOP will vote against the ban makes it unlikely to be introduced. Nobody wants to have to go on record on flag-burning, and the whole thing is just too messy. This is the kind of thing that gets introduced just so Senators can say they co-sponsored it. I will eat my hat if it passes. As far as the politics is concerned, I say let her go. If she pisses of the base, she shouldn't get the nomination and won't. I personally doubt she'll win the nomination, but if she does, she'll be a hell of a lot better than anyone the GOP produces. I'm not going to vote for her in the primary, but she'd make a better President than McCain.
Will guns be a real issue in the general election? I don't live in OH, so I don't have a feel for the dynamics there. If gun control is going to decide swing votes, that's a big point in the Hackett column.
Sorry, folks, but Roe was the right decision and deserves to be upheld. There's much more at stake here than abortion: if rights issues are left up to the states, everybody is in trouble. Roe v. Wade was about the principle: all women should have the right to reproductive choice. Also, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it hurts the Democrats. We've stood for choice even when it was unpopular, and will continue to do so. If the Religious Right wins this victory, people start wondering what in the hell we believe, and if we share their values. Yeah, it'd be nice if we didn't have to talk about abortion, but the majority of Americans agree with us and the tide is quickly changing.