I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have to agree that Webb worries me. He doesn't seem to offer much in the way of specifics, and it seems like he's a relatively recent Dem convert. Fine and dandy, but he needs to tell us why he's a better Democrat than Miller. Then there's the weird Swiftboat-style hatchet job he wrote for USA Today about Kerry and the 2004 election. He's got a lot of time to convince people, I guess, but I just don't see it.
I like Ford, and this is smart politics, but it's also one of those issues I have mixed feelings about. Cutting or eliminating taxes on gasoline will increase consumption, which really only makes the entire problem worse. The fact is, when prices are high, people use less gas, which helps push us away from our dependence on oil. Still, no politician will push for higher gas taxes, for multiple reasons. First, it's political suicide. Secondly, there is something to be said for reducing the burden on middle-income and poor families. Jacking up prices is all well and good unless you're making minimum wage with two young kids. It's a tough issue, and I'm curious as to what others think.
What a great post. I think the same thing whenever I cruise the blogosphere and only see ads on the righty blogs. Just goes to show you how effective Bush has been in claiming 9/11, and how ineffective Dems have been in asserting themselves.
The president is right when he says that 9/11 was the defining moment of his presidency. Unfortunately, it is not a very good definition. On that day, and the weeks following it, our country and our world was unified and resolute. The president, instead of building on this to combat an existential threat, used it to further his own agenda. Squandering the national and international unity that 9/11 fostered is this president's legacy.
I'm in church a couple of times a week, and I'm considering going to seminary after undergrad. My personal values, including my politics, stem from my religious beliefs. I think religion has a lot to add to our political discourse, as it plays a big role in many people's moral choices.
Still, I know many people who aren't in the same boat that I'm in (atheist or other religious background), and they are no less likely to be intelligent, compassionate, principled, thoughtful people. Those of us who are religious need to recognize the countless secularists who have made important contributions to public life, including Presidents. I, too, dream of the day when a political candidate can say they are atheist without evoking shock and controversy.
While most people in this country are religious people (or label themselves as religious), the Democratic party has always spoken up for minorities without a voice. There should be space for people of all philosophical and religious backgrounds in our party, and we should not be ashamed of our willingness to fight for people's right to think for themselves.
I'm a devoutly religious person, and I know what you mean when you talk about needing the Lord to pull you through. Still, I know plenty of people who do not have religious beliefs who are perfectly able to sustain themselves in difficult times. Our belief in something is a function of our own minds - which would imply that you are really pulling yourself through a difficult situation. I think God does all the work, and He can help all people through difficult times, however they view life.
What a joke. Did you even read that polling data? Let's see:
In the USA Today/Gallup poll, 63% said they would favor allowing illegal immigrants to "remain in the U.S. and become U.S. citizens" if they meet certain requirements. Hmm, sounds like Kennedy-McCain to me.
But it's the CBS poll that's the kicker! They basically lay out the Kennedy-McCain bill and ask if people would support it. 74% said they would support it.
When asked about a wall, the numbers are split evenly.
The Time magazine poll revealed that 72 percent supported a proposal just like Kennedy-McCain.
In the AP poll, only 32 percent they would be "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that a wall on the Mexican border would work.
It goes on and on. The American public supports a guest worker program similar to what Kennedy and McCain have proposed. The wall is everything public policy isn't supposed to be: impractical, divisive, wasteful, ineffective, and completely incongruous with American values.
Rove in 2006 is going to be all about the base, as usual. That's why it's so important for Democrats to use immigration as a wedge to divide the GOP base from the business elites and the President. This will force the GOP candidates to run from the President, which they cannot do if they want the money.
I think we need a comprehensive strategy for dealing with social issues, because when these guys get desperate, they'll bring them up. My .02? Anytime someone asks about gay marriage, just point out that the GOP is trying to change the subject from the mess in Iraq and the administration's corruption and incompetence.
Which bureaucratic messes do you advocate cutting out? How do you make government leaner? That's all stuff that's easy to say, but it's a different thing to actually do it. Besides, that's not really the issue. The point is that a fence doesn't do jack-shit for the 12 million illegal immigrants here now. That's the current problem.
I try not to read people's minds and guess as to their sincerity, but this is a clear example of someone playing political games. Still, it's difficult to make assumptions like that. For example, the stuff Feingold has done over the last year could either be political posturing or principled battling, depending on how you look at it. But he's never done anything as naked as this.
how the fuck are we going to do it? a wall covering the border would have to be the equivalent of stretching from the washington monument to the sears tower.
where's the money for this coming from? we're running huge budget deficits and fighting two wars.
what does this do for the 12 million undocumented immigrants?
it's not a real plan. no one is going to really build a wall. it's just a stupid campaign line.
The important part of this story, which perhaps I didn't address, is the fact that she's advocating a two-part plan, with a crackdown coming first. This is exactly the same idea being advocated by the hardline Republicans that broke the original immigration debate before Easter. She's essentially opposing the Kennedy-McCain proposal, which was the most sensible option on the table. The fact is, she's giving the impression that she's in favor of the far-right's immigration plan.