by mrgavel, Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 02:57:37 AM EDT
Most Democratic activists believe that the Iraq War assures that the next President of the United States will be a Democrat. While it would seem that Democrats have an advantage because of the Iraq War, success is not guaranteed. The Iraq War could actually cause more trouble for Democrats than for Republicans.
On the Republican side there doesn't seem to be any intraparty turmoil over Bush's war. The Republican base seems to support Bush on the war. The Republican candidates are pretty much in support of Bush for starting the war, although some break with him on how the war has been managed. On the Democratic side, however, it is a different story.
In the June 21, 2007 edition of the Washington Post we have this article by Senator Carl Levin, a sponsor of the recent war funding bill that was vetoed. On the face of it, this article seems to be a reasoned defense of why Democratic Senators don't want to vote for cutting off funding for the war. Sen. Levin's approach, however, leads to this response on Daily Kos. As you can see, by reading the entry on Daily Kos the writer rejects any argument that Democratic Senators who voted to fund the war without the timelines following Bush's veto did the correct thing. If you read the comments to the posting, it is almost impossible to find anyone who agrees with Senator Levin's article.
by mrgavel, Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:33:03 PM EDT
Can Hillary Clinton Win Ohio?
David N. Brown
April 19, 2007
Every four years it all comes down to Ohio. It always does.
Knowing that I have worked on Ohio campaigns since 1972, every four years my friends from around the country start calling me in the days before the presidential election to ask me how things are going here. They call because they know one simple fact about these elections: no Republican has ever been elected president without carrying Ohio.
It has been this way since the founding of the Republican Party. The state which holds the key to the White House for Republicans is this state. If the Democrats want to lock out the Republican nominee, they know they can do it by winning Ohio. It is self-evident that if Al Gore had carried Ohio in 2000 or if John Kerry had carried it in 2004, we would have avoided either all or the last half of the Bush disaster.
by mrgavel, Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:06:27 AM EDT
The "gang of 500" is a small group of Washington D.C. media people who are supposedly very influential in how national politics gets covered. These insiders didn't like Clinton, did't like Gore, and are covering for Bush. All of those points are accepted as true on blogs such as mydd.com and dailykos. com.
I have no problem with such beliefs. I too think that the way the mainstream covers politics in this country is horrible. It serves no one's interest that media personnel cover politics as a game and not as a serious matter. Here, however, is the question that I have been pondering: how much influence do these people really have?
by mrgavel, Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:51:34 PM EST
Like many readers of blogs, I am fascinated by the ease of communication that the internet provides. It is cheap and capable of reaching millions of people at a fraction of the cost of other means of communication. Having said that, however, I have to ask this question: other than raising money for candidates, what has the netroots accomplished? More importantly, in the context of political campaigns, what campaign has it won?
by mrgavel, Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 04:03:49 AM EDT
Humans are story-tellers. We have been telling stories since the beginning of our species. We love stories, whether they are true stories or stories we create. We also remember points better when put in story form. Jesus spoke in parables because the point he was making was much more likely to be remembered if he told a story.
by mrgavel, Sat Oct 08, 2005 at 12:09:47 PM EDT
One theory going around the blogs is that D.C. Dems in the House and Senate are too timid in confronting the GOP. I understand this point of view and agree with it, but here is my question. Assuming that they want to win, and assuming that they are not sufficiently confrontal with the GOP, why is that?
by mrgavel, Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:23:05 PM EDT
By threatening to veto the stem cell bill, Bush as planted himself firmly in the camp of those who believe that a human life with a full range of legal protections begins at conception.
by mrgavel, Tue May 17, 2005 at 05:58:04 PM EDT
One of the legacies of the New Deal was the idea that certain problems were national problems and should be dealt with nationally. The idea of relying on States to deal with problems began to fade. That philosophy led to national support for education, law enforcement, national highways, environmental protection, and other programs.
by mrgavel, Sun May 01, 2005 at 12:52:06 AM EDT
Is the US getting anything out of NAFTA, and for that matter, GATT, and should Dems advocate getting rid of the treaty? After all, if Bush can advocate getting rid of the most successful government program of all time, why can't we advocate getting rid of a treaty that that may be costing Americans jobs?
by mrgavel, Fri Feb 04, 2005 at 06:09:20 AM EST
One of the positive legacies of the Clinton-Gore administration was the repositioning of the Democratic party as the party of fiscal responsibility. The efforts of that administration on balancing the budget and generating the surplus, and the budget busting efforts of Bush, have led to the GOP having a negative image regarding fiscal responsibility.