Maybe I came off too strong sorry. Whenever people focus on "how to win" instead of what is best for the country it drives me a little crazy. Not only is it bad for the country it ultimately weakens the Democratic Party.
Here are answers to your questions:
Yes I read your post. I consider myself a Libertarian. I guess if I had to go one way I would be a supply-sider, but overall I believe capitalism works. I clearly misunderstood your Post War Corp, after a second thought it looks like you are referring to the military. Sorry I had visions of Logan's Run in my head with all of the talk of color coordination. (maybe I have a low reading comprehension.) I voted for GWB, but I am on this blog, because I feel talking with a bunch of people that agree with me is stupid and dangerous and a free flow of ideas is ideal for democracy. I also hold out hope for the Democratic Party. You didn't mention 08, though I am unsure to what end you are suggesting the democrats "play games" and "hurt the CEO part of Bush's coalition. Out of spite maybe.
On to Economics, it deserves more space. I feel your minimum wage increases can serve to hurt the very people they are supposed to help and have effects on the economy. Higher minimum wages are also associated with higher unemployment, so the potential reduction in poverty is not costless from an efficiency point of view.
Your "simplified" tax code takes ownership in America away from most of the country and leads, in my mind, to a wider divide between the rich and the poor. I don't think your own party will go for it much less the majority of Americans. It leads to more of the same instead of real reform. The thrust of my argument is that the country is on a rightward shift, Bush is taking advantage of this and it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party to be evolved with the specific decisions instead of sitting on the side-lines because they aren't driving the ship. People that make more money actually do tend to be the job creators, whether through investment or actual job creation.
You can brush me a side or actually try to understand where I come from. I think it is in our own best interest to come together. Personally I want a strong Democratic Party closer to its roots. It is good for balance.
I agree on your ideas on Abortion, they seem more inline with the American public. As far as your economic policy goes, it doesn't seem leftest it seems socialist. I would not suggest those ideas at all. In a world economy it makes no sense to punish the jpb creaters. You need a much more balanced policy when you are going against the serious reform Bush will be pushing through.
As far as security I do not think the American public will go for a police state even if they are wearing color coded uniforms.
Maybe you were just joking with your post in which case I should shut up now. If you are serious I think you should focus on doing what is best for America not how to win the White House in 08.
I have to agree that this election was never meant to even be close. I don't think many DNC strategist ever thought they would win, but they sure went after it and came close. In two years another election will detrimine if the GOP can hold on to the power. 2008 will be an interesting election for the Presideny as well.
Personally I think it shows the level of extremism employed to activate the youth vote. For the people that have been saying those tactics are dangerous are given a prime example of why. People may not like Bush, but it is far from the end of the world.
I think Bush won despite the media. A lot of people on this Web site seem to think because the media doesn't report the nonsense from people such as Michael Moore about Bush they must be bias. Many would say it is because there is really nothing to report. They should have reported the inconsistencies within the movie.
The media had to have Bush's military record and never asked for Kerry's. When an organization such as CBSNews rushes to report phony documents I think it shows that they "wanted" to believe them. They report the Texans' for Truth accounts on Bush, but never even look into Swift Boat Vets for truth.
You look at an organization such as FoxNews and have to wonder why are they doing well. They are doing good because they offer an alternative to the once called "Clinton News Network". People are hungry for facts and news from the Right's point of view instead of always from the left.
The war coverage is possibly the most bias. Organizations such as CBSNews don't report any good news from Iraq and is still harping on the prison photographs. I see very little news on the current reforms taking place in the Middle East towards democracy, but if one soldier dies it is always front-page news.
On the economy, Kerry ran on saying this is the worst economy since Hoover. Even though this charge is highly nonsensical, not many in the media pointed out the complete mistruths in Kerry's charges. It is hard for people to believe the economy is that bad, when they can't see it anywhere unemployment is low and growth is high. Even the deficit charges are fudging the numbers, the deficit, as percentage of GDP is comparable to the early 90's and much less than Reagan military build-up in the 80's.
In Newspapers it is much easier to spot the bias, just open up to the editorial section to see where the paper stands. There are papers which skew both directions. Over the last 10 years the conservative paper have out performed the liberal ones in terms of circulation, I would argue because they are closer to reality.
As far as talk radio goes, many of the current "right-wing" hosts voted for Carter when he first ran and with Reagan switched parties and never looked back. Left-wing shows have not gained any traction, networks like Air-America loses money through the nose. I would argue it is because many of their views don't stand up to the scrutiny talk radio puts on topics. Their views aren't effectively communicated unless it is in a tightly prepared format such as a movie or the news where someone reports "the truth". Just because many of the hosts are right leaning doesn't mean Democrats can't join in the conversation either. All they have to do is pick up the phone and be able to communicate thier ideas.
Kerry had PDiddy getting out the youth vote, Hollywood putting out movies like F 9/11, Eminem rapping about how horrible Bush was, the Boss, Bon Jovi, and a host of other actors helping to get people to the Kerry rallies. Bush had Arnold and Ron Silverman.
I would argue Bush won despite the national news coverage against him. The election probably shouldn't have been this close, but I am bias I guess. The country is on a healthy rightward shift. It is good because if one party stays in power for too long they get corrupt and become only concerned with winning, instead of being focused on what is best for this country. We are coming of a 70-year rule by the Democratic Party and the institutions created during this rule don't melt overnight.
As far as Kerry's message: Bush is wrong and I have a plan, is not a very good message. If you can define it better I would love to hear it.
I think the first mistake you are suggesting the dems repeat is to use marketing and gimicks. I believe Kerry lost becuase his advisors and himself focused on creating an image instead of just being himself. His concession speech was the first time I felt like I actually saw Kerry the real person.
1. Republicans treat gay people equally to everyone else. People living together don't get the same benefits as married people either. The government promotes marriage because it leads to children, the future of our country. I would argue that children are best raised by a mother and a father. I also feel the gay marriage issue is less about rights or benefits than an attempt to set gay marriage as the norm. I just don't think it is. If you wish to talk civil unions it is a different issue in my mind.
2. My other posts touch on the Iraq war, but to the point I feel the attack on Iraq was justified and had the okay from the UN and the Congress. Saddam has been a thorn in our side for 10 years or more. The sanctions hurt the people not Saddam and we had an opportunity to take him out.
3. Where tax dollars are spent depend upon who is in office. I hope you can image how a person who thinks unborn children represent life would feel about his or her dollars being spent on abortions. That is how democracy works. Both party's followers are religious as is most of the country. I don't feel the faithbased; community efforts by Bush are a violation of separation of church and state.
4. Protestors - As far as I am concerned they can say what they want. They are not always the best choice to decide policy and I do not think the President should favor their concerns more than the people who got him elected. The efforts didn't work in this election largely because they motivated Bush's followers more the Bush even could do. I would question as to if there where more than during the Vietnam era.
5. Ann Coulter is not running for office or endorsed by me, but I can understand her point of view. To many republicans it seems as though the left in this country was trying to turn Iraq into Vietnam before anyone can make that claim. It has impact on the morale of our soldiers and the morale of our enemies. The insurgents cannot win the war militarily; all they can hope for is enough mindless killing to break America's resolve. It is seen to them as party of country.
6. Opposing the Presidents agenda is not un-American.
7. Torture is not okay. Republicans would argue that the photos, with the exception of the electrocution, where horrible, but nothing like the torture that went on there under Saddam. It is true and good to hold the US to higher standards, but the focus on those photos was nothing more the enemy using our media for there own objective. At least in my mind. I think the media tends to exaggerate both the charges and the world reaction.
8. The busting of Enron and other huge corporations is a showing of Bush doing something about the problem. He should not be punished for stopping the corruption. I would argue that the largest companies and riches individuals currently support the democrats. Republicans are pushing small business and helping the "little guy", as I see it.
As far as Halliburton, Cheney was not in office during the charges the Edwards made. At least that is what factcheck.org said. Reminds me of George Soros another billionaire for Kerry. Look at the numbers for Halliburton; they are not making money right now and their stock is not performing well at all.
9. I talked briefly about the environment below in other posts.
I'll conclude by suggesting that I am not fighting a cultural war and feel it is sad that this is what it takes to get people involved in democracy. The country over the past 70 years has moved to far to the left, we are just going through a correction and that is a sign of a healthy democracy. The leadership on the left has seen it coming and until now, maybe, has preferred to generate anger among its closest followers instead of looking to the future for solutions.
I understand it is easier to believe all is well in our country as a Republican after the election, but it really is. If anything this election has strengthen this country because people like you an me are discussing the issues! Thanks again.
I live in Minnesota and would gladly buy you a beer at anytime. My few are oftewn strong, but it has never stopped me for having strong friends that are liberals. We have great discussions about our country and the world. I feel it is impossible to know everything, so it is important to understand how other people come to thier conclusions. Thanks for the comments.
You certainly sound educated on this issue. Taking your post at face value I would still state that Iraq is a plus for the President not a minus. Please expound on the failures of the Bush administration. I think it is much too soon to say our efforts are not working and I feel as if Democracy will succeed there.
I watched much of the dalfour report findings in the Senate and a lot of what you say about Saddam's bluffs I have heard confirmed. I would take issue with the fact you stated that the UN Inspectors detroyed all of the material thoguh. It doesn't line up with the facts I have heard.
I also would argue that Saddam didn't see us as his friend. He shot at many of our planes in the no fly zones. By the way democracy was already taking its roots under the no fly zone areas and effectivly pinching Saddam from the north and south.
On the coalition: Hungary has stated it will leave in March after the elections are held. They feel by then they will have lived up to their expectations. To be fair it must be understood that their help or help from most of the small countries is mostly for PR purposes. I would argue we do not need their militray support to get the job done. Now the larger supporters like Japan have given billions of dollars to the effort are a different story.
One last thing in Hungary, it is the new Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, that is making the current statement under pressure from his people(60% say they want the troops home now.) We will have to see how it pans out.
Again everything you stated does not lead to failures on the part of the Bush administration, please go further on what you see as failures.
It would surely surprise me if Bush is systematically destorying the environment. I am anxious to see your findings.
As far as mecury I believe it is released from the earth's crust as well. As a fisherman I know there have always been fish advisories on Mecury, at least in my lifetime in Minnesota.
We both have beautiful states, although I have only visited the upper penisula. I spend a couple of weeks in the BWCA every year and will bring my children there as well. I love nature and there is nothing better than canoeing 30 miles from civilization for a camping trip.
It is my understanding the pollution trading policies where put into place by the Clinton administration and the EPA has continued with the programs. I don't think the businesses should be seen as an enemy. They need to be seen as a partner. We want thier power or goods, but we also want to insure a good environment.
In December Bush proposed a plan to cut mercury in air pollution by 70% in the next 15 years. It seems he is trying something.
Again, from the outsiders opinion I would error on your views over mine. Given your screen name you must spend time researching the environment. While I care about it, I tend not to get too excited and certainly have not done my research. The stuff I posted here I found through Google.
Thanks for the talk and I look forward to hearing from you. I believe we have the best environment in the world largly due to environmentalist like you, but I also believe sometimes the movement goes overboard.
Arafat is the largest deterent to peace in the Middle East. If I was hopelessly optimistic I would say this is wonderful and will help the peace process. It just depends upon who replaces him and if the people revolt against the regeme.
He screwed Clinton even though Clinton gave him nearly everything he wanted in Geneva. Overall getting rid of him is great!
I am debating on wheter to repsond to your post. I don't have time to address all of your issues. Overall I would say they sound pretty simplistic and void of real concerns...no offense.
BTW: I am not an Evangelical by any means. I do believe their is some higher power, but it is not my main concern. Creating division instead of inclusion seems to have been a stratgey by the DNC to hold their minorities in check. To me it doesn't seem right. You will have to admit that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot when they brought Gay issues into this campaign. I have no problem with Gay people, but I do not think they should be represented as the norm.