In Europe gas prices are twice as high. In the US people drive SUVs --- then moan they don't have enough money for gas to go on vacation.
I believe your emphasis on lowering gas prices, while well-meaning, is wrong: you should focus on the corruption of the oil industry and tax subsidies for the industry. The "Enron" angle. That's a great progressive angle.
But given peak oil, and gobal warming, attempting to keep gas taxes down is unsound. Very short term. If you care about lower income folks, you should also think what's going to happen to them ten years form now: if you let them keep their SUVs now, by keeping gas prices twice as low as Europe, then we hit a catastrophic peak oil situation a decade from now, we'll be really in the shit.
Think long-term, please.
Also think out of the box. And globally. Gas prices in the US are insanely low.
This is the truth of the matter. But I doubt even Edwards has the spine to stand up for this kind of reality. I suspect he'll stick with the politically expedient "gas price gouging" angle. But he's a professional politician, so in a way I don't blame him.
It was a joke, a dig at the insane pharma world. He could equally well have said something like "If you can't concentrate, its an ADD drug deficiency".
But that's cumbersome. His "a headache is not an aspirin deficiency" is much cleaner. It has nothing at all to do with aspirin or headaches really --- it's a parody, a placeholder for the general comment "an X is not a deficiency of drug Y" --- which the listener is supposed to infer.
It seems you thought he was actually talking about aspirin, and headaches!
Here's another of the main points I want to make. If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here's why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. If the administration has evidence that he has, please present it, because that would change the way we all look at this thing. But if Iraq came to resemble Afghanistan, in its current depleted state, with no central authority - well, they have a central authority, but their central authority, because the administration's insistence that the international community not be allowed to assemble a peace keeping force large enough to pacify the countryside, that new government in Afghanistan controls a few precincts in one city and the warlords or drug lords control the whole rest of the countryside. What if in the aftermath of a war against Iraq, we face a situation like that because we washed our hands of it? What would then happen to all of those stored reserves of biological weapons all around the country? What if the Al Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? Then the question wouldn't be, Is Saddam Hussein going to share these weapons with the terrorist group? The terrorist groups would have an enhanced ability to just walk in there and get them.
I just think that if we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could very well be worse off than we are today. When you ask the administration about this, what's their intention in the aftermath of a war, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked recently about what our responsibility would be for re-stabilizing Iraq in the aftermath of an invasion, and his answer was, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide." On the surface you can understand the logic behind that, and this is not an afterthought. This is based on administration policy. I vividly remember that during one of the campaign debates in 2000, Jim Lehrer asked then-Governor Bush whether or not America, after being involved with military action, should engage in any form of nation building. The answer was, "I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. We're going to have kind of a nation-building corps in America? Absolutely not." My point is, this is a Bush doctrine. This is administration policy. Given that it is administration policy, we have to take that into account as a nation in looking at the likely consequences of an overwhelming American military victory against the government of Iraq. If we go in there and dismantle them - and they deserve to be dismantled - but then we wash our hands of it and walk away and leave it in a situation of chaos, and say, "That's for y'all to decide how to put things back together now," that hurts us.
I really know very little about either candidate. Perhaps locally, for the people of the district, Cegalis may seem better. But looking big picture, and longer-term, wouldn't the Democrats be better off picking a "marketable poster-child" like Duckworth?
Some battles must be lost to win a war. Call me cynical, etc etc, but in terms of the national picture, and the real GOP vs Dem battle, doesn't it make sense to have as many Dem vets in congress as possible?
I reiterate: I know practically nothing about either candidate. But that may give me a fresh unbiased strategic view. If we want to pick "netroots-vs-beltway" battles, we're better off throwing our weight into Lamont vs Lieberman, aren't we?
On the other hand, perhaps Duckworth is a terrible candidate with all kinds of skeletons in the cupboard. Can anyone tell me, objectively?
Perhaps a bit out of the left field. And perhaps a bit before its time. But maybe a couple of years from now the blogosphere will be at the point where this kind of thing is viable. And I think MyDD will be the place to start the ball rolling (as usual!).
Absolutely. It would be silly to try and run before we can walk. Which is why a pinpoint focus (such as a well-honed message) is perfect. As for the senate seats you mentioned... the whole point of optimizing our message is to help win the seats. The current DC consultant crowd seem to be locked into some kind of inappropriate groupthink.
I don't think anyone around here is asking that we take over the entire party in one fell swoop!
Maybe I'm off base here. But can we perhaps break new ground again at MyDD by hiring an agency to test the script/message for us?
Hundreds of great messaging and framing ideas come and go on the blogs, with little impact on the Democratic machinery. What you have outlined above is one of the best of all. Is it worth:
(1) deciding amongst ourselves what the best
possible Dem ad for 2006 should be (and
your may well be it);
(2) raising money to trial test it;
(3) then going to the DNC etc. with actual
test results in our hands, rather than
"just another good abstract idea posted on
It seems to me that the natural progeny of the MyDD poll project is a "MyDD Message Project".
What an excellent idea! A great way to bring up the level of discourse on this site, above the bickering of the wingnuts.
I couple of days ago I referred a few friends accross to mydd with a strong recommendation. This trolling approach of yours is guaranteed to keep them coming back to mydd. "Great content and analysis", I told my friends. Oops.