jordan

 I encourage anyone on the left side or moderate side to just take some time to read some right-wing blogs, analsys articles and anything else and hear the difference between a group of people determining what they did wrong. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see a huge difference between the GOP self-analysis versus the non-self-analysis of the Democrats for the past 6 years that blamed their losses on everyone BUT themselves.

Wow!!  That sounds almost identical to the arrangement here in Australia.

Here the Liberals (ie Republicans/Conservatives) have been in power for 10 years, while Labor (ie Democrats/Lefties) have been in opposition.  Each time there's an election, the Liberals present a far stronger case, solid policies, good candidates...and win.  In turn, Labor, rather than trying to honestly appraise where they lost and how they could improve...immediately dive into the deepest, most hysterical state of denial I've ever seen.

Time after time they have only themselves to blame, yet present the most ludicrous reasons for why they lose.

The all-time best was the 2001 election.  We had an issue with illegal immigrants arriving on boats, so the govt put in place strong measures to stop this happening.  Anyway, from one particular boat came mixed messages about people jumping overboard and throwing their children first.  So the govt reported this.  This was later corrected, and in fact the kids jumped rather than being thrown in.  Anyway, Labor lost an election at this time, and blamed the loss on the govt failing to accurately report on whether the children jumped or were thrown.  They apparently believed that the big issue that attracted the swinging votes wasn't the strong leadership of the PM, or conservation, or a booming economy...oh no...the REAL reason was all to do with whether or not these kids jumped.

Even to this day, Labor still maintains this line, and with such sincerity that you could start to feel genuine pity for them.

We have another Fed Election next year, so should be interesting how this one goes.  Unlike the US system where there's only 2 bites at the cherry for the President, there is no limit for the PM, who'll be going for his 5th term in office.  And deservedly so - he's a bloody brilliant leader.  It'll be difficult to replace him.

No offence to you guys, but sometimes I look at your elections and wonder what hope there is.  It seems like you have to choose the least-worst option for President.  I'm not sure Bush deserves all the bagging he gets, but equally he's no great leader.  And Gore?  Clinton?  Some of the options have been simply horrendous!  Who next?  Not...not...Hillary?!?!?

Arrrrrghghghghghghghghghghghh!!!!

Compulsory egg donations, abortions, gay marriages, surrender to terrorists and full frontal labotomies all round!!

Well, the problem is that any "good guy (or gal)" for President wouldn't make it pass the smears and personal destruction of their character. that's part of the problem. Many people who might run for seats won't run because of that one reason. The US hasn't had any great presidents lately. Reagan might be close (And I know I'll get plenty of NOs from that comment) but if you exclude Reagan, then you might have go back a number of years. Kennedy wasn't all that great so you gotta keep going. We're probably looking at maybe Roosevelt (even with his social programs) or Truman (even Truman was liked at the time all that much). Shoot, Abe Lincoln was despised by the South AND North during his presidency.

It is a shame that we don't get better candidates though.  

Jordan .

It’s ironic, that the same arguments used by the Iranian government against liberal Iranian student activists--- that their victory would be a victory for the CIA and the United States, is the same argument being here advanced by Jordan, except in reverse: that a victory for Democrats is a being celebrated by the fascist zealots of Iran.  But then ideological blindness blinds one to everything ---including irony.

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

Ok, Jordan. You a racist? Still some question, but you are without a doubt a crypto-fascist. Oh, ah good morning, hope the kid is doing well. So, i guess you are making a lot of money -control ing this website. That is you, you ...problem. You cause all problems from family strife to global war. Have a nice day.

------                ------                                     -------                                         ------ 

 By the way, do you think family strife can lead to alienation in some people and the things they write and how they see the world and other well functioning people in it?

Yeah, Ray, back on the old board, ol' Gavin here pretty much called me a racist and then when I called him on it, he refused to respond. So since then, I've pretty much ignored Gavin and his comments. It's only been in the past few weeks that he actually is taking the time to respond to people instead of doing his usual drive by shootings - posting and then when anyone responds never responding back.

Gavin - I do have to agree with you on one point - ideology blinds people from reality. So do you have no ideaology or is there some ideology that isn't blinding (like yours)? But please Gavin, if you are going to accuse me of being a propogandist, at least assume I am willingly doing it rather than not willingly doing it. Oh, I'm pretty sure people can think for themselves, Gavin, and don't need you to help "balance" out my nonsense, all knowing Gavin.

Ray, ever notice how people like Gavin view everyone else as "blind" by their ideology, but somehow they aren't blinded by their own? It's really absurd (and blinding - LOL). Before Dave left, that was my point to him each time and he refused to actually accept it for wahtever reason. If Dave is any example, I'm not going to try and convince Gavin of it either.

But people like RazorBlade, I can talk to without much issue:

RazorBlade - you said, "The reason the Republicans were voted out is that people are tired of the hatred and hyposarcy (sp) of the conservative movement. We are tired of the bushit and the denial their stuff stinks and yes, we are getting tired of conversativism. The heart of conservatism is the idea that some people are better than others simply because they have more money."

That's your definition of conservatism? Do you know that most conservatives are middle class month to month paycheck people (you're talking to one)? And did you know there are just about as many rich Republicans as there are rich Democrats? It's been awhile, but I saw a study a year or two ago that determined the "rich" were roughly split down the middle between Reps and Dems and also ideology (conservatism and liberalism).

I still contend though the reason why Democrats won is because of two things:

1) they ran moderate/conservative candidates (Webb, Ford and the guy in MT for example). That alone proves your comment wrong about people not liking conservatism. STudy after study shows that Americans are generally consertative for the most part. Americans don't have a problem with consertatism, they have a problem with the Republican party who betrayed conservative values. But we'll have to disagree on that point.
2) angry Republican stayed home and didn't vote (and there was lots for GOP voters to be angry about)

I will agree with you though - the problem is money and who gets control. Very true - and it's a problem with almost all politicians on both aisles and in both ideaologies.

BTW - RazorBlade - is it possible the Democrats tooka page from the Republicans and just stole the past election? That argument seemed to work since 2000 for the reason why Dems weren't winning.... 

Ray - kid is doing well it looks like. Making TONS of money with this website. Those Google ads provide me about $100 every 18 months!!! I'm rolling in the money!! But you're right it's all my fault - global warming, that bump in the road, and that pimple on some 16 year-old's face. And if it's not my fault, surely it's Bush's.

Bad family life creates all sorts of problems, Ray. I would agree.

Jordan .

Geez Lets. That's a pretty astute analysis for someone who claims little knowledge of U S politics. Succinct too.

I tend to have a macro as opposed to micro knowledge of US realpolitik. the fine details bore me ;-)

e.g. I know there's been a few republican scandals recently but I wouldn't have a clue about personalities involved etc.  

Its easier to see trends from up here in 'passing interest land'

I still think the democrats won simply on two main issues

1. Corruption and mistrust of the Republican Party

2. People wanting a new direction on Iraq.

As for Iraq, I think booting Rumsfeld and appointing Robert Gates and getting Baker involved is a good thing and will help the democrats look good when dealing with a new direction in Iraq but.............

As far as corruption they better be careful, they are already under fire for endorsing Murtha for House majority leader. I know I got blasted for quoting CREW (a supposedly left wing group) but they have this to say about Murtha:

"Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Democratic-leaning group. "It is shocking to me that someone with [Murtha's] ethics problems could be number two in the House leadership."

I think you will find that most people in this country are not truly liberal or conservative...but in the middle on a lot of issues. This election the democrats got the middle/independent voters. I think the American people tend to put both parties in check when they go to far right or to far left.

R_Flagg

My mom told me a story about how her friend Janice once went to pick up her daughter, Susie, at a friend's house.  It was right after the 2004 election, and Susie's friend's mother was flush with the recent Bush/Republican victory.  "GOD wanted us to win," she said.  "GOD on our side.  Now we can do whatever we want."

A few months ago, I went to visit a friend of mine, an artist.  His mother, a teacher, was there, and I happened to mention the topic of Iraq.  "They are so grateful to have us there, aren't they?", her eyes wide with fanaticism.  "I hear that alot of the Iraqi's are becoming Christians now!"  In a cold sweat, I made some vague affirmative comments and soon left.  At home, getting undressed for the night, I saw that my left arm was covered with black and blue marks: I had unintentionally made them clutching my own arm while she spoke.  I later told my friend about this, and he said, "You just need to relax, man."  --This from a young man who was very nervous himself.

Militarism in young men is one thing.  But what is it about America that infuses these old women with such anger, rage, and militancy?  Is the freedom of America not enough, so that people have to forge new chains to bind themselves?  Why are so many so intent on repeating the disproven errors of the past?

 "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program

"My French is poor, but my heart is rich.  I love France- the art-making, art-loving, and art-supporting people of France." -David Lynch

To me conservatism is more about a party that focuses on economics and believes running a strong economy comes first, and the benefits will filter down from there.  They believe in where the country is now, and aren't huge agents of change.

Liberals on the other hand have the view that the focus needs to be on the micro.  Screw the economy - if there's money in the bank - spend it.  They're more focused on services and people.  They are quite happy to shake things up and make major change.

Afaik, the "God is on our side" argument applies to both parties in the US - doesn't it?  They both seem to spout similar rhetoric about the love of country, governing for all Americans, God on our side etc.  I hardly think that's exlusively the Republican's domain...(although clearly God would be on their side if he had to choose!).      ;-)

In Australia, like the US, we go through cycles...and these generally balance each other out and produce a good end-result for the nation.  Labor gets in, spends up big on services, welfare etc, and screw the economy creating massive debt.  Then our Conservative govt gets back in, patches up the economy and tries to restore order.  Democracy works well, because if the conservatives ignore welfare too long, they get booted, and once Labor's screwed the economy enough...they also get booted.  We're lucky at the moment to have a govt that is doing an amazing job across the board, and hence is heading into record terrority for it's length of governance.  They've been careful to not only keep the economy strong, but also make sure everyone's getting their share.

Sounds like we're kinda like the US in another way - both major parties have come in from their historical extremes, and are now far more balanced in their policies.  The middle ground now is huge, which means fringe issues can determine elections.

I have only heard a stream of negatives about Bush and his policies since he was elected - that may be due to our (and your) generally left-leaning press.  Seems there's rarely much good said about him, which makes me wonder why he was elected this term. 

Imho the BEST thing he's done is his appointments to the Supreme Court. Bush was elected because underneath all the trash we hear about in American society, there's a moral core to America and most Americans, and they vote Republican because they want those values reflected in govt.  That will be the positive legacy for Bush, although it may be drowned out by the now popular opposition to Iraq, and an economy that's limping along.

Speaking of Americans' concerns that Democrats will leave too soon and/or cut and run, the following are headlines on Drudge's site:

PAPER: BUSH PLANS LAST BIG PUSH IN IRAQ...

Emboldened Democrats to Urge Iraq Exit... (Carl Levin - next chairman of Amred Services in Senate)

Congressman Calls for Cutting Off War Funds...  (Kucinch)

Commander warns against withdrawal timetable...

And then on the very top, you have MURTHA HAVING THE VOTES for Majority Leader in the House.

Jordan .

New Speaker of the House Pelosi's backing of pork pushing, Abscam unindicted conspirator Murtha is her first mistake , especially for her when she claimed to clean corruption types !! Pelosi was also a strong supporter of Representative Alcee Hastings, who had been impeached as a federal judge on bribery charges. Pelosi's Dem rival Jane Harman has been opposed by Pelosi for replacement as House Intelligence Committee Chairwoman. Harman was a natural choice for that position within the party. Pelosi has shown Dems her personal feelings influence her decisions.  Dem division already.

Later: Pelosi's choice of Murtha loses . Moderate gets second Dem spot. A loss for Pelosi-but this is inside stuff so not a big  deal outside the Beltway.

So, Murtha claimed he had the votes--and he did ,,,86. Only problem ? the other guy had 148 !