Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
“I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican.”
Suure, the Clinton years are a prime example of how Democratics can lead the country to ruin…I mean, they had total control of the White House and…no control in Congress for Clinton’s last 6 years in office?
It wasn’t Democrats that spent millions of taxpeyer dollars trying to impeach Clinton over something a good deal of Republicans do…have an consensual extramarital affair with another adult. But it’s pretty clear that Republican leadership is more than willing to look the other way when those relationships occur within the GOP…and with teenagers, no less.
Yeah, the rallying cries of the conservative just aren’t sending fear into me any more. At least for the next two years, I know that their efforts to reduce my rights and transfer my money to the already rich at least won’t expand. I don’t know if we’ll accomplish a lot of damage control over the next two years, but I’m at least optimistic for the first time in a long while.
“”Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there’s no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:””
Don’t you have real problems to be worried about without scaring yourselves with completely imaginary (and quite silly) problems?
And maybe some snacks?
But no pretzels.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
There are a lot of things I could call Clinton (and many I have) but his presidency was not a screw up. Clinton did some good things, some bad things, some dumb things, and some smart things. But to compare the Clinton years to the Carter years is like comparing the Beatles to New Kids on the Block.
No, the next 2 years won’t be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, “Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead.” And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
I hope you are right Kevin, time will tell. Then again part of me thinks this country is at it’s best when there is so much gridlock that the only things that get done are things that both side really want.
” transfer my money to the already rich “
That’s the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I’m gonna call you on this.
You see, no taxes were raised in the past 6 years. In fact, everyone (THAT’S EVERYONE!) had their taxes lowers. Period. End of story. They lowered all the tax brackets, and expanded the lowest tax bracket (the one where they don’t pay taxes).
there are many, many, legitiment attacks you can make on the GOP and Bush, so why in the hëll do you have to fall into the tired and untrue partisan lies? It’s fun and easy to say “they gave the rich tax cuts and raised the tax on the poor” but that’s a flat out untruth.
You can argue that they shouldn’t have given across the board tax cuts, or that we couldn’t afford the upper end tax cuts, but they did cut EVERYONE’s taxes.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
Jerry, he didn’t mention taxes, he said “transfer my money to the rich.” That includes a lot more than just taxes. Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted?
If you want to “call” him on this, then you should cover more than just taxes.
Posted by: Jerry Wall at November 9, 2006 04:26 PM
That’s the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I’m gonna call you on this.
True. Very true.
On the other hand, those tax cuts were funded by massive borrowing and deficit spending (which, contrary to popular belief, are not synonymous). The federal debt is a drain on the overall economy. It eats up productivity in two ways: it puts the federal government in the position of competing with the private sector for capital, thus raising the cost of raising capital; and the interest on the debt is an expense that must be paid for levying… taxes.
Deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely, because it is, by definition, spending more than one takes in. Paying off that debt will require raising taxes. Generally, when taxes are raised, the middle class bears the heaviest burden. The poor don’t make enough money to tax, and the rich have great influence in Washington and also have at their disposal tax shelters that aren’t available to the middle class.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
No, that’s false. George W. Bush’s 2001 tax reform package increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a subsidy aimed at the working poor. It is a “refundable credit,” which means you can receive a refund larger than your federal withholdings. Almost without exception, people receiving the EIC receive a refund that far exceeds what they actually paid for in taxes.
GAH! In my post above, I used deficit and debt as synonymous in a sentence after pointing out that they’re not synonymous!
STOP ME BEFORE I MESS UP AGAIN!
“Jerry, he didn’t mention taxes, he said “transfer my money to the rich.” “
Gah, you’re right. I miscredited another comment to him, that was actually one someone else made, that related to raising taxes on the poor. My bad.
“Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted? “
I don’t know how to answer this. I’ve heard it said by some that average incomes are higher now than six years ago, and by others that they are lower. I’ve also heard that the biggest gulf in income between the highest and the lowest was created in the late 90’s. However, I can’t find any information right now to back up any side.
Originally posted by Bill Mulligan: “And that’s the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
“Regardless, he isn’t next in line–someone Pelosi doesn’t like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead.”
I agree.
As I recall, appointment as a committee head based on seniority is traditional but not mandatory. I have no problem with Pelosi choosing not to put Harmon in the seat if she feels Harmon is wrong for the job. But that should not automatically mean that she gives the job to Hastings, who sounds pretty clearly to be the wrong person for the job.
If Pelosi does give Hastings the job simply because he’s in line for it, that sounds to me like poor leadership. I hope that, if Harmon is not going to fill the chair seat, Pelosi takes Hastings aside, tells him he’s not qualified, and that she’d like him to voluntarily step aside to avoid a messy scene but that if he doesn’t she will convene a vote among the Democratic leadership to choose who the chair will go to and she will strongly urge the others to vote for someone other than him.
(I’m assuming it’s the Democratic leadership who vote on who get the committee chair positions now that democrats are the majority party. Hope I’m not displaying my ignorance too badly.)
What’s true is that by cutting taxes disproportionately for the rich, the liability for Bush’s record spended falls more and more on a shrinking middle class.
As for salaries, corporate CEOs are making 5 times the salaries they were making 25 years ago (adjusted). Corporations aren’t making similar gains ove the same time period. These are the daunty wallflowers Bush’s tax policies shelter the most.
Sean Scullion, why don’t you and Bill Myers just go ahead and rent the dámņ hotel room?
Sean — keep your shrouds up, my friend. It is NOT worth responding to Mike. He’s irrelevant.
Check out how these closeted Mormons hit on each other, talking about their shrouds and all manner of kinky fetishes that drive them.
Bill–Mike who?
Jerry Wall–look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it’s good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the “income” in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase “buying power.” While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I’d love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I’m no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn’t drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn’t upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I’m gonna go bang my head against something.
“Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert’s reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on “The Colbert Report” reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize “TCR” is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O’Reilly, I believe), right?”
I can’t speak for everyone, but yes, I do. I think one would have to be a total moron NOT to know that. There’s just no other way to refer to him than by his given name, though. He’s playing a character, but the character has his name. It’s not like Sasha Baron Cohen and “Borat.”
And considering yesterday’s hilarious “The Word,” in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn’t say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
PAD
I just realized, thanks to my lovely wife for reminding me, that if Bush and Cheney somehow meet their demise, Nancy Pelosi will become President…..
Kevin, -you and your wife aren’t the only ones thinking that way. All day long I’ve been thinking if God forbid something happened to those two(hey, I don’t like ’em, but I wouldn’t want to see anything happen to ’em) would Pelosi turn to Geena Davis for advice?
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Jerry Wall–look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it’s good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the “income” in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase “buying power.” While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I’d love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I’m no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn’t drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn’t upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Sean, you are talking about “real income,” which is based on the amount of goods and services that can be purchased with that income. When absolute income rises, but the costs of goods and services rise equally or higher, “real income” remains flat or decreases.
For someone who didn’t finish economics class, you’re quite astute about the basic concepts. And in this case bang-on correct.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I’m gonna go bang my head against something.
I couldn’t think of anything funny to say in return was all. Trust me, I got a good laugh out of it.
As SOON as I saw your post, Bill, I recalled good old Mr. Miller, the ubiquitous ball of spit perched ever so precariously on his lower lip, using that exact phrase. Durn brain damage.
And considering yesterday’s hilarious “The Word,” in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn’t say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
Personally, I wasn’t at all worried about his reaction.
😉
Some people give the impression that they think Nancy Pelosi will do a horrible job because she is a woman.
Well, so’s the president.
The Democrats didn’t have a platform to run on in this election because they didn’t need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape.
Sean Scullion has a good point about the buying power of money.
Inflation is approximately 3% per year.
If you were making $6 an hour 10 years ago, you would have to be making $8 an hour today to keep up with the inflation over that time.
And the inflation numbers do NOT include some items that people need, like, say, um—GASOLINE!
Those people who are making that small amount per hour really didn’t get much benefit from their $42 per year tax cut. (Compared to those that paid $35,000 less in taxes per year, those people being in the upper tax brackets.)
“And considering yesterday’s hilarious “The Word,” in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn’t say anything…”
And the emergency donkey pinata. I loved the emergency donkey pinata!
What’s great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he’s doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he’s doing so well.
Democrats are now in the spotlight and we are watching. On Wednesday, new House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi pointed to a painting behind her, hanging on the wall of the Library of Congress. She signaled a figure burning a scroll of learning and trampling on the Bible. The title of the painting was “Corrupt Government.” She explained:
“It is a harsh image to see a Bible underfoot, but it makes a powerful point: corrupt government undermines our values. We come here today to support those values, and to lay out an agenda for a new era of honest, open, and transparent government.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2283…
*********
If I had said it, I would be “just another dilusional conservative.” Truth is, even teh most liberal of DC politicians can see the real truth. We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period. At the time, these may have been Christian ideals but the country has taken it one step further to religion in general. This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely within the confines of obvious moral standards (can’t kill, steal, kidnap, etc…). This election was not about liberalism v. conservatism, Republicans v. Democrats, or even Iraq. This election boiled down to the fact that even the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country, acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties. Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country…so they elected Democrats who made the same vows as the Republicans they beat out had made when they took office. The Democrats elected to replace these Republicans are just as conservative as the Republicans they replaced and have promised not to abandon the voters as the Republicans did. This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats.
Consider the facts, 9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason – it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships. I know of gay people who would also say that gay couples should not get married. But I also know of hardly anyone who would support banning any form of partnership at all (this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative).
– Michigan, the face of affirmative action (University of Michigan), voters in that state put a ban on affirmative action in that state, in pretty convincing fashion.
– Many states had initiatives curtailing eminent domain (an extremely liberal issue), again conservatism and keeping government out of private affairs won and eminent domain has been derailed in most states.
People may point to stem cell research in Missouri as a victorious point in the elections for the left…consider the issue though. Prior to the elections the measure had a huge, almost 30 point, lead and pretty much guaranteed to pass. And why not, no one wants Michael J. Fox to die. Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don’t actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments, not to mention, there is no moral downside to them. Ironic how that 30 point lead shrunk to 2 (51-49) on election night, after people started reading about the issue more, rather than voting on emotion alone.
Liberals will also champion South Dakota shooting down the anti-abortion measure on its ballot…this measure provided that the only time abortions would be allowed would be in the case of a mother’s life being threatened by the carry of the baby to term. Not in cases of rape or incest. The extremity of the language is why the initiative was defeated, not the principle of it, same with the Arizona gay marriage amendment.
****
I’m not looking to convert anyone on any issues, I can’t do that, nor would I try. My only point is that to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections. To the contrary, conservatives throughout the country should see this as a resounding victory. Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
That is the truth.
And one of the options of religious practice is to practice no religion at all. Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
If you’re suggesting most Americans want to privatize social security, wanted medicare retooled as a trillion dollar government giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, or consented to a billion-dollars-a-week war for reasons other than to curtail nuclear terrorism, uh, no.
Yeah, well, while we debate these piddly points I just want to point out two headlines up right now on the Drudge report:
Aliens could attack at any time’ warns former British Ministry of Defence chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?
Well I have a different take on the matter, besides what PAD said about why Bush did it. There is another reason, when the democrats start investigating iraq in 07, someone is going to have to be the fall guy for all the šhìŧ that happened. So now they can blame the guy that just left on everyhting the dems find. “he was just a bad apple, a loose cannonl, etc etc”
“The Democrats didn’t have a platform to run on in this election because they didn’t need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape.”
Well, hopefully the Democrats won’t be that stupidly short sighted or foolish. If they are, they can kiss their majority goodbye by the next major election. And maybe their possibilities of snagging the White House as well.
“Aliens could attack at any time’ warns former British Ministry of Defense chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?”
But, you missed the final piece of the puzzle, Bill.
“With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority….”
They’re already here!! The first wave has descended upon us!!!!
Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, the Democrats as a whole could become energized, lifelike and personable when in the same room as Bush. But a smartened up Bush??? Bush dumping Rumsfeld against the objections of Cheney??? No way in Hëll. Not gonna happen.
Kotos and Kang have taken over!!! Kotos (or was that Kang) has taken Bush’s form! Kang (or was that Kotos) has taken Pelosi’s form. I’m sure I saw them holding hands at some time during that press conference. And did you see how many other “Democrats” were exchanging long chained proteins with Pelosi on election night? There’s a small army here now!!!!!!!!!!
They can laugh at that poor Defense Chief, but that “storm” is just the dust clouds being kicked up by the launch of the super fleet. They’re on their way and they have their probes ready.
Come Thanksgiving, lets all pray that it’s ONLY the turkeys that will be stuffed.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I’ve quite enjoyed the “relationship” we’ve developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with pørņ.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in pørņ? I mean, REALLY!
You’ve got to turn your thinking around, friend! We don’t want to get government into pørņ, but the other way around.
I just wonder if it’s too early to start printing up “Jeremy/Jameson ’08” bumper stickers…
-Rex Hondo-
And considering yesterday’s hilarious “The Word,” in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn’t say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
I thought the best bit happened on the night of the election right (The Midterm Midtacular) at the closer when Colbert realized that the Democracts were going to win, went on a pristine rant about the new Democratic America, tasted the terrorist cake (“MMMMMM, tastes like surrender!”), said “SCREW THIS!”, stormed out, then recieved a motivational speech from Uncle Sam in his limo. He’s probably gonna milk the crazy depressed Right Winger angle for a little while, so it should be fun to watch. Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight.
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. “Because I said so” doesn’t even work with my five year old. And running a country isn’t like defining jazz or pørņ. They’re both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. “This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we’re going to pick up on the way.” You can’t run a country with your gut.
Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the “Trust me” if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn’t hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . .
You all **DO** realize “TCR” is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O’Reilly, I believe), right?”
Peter, Michael J. Fox was once popular with both liberals and conservatives back in the Dark Ages: the 1980s, as “Alex P. Keaton” on FAMILY TIES. Conservatives loved him for his hilarious spoof of conservatives while liberals thought he nailed it dead on.
Then again, mixing the actor for the character they play is nothing new. How often do you see movie ads or reviews that describe Tom Cruise IS a spy taking on impossible missions or George Clooney IS a CIA agent in the Middle East, Emma Thompson IS a writing dictating the life of a character, Will Ferrell?
versus “plays a character who . . .”?
— Ken from Chicago
>No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific)
Someone may not have been keeping up with the news.
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
What’s great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he’s doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he’s doing so well.
I just wish he took the next obvious step and chugged directly from the bottle.
Maybe when Pelosi is installed as Speaker . . .
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
the story is a little complicated and was, typically, poorly written, so the confusion is understandable.
The cells used were no longer capable of becoming any kind of cells (so they were not true stem cells). They would be more accurately described as immature rod cells.
The only reason the story got mixed up in the stem cell debate was that a lot of the stories I read went out of their way to stick in something to the effect that scientists are also trying to grow human embryonic stem cells. True enough but not terribly pertinant to the story and it resulted in a more than a few people touting this as a victory for stem cell research.
Look, I’m in favor of stem cell research but I have to say, people are probably going to be very disappointed in the results. The expectations are way too high. And I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that’s where I’d be focussing and not just because of the politics involved.
“Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight.”
I agree, but you left out my favorite part!
“The Democrats have only been in power for 2 minutes, and they’ve already gotten us mired in this unwinnable war.”
Awesome.
Bush did not (or perhaps, could not) make the smart move here.
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
(I know, I know, me being diabolical again…)
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more.
“True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more.”
And Lieberman would have never accepted the position.
“We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period.”
I’m not an American, so I may not be familiar with the nuances, but I think it would be equaly if not more accurate to say that the US was founded on liberal ideals.
“This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely.”
This was, and still is a liberal ideal.
It is true that liberalism in the US never had the anti-clericalism that characterized European liberalism. But this is partially because from the beginning the US did not have a clerical power like the one that existed in Europe, and also socialism, with its distinct anti-religious ideals, was not as successful as in the US.
Of course, the values of most cultures are based on religious ideals. You also have to remember that what was considered liberal and conservative in 1776 was different than now, and also, again, that the US did not develop the revolutionary aspirations to topple the old world that characterized socialism, and parts of the French revolution.
“the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country”
Only in the way that the Republicans are seen as a right wing fundementalist sect. I suppose that the extremes are more sect-like, while the closer you get to the center the differences blur.
“acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties.”
It is reasonable to assume that most Americans share some values. It is also likelt that each side believes they support greater values, they just don’t always agree what they are.
Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country”
It is reasonable to assume that the neither last elections nor the presidential elections represented a major shift to extremely conservative or extremely liberal values. It may be possible even that there is a slight majority in the US for conservative values. Maybe in some issues people are more conservative, and with others more liberal. But it is more likey that moderate democrats were elected to follow moderate liberal ideals, which are not that far from moderate republican.
“This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats.”
Is there any indication of democrats abandoning their values?
“9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason – it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships.”
Weren’t the 9 states already conservative? It is deceptive to determine the overal attitude in the US on liberal issues because you have geographical areas where the liberals are a majority and conservatives are less likely to be represented, and in other places the reverse is true.
“this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative).”
Do mainstream liberals support gay marriage?
“Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don’t actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments.”
I am not a biologist. If you are not, it is rather pointless for us to parrot scientific opionions for or against the projected potential and advantages of stem cell research, which we are unable to assess. If there is somebody on this board who can, it would be helpful. If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
Also, aren’t there conservatives who support stem cell research?
“to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections.”
It is a victory in the sense that liberals now have more power to influence things. Apparently, in the places where change occured the liberal candidates’ messages had more support.
Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
“I aven’t looked at he map, but again, it seems that in moderate conservative states conservative measures wre passed if not too conservative, whereas in liberal states no proposal were presented.
“That is the truth.”
The truth probably has less to do with the difference in values between democrats and republicans as much as lack of faith in the conduct of republicans in some areas.
———————
“Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the “Trust me” if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn’t hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . .”
Idealy, in a democracy, voters should be swayed by arguments, not by the charisma of a leader. But this is not always the case.
That idea is pretty diabolical, Glenn. However, it would never have happened. I think that Bush really believed that the elections were going to go much better, that the Republicans were going to retain at least the Senate and maybe the House as well. Therefore, he’d have no need for such a hat-trick. I know that you have to blatantly ignore a host of indicators to the contrary, but the war in Iraq is solid proof and the Administration’s ability to do that.
Rumsfeld was on the way out at least a week before the election. The fact that Gates had already been selected and had accepted the job offer is solid evidence of that. Gates as Secretary of Defense was already a done deal.
A quick correction. Re-reading my previous post, I imply that it was wishful thinking to expect the Senate to remain in Republican hands. It really wasn’t. A large number of close election all had to go the the Democrats with no diappointments and Lieberman has to stick with the Dems as well for the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. The odds of a Democratic controlled Senate were pretty low.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
If that’s a typo it’s actually a pretty funny one.
Anyone who truly thinks we are a nation founded on religious ideals makes it clear they have no grasp whatsoever of the Revolutionary era. Some colonies were founded in order for the colonists to be free to practice their religion free from interference from the crown. Some, on the other hand, were not.
The Revolution occurred NOT due to some great religious upheaval, it occurred due to gross incompetence on the part of Parliament, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the colonies viewed their role in the political and economic world of the Empire. PERIOD. Read Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography. Read anything ever written by him, for that matter. And then go on to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. Jesus didn’t have jack-all to do with the Revolution. On the other hand, Lord Grenville, Lord North and basically the entire British military establishment did.
Micha –
If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
As I have mentioned already in other posts, even the ethical considerations by those against embryonic stem cell research seem to be twisted and, imo, often hypocritical.
So, to say we understand the ethical considerations? That is simplifying it far too much.
Craig, what I meant is that I do not have the scientific knowledge necessary to decide betwwen claims of scientists who support or object to stem cell research, but I do have, I hope, the intellectual capacity to make a decision in an ethical argument. So, so long as there is no scientific consensus, purely scientific arguments don’t help me make a decision, since each side brings out the scientific studies that support their ethical point of view. Since I don’t have a way to decide, you might as well go straight to the ethical and philosophical arguments.
Bill Mulligan – Oh, OK, thanks for the correction. Hopefully NEW SCIENTIST or some other reputable publication will have all the details soon and we’ll find out what was really behind those mice getting their eyesight back.
“I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that’s where I’d be focussing”
Why?