Comments on: The Emerging Democratic Majority

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:17:24 +0000

I got a benjamin says you are wrong.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:50:06 +0000

Oh, Keith – I do agree that the neo-con dream of empire is dead, at least for this administration. However, I felt that they were useful fanatics, who could be used or ignored as the real powers-that-be wanted. That if the economy had been rebounding in summer, 2002, the war probably wouldn’t have happened, because the administration wouldn’t have needed it.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:26:08 +0000

Oh, he can start a lot of wars; successful wrap-up would be the trick, just like it is in Iraq. Personally, I think that the administration will go for a ‘brink of war’ attempt. But starting another war would be quite easy. And given the choice between losing an election or winning an election through dirty tricks, why shouldn’t he go for the second? Especially since starting a war is a traditionally non-proesecutable act for presidents (even in the late 1990’s, the GOP Congress didn’t directly threaten Clinton over Kosovo, even though it’d have been a legitimate impeachment charge).

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:44:43 +0000

Barry, the beauty of the Iraq mess is that Bush can’t start another war. The US military is spread far too thin right now. The neocon war agenda has completely failed as a result of its fantastic asumptions. What I’m wondering is if Bush has figured this out and if he’s pissed yet at those who led him astray.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:42:25 +0000

Clark will win if things don’t improve much with unemployment and in Iraq (and likely neither will improve much, if at all) and he survives the primaries. The problem is that in the primaries he, like McCain before him, is beholden to party faithful that like candidates that are more extreme than what the general election voters prefer. Much of the Democratic party apparatus and the Democratic/left activists are excited about Dean because they honestly believe that the Dems need to move left in order to win the general election. They’re wrong. So, what will make all the difference is whether or not the Democratic centrists are a significant voting presence in the primaries. I honestly don’t have a sense at all as to whether this will be the case or not. But Bush’s favorable ratings were always a mile wide but an inch deep and bought with the blood of 9/11. The truest cliche in American politics is that people “vote their pocketbooks”. Recall how popular Bush I was after his Iraq war. But the economy ruined him. Today, the situation is confused and unprecedented given that supposedly the economy is in good shape….while employment is not. This has confused people as they’ve heard the good numbers and been assured that things would get better real soon now. But the jobs haven’t materialized, and confidence is faltering. On the terrorism and Iraq front, I think that this week’s strange and unexpected change from everyone except Cheney about the supposed 9/11/Iraq connection will hurt BushCo. (I can’t figure this out politically, except speculating that the Kay report and other things were about to puncture that myth conclusively and this is a preemptive defense from the admin. But being their mendacious selves probably would have served them better. Or just keeping mum.) Anyway, Bush is extremely vulnerable, I believe. The Democrats only need a candidate who can take advantage of this. Clark is far from ideal, but much better poised to do so than are any of the other candidates.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:09:39 +0000

And Bush will start another war or almost-war in 2004 if he feels the need. After all, what does he have to lose? If he feels that he’d probably lose without it, it’s no skin off of his nose. And as was seen in May-June this year, the American people will support a war, as long as it’s easy. One thing was clear in the first couple of months after the ‘end of major combat operations’, and that was that Saddam didn’t have a ‘vast stockpile’ of WMD’s. Which means that the was was based on a lie (unless one believes that Bush, Congress and the American people would have gone to war with Saddam over his cruelty to his own people). But the suport for the war went up after this became clear. It only went down as it became clear that the war had only started with the initial cmapaign.

By: raj

raj — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:37:57 +0000

I would take polls like this with something of a grain of salt. Recall that Gore out-polled Bush in the popular vote, but Bush won because the electoral college scheme give substantially more weight to votes from less-populous states, which will probably stay republican.

By: Downunder

Downunder — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:31:01 +0000

These numbers are persuasive – and especially if you’re someone like Wes Clark. However, I don’t think Bush’s ‘political capital’ really matters that much. The strength of the current administration is not maintaining consistent polling numbers, but rather skewing the debate to more favourable terms based on the 9/11 spectre. We saw this during the 2002 midterms and we saw it in the lead up to Iraq, both directly from Bush and from other sectors who shared his interests. That’s enough to make these statistics almost meaningless as a reliable indicator. Once we hit the main election cycle, ‘everything has changed since 9/11’ becomes a self-fulfilling adage and the results will skew to reflect this. Odds are Clark won’t survive the primary, either. He’s a long shot and his domestic policy nous seems visibly lacking.

By: laura

laura — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:51:17 +0000

It’s just mean to reduce a girl to this kind of whimpering hopefulness. Times like this I wish I prayed.