-
Paul,
I'm pretty pissed off about this too and I think taking care of our returning troops should be a top priority of this country. But what frustrates me is that the United States military for the most part votes Republican and I honestly do not think that the conditions at Walter Reed is going to change that. Is there anything Democrats can do to convince the men and women in the military that voting for Democratic candidates is in their best interest? What can Democrats do to win military votes?Posted at February 23, 2007 10:33 AM in response to Walter Reed: Is The Worst Yet to Come?
-
The best part of this whole "controversy" is that Bush had the "Spanish version" sung at his first inagural! He's so full of shit that you can't begin to have a reasonable discussion about anything when he is involved. I'm sure there is some sort of serious issue here that progressives do not get and that causes them to lose elections or whatever but I guarantee you that most of the people who get up in arms about Spanish versions of the national anthem are the same people who voted for Bush. And if Kerry would've won and had a "Spanish" version sung he would've been called a traitor.
Essentially what I am saying is that this is a nonsense issue and we should get back to talking about important things like Iraq, health care, unemployment and so on.
Posted at May 2, 2006 1:10 PM in response to No Affirmative Action National Anthems II
-
I seem to remember John Kerry mentioning this over and over again in 2004. Nice of the media to notice now.
Posted at January 26, 2006 9:54 AM in response to Ford: Jobs Cut (Taxes Too!)
-
Most reasonable people at this point assume that the Administration at the very least exaggerated Iraq's WMD so Congress and the American public would go along with the war. At this point however the war was already under way. So why did Rumsfeld lie? Was he lying so much that he could no longer distinguish fact from fiction? Was Rummy a 'true believer'?
Also I like how Rumsfeld states that not finding the weapons is "not a problem at all?" One would think that Saddam not having WMD would be a good thing. Not in Bushworld.
Posted at November 17, 2005 9:25 AM in response to Deception Du Jour
-
I agree and would add that Democrats should bring up her fealty to corporate interests as a way to define the differences in values between the parties. If it also points out to religious conservatives that business concerns are a hell of a lot more important to Republicans than social issues all the better.
Posted at October 4, 2005 11:42 AM in response to Thinking Strategically
-
<span>Democrats and "the liberal media" should be all over this. If there is one thing that I have zero tolerance for it is people (especially elected officials) who use their privilege to profit personally at the expense of others.
</span><span>
</span><span>This isn't a small issue either. A lot of Americans own stock due to 401k plans and they are losing out on their retirement money so Bill Frist can get richer.
</span>Posted at September 21, 2005 1:23 PM in response to Perfect Timing for Dr. Frist
-
I think any Democrat who votes for Roberts is making a huge mistake because they are passing up an opportunity for Democrats to differentiate themsleves from Republicans.
At this point in time Bush is not a popular President. His approval ratings are hovering around 40% (and 35% of the country would probably support Bush no matter what he does or doesn't do) and he has just been weakened by the government's response to Katrina. His war in Iraq is growing increasingly unpopular.
Bush won the election for a lot of different reasons but picking judges definitely was not one of them. Democrats should have used Bush's unpopularity to mount a fight against Roberts. There are legit reasons to vote no starting with the fact that he didn't answer any questions, the White House didn't release documents or even better yet, from what we know we don't agree with his positions.
Some have said that if Democrats can't confirm Roberts then they can't confirm any conservative. Why should a Democrat who doesn't have conservative values confirm any of Bush's judges.
Do these people realize that John Roberts will be the Chief Justice for the next 30 years!!! Why are they rolling over?
Posted at September 21, 2005 11:11 AM in response to Roberts and After
-
Great job on this issue, Josh. You did outstanding work poking holes in the Bush narrative, exposing his lies and keeping Democrats united in this fight.
A great win and one that America needs to be reminded of. "We saved Social Security when George Bush and the Republicans in Congress wanted to eliminate it, who do you want running the country?"
Posted at September 15, 2005 12:30 PM in response to Terms of Surrender
-
Right, that is actually a terrible slogan. Something like, "We'll make government work for you" may be a bit better although could definitely be improved.
Most Americans could care less who is in charge of these various government departments. They just want to know that if there is a national disaster people will be evacuated, provided with shelter, food and water. They want to know that troops overseas have proper armor. They want to know that high level officials aren't casually mentioning the name of a covert CIA agent to reporters. In other words they want the government to do its job.
Democrats have a chance here to exploit those failures. Instead of focusing on ideaology or wonkish policy issues, keep it simple. Geroge Bush and the GOP do not care about making sure government works for you, they just care about making the government work their way. We will make government work for you.Posted at September 14, 2005 11:43 AM in response to More Bureaucracy, Please
-
How long before Brownie is "doing a heckuva job" for Shaw?
Posted at September 12, 2005 12:51 PM in response to Brownie, We Hardly Knew Ye
