Doug,

That would be because Bush does not fit the above paragraph. Too bad the RNC thought they needed to become “Democrat light” and abandoned conservatism in the idiotic hope that the media might like them and conservatives would not care if they became leftists. They were wrong on both counts.

Clinton, however, did fit the scenario above. Obama, nominated if not by most Democrat voters (barring two states) will be nominated by the politburo like “super-delegates”, will also fit that role. Hillary would also, but I doubt she will ge the nomination.

Though if the left gets a supermajority (Democrats love “super” things in elections) in congress, there may be too much damage done to undue.

But by then I expect to be taxed, regulated and silenced by the left.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“One of my civilian co-workers has a theory though. If a leftist is elected, the people of the country will really get to see the costs and destructive results of their policies and vote in 2010 to shift congress away from the Democrats. It becomes a “you get what you wish for now pay for it” scenario. I think it may be too late by then.”

…I said almost exactly the same thing eight years ago when Bush was elected.

Of course, then he was reelected… ; )

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug,

As usual, in your worship of the left, you do not get it. But then neither do the republicans who as a party are trying to be “me too” democrats (i.e. socialists in slow motion). So no matter who is elected, moronic leftist programs get enacted and conservatives get nothing. America (and the world) loses in my opinion.

What your take on the poll does is only prove the contention that the public (in this poll) has fallen for the media’s bias on everything President Bush has done. The milblogs tried to fight these lies. President Bush tried also, but gave up as “the media was not interested” in what he has done (like alternative energy, creating a much lower tax bracket for the first $14-15K earned in this marxist “progressive” (punishment) income tax system, and a lot more)

I could go into what vicotry in Iraq means, but we have before and no one on the left even noticed or cared.

One of my civilian co-workers has a theory though. If a leftist is elected, the people of the country will really get to see the costs and destructive results of their policies and vote in 2010 to shift congress away from the Democrats. It becomes a “you get what you wish for now pay for it” scenario. I think it may be too late by then.

Unfortunatly, the republicans failed repeatedly to understand this and became “Democrat Light”. Maybe they will wake up but the letter I sent to them in 2006 chastizing the RNC for abandoning conservatism and moving left fell on deaf ears obviously.

Fit Fit,

If we still have a Socialist-Democrat Congress, neither tax reductiuon plan will go through, only tax increases. The definition of “rich” will continue to expand lower until we are all “rich” and must be punished. I am considered “rich” by the left (I would laugh if that were funny) and I have an “evil” Roth IRA for myself and my wife. How dare I not trust the government to cradle me when/if I retire. I doubt these Roths will be worth much under the Democrats taxation dreams. I see my taxes and bills skyrocketing while the economy tumbles and natural resource cost increase (with no new resources being mined/refined). I also see leftists continuing to blame everyone but themselves and these idiotic socialist policies when this happens.

The “rich” are an easy target until you find you are considered “rich” also. And after all the punishment the “rich” get from the left, do you think they will continue to invest in jobs, education, charities, or anything else? When the rich leave, who do we tax next?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Prager misses the follow-up questions in the poll he investigates.

After dribbling out paranoiac straw-man paragraphs with rhetorical questions like these:

Do most Americans really prefer Obama’s and the Democrats’ pledge to leave Iraq to the Republicans’ pledge to win this war? No matter how horrific, even potentially genocidal, the consequences would be to Iraqis? No matter how adversely it would affect potential U.S. allies who will no longer trust our commitments to them? And no matter how much it would weaken America’s domestic security, given an Islamist victory in Iraq? If [my emphasis] so, we are in deep trouble as a nation.

…and then answering this own questions with how terrible it would be if the nation understood “wrong direction,” to mean “too Republican and conservative and that a radically leftward turn [...] is what the country needs [...], one is forced to conclude that Prager believes the public is quite ignorant of the 5 year war, and have not understood the facts enough (his position a worst case scenario in the spectrum of possible outcomes for Iraq and a minority position). Prager’s piece is more public chastisement than argument.

Referring to the poll to see what “most Americans think is wrong” we find the war tied to the economy:

q71 From what you know, how much do you think the cost of the war in Iraq has contributed to the U.S. economic problems — a lot, some, not much or not at all?

% Total D R I
A lot 67 40 85 66
Some 22 40 11 21
Not much 6 11 2 8

67% are convinced Iraq contributes to our economic problems. Yet while Prager misses the facts of the poll: 67% of the public want to go; they want out of Iraq, in some degree, he doesn’t miss ‘demonizing’ those that differ from his position.

Obviously, this explains why Republicans focus on identity politics for McCain rather than issues. In poll after poll, there’s hardly a major issue on which the public agrees with him …not Iraq, the economy, social security, health care, education.

The GOP is offering no resolution to America’s war of choice in Iraq (McCain hasn’t given us his policy) and McCain has not updated his website on Iraq in over a year.

It further explains why in special elections the GOP keeps losing to Dems –and why Boehner believes the solution to this problem is to change how the issue is “branded” (whatever that means), instead of agreeing with the public on some issues.

Therefore, the GOP has no recourse but to invest (hide?) in their party leader, McCain, in an identity politics of what means, what it is, to be a great American, a patriot. And anyone that differs is wrong and putting “an end [to] America” (Prager).

Prager’s piece ends up doing the same thing. He concludes his piece by retreating from the poll numbers into a comfort zone of identity politics:

“If so [if this is what the public believes], it may mark the beginning of the end of the America that our parents and their parents and their parents back to America’s founding lived in. The left, given its demonization of America’s history, would welcome that. Would the American people?”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obama has pledged a bona fide income tax cut for the middle class. McCain has pledged to repeal the AMT as his “middle class tax “. I have not yet earned enough to pay the AMT. Who do you think is more likely to get their plan through congress?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

this nation is going to survive, but at what cost to the average person. if obama is elected we will pay more is taxes, and as a middle class family we will end up being taxed onto welfare, where does it stop. we don’t carry a large debt load, we are very stable in employment, and we have kids, we even have a nice nest egg. i don’t think we will last 4 years with a socialist president. they say he will give us freedoms and make our lives better, it won’t happen. they want to take away so many of our rights, they want to take away the american values that helped make this country great. i have heard alot of opinions of obama, and let me tell you, there will be alot of pissed off blue collar workers who want to keep their way of life.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The conservatives are having a hard time explaining themselves.

Take healthcare. If one was to use a Kaiser Permanente individual plan, they will spend $3,000 a year and pay no deductable but pay $25 a visit. There are 302 million people (including illegals) in the U.S. that come out to $906 billion a year. In 2006, the U.S. spent $2.1 trillion on healthcare. That was over $7,000 per person at the time. Even if if that $3,000 was bumped up to $6,000 to cover dental, eye care, the elderly and those kicked off insurance plans because they were too expensive to take care of, it would still be a cheaper deal for the U.S. The conservative have no counter. Basically they are saying the U.S. should be paying more for healthcare.

The conservatives have depended too much on oil. Russia, Iran and Venezuela are cutting back while there are more customers in the world. In effect they are hoarding oil in order to sell it for more at a later date. Why sell oil for $100 a barrel now when they could be selling it for $500+ a barrel? The conservatives should have acted on Reagan’s calling rather than stick with oil even when oil crashed. Every business model said it could happen again and sure enough it has. It hasn’t helped that U.S. auto makers were stressing trucks and SUVs which is what caused them to get caught off guard again (they got caught in the ’70s selling large cars that were gas guzzlers) and if they weren’t forced to sell cars (because of their gas milage) and enviromentally friendly vehicals by the U.S. government, they would be on their death beds right now. All they would have had was trucks and SUVs stuck on their lots.

Deregulation has not gone well. Things have gotten more expensive, service has gone down and businesses have gone under.

The selling of Iraq has been mishandled from the start and it didn’t help that the administration was reluctant to organize a proper plan for rebuilding before things got started. It showed in New Orleans too.

The conservatives don’t need government for home schooling policies. They could set up an education website and information CDs (for the computer and or to listen too) that are free to the public. Why pay hundreds of dollars for something that’s free? Books (except braille) would be a bad idea for those that can’t read. They can even been done in Spanish and other languages so people around the world can at least use the computer system. Such a system could be more popular than Yahoo.

Maybe the Republican Party could a up a Roth Ira mutual fund for Republicans which is basically what Bush laid out except it would be ran through the party rather than the federal government.

Conservatives should still jump on the anti-pollution bandwagon. Although global warming is doubtful, air land and water pollution are known to be dangerous. Some things are mutual. For instance reducing toxic rain would also reduce the things that are said to be causing man made global warming. China is proof that when an industrialized country has little or no pollution controls or enforcement.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I would imagine that out of 81% of Americans you would have all sorts of ideas about where the country should go.

I agree that not everyone wants it to go “left”, but the Democrats are the ascending party right now. It’s my sense that the country was about 35% R-35% D-30% I for the first part of the decade. Most polls (and election results) suggest we’re 30% R- 40% D- 30% I right now.

It ebbs and flows, the system seems to be self correcting, and unless one party gets a super majority, everything should be all right. Our country is strong and will endure either McCain or Obama.

Like or Dislike: 0  0