Why are the Progressives not capitalizing on Bushes poor job rating?

[Coda]

This is a question guys....given the current environment I would think that the iron is hot and if there ever was a time to strike it's now.

If the progressive party wants to increase it's voice I can't see any better time than now to step up to the plate and stake out concrete positions on a myriad of issues that are annoying many Americans today.

Why is the focus still on Bush when it could be on reducing debt, reducing poverty, ending the Iraq invasion, increasing medical care, social security...and I haven't even mentioned God.

I don't get it.
Who are the progressive party leaders of today?

Hell, where is the democratic party? We've got Reid and the laughable Ted Kennedy voting against Roberts...big whoop. Now that Sheenan has stuck her foot in her mouth by lumping H.Clinton in with the Republican party I hear fodder on the TV about this too. I just don't get it. It's you folks who have capital to spend, it seems to me that you're all wasting it faster than Bush with a checkbook in a oil store.

Unless the rhetoric changes I don't see the progressive party making any inroads nor the democratic party.

[patricia]

Good question. I guess that having mentioned all the points you just did, over the last five years, to no avail, they have come to the conclusion that people are afraid to change direction. That was illustrated in 2004 when, despite all the lies and screwups, Bush got his second term, even though very narrowly.
What strategy would you suggest Progressives use now?

[Coda]

Time for me to go home for the day...but I will give a 2 second answer....

Both the progressives and democrats need to look beyond Bush and begin to shape the messages they feel will best position themselves for the upcoming elections. To me the hot button issue for them would be to focus on poverty and the dismal progress...(let me stress this....OVER TIME beginning with the 1960 civil rights movement) made by all of govt. to move our nation towards equal opportunity. As I think this through, I don't feel that making this a race issue would help the cause, even though the net result would be one that favors the minority populations. I would point to Katrina and say that there is another Katrina waiting to happen in every city in the US. I would then set forth some winning situation where significant investments are made in disadvantaged communities....I would start large scale development of our infrastructure as a way of creating jobs while putting the responsibility and money into local communities that are disadvantaged.

In effect, create billion dollar investments into working class jobs that help rebuild neighborhoods with local (non govt) folks responsible for doing the work. I could see whole new neighborhoods with middle class single family housing, nice sewers, nice roads, etc.

I would stay away from Iraq as an issue...our boys will be home in the next 2 years...this would be wasted capital.

But I'm not running for office...I'm just a small Republican wondering why we're still in control of the house and senate.

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by Coda

Time for me to go home for the day...but I will give a 2 second answer....

Both the progressives and democrats need to look beyond Bush and begin to shape the messages they feel will best position themselves for the upcoming elections. To me the hot button issue for them would be to focus on poverty and the dismal progress...(let me stress this....OVER TIME beginning with the 1960 civil rights movement) made by all of govt. to move our nation towards equal opportunity. As I think this through, I don't feel that making this a race issue would help the cause, even though the net result would be one that favors the minority populations. I would point to Katrina and say that there is another Katrina waiting to happen in every city in the US. I would then set forth some winning situation where significant investments are made in disadvantaged communities....I would start large scale development of our infrastructure as a way of creating jobs while putting the responsibility and money into local communities that are disadvantaged.

In effect, create billion dollar investments into working class jobs that help rebuild neighborhoods with local (non govt) folks responsible for doing the work. I could see whole new neighborhoods with middle class single family housing, nice sewers, nice roads, etc.

I would stay away from Iraq as an issue...our boys will be home in the next 2 years...this would be wasted capital.

But I'm not running for office...I'm just a small Republican wondering why we're still in control of the house and senate.

I completely agree with everything you wrote there, Coda.



You have my vote.

[JamesH]

Maybe a reality check is required. Are there any progressives in a position to really be heard?

And the Democrats, they're just a weak little brother to the Republicans. Yes there is a material difference in the parties but Democrats in the Congress and Senate won't stick their necks out for real change because they live in the same neighborhoods as Republicans and share many of the same ego centered values. In the end they represent themselves more than the people who elected them.

That's why they're not demanding change very loudly. As long as they are re-elected, have a nice salary, with lots of perks, a BMW, an affair or two on the side and low taxes, they don't want change.

We're talking about a bunch of lawyers for christ-sakes.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

There is no "progressive party".

As for the Democratic Party, JamesH. pretty much sums it up. It's all about self-preservation now. I wish I had a dime for every politician I've heard who said he/she was running against Washington and "big" government and who stayed after their term was over to feed at the lobbyist/defense contractor trough.

Would you rather be a player in Washington politics or go back to Bodunk, Iowa?

Darryl G!!!!!

Wher in the fuck have you been, brother?!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I need Internet breaks every now and then. Plus, sometimes cats just run out of things to say.

[LennyH]

Originally Posted by Coda

This is a question guys....given the current environment I would think that the iron is hot and if there ever was a time to strike it's now.

You mean now as in NOW? Shit, people getting blown up in Iraq hasn't been able to crack the news.

But SOON would be nice.

[Pete C]

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Pete, did you read Wallace's book, "Why I was Wrong?"

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Pete, did you read Wallace's book, "Why I was Wrong?"

Nyet.

[Monte Smith]

Wallace was wrong about the Soviet Union, but he was a genius with chickens.

[crawjo]

What this country needs is another Eugene Debs. C'mon everybody, let's stop shitting our pants and kickstart a real socialist party.

[rollhead]

There is no Progressive Party, but I belong to the next best thing -- the Working Families Party.

http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Wallace was wrong about the Soviet Union, but he was a genius with chickens.

He was a genius with corn -- not chickens.

and he was right about a lot of other things -- he advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance.

Why I Was Wrong -- his apologia to the anti-communist mania in this country -- was written in 1952, in plenty of time to satisfy the most rabid McCarthyite -- (some of whom seem still be around and posting on this site.)

[Gary Sisco]

The short answer to the question is because they have confused holding views with political work, bitching with making politics, and panhandling money every day with dire warnings of the sky falling (again) with organizing.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by rollhead

He was a genius with corn -- not chickens.

I don't dispute his genius with corn, but Wallace also bred a revolutionary variety of chicken that dominated the world egg market.

[Coda]

Okay Rollhead, why do you continue to put your energies towards defeating Bush when you could be staking a position out for your party? This doesn't make sense to me. I think by now every member of this board has a good idea of your feelings towards the man and his administration. This horse has been beaten to death.

Is this the strategy of your working families party? Seems to me that you're asking for 4 more years of the same. Don't you think it's time to change course?

I also find it amusing that there is little discourse in this thread from the democrats. You too must be content with the status quo.

Don't you all think it's time to articulate new ideas and change? I can't imagine the majority of our population electing the next president if that person is incapable of offering a vision for the future. We are all aware that the Bush administration will not be in power soon and are also aware that he's quickly becoming marginalized. Time to stop telling us the obvious and start telling us how you will turnaround the country.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Define turnaround. Each ideology has its own ideas about what's wrong with this country. I feel we have a piss poor distribution of resources (wealth, health-care, access to a good education, etc). Others would say everything's hunky-dory.

Personally, I think we spend too much on defense (and I'm a defense contractor). I would like us to slash defense spending and invest the money in our infrastructure (environemnt, roads, schools, health care, etc).

I believe in a strong social safety net (Medicare, medicaid, social security, etc). capitalism is cool, but you have to realize it and free markets aren't the answer to everything. Neither is socialism. It would be cool to find a middle ground. I think we tried starting with the New Deal but since Reagan that's been kicked in the ass.

[crawjo]

What is the Republican "ideology" at this point? It isn't smaller government. In fact, it's a massive expansion of government spending, combined with tax cuts. In other words, it's fiscal irresponsibility on a scale far exceeding anything we've ever seen before. Until recently, the Republican ideology seemed to be defending Bush at all costs.

[clinthopson]

coda, your posts hit the nail on the head.

I don't see anyone in the Dems who can re-invigorate the progressive movement.

The destruction wrought by the G.O.P. seems to have taken the air out of their balloon. They are pandering to the booboisie who have elected Reagan and the Bushies rather than energizing people who feel that it's the government's responsibility to protect and improve the status of the poor, the environment, the education system, the infrastructure, the health care system and our relationship with the rest of the world.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Hells Yeah!!! He was a good man.

Originally Posted by DGT

Personally, I think we spend too much on defense (and I'm a defense contractor). I would like us to slash defense spending and invest the money in our infrastructure (environemnt, roads, schools, health care, etc).

In an ideal world, I would agree completely. But this is no ideal world. This country needs to maintain a strong defense no matter what the cost.

Originally Posted by crawjo

What is the Republican "ideology" at this point? It isn't smaller government. In fact, it's a massive expansion of government spending, combined with tax cuts. In other words, it's fiscal irresponsibility on a scale far exceeding anything we've ever seen before.

I agree with you 100%.

One can only hope that the Republican party will be re-taken by the fiscally responsible conservative one day who is willing to use his/her veto pen. Spending is certainly out of control, and seemingly getting worse.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

I think we have to revisit what type of military we need. If we're just talking about defending our borders from attack, I feel we have too much.

Is having thousands of troops in the Middle East, Asia and Europe defending our borders? Or are we talking about having a military so strong we can politically influence friends and foes? Bend them to "our" will?

Good point.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Scott,

I think we have to revisit what type of military we need. If we're just talking about defending our borders from attack, I feel we have too much.

Is having thousands of troops in the Middle East, Asia and Europe defending our borders? Or are we talking about having a military so strong we can politically influence friends and foes? Bend them to "our" will?

I don't know anyone who disagrees with this. Even most republicans agree that our defense spending is outmoded, and still cold-war-esque.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

sonic1,

Look at the numbers, the only consensus is the status quo when it comes to military spending. It's not just about troop strength or where they're assigned. One of the clever things the Pentagon has done is spread the goodies. Military bases and contracts are all over the place so politicians of all stripes have to protect military spending because of the jobs they create.

Its like when they tried to close that military base in S. Dakota. That shit wasn't going to fly from the get go. It's the number two employer in the state. They tried to close it when Clinton was President. He nixed that because of Tom Daschle. In short, the base still exists for economic reasons rather than military ones.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

sonic1,

Look at the numbers, the only consensus is the status quo when it comes to military spending. It's not just about troop strength or where they're assigned. One of the clever things the Pentagon has done is spread the goodies. Military bases and contracts are all over the place so politicians of all stripes have to protect military spending because of the jobs they create.

Its like when they tried to close that military base in S. Dakota. That shit wasn't going to fly from the get go. It's the number two employer in the state. They tried to close it when Clinton was President. He nixed that because of Tom Daschle. In short, the base still exists for economic reasons rather than military ones.

I have always been astounded at the military waste too. I used to live near west point, and there was a pretty well known dump where perfectly good supplies were for some reason just laid to waste: Acres of waste. Mountains of candy bars, loads and loads of pens, gallons of engine coolant, just laid to waste, unused. Almost like they were trying to waste money.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by RBS

Check out www.democrats.org

It not only has lots of good ideas, but a healthy dose of Bush-bashing, too.

It's got it all!

Too bad the web page doesn't reflect reality.