Was It Something I Said? :(
“Businesses owned by blacks see upswing…segment marks 45% increase”
USA Today Business section, April 19, 2006
:)
However:
04/20/06 FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low
:(
More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleeza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.
:O!
Uh-oh...
Well, anyway, there you have it.
Ignore the suggestions--if not assertions--that "At last! America has woken up to what the Bush-haters have been saying all along, wa-ha!" and that "Oh, I'm a Pepper, and he's a Pepper, and she's a Pepper, and wouldn't you like to be a Dr. Pepper too?" (i.e. a Bush-Hater), because Republicus doesn't think that the disgruntled 10-15% of erstwhile Bush-approvers are ready to vote Democrat any time soon, but simply are recoiling from a political spectacle that has been Jerry-Springerized (while enjoying the highest standard of living in history).
That's fine with the Democratic strategists and their enablers and lackeys in the media and grassroots blogosphere.
After all, they were the ones who incited all the hooting noise and chair-throwing to begin with, because their strategy at hand is to apply downward pressure on Republican voters and, by making them sick and tired and turning them off, suppress any enthusiasm for the mid-term elections while fanning their own base on the sly in the plan to flood the voting booths with a torrent of angry Bush-haters (who thrive on political mayhem).
Republicus will venture a prediction: The mid-term elections will have a record turn-out of Democratic voters.
If Republicans manage to still be sitting pretty, that will be accomplished by the highest total turnout in history (i.e. reciprocal Republican participation).
The DNC is not making the kind of noise the importance of these midterm elections warrant, because that would tip-off and alarm the grass-roots Right that a blitzkrieg at the voting booths is quietly being organized for a coup d'etat that hopes to destroy the Bush Administration and redeem and equilibrate the Clintons for '08 with one fell swoop: the submission of Articles of Impeachment.
The beneficiaries of all this will indeed be, of course, the Clinton's (Two Impeachments back-to-back? It's a wash! It's de-stigmatized).
If the mid-term elections are a blow-out for the Democrats because Republicans stayed home, Republicus can assure his readers that those very Republicans/conservatives will be pulling a Mcaulay Culkin (above) when they realize they've been hoodwinked and they see the grimacing and grinning faces of James Carville and Paul Begala once again in their livingrooms (if not outside their very windows) every night, harping and gloating about how "America Has Spoken!" and "A Mandate For Impeachment!"
RNC Chairman Mehlman knows about all this, and must mobilize the troops by communicating what's at stake, but the poll numbers indicate he's got a steep hill to climb.
Republicus' primary concern all along has been for success in the war, and such a trumpeted "mandate" and a succesful run for Impeachment won't be doing the mission any favors whatsoever.
But, of course, any significant disaster (there has been none to date, only several setbacks typical of warfare) caused by an inspired Tet Offensive of sorts by the "insurgents" (if not the mullahs in Iran) can be blamed on the architects of the "doomed-from-the-start" operation, who would also be blamed for any cyclical downturn in the economy, which will then cause the Democrats to assert that Bush's tax-cuts were responsible for the downturn, and re-peddle the myth that Clinton's 1993 historic tax-hike was responsible for the Tech Boom in the late 1990's, and another tax-hike would be the responsible thing to do!
And someday, America, living through another Democratic malaise with high taxes and a de-moralized military and surging, unanswered Islamic insurgencies everywhere--all of which, of course, were "inherited"-- you will look back on the first half of the first decade of the 21st Century and realize: "You know, despite 9/11 and all those other disasters Bush inherited in his first term, and behind all the noise telling me that that I was working and raising my family and enjoying creature comforts during "The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression" that my parent's generation could only dream of, and that America was slouching towards Mediaevalism with it's own Taliban presiding and "attacking" scientific progress, those were good days for me and my family-- although we couldn't keep up with the pace of technological innovation, and the breakthroughs in science occurred with such regularity, I took them for granted."
Mark the words of Republicus: You better appreciate what you have today, because, although there's always room for improvement, things could be a hell of a lot of worse (and are for most of the people of the world).
posted by John | 12:13 PM
10 Comments:
As much as Conservatives will see it...the Dems will find some way to twist it to their liking and announce the great society they live in.
...does anyone remember the 11% interest rates and long lines for gas, the Iran debacle of Carter??
Aah the good ole' days!?!
Well, the National Debt is even making me squeamish. Oil hit a record high just today. Illegal immigration is hitting critical mass. Jihadists and "insurgents" are a pain in the ass. Our deployed soldiers are gettng killed, so it's not Plato's Republic.
But when was it ever?
John/Kelly,
I think you two are forgetting one thing... According to the last election there were 3 million more people who voted for Bush than voted for Kerry. I don't think I need to present my Lib credentials as they are well established, but are you two gonna stay home? Do you know any other Repubs who are gonna stay home?
The only way the repubs are in danger is if a Gingrich-esque leader emerges on our side in the next few weeks and I don't see anyhting like that coming. As partisan as I am, I don't see a uniting theme; we're still saying "We don't have any great ideas; but our lack of ideas is better than the ideas the other guys have!"
I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the Dem Party there is some grand unifying theme being formulated (hopefully not by Shrum & co.) but until something like that emerges, I don't think the Dme's are gonna win with "Anybody but a Repub" (Considering that failed miserably in 04).
LOL, you got that right! One of my close friends has been a lifelong Dem, and we have been debating this thing for along time. Since I vote Libertarian mostly, he has been trying to get me into the Democratic Party. Now, I have never tended to vote along that line, but my chief criticism is that the Dems have been out of ideas for a long time. He has been telling me that he likes the Democrats better *because* they are disorganized and without a real platform and that makes them "safer" than the better organized Republicans. I.e., they cannot get as much done in Washington so we the people are better protected.
If the Dems DO get a platform and a leader that can get the message across, then and only then do I see that the Republicans are in any real danger of losing a significant amount of power.
One unifying thing many Dems have is that they don't like Bush. I agree, that isn't going to get someone elected...because Bush won't be running.
Also, as there are likely many Republicans who don't care for Bush, they still vote Republican. They aren't likely to switch parties because of Bush.
Sometimes, its just a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.
LS said:
"John/Kelly,
I think you two are forgetting one thing... According to the last election there were 3 million more people who voted for Bush than voted for Kerry. I don't think I need to present my Lib credentials as they are well established, but are you two gonna stay home?"
Quite frankly, Sanjay, I never was a big mid-termer, and didn't even vote in the pivotal 1994 ones. But I will get up and do my duty this time around if my state's (VA) is in play (AS SHOULD EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTER!).
"Do you know any other Repubs who are gonna stay home?"
I haven't really investigated. Mehlman is stepping up the "Get Out the Vote" grassroots activity on his end (as is evident from my email box and mailbox alike--good thing I switched to strictly cell-phone use--much cheaper, people, and just as good if not better), but, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, it seems like there's the kind of contentment with life and a taking for granted of the party-in-power among conservatives/Republicans that doesn't usually inspire their Joe & Janes to get up and vote in the mid-terms, since it appears that fervent, mid-term turnout occurs when Joe & Jane want significant CHANGE (as evinced in 1994), and, furthermore, when they think they can help bring it about.
They may disapprove in the polls because of too many illegals and other stuff real and fear-mongered, they may even have Bush-fatigue, but they've not morphed into liberal, anti-war Bush-haters and suddenly put framed photographs of Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, or Kerry on their mantlepiece, or have begun to clamor for Impeachment, for that matter.
Nevertheless, they may indeed have thrown up their hands in disgust at the political circus and may manifest their disapproval with the entire spectacle by simply not voting.
That's the only thing the Democrats can count on as far as erstwhile Bush-supporter is concerned.
They're certainly not going to take any of the 10-15% MIA conservatives away and add them to their own column.
This time around, who wants change the most?
You got it: The antiwar Bush-haters. They've got a bloodlust with the prospect of winning back power and being able to inflict sadistic punishment to the man who was at the vanguard of the dismantling and steamrolling of the monolithic, decades-long Left-wing stranglehold on the Congress and media (and the reversal of eight-years of Clintonism to boot).
Mehlman's job is to stir up the base and warn them what "change" would mean.
But he has a steep hill to climb...
...or is really all that steep?
I haven't studied the effects on demographics that re-zoning and re-districting has caused in certain states (like Texas, I think), but from what I heard they were done in Republican's favor in key districts (which may very well have incited much of the hatred against Texan Delay far more than any allegations of criminality, because--I think I recall--he oversaw much of the strategic re-districting), so Mehlman and the gang at the RNC headquarters (a hop skip & jump from where I live in Arlington) may not really be too worried about even the most favorable results for the Democrats--under the realistic circumstances--being able to cause any significant change in the power structure (and certainly not enough to inject an Impeachment drive with any real oomph).
And it's still early. Don't be surprised if the Republicans end up making things worse for the Democrats than they already are, after all.
We got rising minority stars in the Republican Party who are sure to change the equation dramatically these mid-term elections: Michael Steele for GOP senator of Maryland, and Lynn Swann for GOP governor of PA.
After the Bush's historic, Executive Branch promotions of Powell and Rice, and with those two nigh-celebrities front-&-center at the mid-terms, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to continue playing the old divisive cards of race-baiting and class warfare designed to portay the GOP as, well, racist and the party of--as McKinnon's lawyer called Sean Hannity-- "The Rich White Boy."
That's a major concern for the Democrats, that the minoroty support that they have hstorically rely on but took for granted is beginning to see the light.
Angry Kerry supporters can blame the religious-right red-state fundies all they want for coming out by the multi-millions and ensuring a Bush win, but Bush's rather narrow margin of victory would have been easily closed and overcome if the minority vote Bush received was subtracted and voted for Kerry instead.
The Dem strategists know this.
The conservative revival has swept across every community, Baptist as well as Pentecostal.
"The only way the repubs are in danger is if a Gingrich-esque leader emerges on our side in the next few weeks and I don't see anyhting like that coming. As partisan as I am, I don't see a uniting theme; we're still saying "We don't have any great ideas; but our lack of ideas is better than the ideas the other guys have!"
Bingo. There's been talk about copy-catting the 1994 "Contract With America," but as for now they only represent the party that is simply against the opposition party and everything they do, without offering any better ideas.
"I'm sure somewhere in the bowels of the Dem Party there is some grand unifying theme being formulated (hopefully not by Shrum & co.) but until something like that emerges, I don't think the Dme's are gonna win with "Anybody but a Repub" (Considering that failed miserably in 04)."
They have a unifying theme. They're counting on the army of Dean supporters and the rest of the anti-war, Cindy Sheehan Bush-hating hordes to come out and cast a protest vote--driven by visions of potential Impeachment if they can take back the House with enough numbers (again, very unlikely).
It's the party of hate. Just get rid of the despised Bush, and then everything else will be bearable.
That's the unifying theme.
Phelonius said:
"He has been telling me that he likes the Democrats better *because* they are disorganized and without a real platform and that makes them "safer" than the better organized Republicans. I.e., they cannot get as much done in Washington so we the people are better protected."
LOL! Spoken like a true Libertarian!
"If the Dems DO get a platform and a leader that can get the message across, then and only then do I see that the Republicans are in any real danger of losing a significant amount of power."
Ain't gonna happen. What platform, and what message?
The only one they have is "Anyone Not In The Party Of Bush!"
Kelly said:
"One unifying thing many Dems have is that they don't like Bush."
That's it.
"I agree, that isn't going to get someone elected...because Bush won't be running."
They can run on "stopping the destruction" Bush is causing, and "Vote for us, and we'll Impeach Bush!" ticket.
It is that very platform and message which will bring out the hordes of Bush-haters in historic droves, that and only that.
"Also, as there are likely many Republicans who don't care for Bush, they still vote Republican. They aren't likely to switch parties because of Bush."
Right.
Douglass said:
"Our debt is more or less inconsequential at this time because we have a fiat currency pegged on the 1970 agreement with OPEC that dictates the only currency that can be used to purchase OPEC's oil is the U.S. Dollar (hence the existence of 'petrodollars)."
Right, but there's talk that China (or the EU?) can overturn that somehow, which is giving rise to all sorts of economic doomsday scenarios.
Can you elaborate on that?
"But our debt will sting us in the end, when other currencies (like the EURO)gain similar privileges."
Right. Nevermind.
"I'm concerned about a Democrat blitzkrieg during this year's elections for the congress."
Me too.
"John!"
Yes sir?
"I like the part where you talk about the situation being 'springerized'. That’s EXACTLY what happened.
But I don’t understand your comment about 'the Republic'
I know that Giovanni Gentile used 'The Republic' to develop his ‘fascist’ ideology.
Also, I know that the Lydian, bass Lydian, and Ionian modes (the basis of western music) were banned under 'The Republic' because they did not enable the state to control the mentality of the people.
'The republic' scares the living daylights out of me, what good do you see in it?"
lol You're way ahead of me on that subject. Sounds fascinating, but honestly, I had none of those associations in mind but was just referring to a generic, platonic city-state that represents an ideal society as framed by our Consitution.
P.S. Douglass, I'd love to visit your blog 1234, but I still can't get past the homepage.
Kelly said...
John,
I even emailed Douglass about his blog...I can't see it either.
Jess said:
"I'm surprised Bush's approval ratings aren't even lower. Gas prices are going way up, even though there is no reason for it."
There's are many reasons. The oil shiek's are price-gouging. Perhaps oil companies under an American banner are following suit.
Bush just called for an investigation into that possibility.
But it's all pretty much Econ 101 stuff: As demand increases and supply tries to keep up, prices go up in the process.
American's are, as Bush admitted, "addicted to oil."
And now China and India are starting to chug.
"Some people think there's an oil shortage...not true. There's tons of oil, but it's the refineries that are hard to come by nowadays."
And why do you think that is, Jess?
"Back to the original point, though, factoring in everything this country has been through, and really stupid laws that are in the works trying to get passed, and all the suffering and hardships we've endured, I'm surprised his approval rating isn't a 2, and some anarchist hasn't blown his AND Cheney's head off."
Please, don't give Lee Harvey any ideas.
And you certainly can't blame the administration for the "hardships we endured."
Life's a struggle. Don't ever expect any government to wave a wand over anyone's personal angst to make it go away.
And I can assure you, the problems you're fretting over--like "stupid laws being passed" and high gas prices--are experienced the world over, with this exception: The United States has lower gas prices (if not the lowest) than other nations, and less "stupid laws."
Moreover, you're right when you pointed out one of the factors--but not THE factor--behind the spiking gas prices being the lack of refineries, but the Bush Administration backs more refineries.
The obstructionists of that are the environmentalists on the left, who are also responsible for many "stupid laws" and regulations that choke oil exploration and production here and furthermore--along with lefty union groups, lefty minimum wage/free market tyranny, are responsible for corporate outsourcing, all of which, of course, are then blamed on Bush.
If it makes you feel better to use the POTUS like the dog you kick after coming home from a rough day at work (not a pretty picture, is it, venting frustration by kicking a dog? How about a human being? A POTUS?), go ahead, but you're scapegoating.
As for anarchists who want to "blow" the heads off of the elected leaders of this country--or anyone's, for that matter--they're no one to appease.
They're human garbage.
But your "surprise" that they haven't indicates a Lee-Harveyesque sense of sympathy, which I don't like or tolerate.
Snap out of it, Jess. You're being infected by the Bush-hater's propaganda.
Well, it looks like the Democrats found their "unifying theme": Run to the right of the Right and suddenly announce how much tougher you are on border security and fighting the war, calling the Right incompetent weaklings in the process!
Get well soon. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home