Even Texas has seen the light.

From DailyKos:

50 states of Bush numbers. The highlights?

# Bush is above 50 percent in only six states -- Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Nebraska and Oklahoma. Utah, at 61/36, is the only state above 60 percent. In May, Bush was above 50 percent in  13 states. In September, it was 10 states.

# 25 states are below 40 percent. Rhode Island, Vermont, and Massachusetts are all under 30 percent. Bush is 29/70 in Rhode Island.

# Overall, Bush is at 38/59.

From the SUSA press release:

In just the past 30 days, Bush's Net Job Approval has fallen by 10 points or more in:

Texas                      From Plus 7 to Minus 12, a 19-point drop
South Carolina      From Minus 4 to Minus 18, a 14-point drop
Mississippi           From Plus 12 to Zero, a 12-point drop
Tennessee             From Minus 5 to Minus 17, a 12-point drop
Michigan               From Minus 21 to Minus 32, a 12-point drop
Illinois                    From Minus 23 to Minus 34, an 11-point drop
North Carolina      From Minus 5 to Minus 15, a 10-point drop

if you can't abuse it?

The GOP can disinherit him (not really, but they can say it) and then find another media shill - oh yeah, Ahnold!!

Git ovuh heah, Ahnold.  We got a JOB fuh yew!!  We'll change that old constitution around (damned handy to be able to pack the Supreme Court) and nothing's a big deal.

and the what's his name ex-governot wrestler from Minnesota?  

-- Modified on 10/18/2005 8:09:01 PM

[gg]

Bush is in decline. The one difference I would say is because I believe he is failing to present a clear image of who he is.

He talks like a conservative, but except for his 9/11 stance, he is actually more to the left (huge spender). Also, his second court nominee is pretty weak.

I can harldy wait for 2008, Hillary vs. Condi!!

Besides, if HHH and Ric Flair can wrestle on a WWE Pay Per View for money, then Arnold and Jesse can wrestle on FOX for Votes.
Me personally, I'll take a trained wrestler over a body builder. Body bulders want to sculpt their bodies and flex their pecs. Wrestlers, on the other hand, want to destroy other bodies, and flex their mouths.

as is Republican vs. Democrat.

"All politics is local" and everybody has their freak lines.

Dubya talks complete nonsense.  Churchill was a conservative; to judge from Dubya's talk, he's a moron.  Not so much from his butchered syntax and stupid factual mistakes (anybody could confuse the Balkans and the Baltics - anybody who didn't know or care about geography OR language) but the fact that he can't make an informal speech - he just rambles about nothing when he should STFU.

The reason the Republicans are so happy with him is that he's a pragmatist, ie., he will do anything to stay in power, and in his circumstances, with limited personal ability, that means he needs to be the RNC's sock puppet.

And the RNC has found that big money helps elections a lot (no kidding) and that the religious right gives them a corps of incredibly disciplined voters and volunteers.  

With this, they sell dreams.  Dreams are fine, as long as they are reasonably acheivable, and include a majority of the voters.  Republican dreams don't - eg, supply side politics sounds wonderful until you run the entire system and realize it's a Ponzi scheme.  But people run on hope - the responsibility of leadership is to keep them away from false hopes, ie., lead them into casinos.

The Democrats' failing is pretending that nobody will be or should be left behind. That's as necessary to their ideology as Jesus Day is to the GOP, and it totally ignores the reality that we all die and get recycled, and some of us should die sooner than others, and trying to save a paraplegic lesbian baby seal is going to cost the lives of 4 normal people.

What's going to happen in 2008?  Who knows?   I suspect that technology drives social change, and the conservative counter-revolution is a reaction to social changes triggered by WW2 (The Pill, transistors and the 'net) and eventually we're going to replace Jesus with Windows, and priests with psychiatrists.  Same tune, different day.

It seems that in their attempt to accomplish everything for everyone, they just fail.  It would be more practical to try to push some of the agenda in a manner that would succeed, and then build on it.

under anybody, because (a) people who work themselves out of a job, lose the job, and will be replaced by somebody who makes the job bigger; and (b) inflation is a fact of life that sorts the quick from the dead, and feeding inflation too much is sometimes useful politically.

The GOP strategy of spending money on weapons for the purpose of bankrupting social programs, and thus squeezing out their competition is the closest you're going to get to small govt, because it's the closest you can get to govt causing disasters that would motivate people to limit govt power.

Yes, military pressure on other nations (including killing a lot of them) does have the convenient effect of freeing up resources for Americans, etc.  It's part of life, but it might work even better if we were a little more discriminating.

I don't necessarily think that Bush is failing to present a clear image of himself as much as the people are finally noticing that the Emporer is stark naked. All his posturing, hubris and smearing of his critics is finally failing to cover the reality of what his policies have wrought upon the nation. Like a great Republican once said, you can fool all of the people some of the time.....
As for Condi in 2008, I don't believe it will happen barring one possibility. I think the only reason McCain finally came out in support of Bush in '04 is that they promised him the nomination in '08, with Jeb as his running mate. The only thing that might change that is Cheney's resignation followed by a Rice appointment as VP. That sounded like a crack pipe fantasy a week ago, doesn't seem so fantastic this week.

from a purely geographic POV - he's stereotypical AZ, and that doesn't play well with the partisans on either side.  Any AZ type, and him especially, is gonna sit on the margins.

IOW, I don't think the GOP would get behind him - he's not a party guy like Bush was.  And while I regard him as a decent guy, I wonder if he can or should forgive Bush/Cheney for the way he was smeared in the last primaries.  I don't think the RNC will nominate him, because he's too much his own man; he carries his own credibility with him.

Yeah, I agree that Bush's problem is that the shine is coming off, and the Potemkin village facade is collapsing.  

OTOH, it could be easily perceived as personal incompetence, and not RNC policy; and if they could sell that idea, Cheney would be the next Prez.

If that happened, I think that we'd probably have more deficit spending on the war and no-bid contracts, at the cost of student loans and dikes; and at some point, the neo-cons might collapse politically - ie, lose credibility.  I don't see the religious right collapsing in the foreseeable future, but it's possible their candidates could be permanently discredited.

I think one of the most significant issues will be the Roberts court will become more and more deferential to executive power.

I think that the only answer to this is more COngressional and bipartisan oversight and investigative agencies, like the 9/11 commission.

Even if the GOPs turn and run from Dumbya, I can't see that Cheney could get far enough away from him to have a hope.  So many already feel that he's the puppetmaster to our puppet leader.  Consider why Himery can't win.  It's not a core incompetence but more people's distaste for her.  Plus, his connections to Haliburton and their continued winning of no-bids, not to mention his health questions.

BS I've heard in years. Besides the fact that she has never been elected to anything and has a track record of being a failed NSC director and the famous "no one could have predicted" line, in what universe does a single, black female of questionable sexuality and pro-affirmative action and presumably pro-choice beliefs receive the Republican nomination. McCain was derailed in South Carolina on the rumors that he had a black baby. You really think that they would consider voting in a black woman? Sheesh!

eom

But it needs to be in the hands of the masses.  The uninformed vote from their little corner of the world.  Clinton's popularity was largely based on a strong stock market.  People had jobs, and a buck in their pocket.  When you're leaving the car dealership in your new ride and hear that Billy was gettin some from the intern, it's pretty easy to say who cares.

The market is down from those days, gas prices are squeezing the little guy, and his heating bill is expected to double this winter.  He wants the new plasma TV, but doesn't know if he'll need the money for basics.

That little guy, and there's lots of them out there, is going to be tougher to move on promises than he is on cheap gas prices.

[[But it needs to be in the hands of the masses.]]

You're preaching to the choir; tell the Republicans.    

No, Snowflake, that doesn't mean welfare programs.  It means a social, political and economic environment that (1) encourages home ownership, education and other responsible choices, but also (2) allows people to screw up if they want, but doesn't run whole groups of people into the ground.

The Republican strategy is to (a) empty workers' 401(k)s, (b) herd them into Jesus churches, (c) call them traitors if they ask questions, then (d) wonder why their prisons are full.   Well, of course it's a racial thing - all them black people just LOOOVE prison, jes like they loove chitlins.

OK, some republicans can't see far enough ahead to understand that if you take money from dikes built for a Cat 3 storm, and a Cat 5 storm comes along, then the dikes will probably fail, along with a 300 year old major port city.   Putting it in writing for them doesn't help, because they've already told us that their education didn't work - they didn't learn to read that well, and in fact they elected a guy who can't even talk.

[[Clinton's popularity was largely based on a strong stock market.  People had jobs, and a buck in their pocket.  When you're leaving the car dealership in your new ride and hear that Billy was gettin some from the intern, it's pretty easy to say who cares.]]

That's a good point.  The larger point is that Clinton made choices that reinforced the strong economy, by undoing Reagan's debt, instead of screwing it up, as many politicians have.   In fact, there's a damn good argument that all that we should expect of a politician is to LEAVE US ALONE, and NOT screw it up.  I for one do not expect any politician to have a magic wand; I just don't want him to screw up what the nation does.

And yes, I think that it's very easy to say, who cares about a BJ?  Who DOES care about a BJ?  Do you remember Lincoln's comment about Grant's drinking?  That he wanted a case of Grant's whiskey for all the rest of his generals?  

Look, the Republicans who can get it up are getting their own intern BJs.  Those who can't get it up are running around sniffing panties.  This is pure and simple not something I want to deal with.  I would be willing to fund a Las Vegas chorus line on taxpayer money if we could (a) get back Clinton's fiscal prudence, and (b) get Ken Starr laid so he would just STFU.

I will personally advise the next Clinton wannabee on the social graces:  1st, you do NOT answer the question of boxers or briefs.  2nd, you DON'T fool with a 20 year old intern - it's an insult to your wife and the entire country.  The one you DO is Catherine Deneuve - it puts the French in their place, makes you a national hero, and shows your wife this is what it takes to beat her stuff.  What woman can complain about being #2 to Catherine Deneuve?  

[[little guy, and there's lots of them out there, is going to be tougher to move on promises than he is on cheap gas prices.]]

Well, I think that Bush beat the Dems on body language.  And it was damn close, and there was a lot of questionable stuff.

The question for me is, can I trust this guy?  Most of us don't trust fumbling bureaucracy, but some of it is plain necessary.  Eg., the Pentagon has to be the world's biggest bureaucracy.

But when you get a guy who is a flat out liar and bumbling incompetent, I trust him even less.   Oh, so he can't talk.  Why the hell would the Republicans even nominate a guy who can't talk?  Affirmative action for the disabled?   Sorry, I ain't buying.

Listen to Eisenhowers' speeches about "this crusade" against the Nazis; warning about the military-industrial complex, etc.  This is a guy out of Kansas who wasn't as promising as Lincoln, an ugly-ass trial lawyer and Mexican war dissident.

Then look at Dubya, who was born with a silver sppon in his mouth, went to Yale, and still has to be spoon-fed, and STILL can't do better than, "Peeance freeance Iraq".

Merde {SPIT)

No, it just makes them look like the miserable panderers that they are, as bad as the Dems but in another direction.

BUT she's got the indispensable qualification, alas, to be Prez - she's totally bamboozled by Ari Sharon and the Israelis.

I've read at least 3 columns with the Condi for Prez theme this year - each one more divorced from reality that the last.

Unbelievable.

Condi can't be nominated, while Hillary...

Rose Law firm billing records
Failed healthcare she headed up
Travel office firings
I could go on and on...

I wouldn't be calling someone stupid if they kept kicking my ass (Gore, Kerry). He has been pretty weak over the last year or two in my opinion, buit he still managed to mop the floor with the DNC

I look at the two parties sort of like this...

RNC - everyone has a chance to succeed, but government will not be responsible for the outcome

DNC - Most people will NOT succeed, so we will punish those who do to make the others feel better.

his chair?  He's smart enough to know where his bread is buttered, and that's mostly because his momma told him so.

The RNC isn't stupid.  They're just morally corrupt.

But no amount of stupidity in the GOP would make the Democrats smart.  I hold no brief for the Democrats.   I take their part only because the issue is so lopsided that the GOP has started overreaching, as the founding fathers anticipated, and are starting to do dumbass things.   Enough dumbass things, and hopefully the country will correct course.  It's not that I LIKE Democrats - I don't.  I just dislike the RNC incredibly more.  And yeah, I think blind faith in the RNC (or any party or ideology) is stupid.  Blind faith in the RNC at this particular moment in history is just a little more obviously stupid.

So, what has the GOP been doing these days to give people the chance to succeed?  Cutting student loan guarantee funds?  Squandering our taxes in wild goose chases, looking for Osama everywhere he's not?  Facilitating 2 out of 3 major disasters FEMA predicted?

Ah, it's not fair to blame the GOP for their policies.  They don't have that much foresight, and are just trying to milk the system for whatever they can, damn the majority of people.
What good is power if you can't abuse it, eh?

Xiaoming: from this and an earlier post above I'm not clear if your quarrel is just with Sharon, Bibi & Sharansky
or with the whole notion of an Israeli state being responsible for the present mideast mess...I think it's fair to ask if you could kindly outline what YOU think US mideast policy SHOULD'VE been to avoid the current mess.I'm looking forward to hear from you!  Thanks

Thanks for responding.

I've sent a few responses to a previous post wherein Bibi and Ari and Shransky are referenced in a negative mode.  They haven't appeared in over a week so either I really fouled up something simple or they ran afoul of the Troll Ban.

I sent another to you last PM and hope it appears by Sunday.

If you take the time and search me out by username you'll find lots of posts referrencing the Near East and the problems the US faces there almost entirely by virtue of its support for Israel.

There'a also a lengthy series of posts I sent in response to DoctorGonzo re this and assorted topics which might give you an idea of where I stand.

My bottom line is really simple - by supporting Israel in the manner and to the extent we have, the US has made itself, and been allowed to be cast as, the uber-enemy of the Arabs and the Islamic/Moslem world more genrerally.  That's the cause of our present difficulties and that is what troubles me so.  Why do we continue to follow such an unproductive and self-defeating and self-destructive policy?

My seemingly endless and obsessive potshots at Israel and it's governmental officials seek to make and to reinforce this very simple point.  That's it.  Simplicity itself no matter how i try to obfuscate with psuedo-intellecual asides, amuse with snide and scarcastic attempts at levity which fall flat on their face, and the like.

If it appears excessive, I understand.
But I don't apologize.  And it's a lot more important than dumping on Anne Coulter or FEMA's Brown or POTUS' Supreme court nominee and the like.  It's really become a life & death question.  And no one wants seems to want to ask it in the manner which i ask it.  

I'll be composing a few more responses touching on this broad topic over this weekend. One will be to Jack0116533] in in a thread entitled [Ithink] {"it's the year 2000.."].  In any casse his post either immediately follows or immediate precedes the post you sent first asking me about Ari and Bibi and the rest. Hope they get through, hope you read them, hope you find them valuable enough to commit a few minutes of your time to compose a response. But be assured that I don't expect to covert you from your present views on this issue.  I'm resigned to being an extremely lonely miniority on this issue.

I know what we've done wrong, but what we ought to do, and how to get out the Near Eastern mess we've entrapped ourselves in is another post and will require some thinking [a first!] before I can compose it.  It's easier to fix blame then fix a problem, but I will get that response to you.  Eventually, as you were interested enuf to ask, I owe you the courtsey of a responive reply.  So, keep looking but not for a few daze at least.

Peace and good health to you.


-- Modified on 10/23/2005 4:35:17 AM

-- Modified on 10/23/2005 4:54:22 AM

that the differences could be cast in religious terms, eg, the Shinto and Lutherans might well have felt that we were screwing them in favor of the Anglicans during WW2.

I don't think there is much we can do about that, if we are facing people who think in those terms.  OTOH, I think we have to make our policy decisions on more immediate and secular basis than religion, simply because faith doesn't get the results that say science & engineering does.   Imagine where we'd be if FEMA decided to fight Katrina with voodoo.  

They DID?

Hillary because she's a lightning rod, and Rice because she has limited govt experience, ie, never been elected to anything.

Not gonna discuss fair or right, only bet that neither will get nominated.  Yes, both names are floated for reasons internal to each party.  Neither will get close to a nomination.

-- Modified on 10/23/2005 1:37:20 PM

Who mentioned Hillary? The fact that southern men and evangelicals would not support a black female, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action candidate has nothing to do with Hillary.

The two prominent political parties in the United States, at this point, exist only to disagree with each other.

Pride, arrogance and self-preservation seem to be the driving components of both the RNC and DNC.

How can this possibly be good for the county's well being?

(a) it'd be worse if there was nobody to keep the other honest, EXCEPT THAT (b) the parties tend to be run by the cadres, the people who pitch in time and/or money in the off-years, and these are people who don't have to work for a living.

SO guess who gets screwed in the election years?  If you guess "people who work for a living". you're right.

You're also right that disagreement for its own sake is harmful BS.  But that's what the fringes do for us.  Yeah, we should round them up, issue them 3' 2x4s, hered them into stadiums and let them beat the crap outta each other.

Meanwhile, one of the most harmful decisions the SCt has handed us is the idea that political parties are private associations, so that states cannot mandate open primaries - which would be a BIG tendency to moderation.

This decision came to us courtesy of the judges who don't see privacy in the constitution, unless it helps the GOP.  While I agree the BSA is a private organization (until it takes public money) a political party, which uses and benefits from public funds and facilities, and exists only to seek public office, AIN'T, IS NOT a private organization.