Say the Democrats win back the White House and the Congress...

[Bob Slydell]

I'd like to see a President and Congress that will address such things as Health Care that no one can afford, an Environment being raped, more than just a passing nod at Fiscal Responsibility, and keeping Religion in church where it belongs, among other things. All these issues apparently are not high on the Republican list of priorities. Republicans had their moment in the sun, and failed miserably, just mho.

Congrats for having the first actual answer to the original question.

 

[eclectics]

Congrats for having the first actual answer to the original question.

Thanks! So John, are you giving out prizes?

 

[Bob Slydell]

Thanks! So John, are you giving out prizes?

Maybe his vote?

 

[DancingBear]

hmm,
If you want to believe their current statements about what they would do if in power now, they will outlaw all profiling, bugging phones of known terrorists etc. So either we will triple wait times at airports and search everyone, or quit searching anyone and let everyone board freely, and we will not break up groups like the ones who planned the plane attacks set for last week.
Then they will pull all our troops out of Iraq, allowing the country to be re-taken by it's former leaders and resume it's position as the leading supporter of terrorist organizations.
Next, they will sign a peace treaty with N. Korea not dependent upon N. Korea ceasing nuclear programs and sharing with Iran.
Next they will sign a peace treaty with Iran, offering assistance in starting up those nuclear reactors to supply power to their people, too bad they don't have any readily available sources, like oil for example.
Then they will get some lunch and plan the afternoon

D

What a bag of tripe. Please show me "their current statements" where, for example, "they" will outlaw "bugging phones of known terrorists".

One the Homeland Security front, we could start with implementing the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. And restoring FEMA to being the very capable agency it was under James Lee Witt.

 

[ChrizJen]

I'd like to see a President and Congress that will address such things as Health Care that no one can afford, an Environment being raped, more than just a passing nod at Fiscal Responsibility, and keeping Religion in church where it belongs, among other things. All these issues apparently are not high on the Republican list of priorities. Republicans had their moment in the sun, and failed miserably, just mho.

Amen to that!
My only addition to that list would be an administration who is willing to get to the TRUTH behind 9/11. We all deserve to know what really happned that day and why...

A lot of the problems that the next administration will have to face, as someone else said, will not be "fixed" in one term, or even two. This country is in so deep that it will take many years to dig out.

Unfortunately, I think that the political parties in this country have become so muddled up that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties anyway. We like to fight it out between parties, but the bottom line is that there are SO many more issues today than there were in the day when those parties were born into existence. Many of the issues and values that each party originally stood for have gone by the way-side.

At this point, I really don't think the Democrats can completely address every issue that concerns me, but the Republicans have certainly shown that they cannot. So it's the old 6 of one, half-dozen of the other....
There's always Libertarian, or Independent...

-Christal

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Amen to that!
My only addition to that list would be an administration who is willing to get to the TRUTH behind 9/11. We all deserve to know what really happned that day and why...

I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm going to ask anyways...the truth behind what? I thought that's what the 9/11 comission was for? And before anyone accuses me of anything, I'm working away from my computer today so I won't be able to respond very quickly.

 

[Maleficent13]

A lot of the problems that the next administration will have to face, as someone else said, will not be "fixed" in one term, or even two. This country is in so deep that it will take many years to dig out.

Unfortunately, I think that the political parties in this country have become so muddled up that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties anyway. We like to fight it out between parties, but the bottom line is that there are SO many more issues today than there were in the day when those parties were born into existence. Many of the issues and values that each party originally stood for have gone by the way-side.

At this point, I really don't think the Democrats can completely address every issue that concerns me, but the Republicans have certainly shown that they cannot. So it's the old 6 of one, half-dozen of the other....
There's always Libertarian, or Independent...

-Christal

What she said.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'd like to see a President and Congress that will address such things as Health Care that no one can afford, an Environment being raped, more than just a passing nod at Fiscal Responsibility, and keeping Religion in church where it belongs, among other things. All these issues apparently are not high on the Republican list of priorities. Republicans had their moment in the sun, and failed miserably, just mho.

This would be my answer.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'd be happy finding one politician with those qualities. But as Charade said, "Those are subjective."

Russ Feingold may not be perfect, but he has many of those qualities.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What a bag of tripe. Please show me "their current statements" where, for example, "they" will outlaw "bugging phones of known terrorists".

C'mon! You can't tell me that you don't know that everything's either black or white in Bushworld? That's why when Dems suggest that the current Administration simply follow the Constitution and apply for warrants to bug suspected terrorists' phone conversations, they are accused of wanting to "outlaw...bugging phones of known terrorist". We've all been to that dance already, and even though Bush's "30%ers" still live and die by trying to scare voters into voting republican, noone's buying that line of crap anymore.

 

[shortbun]

Those are nice attributes to have, but they are also subjective.

I could just as easily say that the Bush detractors are easily freaked out by the things he does.

Subjective? You don't think those things are inherently clear in a person? I do. Feingold, Lieberman and McCain have them. President Carter possessed most if not all. Barak Obama has most of them right now. Wesley Clark has those qualities; Colin Powell(although he directly lied for GWB at the U.N. about weapons of mass destruction). Gore and Kerry had many more of them than Bush(the junior) does and for that matter, GHWB has many more of them than does his son who I judge to have none of them. I know, I said, "I judge" therefore making this a subjective statement.

As far as freaking out over what GWB does... actually, I've quit freaking out. I'm often amused and mostly sad, embarrased or humiliated, not freaked out. It's the fundamental core that was used to elect him by putting state issues that are religious right attractors to which I was referring. We are still experiencing that element in Ohio with our gubnatorial election. I'm tired of this tactic already although it admittedly works. Anyway, I don't think those qualities are necessarily totally subjective. Elements of them maybe but ultimately, not.

 

[Blicker]

When we win in November and the new Democratic Congress starts in January they best start with impeaching Bush & Cheney right away. They deserve it and then we can have a Democratic president by the end of this year and that it would be a woman would make it all the sweeter.

 

[ChrizJen]

I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm going to ask anyways...the truth behind what? I thought that's what the 9/11 comission was for? And before anyone accuses me of anything, I'm working away from my computer today so I won't be able to respond very quickly.

Yes, that is what the 9/11 Commission was for, but what have we really learned from it? I for one have many questions regarding certain portions of the report issued by the 9/11 Commission. (i.e. the omission of important information.) This combined with the fact the our "reliable news networks" would rather televise the latest pop-star/hollywood scandal than inform you of the real issues in the world. It amounts to a whole bunch of information that never reaches the general population.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Yes, that is what the 9/11 Commission was for, but what have we really learned from it? I for one have many questions regarding certain portions of the report issued by the 9/11 Commission. (i.e. the omission of important information.)

Are you in possesion of some information that the rest of us arn't? What information has been left out?

This combined with the fact the our "reliable news networks" would rather televise the latest pop-star/hollywood scandal than inform you of the real issues in the world. It amounts to a whole bunch of information that never reaches the general population.

I'd have to agree with you on this one...but you can't blame the gov. for newtworks not reporting on the 9/11 comission or what it may have left out...apparently, the networks thinks that poptarts/stars are more important.

Well everyone, off for my 2 hour commute home. Have a great evening everyone.

TTFN

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

If you want to believe their current statements about what they would do if in power now, they will outlaw all profiling, bugging phones of known terrorists etc. So either we will triple wait times at airports and search everyone, or quit searching anyone and let everyone board freely, and we will not break up groups like the ones who planned the plane attacks set for last week

First off, nothing prevents wiretapping of terrorists phones from the foreign end of the line which we've been doing all along and Democrats have never said that should be stopped.
Secondly, existing interpretation of the constitution and the law allow a wiretap with a warrant. Nobody is proposing that be eliminated. In emergencies, a wiretap may be allowed without a warrant provided, provided the emergency is documented and a warrant obtained in a reasonable lenght of time and a court agrees as to the cause of the warrant and that it was an emergency. e. No Democrat has said that should be stopped. h.

What the Democrats and some Republicans are objecting to was wiretapping on the American end of the line without warrants on anyone the Bush administration so pleases without judicial approval. It is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment, and not only not authorized by one of the statutes he cited, even if it were, it would still be unconstitutional. . Of course he himself knew it was illegal and unconstitutional. Why else did he lie about doing it until he was caught?

C'mon! You can't tell me that you don't know that everything's either black or white in Bushworld? That's why when Dems suggest that the current Administration simply follow the Constitution and apply for warrants to bug suspected terrorists' phone conversations, they are accused of wanting to "outlaw...bugging phones of known terrorist". We've all been to that dance already, and even though Bush's "30%ers" still live and die by trying to scare voters into voting republican, noone's buying that line of crap anymore.

But I heard those computer bloggers keep bombs in their basements. I better vote Republican.

 

[bsnyder]

C'mon! You can't tell me that you don't know that everything's either black or white in Bushworld? That's why when Dems suggest that the current Administration simply follow the Constitution and apply for warrants to bug suspected terrorists' phone conversations, they are accused of wanting to "outlaw...bugging phones of known terrorist". We've all been to that dance already, and even though Bush's "30%ers" still live and die by trying to scare voters into voting republican, noone's buying that line of crap anymore.

When, exactly, did the current Dems suggest this? When the Administration first began the program and briefed the Gang of Eight (including the Democrat members)? Uh no....they didn't complain then. Only when it made the newspaper headlines did these cowards start complaining about the illegality of the program. They're just covering their butts with some of their big special interest groups.

It absolutely boggles my mind that we'd seriously consider shutting down our government's ability to monitor the phone calls of overseas terrorists when they call their attorneys and enablers here in the U.S. Go read the affidavits filed in the case - that's the specific complaint - that ever since the program became publicized, the terrorists won't speak to these people in the U.S. anymore. They now have to travel overseas to meet with them in person, and gee, that costs time and money.

You do realize that Judge Taylor's recent opinion in the NSA case found that the TSP is not only illegal, it's unconsitutional, don't you? That means that if her opinion is upheld, even Congress can't "fix it". Whatcha gonna do then?

 

[charlie,nj]

C'mon! You can't tell me that you don't know that everything's either black or white in Bushworld? That's why when Dems suggest that the current Administration simply follow the Constitution and apply for warrants to bug suspected terrorists' phone conversations, they are accused of wanting to "outlaw...bugging phones of known terrorist". We've all been to that dance already, and even though Bush's "30%ers" still live and die by trying to scare voters into voting republican, noone's buying that line of crap anymore.

Hey please edit your post to say the “42%ers”…thank you very much!

Oh wait like the media here on the DIS the news that President Bush’s approval rating is at a whopping 42% will never be big news.

Funny even with a nice 5% bump from June and a 2% bump in August to 42% the media still puts a low key page 10 negative spin on it. But if it was a 2% decline it would be headline news all over America..(and here on the CB).

***

Monday, August 21, 2006
Poll: Slight rise, but Bush approval ratings still weak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's job approval ratings remain anemic among Americans, with disapproval exceeding approval 57 percent to 42 percent, according to a poll released Monday.

Bush's approval rating rose 2 percent from a poll conducted in early August -- and up 5 percent from mid-June. The poll of 1,033 Americans carried out August 18-20 for CNN by Opinion Research has a plus-or-minus 3-point sampling error.



.

 

[eclectics]

Hey please edit your post to say the “42%ers”…thank you very much!

Oh wait like the media here on the DIS the news that President Bush’s approval rating is at a whopping 42% will never be big news.

Funny even with a nice 5% bump from June and a 2% bump in August to 42% the media still puts a low key page 10 negative spin on it. But if it was a 2% decline it would be headline news all over America..(and here on the CB).

***

Monday, August 21, 2006
Poll: Slight rise, but Bush approval ratings still weak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's job approval ratings remain anemic among Americans, with disapproval exceeding approval 57 percent to 42 percent, according to a poll released Monday.

Bush's approval rating rose 2 percent from a poll conducted in early August -- and up 5 percent from mid-June. The poll of 1,033 Americans carried out August 18-20 for CNN by Opinion Research has a plus-or-minus 3-point sampling error.



.

You neglected to mention what most experts say was the reason for the boost; "a temporary rise due to the UK terror threat". Any inkling of possible terror will boost the polls. If the world stays relatively calm, I would be surprised if the numbers don't drop back down again.

 

[charlie,nj]

You neglected to mention what most experts say was the reason for the boost; "a temporary rise due to the UK terror threat". Any inkling of possible terror will boost the polls. If the world stays relatively calm, I would be surprised if the numbers don't drop back down again.

Yes exactly you just proved my point that there is always a negative spin on a bump "a temporary rise due to the UK terror threat”…and yes it will be frontpage headline news when it goes down 1 or 2%.

PS - why did it go up in June? I can't remember.


.

 

[DancingBear]

That darn media. I can't prove it, but I'm sure that when Bill Clinton was in the low 40s in 1993, those media folks put a completely positive spin on it. And when he left office with a 65% approval rating, the media never mentioned that the same percentage said they didn't trust him.

Well, maybe not...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/april99/president23.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990527cnnpoll.htm