Democrats have conceded to Bush* on the issues on which he'll campaign.

[Q]

- Bush's* 'war on terrorism' is considered a success...thanks to the American media and lack of Democratic opposition. According to the media and Democratic leadership...Americans don't care that Bush* lied to force this nation into war as long as he brings 'democracy' to Iraq.

- It looks like the party will choose a more 'conservative' Democrat to run against Bush*... guaranteeing that Bush* will come out on top on the issues Democrats have already conceded to him. Democrats will be running on the economy and jobs....while Bush* will easily counter their arguments by talking perpetual war and painting a false, but rosy picture of the future.

- Bush* has a good chance of pulling off a 'win' in 2004 by touting his unchallenged 'successes' on the war on terrorism and 'protecting' America. His Democratic opponent...who more than likely voted for the Iraq war resolution...will be left looking more like a Bush* supporter than an opponent.

- Democrats have put themselves in a position where they have little left to argue against Bush* because they have conceded so many issues to him. In the end result...Bush* can point to bipartisanship and cooperation from the Democrats on nearly every issue. They helped pass the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and tax cuts for the very rich. Democrats have allowed Bush* to form a 'shadow government' and operate in secrecy with little complaint or oversight. They had little to say about election fraud, purging of voters in Florida or Bush's* obstruction of justice in the matter of the 9-11 investigation.

- The corporate-controlled American media is busy planting the seed that Americans don't want to switch 'horses in midstream'. That is...it would be wrong to replace Bush* during a 'time of war' considering that he's doing such a 'good job' of protecting America. With their lack of direct opposition...Democrats are actually helping Bush* win in 2004.

[liberalmuse]

1. I agree...

but I'm waiting for New Hampshire. If the anti-war candidates do well there, then we might actually have someone to oppose Bush. At this point, I'm rooting for all of the other anti-war candidates along with my own.

On edit: I'm curious as to how a pro-war, Bush enabling Dem candidate is going to oppose Bush, "Hey, I didn't vote for almost 10% of the things Bush wanted--and he got them anyway. And forget about all of those times I have said that I really like Bush."

[sendero]

3. And...

... I agree with you. Proclaiming you have differences with Bush when you voted with him almost every time will be easy for the Repugs to dismantle. :(

[Q]

7. Except for Kennedy, Gore and Byrd...

...Democrats have been silent on the issues of war and national security....the very issues Bush* will use to dominate his opponent.

[BackDoorMan]

29. That's why Rove gets paid the big bucks...

While we liberals and/or democrats are laughing or bitching about Bush/Rove proposals...immigration, senior drug prescription, space exploration, etc...

Rove is setting Bush up very nicely to middle America as a moderate and he will point to all these middle of the road proposals... (no matter how stupid or obscene they may appear to us.)

And say, see, to the American people, all these great proposals and as we fall for the bait of trying to explain to the American people that Bush's proposals are all bullshit.

Bush/Rove will move on to something else he proposed and they will set the pace of the election campaign, just like in 2002 when the dem (or dims) were left scratching their heads wondering why people didn't come out and to vote and how come they couldn't nail Bush on any issue.

Rove is the master. His whole philosophy is to make the American people see no real difference between Bush and the democratic nominee...so people will just throw up their hands and say "What's the difference" and not even bother to vote or just stick it out with Bush, who will seem again, with the media's help, to come off as a moderate.

Middle America are the people Rove is going for.

We have a huge job to do...to educate the American people without the media's help.

[BackDoorMan]

30. So Boneheads like me, as you laugh at all of Bush's dumb proposals...

KNOW ROVE HAS A REASON (see the above post) and it's to make Bush sound like a democrat, come off as a moderate and he's tossing something in for everybody...

I mean you don't think Bush could win on republican ideology do you?

Cutting of Social Security, no minimum wage, slave labor, no worker health care and benefits cuts or none at all, letting corporations exploit and pollute the environment, no regulations on corporations, imperialistic wars to steal other countries resources, tax cuts for the rich, etc. etc.

He has pretend to run on democratic issues that's why Rove is setting it all up now and we laugh about it...thinking he's making big mistakes.

Well, I'm not going to be a bonehead any longer!

[are_we_united_yet]

35. I wish you were wrong Q

But as usual you are right on the mark.

[papau]

2. 'protecting' America is a Bush failure - and MUST be issue

Problem only if Kerry or Edwards have dropped this as an issue,

Dean and Clark have put this into their speeches.

[KoKo]

4. Yes, but it was never going to be "easy." Having any Democratic Pres.

in the White House after three years of Bush dismantling the New Deal and trying to gut Civil Rights. It's the culmination of over 30 years of the Repugs building their way into the massive power they now are exhibiting.

We hoped it would be easier. Some of the "newbies" think it will be easy, others don't care because their perspective is different, and they haven't had years of watching this "take over" as it happened.

It was never going to be easy. We are just getting a glimpse of the years it will take, and how much work has to be done.

[dusty64]

5. Sadly its true, but

the primary is NOT over yet. The ONLY way I see it if one of the establishment candidates wins, they must admit that they were duped and blatantly lied to regarding many of these issues. Why they haven't done this leaves me scratching my head. :shrug: I will have a hard time swallowing some of these candidates largely because when I was desperate for leadership and opposition they completely let me down. I guess thats why I have mainly supported those outside of the Washington "mainstream" with the exception of Kucinich. The rest of them have some explaining to do and I'm waiting.

[Q]

6. What are the odds of any candidate admitting they were 'duped'...

...considering that many Democrats 'agree' with the war on terrorism in general and the Iraq invasion in particular?

- We can expect Bush* to campaign on the very issues that Democrats have already conceded to him. Americans interpret the lack of Dem opposition as Bush* being superior on the issues of war and national security.

[oc2002]

8. REPEAT OF 2002 Elections.

The 2002 elections which resulted in the Democratic party being basicly emasculated and castrated of to an ineffective force in congress by losing majority in both the House and Senate was a result of pandering of the Bush-Lite Democrats and appeasement of conservatives.

Can a Bush-Lite Kerry do any better in November.... Not likeley. Can a Democrat say he opposed the war, but voted for it like Kerry and Edwards?

What about the economy? Is that enough to win the election if the economy actually improves somewhat, and you know Bush will confuse moderates by promising the Moon, Mars, and economic Boom is just around the corner. Stay the course mentality is the Bush plan for November, and picking appart Kerry will be easy for the masters of deception.

Kerry has shown he can beat Democrats in a election, can he beat Republicans by being Republican-Lite?

2004 elections deja'vu of 2002.

[LeahMira]

9. I think you are mistaken...

... if you think that Sen. Kerry is "Republican-lite."

Sometimes I really think that some folks mistake calmness for weakness.

[lastliberalintexas]

14. No, we just look at

actual voting records over the past 3 years. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, IWR, NCLB... Kerry and Edwards would distinguish themselves from Shrub how?

Either one of them would get killed in the debates- not because of a lack of debating skill obviously. But because each would have to continually use the phrase "I voted for that" or "I also supported what President Bush asked for of Congress". Or worse yet- they'd have to try to run away from their actual votes.

What a nightmare for us. I'll vote for either one, but they are going to be a verrry tough sale.

[oc2002]

15. Kerry Issues?

What is Kerry's biggest Anti-Bush Issue then?

How will he say I am against a war I voted for?

Where is Kerry on Tax-cuts? Repeal the tax for the upper 2%? Not likely, with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.

Free Trade issues, he is as Bush-Lite as Lite-Beer can be Beer.

Fact is, if the Democrats win the White House, and that is a BIG IF. The only effective course of action is to be extremely vocal anti-establishment, anti-Republican, anti-NAFTA to turn the congress around in 2006.

Congress is where the real power is to effect change. The White House is more to guide, stear the public awarness, and chart a new course.

I see Dean to be the most vocal, Edwards, Gephart and Kucinich are too. Kerry is the most non-vocal anti-establishment of the bunch, and most likely to lose badly to a visionary Republican Bush hype.

[Hamlette]

10. you have less faith in us that the GOP does

maybe Iowa wanted to pick a winner.

I like Dean's fight, I LOVE Kuchinich, but I don't see Dean as presidential and I don't see either of them winning in November.

I like Edwards and Kerry. I could fight for either one of them. They are both head and shoulders above Bush.

[Q]

11. Perhaps counting on 'faith' to win elections is the problem?

- I'm talking about the reality of the situation. The Media is portraying Bush* as a great leader, commander in chief and protector of America. Tell me what the Democratic party has done to challenge this illusion?

[jmowreader]

22. Is "head and shoulders above Bush" going to be enough?

There are people in prison right now who are head and shoulders above Bush. I'm talking murderers. Rapists. Embezzlers and swindlers. The real scum of the earth.

Bush, as we know, is all that and more. So what's the difference? We know the extent of those prisoners' depravity; no one knows the full brunt of George W. Bush.

It's easy to shut down criticism of Kerry and Edwards' IWR votes: as with the 2000 campaign, Bush presented one thing and did another. Remember "work through the UN"? Bush was fully willing to work through the UN, so long as the UN was willing to rubber-stamp his war plans. When they wanted to let the inspections run their course so that we'd be attacking Saddam for having WMD only after there was proof he had WMD, he labeled the UN a bunch of chocolate-makers and went to war anyway. Remember "let inspections run their course"? Saddam let in the inspectors and did everything they asked, Bush said Saddam was uncooperative. The inspectors found nothing, Bush said that was absolute proof Saddam had WMD. (Experiment time: go to your local expensive-European-car dealer and attempt to buy a Mercedes with no money in your bank account. "But Mr. Car Dealer, under the doctrine established by George W. Bush in the runup to Operation Iraqi Liberation, the fact that there is currently no money in this account is absolute proof that I actually own ten million dollars and should, therefore, be granted clear title to your best automobile." And you didn't think you could get coffee to shoot straight out your tear ducts.) The war George was authorized to wage under IWR and the war Bush waged are as different as night and day.

Kerry and Edwards were also members of a Congress that authorized a number of grandiose Bush schemes (No Child Left Behind, in particular) that Bush never intended to fund.

If we get a Kerry candidacy or an Edwards one, the debates are going to be lots of fun:
Bush: "Candidate ___ approved my ___."
Our guy: "George, you screwed us. We told you that you could do one thing, then you did something completely different--and what you did, didn't work."

With Kucinich as the opponent, expect heavy doses of "Candidate Kucinich hates America and doesn't care about your safety, because he voted against my ___." And all of a sudden, Candidate Kucinich is stuck demonstrating that he doesn't hate America, which will be even harder than Bush demonstrating he's not Hitler yet.

We all know Bush's anti-Dean ammo.

Clark is going to be the hardest one for Bush to fight, especially on matters of national security, the centerpiece of the Bush election campaign.

[LeahMira]

12. Right... they don't care because...

According to the media and Democratic leadership...Americans don't care that Bush* lied to force this nation into war as long as he brings 'democracy' to Iraq.

Well, as I see it, Americans don't give a hoot about whether Iraqis have democracy or not. They do give a hoot about a supply of oil and think it will be easier to get that oil if Iraq is willing to play our democracy game. As has been pointed out many times, there are plenty of dictatorships in the world where living conditions for the citizens are horrendous, but the U.S. doesn't bother these nations. I think the phrase "America's national interests" means, to the voters, America's right to live the prosperous life. Any problem with the oil supply would mean a serious dent in our prosperous life and the style to which we have become accustomed. Americans think they are entitled to a certain lifestyle and anyone or anything that poses any threat to that is automatically something that is not in our "national interests." That's why they really don't much care what "reasons" Bush gave. They understand that if Iraq doesn't give the U.S. all the oil it wants they might have to turn down the heat in winter and turn off the air conditioner in summer, and they refuse. If it's between air conditioning and world peace, air conditioning will win every time.

[Selwynn]

13. What do you want to do about it, Q?

You know, ever morning you get up and write to us something we already know. Or even if some don't know it, there's nothing there but some observations looking back at things gone wrong. It feels good, I guess to talk on and one over the same old rhetoric - there was election fraud, the democrats have given in to Bush's agenda, corporations are running amok and taking the country down the media isn't fair.

It takes almost nothing to do this stuff. It takes far, far more to start writing about the future. To stand up and say, ok - here's what we need to do now to start rebuilding our country. To write motivationally as a forward thinker, not always and forever looking to the past and licking our wounds.

That's the problem in society today I guess - a lot of people think that just talking about all the problems is the same as doing something about all the problems. If feels good to talk. It's cathartic. But what I want to know is what we should do about all the things we keep observing. I'm tired of all talk and no proposals for solutions. I'm sick of just pointing out all the problems. Sometimes I feel like Q and others are sort of like a doctor who stands on the road next to a dying man and diagnoses all his problems for him while watching him die. I don't consider that anything to be especially proud of. What I would be more proud of, is taking the talent and energy that so many have on these forums and putting it toward coming up with a plan for change.

I need the help, because I can't figure it out by myself, and I need other bright people to help me. But it doesn't help to just keep diagnosing the problem over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I asked you yesterday Q, what you wanted to do about the things criticize, and you have nothing to say in response... why isn't that the bigger issue?

Can't we somehow change focus to figuring out what we actively want to do to take America back? I'm honestly asking, because I don't really know all that we should do, and I need the help of a strong community of intelligent, passionate people to work together with. If you feel like me, its a little overwhelming - but either we can change things, or we can't. And if we can't, then I'm sick and tired of bullshit talk about everything that's wrong. Where's the outrage, you say? Where's the outrage is the cry around here? Well I'd like to ask where's the plan? Where's the message? Where's the action around here? Help me, please - and I want to help you. Let's turn our focus to not how we've gotten screwed or how this and that is wrong, but rather turn these forums into a place to describe plans of action, to talk about the future, to think about how to organize at the grassroots level and what it would take to turn our society around.

Unless you believe that any Democratic nominee for president is some kind of messianic figure who will single handedly save America - but I certainly don't.

So - I hear all the criticisms, and again I ask - what are we going to do about it? Help me, think about what I - we - should do about it.

[Q]

16. Read between the lines...

...there's nothing we can do about it now...except plan ahead for the 2008 election.

- Unless a miracle happens...Bush* staying in office is a done deal. Democrats have literally given him this election by cooperating with his admin. and enabling him every step of the way.

- The New Democrats have abandoned the 'grassroots'....so it will take more than simply 'organizing' them to win elections. The grassroots wants an opposition party...not Bush* enablers and appeasers. They want a party that opposes corruption instead of becoming part of it.

- Your 'plan' amounts to reorganizing chairs on the deck of the Titantic. The party is hopelessly split into factions and camps with opposing views and agendas. It seems that this time around the Bush* enablers have won...allowing Bush* a free shot at the WH in 2004. The only way this can be turned around is if Democrats have the guts it takes to make the Bushies ACCOUNTABLE for their crimes and misdeeds.

- Bush* is a phony...just like his war on terrorism. He should be impeached...but that won't happen as long as the enablers run the Dem party.

[BeFree]

19. "..nothing we can do..."

How demoralizing can one be? "...nothing we can do..." BULLSHIT!

Three years ago, this nation, heavily divided, was steered on a course of what we all thought was to be compassionately conservative, with NO nation building, no overreaching of our military, and a return to preserving the American dream.

Well, we were all decieved, Cons and liberals alike. America is now stretched to it's limit both militarily, and financially by liberal nation building and a liberal financial deficit. Plus, the American dream is slowly being polluted.

Whichever Dem candidate we choose is going to have plenty of ammunition to attack the Cons. And as 9/11 fades further away, the fright which gripped Americans will fade away resulting in a clearer picture of where * is taking us.

Iraq is a quagmire in which the Cons will sink further and further. The economy will not "recover" and as gas prices rise over the summer the idea that * is protecting our national interest will be exposed to be as naked as is the emperor.

"..nothing we can do..." Actually, there isn't much we need to do. * has lost many votes over the last 3 years. He ain't gonna win them back the way he's going.
The only thing we really need to do is to keep up our spirits, and not get all Q'ed up about things.

[Selwynn]

21. This is an honest question - If there's nothing we can do why write?

If there's nothing we can do, then what is the point of, not just you, but all of us, myself included, writing every day about everything that's wrong and how screwed we've been. Frankly if you're telling me there's nothing we can do about it until 2008 then I don't want to hear about it until 2008.

If you're saying there's nothing we can do then there's no point in listening to the same old complaints every day. The only reason to listen to complaints is if they are a motivation to change something. Otherwise its just pointless rambling. And if that's true, and you're honestly saying there's nothing we can do right now, then why even write? I might as well just take a holiday, because listening to the same complaints about how messed up eveyrthing is with no plan for action is not only discouraging, it is also pointless....

...but I don't believe that just yet. I'm not quite convinced that there's literally nothing we can do. I'm just not sure where/how to start.

I've been thinking about Dr. King a lot lately. To me he was an amazing figure in American History - a person who in my opinion has one of the most important legacies in the history of our nation. I can't help thinking about how the world must have looked to a young Martin Luther King. I have a hard time believing it didn't look every bit as bad as things look now, if not worse. I can't help thinking to msyelf that when you really stop and think about it, the fact that Dr. King and other courageous civil rights leaders could actually change the country as they did seems almost like a miracle. But then I realize, its not at all a miracle. What it was was a small group of committed people willing to sacrifice it all for what the believed was just.

To me we need people like Dr. King and every honorable leader-of-the-people in our nations history to come to the place where they are convinced that real change, and truly standing for justice is more important than winning, or power, or even life itself. Now, I don't know how that is going to happen, but I also refuse to give up on it, because it can and does happen. A small group of committed people can change the course of history. What we need are leaders. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't only point out everything that was wrong and complain about how ufair the system was or how corrupt its members were. King looked out toward the future and said I have a dream! He looked forward and spoke about what American should be like not just what it was. He looked forward, not backward. He fought for change not just to bemoan the status quo.

I don't know how to do it all. But I think the first step would be to at least come together and get on the same page, and in one voice boldly proclaim that we are committed to action for the things we believe are just and right. At the very least we can commit to a discipline of forward thinking and not losing but rather fostering a message of hope and inspiration. I'm tired of the oppressive weight of defeatism. I'm tired of being experts on everyone else's problems and tragically inept and doing anything to ever change anything. And I'm speaking to myself as much as anyone else. This is not a one way chastisement. This is my chastisement as well as anyone else's.

Not everyone can do the same things, and each person must act according to their gifts of course. But I'm troubled and grieved by an atmosphere of comfort taken in simply being critical of the problems and the people who are the problem and act like somehow that's the same thing as being a good, devoted, passionate, committed honorable person who loves the principles this nation was founded upon and would do anything to see them restored again. I don't know how to win - but I want to at least talk about getting started! If nothing else, I at least want to kinds of conversations we have to shift from how screwed we always are to what we can do to look toward a future with hope.

If you feel like post is short on concrete answers and long on rhetoric - you're right. That's because I need your help. I need help to think about what can be done and how to do it. I need other minds to focus forward and stop looking backward all the time. I need that kind of help, we need that kind of help, the nation needs that kind of help and the world depends on that kind of help.

But if you're telling me that there's really nothing we can do until 2008, well then there's really no point in listening to a bunch of empty rhetoric critical of all the problems but completely resigned to not even trying to do anything about them.

I'm at work now, but I'm going to do my best to start posting not about every way in which we've been screwed or the country is messed up, but rather one what might do to at least start the process of fighting to restore a little justice - even just a little, and some liberty, and a little bit of democracy.

Sel

[Q]

31. Good for you!

- But don't ignore the facts. The Dem party has given away the store and 'allowed' Bush* to be portrayed as something he's not.

- We still have MANY Democrats who don't even want to discuss the ramifications of Republicans stealing an election and getting away with it. They've 'moved on' without understanding how it would directly influence the future of the Democratic party and our system of 'free' elections.

- And many on the left still consider that Bush* had advance knowledge of 9-11 to be nothing more than a librul conspiracy theory. They say this even though the Bushies themselves have arrogantly admitted it...knowing there's nothing we can do about it.

- The lies about Iraq? The Democratic party actually ANNOUNCED that there wouldn't be any kind of investigation or repercussions.

- From election fraud, to outting CIA agents, to the coverup of 9-11, to Bush* NOT being held responsibile for his lies that drove this nation into an illegal war...the Democrats have simply given up in defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

[the skeptic]

32. oh, there's plenty that can be done

The problem is, are people on the left and in the Democratic party willing to do it?

Is there a overpowering will to create a media infrastructure similiar to what the GOP currently has? Is there a will to promote a coherent ideology that common folks can make an emotional connection with? Is there a will to become a party that stands on principle rather than polls and extreme pragmatism? Is there a will to realize that maybe, just maybe large corporations DON'T have the answers to all our problems?

When I see a will to do those things in the Democratic party, then I'll know the party is serious about change and that they WANT to do something. So far, I don't see it, especially in the elected officals. It seems all their efforts have been halfhearted at best. It's almost as if the GOP just simply WANTS it more.

[Cocoa]

17. record turnout in Iowa yesterday

Something like double what they had in 2000.

one thing on their minds: who can best beat George Bush. :-)

[Terwilliger]

18. how the mighty have fallen

Nader and his "ego" aren't looking so bad now, eh?

[BeFree]

20. Nader looks as bad as he ever did.

Maybe even worse. Where has he been the last three years? Off making a bunch of dough, one would imagine, because he sure hasn't been attacking the Cons, as far as I can see.

[Terwilliger]

27. give me a break...you see what you wanna see

[Iverson]

23. Gee...

... under these conditions, electoral fraud is almost an afterthought.

[PretzelWarrior]

24. Who says they will CONTINUE to concede them? Think about it.

THe main focus is about differentiating from other Democrats. People care about electability. People are focused on getting the best candidate in there. Once he's in...then the money and ads will flow that will be a full frontal barrage on Bush for all of these conceded points. The candidates and their grass roots forces will challenge the conventional wisdom and media elite easy answers by talking about failed war on terror. They will talk about the quagmire in Iraq. They will talk about the horrific destruction of our economy and government budget. We just need to help them by talking to our neighbors one by one. It works. I'm seeing a change in tone in my close ones. More and more are peeling away from lockstep loyalty to their "man", Bush.

YOU have to help. Force media to attack the right issues out there.

[Cleita]

25. The war time President argument will resonate

with the uninformed and how bad it will be to switch Presidents in the middle of a war. It's important to point out that there wouldn't have been these wars if there hadn't been a Bush in the WH. However, if there are plans to pull out of Iraq by June, then where does that leave him, in Iran or Syria, maybe?

[PVnRT]

26. The primaries are over already? When was the convention?

I seemed to have missed everything...oh, wait, they haven't happened yet.

[Q]

28. You actually have to wait for the primaries...

...to predict what will happen? Pay closer attention to those who have the voice in the Democratic party. The DLCers and conservative Democrats have demonized anyone to the left of Lieberman and rant against 'liberals' in much the same way as the RWingers.

- That's what the DIVIDE in the Democratic party is all about. The more conservative Dems want to give Bush* a pass and seem to believe the hype that disagreeing with him equates with being 'unpatriotic'.

- On the other hand...the 'liberals' within the party want GWB* impeached for his crimes against our country and people. The 'left side' of the party insists that allowing the Bushies to escape accountability gives credence to the RWing claim that they're doing a good job in fighting a 'war' on terrorism and protecting America.

- Bush's* whole presidency is based on a foundation of lies and deceit. Voters are becoming VERY concerned that the Democrats are either part of the deceit or are too cowardly to do anything about it. This isn't exactly a way to INSPIRE voters to vote Democratic.

[Valjean]

33. Clark

Wesley Clark will beat Bush over the head on security issues if he is the nominee.

[Q]

34. This is not about candidates...but the entire Democratic party...

...and more specifically the leadership.

- Voters are going to remember that Dems didn't seek justice in their name. Many won't vote at all and others will join third parties so they don't have to be associated with the rampant corruption of the two parties.

- How is it that the Democrats can stand by and let Bush* adopt the mantle of a 'great wartime president'...knowing that his 'war on terrorism' is as phony as the reasons for attacking Iraq?

- Bush* has shown that cheaters DO prosper.

[Valjean]

36. Credibility

Yes, but messages take on a degree of credibility based on the source.

Howard Dean is not a great messanger for defense given that he's never been in the military.

Kerry and Dean have the credibility to bash Bush over the head with his failings. Coming from Clark the accusation of Bush going AWOL will be thunderous. Coming from Dean (who never served) the accusation will be a thud.