Bush*: 'popular' because of 'anger' or because he's not held accountable?

[Q]

- I found this interesting comment on another thread:

"...That means that we aren't going to win the election just by bashing Bush. He has been drawing a lot of aces. The American people just aren't going to rise up in an angry tide and wash him away in a flood of Democratic votes. It just ain't gonna happen. If we are going to win this one, we are going to have to play smart, not angry. We are going to have to offer the public some things that they want, and don't try to force on them things that they don't want." (Silverhair)

----------

- The author of this post seems to equate the left's anger with Bush's* popularity ratings. That is...he seems to think that anger and 'bashing' is doing more harm than good and that it's something the voters "don't want". But is anger and bashing the problem? Or it is that Bush* is never held accountable for his actions and made to suffer the consequences of public disapproval?

- How can the American people 'rise up in an angry tide' when they're not allowed to know the whole truth about the Bush* government? While it's true that no one likes mindless anger and bashing...people do tend to like the truth when it helps inform them about the true nature of their government.

- Anger and 'bashing' isn't the problem. The problem is that the Left can't or won't turn their anger into action and make Bush* government officials (public servants) accountable to the rule of law.

- Bush* appears popular because he's allowed to maintain the illusion that he's doing a good job. He's not doing a good job or 'drawing aces'. The American media simply refuses to report the truth about the aces up his sleeve.

- The plain truth is that the American media wants another four years of Corporate Bush* and will continue to hide his failures and prop up his corrupt administration until he's assured a 'win' in 2004. Our anger and resolve to find the truth is the only thing that stands in their way.

[vi5]

1. I don't think he's saying it's the problem but its not the solution...

...either. Honestly. Who the hell is going to vote for a candidate or a political party when the bulk of their message is "the other guy sucks".

The anger gets the party faithful and riled up but it's not going to mean a damn thing to the swing voters who decide elections and who don't like the attack politics and who don't hate bush.

You can give them all the information in the world. Even the stories that are reported that are negative don't have that much impact to most of those middle of the road people.

[Silverhair]

7. You have read me correctly.

And the part about pushing things on the public that they don't want refers to some of our positions that are extremely unpopular in the polls.

[Q]

10. Which positions shouldn't we 'push' on the people?

- You could be a bit more specific.

- There's a difference between being angry at someone for making a mistake in judgment and anger against someone who continues to break the law and get away with it. What the hell happened to equal justice? Have we simply given up on this ideal?

- I understand what you're saying about anger. But the American people...and the Democratic party in particular...have every right to be angry at Bush* and the Republican party for stealing our Democracy from us and then running this country like a banana republic.

[Silverhair]

13. Here are a couple.

NOTE: I am saying that these the general population of voters is strongly against these two positions.

Benefits for illegal aliens. The public doesn't want to do that by an overwhelming margin.

Gay Marriage. While I have no problem with gay marriage, the fact is that the general population is 65% against. Blacks are 80% against, and Latinos, because of the Latin machismo and that they are nearly 100% Roman Catholic, are nearly 100% against gay marriage.

Gun control. This one is a big loser in many states. In the 94 elections, after the gun control bill passed, a number of congresspersons & senators lost seat over their votes on this issue. Bill Clinton made a a reference in a speech to those who had sacrificed their political careers for their vote on it. People want to be able to defend themselves if they have to.

That's three fast ones.

[stickdog]

2. He's been given a free ride by both corporate media and opposing Dems.

The only way to oust him is to start telling the truth about what a miserable failure his administration has been in every possible way.

[SoFlaJets]

3. What gets me

is they talk like he actually got more votes in 2000 and as if he's invulnerable.How many votes did Nader get?How many of us were dis enfranchised down here in Fla alone?How many repubs have YOU heard say they won't vote for Bush this time?Screw them-yea and these were the people that would have gotten the SCOTUS to make the electoral college a moot point if their assessment of who would win the popular vote came to be-remember?they were saying B4 the 2000election that Bush would get a million more votes than Gore,,,wrongo

[kentuck]

6. You make a strong point, IMO....

Gore got more votes than Bush the last time and many Repubs are turned off by Bush. If the same percentage votes, and we add most of the Green votes to the Democratic column, George Bush looks like he might be in deep doo-doo.

Perhaps they should be reporting it from that angle? George Bush has lost much of his support and the Democrats are angry and energized. For Mr Bush to win in November, he is going to have to make some drastic changes in his present policies. Even his "war" is not that popular and will gain him few Democratic votes. Mr Bush is sinking fast and it appears that there may not be enough time for him to recover. He doesn't capable of changing his extreme agenda that appeals to the far right wing. If the same voters that voted in 2000 vote in 2004, Mr Bush looks ready to go down in a landslide defeat.

Does that look more realistic? :)

[illini]

4. No accountability

Diane Sawyer was asking shrubie about the WMD's. Shrubies response was "What!? Does it matter?". This statment should be national new. Its more important that Wacko Jacko or whatever the flava of the day is. :smoke:

[rumguy]

5. You're right on...we have to point out the truth

and if they want to call it bashing, let em whine like babies!

[G_j]

8. if the media

treated *'s multitude of lies like they did Clinton's one big 'sex' lie, he really would be despised by the average citizen. * told deliberate and cynically calculated lies that resulted in thousands of deaths and the media helped cover for him. And If they fairly covered the blaring 9-11 questions, he would be a national pariah.
People don't like it when they find out they are being lied to and especially taken for fools.
And once that trust is truly broken you can not win somebody back. It's the media's complicity that has allowed these shameless con artists to pull their scams. They have allowed them to commit treason. And if Congress was howling for blood like a pack of hungry wolves as they did with Clinton, it would be a different story.

& imagine if the "what's the difference?" quote had gotten any where near the unrelenting attention that Clinton's "what the meaning of is, is" quote got.
Bush's words essentially say that deliberately lying to Congress, the UN, the American people and the people of the world is a nobel thing.

We're not just angry at *, we are outraged over the behavior of the media and Congress who have had a part in decieving and betraying the people resulting in the deaths of thousands of human beings, not to mention the war profiteering, raiding of the treasury, behind the scenes gutting of over two hundred environment regulations and on and on.

They couldn't have done all this without enablers or outright accomplices. In fact Bush wouldn't even be president, Gore would be and 9-11 may very well have been prevented.

If all this is not worthy of 'anger' then they must be sraying Prozak from crop dusters and dumping Valium in the water turning us into emotionaless drones.
In this case anger is the sure sign of a healthily functioning human being.

[Q]

9. Bush* enjoys the ratings the media gives him...

...because they give credit when it isn't due while completely ignoring or downplaying his failures and deceit. It's easy to maintain a decent level of popularity when the media seldom if ever connects negative stories to the WH.

- And you're right when you say that they 'couldn't have done all this without enablers or outright accomplices'. I consider those like Lieberman enabler AND accomplice. Many Dems have spoken out against the Bush* junta...but they are quickly marginalized or silenced by the enablers/Bush* apologists.

[maggrwaggr]

11. Listen up: Here's how the GOP does it:

What the Democrats need is organization.

Here's how the Pugs do it:

They have their mouthpieces who do nothing BUT negative bashing. Limbaugh, Colter, Hannity, et al

These people fill the role of propagandist and anger-raiser.

What these people do is fill the role of "mis-educator" while the actual candidate or "leader" is then allowed to act all leader-like and positive and tell his lies or whatever.

The mistake we're making is we're expecting ONE PERSON to do the role of all these different parts.

And that's just dumb.

We need a division or labor in the Dem party, we need organization, we need people to play different parts.

I agree that we need a candidate who doesn't JUST go negative on Bush, but who else do we have telling the TRUTH? Nobody.

This ALL comes back to the fact that we need some goddamn leadership.

[Isome]

15. Organization... division of labor ...

That's exactly right!

[Q]

16. For whatever reason...the Democratic party is divided into factions...

...struggling for the control and direction of the party.

- This struggle is literally tearing the party in half. One side is conservative and the other liberal. The conservative Democrats think the liberals are being too 'mean' to Bush* and don't want him held accountable for his malfeasance. Liberals simply want to kick his Nixonian ass out of office.

- All this makes it difficult to come up with a cohesive plan against Bush* in 2004. Bush's* main campaign theme will be about WAR and SECURITY...and as long as the media lies for him the Dems will have a hard time getting their own message out.

[Kazak]

12. I think things'll change once the nominee is selected...

'til then we're pissin' in the wind.

[Cleita]

14. So who is angry?

Why is anyone angry about eight years of prosperity and worldwide goodwill under Bill Clinton? If that makes America angry then I guess we deserve Bush. Unfortunately those of us, who don't see Bush as a great leader, have to suffer too. It's just not fair.

I do believe that the candidate who runs against Bush needs to paint a rosy vision of the future under his Presidency if he is to win. This is what people want to hear, not that they made a mistake in voting for the incumbent.