Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 64
CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml

Who in the world are these 34%? Consider

* that Bush approves of an Arab country with a terrorist past (two of the 911 hijackers came from this country) being in charge of our ports. This, in spite of the 911 commission strongly objecting to it for security reasons.

* that four and a half years after 911, Bush has still amazingly failed to catch the mastermind behind 911.

* that Bush's war on Iraq has been unqualified disaster. They never had enough troops and they never had a post-war plan. Now, Iraq is on brink of civil war. Most experts now believe that it will be very easy for Al-Queda to make themselves safe havens in Sunni Areas. Per the 911 commission, prior to 911 there was no cooperation between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. After we attack Iraq, there very much is. Bush is the cause for this.

* Two of Bush's closes allies (UK and spain) in Iraq had terrorist attacks on their soil. Bush didn't know a darned thing about them.

* that Mardi Gras at half speed is taking place today. It is another reminder at Bush's disastrous handling of post-Katrina. He was the one who appointed his chrony Mike Brown to FEMA.

* that Karl Rove outed out a CIA agent. He still amazingly has a security clearance. The Republican rubber stamp Congress has amazingly refused to investigate. The White House is supposed to HELP the CIA, not OUT them.

* He flew back to DC in the middle of the night to sign the Schiavo bill. A family matter which was supposed to be private and had been decided so by a state court was effectively overruled by Bush himself.

* He didn't care what the law said and decided to spy on his fellow Americans anyway. Who knows who he spied on. John Kerry? We do know that his domestic spying program has not led to any arrests. If they had, Dick Cheney would have been all over the media announcing it.


If 34% still approve of Bush in spite of all his failures, do they even care who is running our country? I'm sure they then wouldn't have a problem with Hillary Clinton, my two-year old daughter, my little dog…After all, they possibly couldn't do ANY worse.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And what was it that finally got to Mr. or Ms. 35 and 36% that they left that shrinking group?

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm sure they then wouldn't have a problem with Hillary Clinton, my two-year old daughter, my little dog…After all, they possibly couldn't do ANY worse.

Are you sure....in that order?<g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If 34% still approve of Bush in spite of all his failures, do they even care who is running our country? I'm sure they then wouldn't have a problem with Hillary Clinton, my two-year old daughter, my little dog…After all, they possibly couldn't do ANY worse.
____________________________

Ye of little faith

I do not know your two year old or your little dog, however, I have complete faith that Hillary could do significantly worse.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You forgot about the plundering of the treasury, which is irresponsible behavior we will all be paying for for many years after Shrub's departure.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
Forget the 34%. I want to know about the 29%:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Scroll down to the last question asked in that same CBS Poll: Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?. 29% of respondents answered "yes."

That's down considerably from the time of the initial invasion, when 53% of respondents agreed that Hussein was personally involved with 9/11. But that's still a fair number - roughly equal to the proportion of respondents that approve of the way the President is handling the situation in Iraq.

* * *

What's also fascinating about that report is the broad divergence in responses to two similar, but not identical, questions:

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

and

"Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

The first question only drew 29% of respondents saying that it was worth it, but 41% of respondents said it was worth it when responding to the second question.

Albaby

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

The first question only drew 29% of respondents saying that it was worth it, but 41% of respondents said it was worth it when responding to the second question.


There just HAS to be an alternative to democracy that works better.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I want to know about the 29%

They're what you have guaranteed against you when you want to change anything in this country -- the right wing future-fearing self-righteously so-called God-fearing Republican base.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Who in the world are these 34%?

They are the Dead-Enders, Tories, or Royalists.
They are Republican from cradle to grave, and they care not how fast the journey.
They would vote for a syphilitic baboon if it had an (R) after its name.
They would like to have Ann Coulter be president.
They believe Joe McCarthy was a righteous human being.
They fume that Nixon was railroaded.
They venerate Reagan as the Second Coming.
They use prejudice and bias on a regular basis.
They are cowards that pay there way out of any fair fight.

There are too many good people that have considered themselves Republicans to abdicate their legacy to these nihilists.

*JR*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who in the world are these 34%?

They are the Dead-Enders, Tories, or Royalists.
They are Republican from cradle to grave, and they care not how fast the journey.
They would vote for a syphilitic baboon if it had an (R) after its name.
They would like to have Ann Coulter be president.
They believe Joe McCarthy was a righteous human being.
They fume that Nixon was railroaded.
They venerate Reagan as the Second Coming.
They use prejudice and bias on a regular basis.
They are cowards that pay there way out of any fair fight.

There are too many good people that have considered themselves Republicans to abdicate their legacy to these nihilists.

*JR*
============

Wrong JR. They hated Nixon too. they think he was a liberal.


Dov
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wrong JR. They hated Nixon too. they think he was a liberal.

By today's standards, he was.

Maybe we can convince them to nominate him for 2008.
I still want to impeach him.

*JR*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They are the people who are saying

"Gee I wish the things that are wrong did not happen"

"Gee, I wish everything was perfect"

"Gee, I wish we could go back in time and do it all again, knowing all the answers"

But, they all know that's dreaming and wishing

And next election, they will still be asking themselves who will do the best job?

The party that gave me a horrable ride while they were at the wheel, but got me through.

Or the party that spent 8 years throwing up road blocks, digging potholes, changing signs, watering down the gas, making fun of the driver and never offering to help push on the hills or in the mud.

Bears

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"And next election, they will still be asking themselves who will do the best job?"

Well, as long as only 34% of them don't know their tuchases from their elbows, the rest of us mught stand a chance.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And next election, they will still be asking themselves who will do the best job?

The party that gave me a horrable ride while they were at the wheel, but got me through.

Or the party that spent 8 years throwing up road blocks, digging potholes, changing signs, watering down the gas, making fun of the driver and never offering to help push on the hills or in the mud.

Bears

============

that is a bit of stereotyping of both parties. It aint so black and white.

dov
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml

Who in the world are these 34%?

-----

'Diehards, deadenders, & Bush loyalists'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do not know your two year old or your little dog, however, I have complete faith that Hillary could do significantly worse.


But she did such a good job on healthcare in the 90's, Right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wrong on every count, but I guess that's why Dems, Left, Liberals have bbeen so successful in the last 6 years.


Who in the world are these 34%?

They are the Dead-Enders, Tories, or Royalists.
They are Republican from cradle to grave, and they care not how fast the journey.
They would vote for a syphilitic baboon if it had an (R) after its name.
They would like to have Ann Coulter be president.
They believe Joe McCarthy was a righteous human being.
They fume that Nixon was railroaded.
They venerate Reagan as the Second Coming.
They use prejudice and bias on a regular basis.
They are cowards that pay there way out of any fair fight.

There are too many good people that have considered themselves Republicans to abdicate their legacy to these nihilists.

*JR*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Wrong on every count, but I guess that's why Dems, Left, Liberals have bbeen so successful in the last 6 years.


Has someone convinced you that the last 6 years have been a Republican success? Looked around at what they've accomplished lately?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Has someone convinced you that the last 6 years have been a Republican success? Looked around at what they've accomplished lately?

No Zig. I never said or implied that.

But if the Repubs have not been successful in the last few years why do they keep getting reelected?

Or maybe it's that the Dems have been so bad what ever the Repubs do is better.

Ed
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Who in the world are these 34%? Consider

Consider that Richard Nixon, even after his own counsel testified in Congress that he was involved in breaking and entering, even after documentary evidence was produced of his involvement in bribery, obstruction of justice, and the rest of what came to be known as "the White House Horrors", still had a 25% approval rating.
http://pollkatz.homestead.com/files/BNCapp_12756_image001.gif

I therefore conclude there are 25% of people who will vote "my Party right or wrong", no matter what. They are the same people who supported the most evil of dictators during World War II, even as the allies came marching down the street, they are the Baathists who said "Well, Saddam ain't so bad, at least to me", they are the people who cannot admit they were wrong, or that anybody else might have a point.

We get to see several of them on this board every day. The President still has about 10% to go. Perhaps we will be treated to watching one of two of them be stripped away before it is all over.

What a country.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I do not know your two year old or your little dog, however, I have complete faith that Hillary could do significantly worse. "


But she did such a good job on healthcare in the 90's, Right?
___________________________________

Yes Hillarycare was a winner alright. It is funny that someone out here posted saying look at all the Bush successes.

The Clinton's biggest success was not getting anything done. Maybe NAFTA and other stuff the Dems hate. My personal favorite is welfare reform - Clinton's biggest single success was dismantling what the liberals had built to a degree and what they now constantly complain is not big enough and have every intent of rebuilding. This is a group totally void of ideas and with absolutely nothing to offer.

The idea that John Kerry or Al Gore was the problem of the Democratic Party is laughable, they are the Democratic Party empty suits blowing in the wind complaining about everything and standing for nothing unsure of who to follow because they have no idea to lead with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<Has someone convinced you that the last 6 years have been a Republican success? Looked around at what they've accomplished lately?

Hmmm ...

President

Control of the House

Control of the Senate


Public spoke

Guess we find out in Nov what they are thinking again ....

As we know from the Last election .... They lie in Polls


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"As we know from the Last election .... They lie in Polls"

Well, someone did.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Has someone convinced you that the last 6 years have been a Republican success? Looked around at what they've accomplished lately?

I guess that depends on what your expectations were and what you define success as.

Regarding Iraq, getting Saddam out of power and giving the Iraqi people a fresh start was the expectation. That has happened. Granted it hasn't gone perfectly, but perfection isn't a realistic expectation. I certainly don't see it as an utter failure.

Regarding the economy, it's growing. Not every part of the country is taking part in the growth, but there's usually a localized political reason for that (the inept governor of Michigan, the inept political machine in Detroit, etc.)

The national budget is a mess, though I place more blame on domestic spending than military spending. It's still bad news in either case.

I've been quite pleased with the judicial appointments thus far, I'd consider that to be a success. I like Rumsfeld. I liked Ashcroft. I like Rice. I even like Delay (still) and Rove! Sure, they're controversial as hell, but I'd only be upset if I didn't agree with them! If it upsets the correct people, then it's a plus in my book.

I wouldn't even give Bush a failing grade on civil rights issues. He has been far more supportive of the second amendment than Clinton, a huge plus in my book. I see the concern with wiretapping, though I think it is misplaced considering the situation. I'm not worried about it.

Quite frankly, I'm not seeing this utter destruction of the country that is supposedly happening. I'm seeing it chug right along and even getting better in some not insignificant ways. It isn't perfect, but it's far better than the alternatives and, as I said before, expecting perfection is futile.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Public spoke

Guess we find out in Nov what they are thinking again ....


This is an excellent observation. I think that there's little arguing that Democrats have not been successful in winning elections. While they can complain about the GOP's agenda, there's little doubt that the public has voted in favor of GOP candidates in the last few election cycles.

The 34% represent those people whose views on political issues most closely match the policy priorities of the President, I imagine. They agree with him on the issues that they feel most strongly about. To the extent that they disagree with his policies, that disagreement relates to issues they don't care much about.

It will be interesting to see what happens in November.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 93
Hmmm ...
President
Control of the House
Control of the Senate



This says a lot about you. For you, "success" is political; merely winning elections is enough. As long as my side beats the other side.

For most of us, "success" is substantial, meaning the actual results. Elections don't indicate success; by winning elections, a politician gets the opportunity to succeed. A president isn't a success just because he got elected. He's a success or a failure based on the decisions he makes in office.

Look around you. Look at the budget. At the exponentially rising prices of health care and the millions of uninsured Americans. At the declining minimum wage. Look at the surging violence in Iraq, incubated by the awful security situation that was the direct result of Bush's decisions. Look at the declining oil and electricity output in Iraq.

Look at what Bush's support of torture has wrought, both in providing ammo to the enemy and tarnishing the image of America and our soldiers. Look at the moral standing that America has lost under his watch. We used to be able to lead the world. Those days are over, thanks to Bush's policies.

Look at what has been done to science under this administration. Stem cell research is held back, the very validity of the scientific method is again up for debate by those who think truth is revealed rather than discovered. Look at the anti-gay bigotry that has been inflamed and encouraged to flourish by the Republicans.

Look at the debt our progeny will have to pay, so that the wealthy could have their tax burden shifted onto the poor. And at the tapped national resources they will have to work with due to the Republicans' wastefulness and irresponsibility. Look at the damage done to our federal agencies under the neglect of cronies like Michael Brown.

This record of incompetence, malfeasance, irresponsibility and neglect just goes on and on. Yet, when it comes time to evaluate whether or not the party that has taken America down this path has been a success or a failure, all you have to say is "they won elections". Who cares about a strategy for governing the nation...all you care about is if Karl Rove has a strategy for sticking it to those dreaded fang-toothed Democrats. That's the true measure of success.

All they have to do is occupy positions and you are satisfied. That really explains a lot about you...and a lot about the Republican party.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Public spoke

Guess we find out in Nov what they are thinking again ....

As we know from the Last election .... They lie in Polls


Bears



Public spoke. That's right. Well, about half of them did. And half of them, a full quarter of the voting public, brought the current catastrophe on the remainder. I'm not whining: I am merely stating facts, bears. Too bad we can't get the other half to take their plight more seriously. Unfortunately we have an 'all or none' system that naturally lends itself to abuses by the party in the majority. As the Republicans have so aptly demonstrated over the last five years, this system, like the Electoral College, is outdated and inadequate to our rapidly changing political needs. It will not be changed, however, and the voters of the country will have to adapt themselves.

The state and local governments are one side of the equation. The Federal government is the other. The Feds get most of the attention here, generate most of the sound and thunder. State and local governments change rather slowly over time, I think. I suspect that they change more with population than by ideological impulse. Washington State is largely liberal because there are more liberals in Western Washington than there are conservatives in the East. I believe that the governorships are beginning to swing towards the Democrats. I don't know a lot about local governments at the county level.

The Federal government can change quite rapidly as witnessed in 1994 and with the presidential election of 2000. Congressional districts are subject to gerrymandering: witness the recent efforts by the infamous Bugman in Texas. This can have profound effects on how the 'will of the people' is actually manifested. Witness further the results of the presidential election of 2000 in Florida and that of 2004 in Ohio. A few votes here and there, honest or manipulated can profoundly alter the outcome. You do not strike me as a naive man, bears. However, I find your dismissive 'The people have spoken' routine to be more than a little facile and disingenuous. In fact, the vote is frequestly manipulated. There is substantial evidence that the presidential election of 1960 was decided by electoral fraud in the wards of Chicago. U.S. history is replete with examples of electoral fraud. In fact, the people have probably not had their say. The Republicans have just gotten better at cheating than the Democrats......for the time being. There is huge degree of hysteresis built into the system: a tweak here and a tweak there can profoundly alter the outcome of an election, particularly large-scale elections where the contestants are apt to be close in a winner-takes-all game.

I do not deny that the country has had a swing to the Right. Again, history is replete with generational swings in voter mood. I suspect that 2004 will prove to be the maximum rightward excursion of the political mood of the country. There are signs writ large on the political wall that the electorate is tired of the current political climate and regime.

Unfortunately the Democrats face two huge hurdles in their attempt to regtain political strength. The first is electoral fraud. The second is a woeful lack of credible candidates.


Jimbo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
All they have to do is occupy positions and you are satisfied. That really explains a lot about you...and a lot about the Republican party.

While I would hardly want to defend the Administration's record, this is pretty unfair. Under a democracy, the "test" for whether a policy should be pursued is whether it ultimately garners the support of the people.

Government involves policy choices, and very often it involves making decisions where there isn't a "right" or "best" answer. You disagree with the Administration's policy decisions, and no doubt there are a lot of folks who share your opinion. But there are lots of folks who disagree with you, both in terms of your characterization of the situation and whether it is beneficial or not.

The political process is how we evaluate those competing visions of the Good. Winning elections is not just about occupying positions - they constitute referenda about the underlying policy choices being made by competing candidates.

By and large, we ground the legitimacy of government decision-making based on the fact that such decisions are ratified by the governed, measured by popular vote. There are numerous exceptions, of course - but that's the general principle underlying democracy.

Winning elections is more than occupying positions, and should certainly be considered a measure of how successfully a party or coalition is representing the wishes of its constituency. It's not the only measure, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
While I would hardly want to defend the Administration's record, this is pretty unfair. Under a democracy, the "test" for whether a policy should be pursued is whether it ultimately garners the support of the people.

The Republican party is a lot more than just the administration. The failure of these policies, while primarily the responsibility of Bush, can be attributed to everyone who has supported them, including the people who voted for Bush last time around.

Sure, they "succeeded" as far as winning the election goes. But by any reasonable measure of the results they have achieved they have been a failure. And by no means did I mean to say that Bush and his administration are the only ones responsible. The culpability is shared by every single one who has supported the policies that have failed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hmmm ...
President
Control of the House
Control of the Senate


I have to say these guys are really good at winning elections.

They're just pitifully bad at running a government.

I guess I would hope for someone who could do both.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
But by any reasonable measure of the results they have achieved they have been a failure.

I understand your sentiment - but all you're really saying is that the only reasonable measure of administration policy is one that coincides with your own personal perspectives on the issues. For example, I'll excerpt two paragraphs of your original post:

Look at what has been done to science under this administration. Stem cell research is held back, the very validity of the scientific method is again up for debate by those who think truth is revealed rather than discovered. Look at the anti-gay bigotry that has been inflamed and encouraged to flourish by the Republicans.

Look at the debt our progeny will have to pay, so that the wealthy could have their tax burden shifted onto the poor. And at the tapped national resources they will have to work with due to the Republicans' wastefulness and irresponsibility. Look at the damage done to our federal agencies under the neglect of cronies like Michael Brown.


There are those who regard it as a success that stem cell research has been held back - they believe that the moral implications of such research outweigh the potential benefits. There are those who question the scientific method, or who believe that its inconsistencies with revealed truth are attributable to bias or malfeasance on behalf of those who implement it.

There are those who believe that anti-gay bigotry is an appropriate response to homosexuality. Nor is there any clear, universal rule that allows us to determine whether it is better to conserve resources for the future instead of using them to solve present day problems. And there are many who believe that federal agencies are not the appropriate means for solving problems, and that they should not receive nearly the attention or resources they currently get.

I assume that you disagree with most of the positions described above; for the record, I do as well. But neither of us is a philosopher-king, with the right to decide that our own views are the only "reasonable measure" of policy and that these views are therefore "unreasonable." If the outcome of the political process is that the views described above are favored by the majority of participants, then that's the legitimate outcome. Demeaning that process as merely "filling offices" doesn't do justice to that outcome.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I assume that you disagree with most of the positions described above; for the record, I do as well. But neither of us is a philosopher-king, with the right to decide that our own views are the only "reasonable measure" of policy and that these views are therefore "unreasonable."


Pardon me, but I do happen to think bigotry, especially when it manifests itself in an effort to make one group of people the legal inferiors of another, is "unreasonable."

I mean, sure, that's just my opinion. Others may disagree and believe that science is all an atheistic lie, god hates homosexuals, and so forth. I'm sure somewhere someone thinks that the Katrina response was a rousing success, that Baghdad is no more dangerous than Detroit, and that people should be stoned to death for printing pictures of Muhammad. But I'm not about to pretend that all opinions are equal and those should be considered reasonable.

I assume that you disagree with most of the positions described above; for the record, I do as well. But neither of us is a philosopher-king, with the right to decide that our own views are the only "reasonable measure" of policy and that these views are therefore "unreasonable." If the outcome of the political process is that the views described above are favored by the majority of participants, then that's the legitimate outcome. Demeaning that process as merely "filling offices" doesn't do justice to that outcome.

I made no claim to philosopher-king status. It's a critique of the policies that the United States government has pursued for the past six years, based on the results of those policies. I can't see that there is much of a "reasonable" case to be made that these policies have been a success. And I certianly don't think they are in any way - any way whatsoever - vindicated by the fact that they came from democratic process. Clearly a democratic government is quite capable of pursuing policies which fail. The government can be be judged as a success or failure no matter how many people voted for it.

As for demeaning the democratic process, I didn't. I said that to measure success in terms of winning elections is facile and reveals some interesting truths about those who would use that as a yardstick of importance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I mean, sure, that's just my opinion. Others may disagree and believe that science is all an atheistic lie, god hates homosexuals, and so forth. I'm sure somewhere someone thinks that the Katrina response was a rousing success, that Baghdad is no more dangerous than Detroit, and that people should be stoned to death for printing pictures of Muhammad. But I'm not about to pretend that all opinions are equal and those should be considered reasonable.

Nor should you pretend that all opinions are reasonable. But you've cast those "opinions" in the worst possible light.

Others believe that science is sometimes cited more strongly in support of public policy than the state of knowledge permits, or ignores moral considerations that are very important. They believe that gay marriage does not require legal accommodation, whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not. They don't believe that responding to Katrina should have been the federal government's responsibility (although I think there will be a political price for this - see below). They recognize that Bagdad is still more dangerous than Detroit, but still likely to be better off in the long term than it would have been under Hussein. I don't imagine there are any Bush supporters in favor of stoning the Danish cartoonists, BTW.

I disagree with most of the above, but can see where a voter who holds those opinions would regard much of what the administration has done a success.

Now then, there are a few things - Katrina response being one of them - that most voters would regard as evidence of incompetence. Those have not been submitted to the voters, since they took place after 2004. Indeed, I imagine that the GOP will face some considerable flak for Katrina and what's been happening in Iraq.

But the earlier poster's point is well taken - the fact that the GOP keeps winning elections is presumptive evidence that the electorate is generally happy with the way they've been running the federal government, even if it's not the way that you or I might want it run.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
At the exponentially rising prices of health care and the millions of uninsured Americans. At the declining minimum wage.

Once again proof that Democrats refuse to accept basic economics and yet another reason I will never vote Dem.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

Once again proof that Democrats refuse to accept basic economics and yet another reason I will never vote Dem.

Mike



Yeah.... like the basic economics of spending every penny ourselves, children, and grandchildren are likely to make -- stripping aid to those in real need -- and refusing to raise taxes to pay for any of this madness. Bush really understand economics all right. What a genius!


And... the Democrats are not compassionate and caring like the Republicans who care SO much for the elderly that they have caused them nothing at all but grief:



In Medicare Maze, Some Find They're Tangled in Two Drug
Plans
By ROBERT PEAR
A result of "computer glitches," the situation leaves
patients at risk of being charged two premiums or incorrect co-payments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/national/01medicare.html?th&emc=th


--------------


This country is on the verge of breaking apart.
(I'm serious about this.)
Families have broken up since the Republicans have taken office -- broken up to the point where brother and sister and parents no longer even speak to each other. People talk of leaving the country altogether. Others talk of some states breaking away and forming their own nation. Yet others talk of the shame they feel that other nations see what we have done and are doing wrt torture and thumbing our noses at real freedom and democracy while we march steadily toward a kind of theocratic fascism.

This is the first time I have ever heard such talk or witnessed such personal devastation on this kind of scale in this country. I'm not sure if it is too late to turn it around or if it is simply beyond saving at this point. But the cracks are there and they are widening.

This is really serious stuff we are talking about here -- way more serious than "I'm right, you're wrong" arguments between Democrats and Republicans. I just wonder if enough of us have the smarts to recognize what is happening ... or will we simply continue annointing those wheels of division as we continue down the road to ruin...

AM

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Can't help but LMAO at the annointed.

Look there's a problem, I can't believe that everyone won't just agree with me and all the people that are complaining so the problem will go away. Can't everyone else just see they are wrong and agree with me.

This is great stuff thanks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Families have broken up since the Republicans have taken office -- broken up to the point where brother and sister and parents no longer even speak to each other. People talk of leaving the country altogether. Others talk of some states breaking away and forming their own nation. Yet others talk of the shame they feel that other nations see what we have done and are doing wrt torture and thumbing our noses at real freedom and democracy while we march steadily toward a kind of theocratic fascism.

I'd say that's a bit of an exaggeration. I don't doubt that some people won't talk to others because of politics, even family members... but I wouldn't say that this is something unprecidented in even our relatively short history. It wouldn't appear to come close to the level of disagreement that lead to the civil war.

Don't confuse the vocal minority with the majority on either side. Those of us arguing on PA are pretty die-hard and vocal. I have many Republican friends who are generally against Social Security and the Minimum Wage, but not to the degree I am (they'd like to see it go away, but not enough to say so publically.) I'm sure you have Democratic friends with the opposite views but who are equally private about them. Or maybe you don't, which is why you think things are worse than they are, but I certainly know plenty of Dems who are far less hard-core, so to speak.

I'm pretty much the only Republican in my family. They're all blue-collar union types who vote Democratic and always have. Some are more hard-core than others, but we still talk... just not politics. We all know where we stand, nobody is going to change anyone's minds. Most of my immediate coworkers on patrol are Republican, while those in the offices are Democrat. We just see things differently, and agree to disagree.

I'd say that the impending division view is not new, every generation has their epic moments. Some do act on them, of course, but there just doesn't seem to be the passion in it this time. This isn't the 1960's. This isn't the 1860's. This isn't 1776. I'm not worried. Then again, my side is in power, so maybe I'm just too content to worry. Either way, for a student of history these are interesting times to some degree.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Once again proof that Democrats refuse to accept basic economics and yet another reason I will never vote Dem.

Since I'm not a Democrat, all you've really proved is your willingness to believe whatever reinforces your preconceived notions.

Good job!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This isn't the 1960's. This isn't the 1860's. This isn't 1776. I'm not worried. Then again, my side is in power, so maybe I'm just too content to worry.


If you are content with this government, it's too late for you to worry.

AM
Print the post Back To Top