« Taliban Taking Over Pakistan | Main | Classification Is Not Declassification »

July 01, 2007


I have been a proponent that Dems stick to their core progressive principles and not get too cute with triangulation. There's no need for Sista Souljah type moments. The majority of the country recognize what "compassionate conservatism" is and what type of policies they engender - cronyism, authoritarianism, transfer of wealth to elites, racism, wars on false pretenses, etc.

I also hope the Dems will exhibit more political courage and challenge the Repubs with more vigor and get beyond the Dems as wimps meme.

The independents will come along as will most of the country.

I forsee I's flocking to D's in congressional races, and probably the WH too. I do fall back on the outsized personality factor in Presidential elections in believing that if Hillary is the nominee we will have a much hard road to hoe among the culturally rightmost I's (who undoubtedly are somewhat populist.). I'd say these targets are in the Western Mountain and Midwest swing states. Maybe we'd have a shot at picking up these voters and a state like VA if we had Edwards or Mark Warner on the ticket, but that may not happen. It would be nice to win very big, rather than squeak through. I can't see Hillary winning big if her "won't vote for under any circumstances" numbers don't change.

But fortunately for us the GOP field is so weak, although Fred has some upside potential. If the GOP could nominate a younger or female populist who was willing to run against the war, they'd be in the game. (Where is such a Republican? In coming years, possibly nothing short of a SuperNominee, combined with an incompetent D incumbent, and/or an external event, will be needed to capture the WH).

I have no idea if I am a typical Indie, but for me it's the problem of seeing two entrenched parties that both suck at the Big Money teat. I am definitely a leftward Indie, no way am I voting for a anyone with an (R) next to their name. I keep looking for an excuse to rejoin the D's but they continue to push me away.

What ab initio states is one huge problem: "I also hope the Dems will exhibit more political courage and challenge the Repubs with more vigor and get beyond the Dems as wimps meme." They need to hire Lakoff and learn how to frame issues correctly. They need to use this same reasoning to kick Holy Joe to the fucking curb. They need to distinquish themselves from the R's by talking to us voters as adults. We know there are problems and we want them addressed, not buried in some political mumbo jumbo talking points that impress noone. Gore only post-2000 seems to have figured this out. We can take the bad news, but let's do something about it - action over words, progress over politics.

I believe there is a huge untapped population (some Indies, some D's and even a few moderate R's) who are screaming for candidates who will tackle the money whoredom in politics (publicly financed campaigns), the environment, health care, the war/military, and candidates who are steadfast in representing the 98% of us instead of the wealthiest 2%.

Indie, while there are a lot of you (and I hope more by the day), you are definitely not the voter this study was aimed at. The fact you said "no way am I voting for a anyone with an (R) next to their name" puts you in a Leftist category, not a "veering between D and R" category that is the vast majority of swing voters. When you say you're independent, I take it you may or may not vote for a Democrat, which certainly is an independent spirit, but it doesn't make you the swing voter being studied. Get in the game by working in the Dem primary to influence the choice of a candidate who meets your requirements.

If you want to talk Independent, then there is essentially on one on this Blog that you can see up close. (Warts and all.)
... here I stand quickly, and smile briefly, shyly at the hostile crowd, and then sit down triple quick.

I think that there are no homogenous Independent voters. I mean by that any one voter will have a different outlook on different issues. Maybe a little conservative there, a little libertarian there, a little liberal there.
We don't like the Blind Devotion expended on the major parties. Democrat and Republican. It is kind of like dumb animals with blinders on.

I like to think of myself as an eclectic conservative Independent.

Most of us like the Republicans on defense and security. The Democrats are seen as too namby pamby.
If there isn't a war then the Democrats come more into play.

Today though, the Republicans have royally f***ed up the war, the nations security, the nation's treasury. And we are moving toward 4,000 dead in Iraq. There is a bad taste in the Independents mouth.

We don't like throwing money away though there seems no difference really between the parties.

Yes today the Democrats will reap some Independents because of the war. In Nov 2008, we shall have to see how much of that is still in play.

Independents would generally think that the Democratic Congress is showing its ass, literally and figuratively. Oversight, oversight may play well with the blogs, but get on to the "Good Governing" DemFromCT likes to speak of. Get good legislation passed, or at least spend your time trying to do it. If the Republicans stop you, then they are showing their hinds.

I know payback is fun, but the way I am looking at it is that the Democrats haven't achieved much, and they are doing it on my dime.

From what I've read here, you are no Independent Jodi. You continue to spout right-wing talking points and seemingly believe them.

For example: "Most of us like the Republicans on defense and security. The Democrats are seen as too namby pamby." Yes, this is the MSM meme, yet it's as false as could possibly be. Name one thing the Neocons have done right on natl security. They were on watch for 9/11, they have still not secured our borders, the wars have made us less safe without even a hint of tangible benefits, and they treat the actually military like shit.

At least you seem to have grasped the reality that the R's are not conservative with your money.

Then there is this: "Oversight, oversight may play well with the blogs, but get on to the "Good Governing" DemFromCT likes to speak of. Get good legislation passed, or at least spend your time trying to do it. If the Republicans stop you, then they are showing their hinds." Are you even paying attention, Jodi? Because this is exactly what is happening. The R's are obstructing every good thing the D's wanted to accomplish. They are doing the very things they so decried of the D's for the past 6 years. The mistake the D's are making is not calling them out on their obstruction every day. Are you listening Harry?

Jukesgrrrl: "Get in the game by working in the Dem primary to influence the choice of a candidate who meets your requirements."

Believe me, despite my disenchantment with the D's, I am in the game and have been. I volunteered for a congressional race last fall that lost and I am currently on an exploratory committee for a Sen. candidate in Oregon to take on Sen. Gordon Rubber Stamper Smith.

What it comes down to is my own ethics and beliefs. I cannot join an organization that doesn't meet the high demands I expect. I will work to destroy the GOP but the Dems have plenty of areas that need much improvement and I will continue to make sure they hear those complaints too.

thyere's only gonna be two partys on the ballot in November of 2008

you can vote for a repuglican to continue george bush's foolish war

or you can vote for the Party opposed to george's foolish war

the Democrats ain't doing much, but the repuglicans are doing everything WRONG

America doesn't even trust repuglicans to fight the enemies anymore

the Democrats are gonna have to unify at some point, but I don't see it happening until AFTER the 2008 election, when we know 'zactly how big our majority is

I hope you all read the link... indies are divided into 5 groups. Some are disguised partisans who usually vote one way. Most are swing or disconnected. They lean D, not R, but can be persuaded.

And they all feel like Jodi does about the war.

Jodi--Are you aware that the House has passed a great number of bills, as has the Senate but the Republicans in the Senate will not allow any of them to proceed to conference where the differencs can be reconciled so that both houses can then pass the exact same bill? That the GOP actually brags about this? See here.

Why hasn’t the Democratic Congress had greater success passing legislation in its first six months? Because 239 separate pieces of legislation have passed the House, only to find Senate Republicans “objecting to just about every major piece of legislation” that Harry Reid has tried to bring to the floor.
The Democrats, who truly are interested in governing, did not do this when the Repubs were in power. If you want to see the war end (and your brother come home) and some legisaltion that might benefot you, welcome to the Democratic Party.


you are correct in the main.

And that is why I voted for someone whom I consider a comedian John Kerry instead of a homicidal idiot George Bush in 2004.

We could talk about the Legislation a while, but that is not important here. The only good Legislation I can think of off hand is the Minimum Wage Increase. About time.

But this is what worries me on two levels Mimikatz.

If (and when) America gets a few bombs over here in the homeland, yes some people can say the Republicans failed us. But I believe that a majority will also look at what the Democrats have been about, and what they have been talking about.

And when the voting time comes November 2008, they will look at the past Republicans as fools and maniacs run amok, and choose some new good old fire breathing fighting Republicans.

My choice then might be Prosecutor/Senator/Actor good old boy Fred Thompson. Not perfect but seeminly the pick of the litter both sides.

What the Democrats need to do is get their House in Order and Propose a reasonable BattlePlan for the War against Terrorism. Vote for money and troops. Not pork and bribes.

Put it in the open, in plain language, publish it, get the Democrat Presidential hopefuls to come on board fully, and then dare the Republicans to come to the table or turn their backs. Then the Democrats might win the White House in Nov 2008.

Fred Thompson? The guy who said that Cubans fleeing Castro were terrorists? He may be thinking of those released in the 1980's, but that's not the case now. He doesn't seem to know much about Iraq, either. "Nor yet ready for Prime time" is what people are calling him. See here

Take a look at Edwards or Obama.

All of us have warts, Mimikatz.

I think Politicians have a lot more, or maybe they just have a lot more chances at bobbling the ball like a shortstop who handles it a lot on tricky bounces.

Fred is no different.

You can pick out sound and video bites/bytes of any of the candidates that sound good or bad depending on the audience.

A human has the ability to sum all of this. Do a bit of remembering, a bit of internal analysis on it, and then they make up their mind because they have a certain feeling.

Now for the dyed in the wool Republicans or Democrats, they are saved from any kind of thinking at all at least for the most part.


I looked at the article. I decided that I didn't fit totally into any of the classes.

Of the only two Presidential Elections I have been able to vote in 2000, and 2004. I voted first Republican with high hopes and then Democratic with only disgust.

I think I remarked before, but I am reminded tonight by the reports where they said it is about 140+ degrees F some places in Iraq. Add to that all the equipment the men wear and it is a furnace.

When the war in Iraq was being approached, I asked my 2 brothers and my father all in the active military at that time, why not wait and check on the weapons some more. What was the hurry? Sadam wasn't going anywhere. He really wasn't all that dangerous to us.

My older brother who is still in Iraq, said that they had to go before it got hot, and supposedly the Pentagon/White House wanted to do it that year because the next year was an election year.

Well my brother is over there now (today, their time) in 140+ degree F heat. So, so much for that particular planning.

I must consider that the USA and the world are in much more danger today than we were when this mess was started. I must consider Mr Bush as only trying to cover his ass with his statements.

The truth as I understand it,...,is that the "surge" might have worked if it was 120,000 men but not 20,000 or 30,000. The war might have stayed won if there had been 270,000+ men on the ground when the statue fell instead of 135,000+ or so.

If Bush couldn't get enough to do the job, he should have said, I can't stay there with less, and then got out of Dodge.

But, now should I jump to the Democrats who I honestly believe probably are going to inherit this mess? That thought gives me queasy thoughts. I think when they get their big chance to take charge, they will muff it even more.

But at least maybe my brother will come home for a while.

How can they "muff it even more"? Our foreign policy couldn't be a more dangerous clusterfuck then it is now. Really, I asked you earlier to name one thing the Bush/Cheney/Rubberstamp Congress did right on nat'l security since 9/11?

As for the article, I don't fit into any single Indie category either. I'm a combo of Disillusioned, Disguised Partisan, and Dislocated.

I think DemfromCT made a very important observation that ties all the Indies together...the Iraq War. I have a feeling there aren't too many Indies of any stripe that subscribe to the Faux News True Believers club: that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that we found the WMD, and that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots. But hey, let's leave that crowd in charge of foreign policy. How 'bout it Jodi?

What political party members think of independent voters does not matter in any way. The United States was organized and established by independent voters, not by party members. George Washington said that political parties would do exactly what they have done to this nation. Abraham Lincoln was exactly right when he said that a house divided cannot stand.
Register independent.
Robert B. Winn

Political party tactics--Watch for this in your state.
In November of 2005 a party spokesman in Arizona was asked about the 7% increase in independent voters that had taken place between 2000 and 2004.
"No problem," he said, "The political parties took care of that with a new voter registration form."
Sure enough, a new voter registration form had gone into effect in 2005 on which the option to register as an independent voter had been removed leaving only a space marked Specify Party Preference. The effect of the new voter registration form can be seen in statistics obtained from the Secretary of State for new registrations of independent voters.

2000-2002 107,715
2002-2004 165,771
2004-2006 26,483

The fact that this is a direct violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not concern party politicians at all. They appoint all the judges who decide what federal law means.
In the end, tactics like this one will be the downfall of the two-party system in the United States. Unless party politicians can decrease registration of independent voters to zero, they have only added to their troubles. The fact that 26,000 people registered to vote as independent voters on a voter registration form that tells them they have to register as party members shows that political parties cannot stop registration of independent voters in the United States.
The reason for this is that independent voters by their existence protect voter registration in the United States, whereas, political parties try to destroy it. Originally all voters in the United States were independent voters. There were no organized political parties until the election of 1800.
Protect free elections. Register independent.
Robert B. Winn

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad