Why are the Democrats after Bush?

[telewinz]

Has Bush done anything for the Dems to criticize?

[thorn]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

oh the republican drone, so well programmed.

[Standing Wolf]

Having nothing to propose, the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party have nothing else to do with their time than sit around complaining.

[grampster]

He breathes?  Or did you leave the word "not" out of your question?

[Ron]

Criticism is fine if it is offered with an alternative plan.

The Democrats are real short on idea men/women.

[The Rabbi]

Criticism is fine if it is offered with an alternative plan.

The Democrats are real short on idea men/women.

I disagree.  The Democrats have plenty of ideas.  Ideas that win elections.  As long as that election was held in 1968 or something.  As of now they are banging the same old drum and no one is listening.  Their theme seems to be "we need to be elected because otherwise Republicans will be and we can't have THAT."  Not a good strategy.

[Ben]

Their theme seems to be "we need to be elected because otherwise Republicans will be and we can't have THAT."  Not a good strategy.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Moondoggie]

It's that "Frog & scorpion" thing..on a grand scale, as if it matters.

Yeah, I can hardly wait for the next election cycle.  Thank goodness for DVR's/TIVO!!!

[K Frame]

"he Democrats have plenty of ideas.  Ideas that win elections.  As long as that election was held in 1968 or something."

The past is great.

As long as you don't try to live in it.

[Antibubba]

It is easier to find fault in others than to examine your own.

[thorn]

>>As long as that election was held in 1968 or something.<<

uh or 1992 0r 1996.
you guys make me laugh. as if republicans didnt take every oppurtunity to do the same when Clinton was in office.

Lewinsky. now THERE was something worth complaining about.

reading these sites it becomes very clear why neither side gets anywhere,  both are in total denial.
mistakes are only made by the opposite side.
there's justification for EVERYthing your side does.

[TarpleyG]

there's justification for EVERYthing your side does.

To some maybe.  I voted for Bush and here is a small sample of what I am unhappy about:

1) Border policy is a joke
2) PATRIOT Act - don't even get me started...
3) We need to take a more agressive role in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere if we intend to defeat our enemy
4) Spending is WAY out of control...what are they doing, printing this money as we go along?
5) "No child left behind" BS = dumbing down of America

There's probably a bunch more that I am forgetting about...

Greg

[Perd Hapley]

As long as that election was held in 1968 or something.

uh or 1992 0r 1996.

Didn't Clinton win by playing to the right, just as Bush has?  The point being that left-wing politics is not popular.

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

Didn't Clinton win by playing to the right, just as Bush has?  The point being that left-wing politics is not popular.

DingDingDingDing! Good Answer! Tell'im what he's won, Johnny!

[The Rabbi]

>>As long as that election was held in 1968 or something.<<

uh or 1992 0r 1996.
you guys make me laugh. as if republicans didnt take every oppurtunity to do the same when Clinton was in office.

Lewinsky. now THERE was something worth complaining about.

You dont think abuse of power and lying under oath are worth complaining about?  That makes you part of the problem.

[Moondoggie]

+1 Rabbi!

I don't care that he was an unfaithful dog, dissing Hillary who he describes as "My moral compass"...scary thought.  How stupid do you have to be to think that an intern who's wacko enough to come on to the POTUS in the Oval Office is gonna keep it a secret after she comes out from under the desk??  Thinking with the wrong head at that level is a little below expectations.

I do care that he lied under oath about the Paula Jones sexual harassment thing.

Also +1 for Greg's list!

[Waitone]

Problem is people ain't buyin' what democrats are selling but they at least have identifiable belief system.  I find it increasingly difficult to identify just exactly what it is republicans believe.  

My conclusion is both parties only believe in the acquisition and maintenance of power.  Just like every gang, mob, and fascist form of government.

[Perd Hapley]

My conclusion is both parties only believe in the acquisition and maintenance of power.

You were expecting politicians to be idealists?  Don't.  Both parties have platforms, and members believe in more or less of it.  However, political parties only exist because party organization is a more effective way to win elections (and thereby gain power).  Thereby, the power-hungry will seek places in those organizations, even if they don't believe in every plank of the platform.

I see it this way.  People don't just stumble into positions of high office.  Most who get these offices are ambitious people who have clawed their way to the top.  Therefore, we should expect many of them to be more interested in power and position than in principles.

We have primaries and elections so that we may keep such people in line.

[Art Eatman]

Generalizing:  The liberals, far more than conservatives, have always--well, since the 1960s--been given to shrill personal attacks.  They are far more passionate in their beliefs, as we've all mentioned in discussions of pro-gun vs. anti-gun.  Why would they be more given to rational interpretation of facts on other issues?

When you have people to whom facts are less important than perceptions, and are extremely passionate about ideology, you wind up with ad hominem attacks against any who disagree with them.  Add to this that there is the loss of power and their decades-long control over the federal budget, with Democrats in Congress happy to fan the fires of their constituents, and you have this unending yawping.

Art

[Antibubba]

When you have people to whom facts are less important than perceptions, and are extremely passionate about ideology

Art, if you take out "perceptions" and insert "faith-based beliefs", you can apply the same observation to "Conservatives".

[thorn]

To some maybe.  I voted for Bush and here is a small sample of what I am unhappy about:

1) Border policy is a joke
2) PATRIOT Act - don't even get me started...
3) We need to take a more agressive role in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere if we intend to defeat our enemy
4) Spending is WAY out of control...what are they doing, printing this money as we go along?
5) "No child left behind" BS = dumbing down of America

There's probably a bunch more that I am forgetting about...

Greg
yeah, there's lots more you are forgetting.
National ID- thanks Bush for opening the door to TOTAL gun control

but all of that is less important than what Clinton did outside of his responsibilities in office.
sure, lying under oath was very very wrong- BUT should he ever have been asked in the first place?
why was it so important he might have cheated on his wife?
Y'ALL HAD NOTHING. you didnt like him, so instead of being decent Americans and waiting for the next election, you tried to boot him.
Clinton's mistake was dealing with the issue at all.

ps-
the temporary assault weapons ban will work out to NOTHING after this national ID kicks in.

drone on republicans, drone on.

[Perd Hapley]

Art, if you take out "perceptions" and insert "faith-based beliefs", you can apply the same observation to "Conservatives".

Faith-based beliefs like human rights, fairness, freedom of conscience?

You don't believe in those?

[Art Eatman]

Antibubba, the percentage of conservatives who are "into" faith-based initiatives is fairly small.  I'm pretty conservative, but I give little heed to any political reasoning which is inspired by some other person's faith.  Or their idiotology, either, for that matter.

As I have interacted with folks at mostly-liberal sites, I see far more ad hominem attacks.  As I watch TV, I notice that liberals tend to be more emotional than conservatives--think of the Sunday morning talking-head shows.  Heck, isn't it Colmes who usually gets excited before Hannity does?

, Art

[Ezekiel]

"You dont think abuse of power and lying under oath are worth complaining about?"

If it stems fom a blowjob?  No, I am not concerned.  I might be somewhat irrational, too, if my political agenda was usurped due to such trivialities.  What happened to Clinton is akin to what would occur now if there was an open investigation into Bush's previous use of cocaine: a bag of worms.

The real issue is whether such activity, or activities, directly minimizes one's ability to act as the Executive.  Based upon the available evidence in either case, I say "no".  Neither should be investigated, cost us millions in taxpayer $$$, or make as international laughingstocks.  Hell, with their finger on the button, I hope our Presidents are receiving all sorts of oral stimulation.  With the stress of that job, they deserve it...

[Antibubba]

Maybe I should have said "faith-based" logic.