True moderate? Same as a true believer? What is that really? I tend to lean a little to the right but in this forum that's considered right wing. Batman, since you read this forum frequently, you know that I have not been happy with the policies and actions of the Bush administration. I was hoping he would be a moderate conservative, but he has, shall we say, strayed from the mark. Hindsight is almost always 20-20. Apologies, but Nancy Pelosi does scare the pants off me. I understand Harry Reid, although he has to walk a finer line considering his Nevada constituency. At present, I believe we need to change our leadership. However, I do not wish to veer all the way to the shoulder on the other side of the road. That is why I am hoping the Democratic Party will plot its course carefully. Appealing to the broad middle, IMO, is the wiser course.
why did your poll ask the political leaning? is it impossible for a non-liberal to think that bush commited and impeachable offense?
Osama bin Laden founded al Queda, Mao introduced both the GLF and the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot killed millions of Cambodians, genocides occurred in Rwanda, the Congo, Somalia, and the Sudan, the Vietnam war claimed over a million lives, Saddam Hussein had a reign of terror and death in Iraq that killed over a million people, all in the last 50 years. If you really think Bush did more harm to the world than anyone else, then you sir, are an idiot.
did he say to the world exlusively? he clearly said to the country and to the world.. who from your examples has done more harm to the country than bush? I know OBL and 911.. then Bush attacked Iraq because of 911 even if iraq had nothing to do with it.. question is what has a bigger negative effect on the US? 911 or iraq war?
Bush has committed many impeachable offenses that WE KNOW OF. He should not be impeached. He should be put in jail.
I meant to say compared to anyone else in this country in the past 50 years, Bush has done more harm to both the country and the world. If I were comparing Bush to Sadam or OBL, I would be chanting "death penalty for Bush", instead of "jail time", wouldn't I? In the long run, Bush's world policy may have more negative impacts to the world than a lot of the things you mentioned above. But that remains to be seen.
I'm left-liberal and I think the best way to deal with him is to emasculate him at the mid-term elections. Then wait out the rest of his term. And wait for history to decide if Dubya belongs in the ranks of the mediocre...or, as I believe, perhaps one of the worst Presidents ever to hold the office.
I have heard others wish the Democrats would veer more to the middle of the road than they are now. Personally I think they are too much in the middle, and it has cost them in elections in 2002 and 2004. The instant they move to the middle, then people will say(even more than they do now) there is no difference between them and the GOP. And because they are Democrats and might veer to the left at any moment, the Republican voters wont' switch their voting habits and the Democrats lose. The Democrats need to get the people who agree with them on issues out to vote. The uglier the races become the more the average voter is turned off by politics all together, and even though they agree with the Democrats on issues they won't bother because their opinion of all politicians is negative, and they feel it won't make a difference who wins, so they won't bother themselves with voting. The only to way to change that and get the voters to the polls in large numbers is to offer a new direction, loads of charisma, and as large of a contrasting choice with the Republicans as possible.
Id like to see him go but Impeachment is just not an option....Hopefully, like Major Malcontent said, the elections will emasculate him....
And people like Pelosi, Finegold, Howard Dean, etc. are middle of the road? FB, I understand the lament of the tweedledum-tweedledee argument, but that really is the complaint of the media more than anything else. After all, a good fight makes for great stories. However, because the two parties since the aftermath of the Civil War were built on broad spectra -- with conservative and liberal wings -- there has always been a peaceful transition of power. However, I am afraid we are going the way of Mexico in that regard. I know. I know. It's not quite the same but I'm looking at the trend of liberal-conservative hatred in this country. Tweedledum-Tweedledee politics isn't sexy or exciting but the country runs smoother and people are happier. The ship of state is very like one of those gigantic supertankers -- it takes a long time to start, turn or stop.
I disagree entirely. Moving more to the left creates the same two elections. We'll be wasting time over Florida and Ohio again and it'll be a crapshoot again. Look at the states Clinton won when he ran for election. States like Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.. won't be won with candidates that push more to the left. They'll be won with moderates that can criticize the administration while avoiding the stupid GOP machine that will label them as weak. Sorry people are stupid and will buy the garbage that the GOP will put out on leftist candidates. We complain about the climate of fear but that becomes magnified with a more liberal candidate. I say Mark Warner in 2008. He's a governor (so there's no senate record to follow him around). He ran a Republican state with an 80+% approval rating and was voted best governor in the country by several polls. He balanced Virginia's budget and introduced education reforms there that have created a statewide school system ranked as the best in the country. He's also considered a moderate that worked with a Republican dominated state Congress to pass several key pieces of legislation and would promote an aura of bipartisanship that is sorely needed. Republican voters like Thumbs who are somewhat disillusioned with the administration aren't going to vote for ultra-liberal candidates. If you want to make a real dent in the next election and break through traditionally Republican states, you'll need someone that Republicans will actually be comfortable in voting for. That's why in the Pennsylvania senate race, Santorum is getting destroyed. The Democrats put out a moderate Democrat who is actually anti-abortion (although generally liberal on a lot of other things) because it brings over swing voters and disenfranchised Republicans. This country would be best served if we can get a corps of moderate Democrats and Republicans back into the House and Senate and if we can get a moderate from either party in the White House who won't become a puppet from the extreme of either party. It's what made guys like Eisenhower and Truman so well respected today. They both got flack when they were president for being too much of a "moderate" but now are generally looked upon as above average presidents.
Well, he openly broke the law with wiretapping ordeal. This is why I feel George W. Bush should be impeached.
if he changed the laws, then congress must not exsist... oh and the supreme court must think they're constitutionally legal too. name them. name all of the offenses that WE KNOW OF. i'm calling you out, what crime has he commited? he hasn't even lied to a court, like clinton did.
One of the better posts I've seen in some time. Way to go... For some reason, the liberal incliniation is to think far left is the way to go, but as someone who is right on national/personal defense and left on many domestic issues...I wish there were other posters who would push this as the way to go. The way I felt about the Democratic President Truman as stated in the past was genuine...I felt he absolutely foot the bill on my criteria of being strong on personal/national defense and left on many domestic issues...That is the exemplary leadership I want NOW!...But I'm afraid the cater mentality to the far-left new age democratic mindset will stifle another Truman...THAT IS NOT WHAT I WANT!...The Question I have for others is am I being reasonable? Your opinion please...
That is because the republican controled congress has not pressured him to answer questions under oath.
I agree. I think Bush has committed more than one impeachable offense, but I don't think Democrats, after they take back Congress in November, should impeach him. Instead, as you pointed out, Major Malcontent, castrate him politically. Prevent him from damaging the country more than he has already. And most importantly, build a record in Congress that is progressive, different from the extremism we've suffered from with this Administration and the far-right GOP Congressional leadership, and present the American people with proof that not only are Democrats different from Republicans, but that they offer real, and better, alternatives to governing than the corrupt idiots currently in control. Keep D&D Civil.
Wait a second. Holding someone accountable equals extremism? I don't want them to spend $100 millions on this, but that is what take to stop the idiots waisting $5 billion a month for the next two years, so be it.
but you implied that if Democrats try to impeach Bush, it won't be different from the extremism we have experienced.
