Democrats: "She just can't hold up, cap'n!"

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../11/MN94134.DTL

 

Bush phenomenon vexes Democrats

Popularity has state liberals scrambling to find a contender

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

 

With the help of the military and the full weight of his office, President George W. Bush has unleashed a "shock and awe" re-election campaign that is astounding and confounding his political rivals everywhere, even in Democratic-leaning California.

 

Riding high in the polls, Bush's political battle strategy has included charging into California -- which he lost by 1.3 million votes -- to announce the end of major combat in Iraq and to push his economic plan in Silicon Valley.

 

Influential party activists and major donors in this state grudgingly admit that the president -- whom they've dismissed as an illegitimate leader and an unworthy opponent -- has lately appeared larger than life.

 

"Oh, God, it's John Wayne in the Oval Office," moaned one San Francisco Democratic insider last week as she watched Bush -- trim and tanned in a flight suit -- plunge into a cheering crowd of sailors after his jet landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

 

"He's the champion of big business and the oil companies -- and the Democrats aren't even getting the little guy they profess to represent," said the Democrat, who like many of her conflicted colleagues preferred not to be identified.

 

The phenomenon of a president who enjoys enormous popularity with working Americans -- despite a floundering economy that has battered millions of them - - has become the subject of dinner-table buzz in liberal circles.

 

 

'PRE-FASCIST ATMOSPHERE'

"We are going to become a megabanana republic," author Norman Mailer opined earlier this year during a salon gathering at the home of Democratic donor Stanley Sheinbaum in the Los Angeles County neighborhood of Brentwood. "We're in a pre-fascist atmosphere here in America."

 

Some, like activist actor Peter Coyote, have urged Democrats to get vocal -- and angry -- about differentiating their politics from White House policies. "Take back the Democratic Party!" Coyote yelled at a recent San Francisco campaign event in support of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

 

With 10 months to go before the California primary, and just eight until the first critical votes in the 2004 presidential campaign election are cast, the increasing frustration among Democrats underscores how effectively Bush's political showmanship is making him one tough act to follow.

 

"Somebody understands how to market him," sighs San Francisco party activist Jeanette Gitler. "It's about presenting an image. And the unfortunate thing about Democrats is, they haven't taken a proactive approach. They've slid into the woodwork."

 

A Pew Research poll, released this week, showed that while the president's job approval is pegged at about 65 percent, only about a fourth of Americans are even "fairly interested" in the nearly invisible Democratic field. And that's with nine of them competing daily for public attention.

 

"Clearly, you've got a confident, energetic president -- and if you look on the Democratic side on the aisle, it looks like a first-grade soccer game," says leading GOP strategist Sean Walsh.

 

"They're running all over the place and yelling at each other, and they've had to backtrack and apologize on comments" -- from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's quip about a "regime change" to Dean's attack on Kerry for lack of "courage."

 

"It's driving them absolutely insane that (Bush) won't engage on their level, and he's flying high above them," Walsh said.

 

Maybe, Democrats say, that's because, at a time when they hoped their own candidates would be starting to catch fire, some of their biggest supporters are still waiting to see smoke.

 

 

THEY 'WANT TO FALL IN LOVE'

"I see the same people at different candidate events. They're checking them all out," says a key San Francisco party insider, who didn't want to be named for print because in recent weeks she has attended campaign fund-raisers for Dean, Kerry, and South Carolina Sen. John Edwards. "They really want to fall in love . . . I hear people say it all the time: 'It doesn't matter who. We've got to find someone who can beat Bush.' "

 

The lack of passionate connection with any of the pack of Democratic candidates has led many party stalwarts to plunge into a political equivalent of the singles scene.

 

Major party fund-raiser and A-list donor Susie Tompkins Buell, for instance, who has expressed support for Kerry, was spotted last week at a campaign event for Dean. Actor Warren Beatty, closely linked with Dean, was recently seen applauding a fire-and-brimstone speech by Gary Hart -- who was toying with running.

 

Dean was introduced at his latest San Francisco campaign party by both Carole Migden, the fiery liberal Board of Equalization chairwoman, who hasn't endorsed him, and actor Coyote, who has given twice as much money to Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

 

Lawrence Bender, the producer of "Pulp Fiction," has hosted fund-raisers both for Kerry and Edwards.

 

And "Westwood One" radio mogul Norm Pattiz has donated $1,000 each to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Dean -- and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt.

 

 

STANDING UP TO BUSH

Migden, a longtime Democratic activist, doesn't mince words about the phenomenon. "I'm mad at Bush -- but I'm more mad at our guys for not blunting him," she says.

 

Like many Democrats, Migden was livid over the recent comments by Sen. Rick Santorum comparing homosexuality to bestiality. But Migden says she got even more incensed that Bush defended the third-ranking Republican as a good legislator, and Democrats didn't slap him down.

 

"I believe our guys have been -- and I say this with respect as a party person -- cowardly," she says. "We've paid for our strategic missteps and lack of outspokenness . . . and he gets to take over the world."

 

Indeed, in the wake of a swift military victory in Iraq, the political victories have been furiously grating on Democrats' nerves. After the now- famous "Top Gun" landing by Bush on the Abraham Lincoln, some Democrats -- like Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd -- have attempted to raise questions about the cost of the carrier landing or dismiss it as an expensive political gimmick.

 

But none of that has appeared to slow the president, who has been using his political capital to push Congress to pass his tax plan and approve all his judicial appointments.

 

"It clearly must be a frustrating time for the Democrats. . . . He's their worst nightmare," says Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen. "This guy continues to dodge every bullet they shoot at him."

 

But others, like Democratic strategist Garry South, himself on the verge of signing up to help a presidential campaign -- although he won't say which -- says not to worry.

 

 

GOOD FIELD OF CANDIDATES

"It's almost like we have an embarrassment of riches. . . . We have a very high-quality field, and all of the candidates have raised considerable money," South says. "One of the reasons people are sitting on their haunches, and others are giving (donations) to five or six candidates, is because they're waiting to see who reaches critical mass with regard to breaking out from the rest of the pack."

 

Even Bush backers warn that there's plenty of danger in getting too cocky. "No president has been elected, and then re-elected, without at least once carrying California," says Hoover's Whalen.

 

And that's one factor that is giving Democrats hope these days -- even as they fume over Bush's successes.

 

"We've seen high popularity plummet before," says Don Solem, a San Francisco-based public relations guru and former Democratic strategist. "Politics is effervescent."

 

 

Well, that's.... Interesting.

 

Thoughts? I don't know if the next four years are going to be better than the first, or if we're going to be in some sort of Marney Wonderland where we stop putting on a front and just declare war on all Arab nations, but it's probably too early to tell.

 

I'm not suprised though that the campaigning has already begun (really, why did he need a flight vest for a Learjet or whatever that was? It certainly wasn't a fighter plane) before a contender has even been picked.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

What I find most interesting is that the Democrats are spending more time bashing Bush, complaining about Bush and targeting Bush than actually proposing issues, ideas, and platforms that people can rally behind. The old joke is that Democrats don't have a platform, they just give reasons why you SHOULDN'T vote for a Republican. I can see why they've become so desperate. The Democrat agenda of Medicaid, Medicare, the Environment and "tax cuts for the rich" looks like minutia compared to the real big issue of homeland security. Does anyone actually think that an agenda of global warming and medicare is going to interest common folks like Bush's goals of ridding the world of terrorism? The Dem's whole gimmick just seems so un-important in today's post-9/11 world.

 

Let's face it, Bush has a huge advantage as homeland security is THE issue of the day and will be the issue of the day come November 2004. Liberman was dead-on when he said that "no Democrat will stand a chance against Bush" if they don't take an equally solid stand on homeland security. The Democrats either have to go with either A or B.

 

A) a dead equal stance on homeland security with Bush and PROMISE to keep the War on Terror going. Then differ on minor issues like tax cuts, abortion, the environment and so-on

 

B) move even further to the left and oppose EVERYTHING Bush has done.

 

What it comes down to is not strategy, but the things YOU and the Dems actually stand for. Will the voters care what the Dems actually have to say?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Healthcare and the economy will trump homeland security when the election rolls around... but homeland security still will and based on that, I'd say that...

 

*sigh*

 

Gephardt has the best chance of winning currently.

[Guest Vyce]

*Reads article*

 

Huh.

 

So this is how the Republicans felt during the Clinton administration.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Well I think that Bush is looking like he will be reelected come 2004. I think that the Democrat who runs against Bush will more than likely lose. For the candidates who are running, none really strike me as strong. Also, in many regards the Democrats right now are very disorganized with not a strong platform, other than that of bashing Bush, which showed in the last election to not be effective.

 

It is still early to tell what might happen, but Bush is looking good. Who would ever had thunk it. But anything is possible and mcuh may happen from now until elections.

 

I need to see who the Democrat candidate is, and what his platform is. If I agree with it, then I will vote Democrat again, but if it ends up being too much like the Republican's, then I will look at the third party candidates more seriously.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The sad part is that most people believe the nonsense about not having a platform. That's a terrible stigma to have, and it's completely untrue.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Does anyone actually think that an agenda of global warming and medicare is going to interest common folks like Bush's goals of ridding the world of terrorism?  The Dem's whole gimmick just seems so un-important in today's post-9/11 world.

Perhaps the democratic candidate will have a motto along the lines of "Its the economy stupid" and perhaps claim that Bush lied about WMDs instead of taxes.

 

Because no democratic candidate is going to say "I am against homeland security". None of them are going to propose expanding the war on terror either probably. The issues that people will actually care about are the economy, healthcare, and other things like that. Most people don't care about the big issues like global warming and the war on terror. People care about things that directly affect them like medicaid, and the economy.

 

What I find most interesting is that the Democrats are spending more time bashing Bush, complaining about Bush and targeting Bush than actually proposing issues, ideas, and platforms that people can rally behind.

 

No shit. Seriously, if you stopped hearing "BUSH=NAZI" and started hearing stories about good initiatives by Democratic leaders/candidates, it'd be quite a different political atmosphere. Not that the Dems don't have good initiatives from time to time, but it doesn't end up filtering back to me.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

What I find most interesting is that the Democrats are spending more time bashing Bush, complaining about Bush and targeting Bush than actually proposing issues, ideas, and platforms that people can rally behind.

 

No shit. Seriously, if you stopped hearing "BUSH=NAZI" and started hearing stories about good initiatives by Democratic leaders/candidates, it'd be quite a different political atmosphere. Not that the Dems don't have good initiatives from time to time, but it doesn't end up filtering back to me.

The Demoncats NEED to develop alternate ideas and actual REASONS why they're a better choice than Republicans. With the the Dems its all scare-tactics and class-warfare. Gephardt actually proposed an actual idea a couple of weeks ago with his plans to implement socialized health care. While stuff like that scares the crap out of me, its a legitimate issue and idea.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well we can agree on something then.

 

Care to take on my Homeland Security comment?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Well we can agree on something then.

 

Care to take on my Homeland Security comment?

Sure thing.....

 

I just don't see the little issues being that big in the end when it comes to luring "fence sitters." The hard left is already vehemently against the Bush "post-9/11" agenda. Those types are firmly Democrat or further left. All of which swallow up an agenda that opposes Bush's (strong on environment, pro-choice, universal health-care, no tax cuts.) It's all going to come down to all the Democrats who have taken a move to the right after 9-11. Will the economy and the earlier mentioned little stuff (abortion, environment) be enough to bring those right-ward Democrats back to the left for good?

[Guest NoCalMike]

It all boils down to what the common-man is going to believe, whether it is truths or lies. If the majority of american voters believe that america is now safer because we won the war in Iraq then the 2004 elections is already over with. Most campaigns have little to do with what is really going to happen, and more to do with what the general population is fooled into believing. I am not so much of an elitist that I think I of a higher eschalon than the common folk, however I do see the majority of Bush supporters at my work place display to me that they don't know shit about politics or polices beyond what they hear this administration tell them. Not to say most democrat supporters won't do the same thing with their candidate.

 

 

I am very fearful that whoever the Democrat candidate is, he will go "bush-lite" which is the worst thing to do and it will show. To me the biggest questions the Democrats have to ask themselves is: Is the 2004 election worth sacrificing by going for Bush's head and throwing every bullet possible at him if it means certain victory in 2008. To me(biased of course) there are some rather obvious points that would make Bush look weak that can be attacked at and gnawed to the bone at, but whether they are taken advantage of or not remains to be seen. I still am waiting for Bush to pull some stunt to get out of the debates.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Mark my words:

 

The only thing that can cost Bush the next election is if no one puts a muzzle on the Christian Coalition while Bush runs against a Jewish candidate.

 

That could get UGLY.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ok, if Lieberman wins the primary, that ALSO qualifies as the 2004 election being over already.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Meh, but then we have to deal with Lieberman.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

I want to make a quick point: Nobody outside of Stamford(Lieberman and myself's hometown), CT gives a shit about Lieberman.

 

Lieberman has less of a shot winning the primaries than Al Sharpton. It comes down to this: Lieberman is not a liberal. And most Dems want somene DIFFERENT than Bush running. Reason the last elections came in a near tie was because Gore and Bush aren't too different people. Clinton and Bush atleast would be enough of a difference to where you don't have two guys basiclly wanting the same thing, but for different parties.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Mark my words:

 

The only thing that can cost Bush the next election is if no one puts a muzzle on the Christian Coalition while Bush runs against a Jewish candidate.

 

That could get UGLY.

Bush is well on his way to making the economy implode. I'm just hoping we aren't in the middle of Great Depression II by the time we vote, because there's no way anyone (Democrat or Republican) in the current field is dragging us out of something that bad.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Bush is well on his way to making the economy implode.

...

 

By doing what? Not trying to take away every bloody cent American citizens earn? Trying to eliminate the absurd double-whammy dividend tax? Have you ever seen the inside of a state or federal budget? We could cut all taxes across the board by 50% tomorrow and we'd have more than enough left to do our job. The only things we'd have to lose would be half the representatives and three-quarters of the senators, and I can't see anyone shedding too many tears over that. Christ almighty, I can't believe that ANYONE, anyone at all, can oppose ANY tax cuts while living in the age of Byrd.

 

Fucking knee-jerk mouth-breathing tax-and-spend liberal neanderthal porkers.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

By doing what?

Well, to start, by deficit spending to give the tax cut. If you wish to know more look up Alan Greenspan's opinion of Bush's tax cut.

 

Not trying to take away every bloody cent American citizens earn? Trying to eliminate the absurd double-whammy dividend tax? Have you ever seen the inside of a state or federal budget? We could cut all taxes across the board by 50% tomorrow and we'd have more than enough left to do our job. The only things we'd have to lose would be half the representatives and three-quarters of the senators, and I can't see anyone shedding too many tears over that. Christ almighty, I can't believe that ANYONE, anyone at all, can oppose ANY tax cuts while living in the age of Byrd.

 

Fucking knee-jerk mouth-breathing tax-and-spend liberal neanderthal porkers.

 

My best friend's father is a State employee and his mother is a State employee and the State funds are so bad that his mother had to cut multiple staff positions and her entire department is at risk of being eliminated. Not because it isn't needed, but because the state can't afford. His dad is the director of a library. They almost did not buy books last year or this year. No, I am not kidding.

 

Basically the money is getting funneled to idiotic projects and pork in increasing amounts, what's getting cut are the "non-critical" budgetary items. Last month his mother had to make the decision of whether she should fire a single mother or two married employees. Another old friend of mine was recently was laid off because her company outsourced its IT department even though it actually could not accomplish its required tasks by outsourcing its IT department. My dad is in danger of losing his 10+ year job at a tech manufacturer, and you want me to take it on faith that cutting dividend taxes and providing across the board tax cuts while increasing the federal budget is going to work.

 

No.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Well, to start, by deficit spending to give the tax cut. If you wish to know more look up Alan Greenspan's opinion of Bush's tax cut.

Greenspan is a central banker, not an economist. He knows little about taxation and stimuli and his inane commentary made it obvious. Look it up yourself, read it, see if you UNDERSTAND it, and then figure out if it made sense. It didn't. Not everything that comes out of Greenspan's mouth is economic gospel.

Besides, he never took issue with 95% of the President's plan. And he endorsed tax cuts without reservation: "Should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good. The most recent data significantly raise the probability that sufficient resources will be available to undertake both debt reduction and surplus-lowering policy initiatives. Thus the trade-off faced earlier appears no longer an issue."

 

Basically the money is getting funneled to idiotic projects and pork in increasing amounts, what's getting cut are the "non-critical" budgetary items

Precisely why I stated that the solution to all this is cutting the population of Congress by 60%.

[Guest EricMM]

So you would do what, have 50 senators and increase the number of constituants (sp) per representative?

 

I mean how do you mean that doing that would reduce spending? Do you mean that these hundred or so congressmen are wasting money with pork politics, or they're just overpaid?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

So you would do what, have 50 senators and increase the number of constituants (sp) per representative?

No, 100, but... oh, forget it.

 

I mean how do you mean that doing that would reduce spending?  Do you mean that these hundred or so congressmen are wasting money with pork politics, or they're just overpaid?

Both. And corrupt, and incompetent, and unprincipled, and, and, and...

 

Let me give you an example. About 18 months ago, a Senator from a midwestern state that shall remain unnamed because I want to keep my job tried to up one of our budgets by over 330%. Yes, that's right, 330%. We didn't need the money. We didn't WANT the money. We tried to refuse it. We cancelled contracts, called in committee favours, and badgered countless people on the Hill and in the unnamed state to try to stop it. He rammed it through anyway in a closed session because it was allotted to contractors in his state. We got a bunch of shit we didn't need even though my director and the President made personal calls to that jackass and YOU people paid for it. This is typical. Absolutely typical. Still think we need to tax you into oblivion? We don't. We never have. We just need to lose 60% of Congress.

[Guest EricMM]

I don't think ANY government on earth has actually figured out how to get honest, competetent, pricipled, and frugal leaders.

 

I mean, who decides how much money congressmen get paid? And how much DO they get paid? There's gotta be a fact sheet about that somewhere, this is the internet. I seem to remember that the prez makes a few hundred thousand a year. But it's a non-issue since any ex-president has enough prestige to write a best selling book and a law firm etc.

 

*EDIT* OK, but I mean who do you go to if your congressperson is being dumb? I mean they make the laws! And it's just as likely that the next person voted into office will do the same thing! Who polices congress? *EDIT*

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You don't need a fact sheet, you have me.

 

And how much DO they get paid?

~$155k. Base. Plus expenses, retirement, and health benefits, unlimited royalties and honorariums, plus up to 15% of base from other jobs.

 

I mean, who decides how much money congressmen get paid?

Congressmen. In the past decade or so they've given themselves over a $60k raise.

 

It's a beautiful world, isn't it?

[Guest EricMM]

Ok so thats roughly 500ish 150k paychecks, as well as Thurmond's medication (dear lord) and Kennedy's rehab.

 

But that still can't be much more than a dozen million. Hopefully?

 

How the fuck much has that Big Dig cost over the last decade?

 

On the other hand, how much congress cost over the last decade. Now that I think about it, probably a lot. Again, my original question, how do we make them stop?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We pay Congress over 75 million per year to fuck us in the ass.

 

How do we make them stop? God knows.

[Guest EricMM]

I knew there was something wrong with Santorum's (sp) statements. On one hand he's against sodomy, on the other hand, he and his friends have had America on it's knees for ... decades?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Greenspan is a central banker, not an economist. He knows little about taxation and stimuli and his inane commentary made it obvious. Look it up yourself, read it, see if you UNDERSTAND it, and then figure out if it made sense. It didn't. Not everything that comes out of Greenspan's mouth is economic gospel.

From http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/greenspan.htm

 

Dr. Greenspan ... received a B.S. in economics (summa cum laude) in 1948, an M.A. in economics in 1950, and a Ph.D. in economics in 1977, all from New York University. Dr. Greenspan also has performed advanced graduate study at Columbia University.

 

From 1954 to 1974 and from 1977 to 1987, Dr. Greenspan was Chairman and President of Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., an economic consulting firm in New York City. From 1974 to 1977, he served as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers under President Ford, and from 1981 to 1983, as Chairman of the National Commission on Social Security Reform.

 

Dr. Greenspan has also served as a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, a member of Time magazine's Board of Economists, a senior adviser to the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, and a consultant to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

...

 

Before his appointment to the Board, Dr. Greenspan served as a corporate director for Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa); Automatic Data Processing, Inc.; Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.; General Foods, Inc.; J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York; Mobil Corporation; and The Pittston Company.

 

...

 

Dr. Greenspan has served as Chairman of the Conference of Business Economists, President and Fellow of the National Association of Business Economists, and Director of the National Economists Club.

 

Dr. Greenspan has received honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, Leuven (Belgium), Notre Dame, Wake Forest and Colgate universities. His other awards include the Thomas Jefferson Award for the greatest public service performed by an elected or appointed official, presented by the American Institute for Public Service, 1976 (joint recipient with Dr. Arthur Burns and William Simon); election as a Fellow of the American Statistical Association, 1989; decorated Legion of Honor (Commander) France, 2000; and honorary Knight Commander of the British Empire, 2002.

 

 

 

Obviously, you know more about economics than Alan Greenspan.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Congress & budget stuff

Doh! I didn't see your edit.

 

Besides, he never took issue with 95% of the President's plan. And he endorsed tax cuts without reservation: "Should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good. The most recent data significantly raise the probability that sufficient resources will be available to undertake both debt reduction and surplus-lowering policy initiatives. Thus the trade-off faced earlier appears no longer an issue."

 

 

Except for the reservation that right now the tax cut will not do much he endorsed it without reservation.

 

I agree that congress has corruption problems and doesn't need to be so big. One of the main problems is what you said. Because we elect people by state those senators only feel loyalty to their own state.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

.....Isn't having Marney back fun?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Obviously, you know more about economics than Alan Greenspan.

And politics, and morality, and government.