Cenk Uygur in the Huffington Post writes a Note to Moronic Democratic Senators: Americans Can't Stand George Bush. In it he gives them hell for having no backbone to stand up for what's right. Instead they are afraid to offend anyone since they are trying to raise money for elections.
I think Uygur rightly points out that Bush's ratings are so low it wouldn't cost them much. I think they're missing the point that they also have to stand for something, otherwise people might not vote for them since they might not be any different. I'm not sure I agree with Uygur's last point: "The only prominent politicians I have any respect left for now are the four horsemen of the Democratic Party -- Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Howard Dean and Jack Murtha." After all, while Feingold's motives might be good, the way this all happened just went to show cracks in the Democratic party. Though, based on the rest of the article, maybe that was needed.
5 comments:
I am not at all sure that "Americans can't stand Geroge Bush". While the majority may be dissatisfied with his performance this may not mean they are ready to support Democrats or, more general, liberal policy.
For example, conservative radio talk show host Jay Severin (who is very popular and recently went nationally syndicated) is also extremely dissatisifed with George Bush. But if W nuked Iraq, Iran and other "raghead" countries (Severin's expression) Jay would be much happier... So, I am not sure Americans can't stand Bush. And if they do dislike him, I am not sure for what reason... Maybe newer and crazier version is where the preference lies.
Good point, Roman. Polls don't show they whys and the 'what would be preferable' ... and if they did, that might lead to some very frightening power on the part of the press ...
but can i just say: crazier? wow, that would concern even ME ... which (as anyone who knows me could attest) would be like Jerry Garcia telling Steven Tyler "you should calm down with the drugs, man ..."
:)... ok, perhaps, "crazy" is the wrong word, but, looking at how W beat Kerry in 2004, I can conclude that what the folks are looking for is W 2.0... accompanied, perhaps, by marksman VP.
I think I heard this on the Daily Show.
According to polls, Bush would lose to an "unnamed Democrat" in a landslide. Unfortunately, Bush is the winner when the Democrat is actually NAMED.
It often happens that a candidate loses in polls to an unnamed competitor because people (oddly enough) assume the best. No one thinks, oh, that other guy, I hate him, he's against kittens.
To me the worst ever was John Ashcroft, losing to Mel Carnahan who died two weeks before the election.
Post a Comment