Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Fw: [ImpeachBushNOW] Why aren't Republicans running in 2006 Senate races?

 
----- Original Message -----
From: NT
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: [ImpeachBushNOW] Why aren't Republicans running in 2006 Senate races?

Running from the Running
Why are so many Republicans staying out of next year's Senate races?

By David Weigel
Web Exclusive: 10.05.05


On Monday morning, West Virginia Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito dashed five years of Republican hopes and announced she would not run against Senator Robert Byrd. The formerly rock-solid Democratic state (52 percent for Michael Dukakis) gave George W. Bush a 13-point landslide last year, and Republicans had considered a Thune v. Daschle-style upset of the 87-year-old Byrd a top 2006 goal. In July, the National Republican Senatorial Committee charged in with the cycle’s first negative ad -- $53,000 of airtime for a TV spot attacking the senator. But it couldn’t get Capito in the race.

Coming only four days after North Dakota Governor John Hoeven’s decision not to challenge Senator Kent Conrad, Capito’s bluff should wave a matador-sized red flag about Republican chances for 2006. In these crucial few months when candidates are entering races, raising funds, and recruiting staffs, Republican hopefuls are quietly keeping their hats out of the ring.  While GOP leaders have located some strong candidates in open seats like Minnesota and Maryland, they can’t find strong candidates to challenge Democratic incumbents in red or swing states.

This is a marked change from the last two cycles, when Karl Rove used the power of the White House to cajole first-tier candidates into dozens of races. In 2002, the White House encouraged Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Norm Coleman (Minnesota), Jim Talent (Missouri), and John Thune (South Dakota) to run against incumbent Democrats, even though Coleman and Thune had originally wanted to run for governor. In 2004, when southern Democratic retirements created open seats that favored the GOP, Rove greased the wheels for superior candidates like Mel Martinez (Florida) and Richard Burr (North Carolina).

But this year, Rove isn’t getting what he wants. In Michigan, Representative Candice Miller passed on challenging Senator Debbie Stabenow despite polls that showed them neck and neck. In Florida, Representative Katherine Harris has refused to drop her Senate campaign even though she badly trails Senator Bill Nelson. And in Rhode Island, conservative Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey brushed aside months of high-up pressure to challenge liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Republican primary -- even though polls show Chafee could retain the seat but Laffey would lose it to Democrats.

There’s one obvious reason why Republican candidates aren’t listening to the White House and the national party: For the first time, George W. Bush is an unpopular president. In Virginia, which is holding state elections next month, Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore has notably failed to call in the president to stump for him. One reason might be a Washington Post poll released in September that put Bush’s popularity at 47 percent in this state he’d easily won 10 months ago. Startlingly, 45 percent of the polled said that Bush’s endorsement would make them “less likely” to vote for the Republican candidate, compared with 28 percent who’d be more likely.

This makes a stark change from 2002, when Bush may have been the most popular president ever facing a midterm election. The national exit poll put his popularity at 66 percent, with 71 percent of voters approving of his handling of terrorism and 58 percent supporting him on the then-foundering economy. But now, according to the national polling outfit Survey USA, Bush’s approval ratings outweigh his disapproval ratings in only 12 states, all in the Deep South and Mountain States. In Florida, Michigan, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont -- all states with potentially hot Senate races -- his approval is mired in the 30s.

The first signs of the GOP’s problems cropped up in February, when the president began stumping for Social Security privatization. Following the playbook that had worked very well for the 2001 tax cuts, Bush flew into red states that still had Democratic senators and started hard-selling his idea. But at the first stop, Montana, Senator Conrad Burns told reporters he was merely “intrigued” by Bush’s plan and would “continue to look” at it. Right away it was clear that Republicans weren’t happy taking this issue to voters.

The White House’s objectives for this term -- spending projects, private accounts, and the war in Iraq -- are weighing down Republican candidates and making the 2006 climate look increasingly ominous. On the first issue, candidates who want to upset Democratic senators or take open seats in blue states would have a tough time arguing against the projects Democrats want to bring to their states. The latter issues are simply unpopular with voters. Support for the war and Republican handling of terrorism has been faltering since January, and according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, support for private Social Security accounts fell from 57 percent in November 2002 -- before the president’s campaign -- to 44 percent in June 2005.

Republicans who’ve expressed early worries about their chances have talked about shifting the agenda to more favorable turf, putting tax-reform and tax-cut extensions back on the agenda. But that wouldn’t be a cure-all. The prominence of Social Security and Iraq in voters’ minds might give Democratic candidates a foothold in arguing against another round of tax cuts. And a debate on tax reform could present its own problems. Minnesota Senate candidate Mark Kennedy, one of the GOP’s few remaining hopes for a pickup, is on the record supporting a national sales tax, which always polls poorly. While sales-tax booster Jim DeMint won a Senate seat last year in South Carolina, he squandered a huge early lead and finished with 4 percentage points fewer than George W. Bush. A Republican running 4 points behind Bush in Minnesota wouldn’t be so lucky.

As Republicans have faltered, Democrats have had an easy time convincing candidates that this is the year to run. Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, who has long wanted to run for governor, was recruited easily as polls showed him crushing Senator Rick Santorum. Claire McCaskill, the auditor of Missouri who’d lost a close 2004 governor’s race and wanted a rematch, entered the Senate race as polls showed incumbent Jim Talent looking weaker. Montana’s shaky Burns, formerly seen as a safe bet in a red state, is being challenged by two Democrats with statewide support, John Morrison, the state auditor, and Jon Tester, president of the state Senate. And on Monday, about 12 hours after Capito gave up on her Senate race, popular Marine Major Paul Hackett entered the race against Ohio Senator Mike DeWine.

The polls will keep shifting over the next year, and Republicans not named Newt Gingrich will put on their game faces when asked about their party’s chances for 2006. So far, though, their best candidates are taking a look at the battlefield, sizing up their opponents -- and running the other way.

David Weigel, a journalist based in Fairfax, Va., is a regular contributor to Campaigns & Elections magazine. His blog can be read at davidweigel.blogspot.com.

 


"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." - F.D.R.

 
 
 


Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW




SPONSORED LINKS
United state army United state coin United state government grant
United state military United state grant United state patent


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Why Americans should observe Ramadan by Carol Wolman

Why Americans should observe Ramadan

by Carol Wolman

This year, October 4th was the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, which goes according to the lunar calendar, and thus comes at a different time every year.  Muslims are expected to fast from dawn to dusk, and to spend increased time in prayer and meditation during this month, which commemorates the giving of the Qu'ran to Muhammed.
 
Muslims all over the world consider themselves part of the body of Islam, called the ummah.  This is their primary identity, stronger than national loyalty.  "Islam" means "peace", and "Muslim" means "servant of God".  During Ramadan, most Muslims are praying for peace.  The jihadis are aberrant, heretical- Islam has no place for targeting civilians or killing people who have not attacked them.  On the other hand, an attack on any Muslim is considered an attack on the entire ummah, and self-defense is legitimate, according to the Qu'ran.
 
Any American who considers him/herself a servant of God can join the ummah and observe Ramadan.  There are no special ceremonies needed to become a Muslim, one simply has to accept Allah, and the validity of Muhammed's prophetic mission.  This is a sticking point for right-wing Christians, who are taught by their false prophets that Allah is a moon god, and not the same as Eli, the God of the Bible.  Muslims and the Qu'ran, however, emphasize that Allah IS the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the ultimate leader, and that Muslims are descended spiritually from Abraham, through his older son Ishmael.
 
Most Americans now disagree with Bush's Iraq policy, feel that invading Iraq was a mistake at best, and that staying there is making matters worse.  Even the generals, even Rumsfeld, are now arguing for withdrawal. 
 
Some mistake!  The suffering that this unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation has engendered is incalculable.  Over 100,000 Iraqis have died, many more have been imprisoned and tortured, families have been rent apart.  The infrastructure is gone, there is little power and less clean water, the economy is ruined, and civil war is breaking out.  Sunnis and Shi'ites who have lived in harmony are turning on one another.  Radioactive weaponry has left mutagenic dust which is producing high rates of abortion, birth defects, and childhood cancer. 
 
Before the invasion, a group called Not In Our Name helped to organize massive peace rallies in the US.  Americans must face the fact that the invasion of Iraq was done, is continuing, in our name, using our tax dollars and our young people as occupiers.  How can we the people dissociate ourselves from the actions of the non-representative Bush regime, and show our compassion for and solidarity with the Iraqi people?
 
Observing Ramadan, fasting with the Muslims, is an excellent way to do this.  It gives us deeper empathy with their suffering.  The voluntary austerity of the Ramadan fast will strengthen us, strengthen our ability to oppose the attack on the ummah perpetrated by the ongoing occupation of Iraq.  It will help us identify with people all over the world, and break down the us/them barrier.  It also will demonstrate our dedication to peace, and disassociate us with the nefarious policies of the Bush administration.
 
Fasting for Ramadan brings us closer to God, the God of peace and love.  It will move us toward realizing the dream of universal brother/sisterhood.
 
Psalm 86: 9 All the nations you have made shall come
and worship you, O Lord.
 
In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol Wolman

Fw: [ImpeachBushNOW] "We've defended you for five years for This Moment"

Sense of betrayal on the Right!
----- Original Message -----
From: NT
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:45 PM
Subject: [ImpeachBushNOW] "We've defended you for five years for This Moment"

"We've defended you for five years for This Moment"

Even with all the hullabaloo about the conservative reaction to the Miers appointment, I think people fail to understand just how colossal a mistake Bush just made in nominating his crony Miers to the Supreme Court.  Bush simply doesn't realize what he has done.

If anyone has been asking themselves why a panoply of conservative columnists--columnists who refused to attack Bush on his anti-conservative moves on Iraq, the deficit, federal spending, states' rights, etc.--are now crying out in outrage, I think the answer is pretty simple.

Allow me to provide one quote that essentially sums it up for a vast portion of Bush's base: "We've been defending you these five years because of this moment."

That quote comes from a RedState.org diary on Miers' donations to Al Gore in 1988.

So far, we Kossacks have been appalled: Bush has completely excised the word "Conservative" from the Republican party, and they just didn't seem to care.  We wrote long diaries about getting the Libertarian voter back, and winning the true conservatives to our side.  But we just haven't been seeming to get much traction.  After all, look at his record:

Taken at his word, he has used massive military force for a perverse sense of global idealism and nation building.
He has spent more money than any administration since Lyndon Johnson.
He has used the power of executive privilege and federal power more than any other government, and even more so in the face of Katrina.
He has delved in people's private lives more than any other administration.

And still they defended him.

 

Not only did they defend him, they used any argument they could--even pulled straight out of thin air.  Their defenses have been at times shameless, at times ludicrous, and at times downright stupid on a basic 3rd-grader's level.

And when the sheer incompetence and utter betrayal--even of conservatives--by this adminstration grew to a reeking stench over the last few months and STILL little progress made, we have been left asking ourselves whether these people were simply deluded by a propaganda machine, or just downright evil.  After all, how else could 40%-45% of the nation still defend this guy at this point???

The answer is actually pretty simple.  They just didn't care.

 

You see, as Thomas Frank so clearly and potently argued in What's The Matter with Kansas?, the entire conservative movement has been built around a sheer dissatisfaction with a large number of people about the "rotting and corrupt culture of America."

To Bush's base, everything wrong with America was the result of the multiple social revolutions of the 60's and early 70's.

They see raunchy MTV videos and they wish the sexual revolution had never taken place.

They see people of different races as their neighbors and children's classmates, and they wish desegregation had never taken place.

They see poor civic behavior, and they blame it on the "removal of God from the public square."

In fact, every progressive thing we cherish as a result of that era is something they hate.

 

And, most importantly, in order to reconcile themselves to how those changes could possibly have taken place in "their" America, they cannot allow themselves to believe it was the popular will.  In fact, they believe, EVERYTHING "bad" that happened in those "terrible days" of the 60's and early 70's was the fault of JUDGES.

You can see this view here.  Or here.  And nothing could sum it up better than Pat Buchanan, in a piece called Judgment Day:

 

     Why is Chuck Schumer threatening an inquisition of Bush nominees? Why is the liberal

     media wailing that, to avoid a bloody Senate battle that will "divide" the country and 

     "poison" our politics, Bush must nominate a "moderate" to the Supreme Court to replace 

     Sandra Day O'Connor?

     Answer: stark fear. If the Left loses the Supreme Court, the Left loses the Culture 

     War. The Left loses the country. For 50 years, the high court has been its

     indispensable ally in the campaign to remake America into a secular and 

     egalitarian society. The court has served as the battering ram of a social 

     revolution that has to be imposed upon America--because it is hated by most 

     Americans.

 

 

They truly believe that all of liberalism--that everything progressives have ever achieved--was not the result of a people-powered revolution spanning a decade and a half, but rather the imposition of a few totalitarian judges.

He goes on:

 

     No Congress in the 1960s would have voted new rights for criminals or new restrictions on  

     cops. No Congress would have outlawed the death penalty or declared abortion, naked 

     dancing, and homosexual sodomy to be constitutional rights. No Congress would have 

     permitted desecration of the flag, forced busing, or discrimination against white kids at 

     state colleges. No Congress would have outlawed prayer, Bible-reading, and the Ten 

     Commandments from classrooms. Liberalism had to be imposed by unelected judges who 

     could not be removed by popular vote...

     <snip>
     But the court's subsequent decisions that ordered intercity busing to force integration tore  

     the Democratic Party apart, North and South, and created a backlash that propelled the

     Wallace and Goldwater movements. I yet recall being invited onto a TV show in St. Louis 

     in the early '60s where the hostess asked me, to the laughter of her audience, if the Right 

     thought Warren should be impeached. "No," I replied, "we believe he should be  

     hanged".

 

And finally:

 
     The Judges War is about Bush's legacy and America's future. No issue is more crucial. 
     Whether America is kept safe for Christianity is more important than whether Iraq is made  
     safe for democracy.

 

 

You see, EVERYTHING--Iraq, Katrina, global warming, cronyism, outing CIA agents, money troubles, deficits--EVERYTHING is irrelevant to these people.

When we bring up these issues and get baffling replies that "Bush is a good man" or "you liberals just hate Bush", we must realize that they don't really like his policies either.  You checked out the poll numbers on Iraq or Social Security lately?

They only care about one thing: undoing the 60's.

And they are foolhardy and vicious enough to believe that the entire revolution happened because of a few totalitarian judges who deserve to be hanged for putting their sons and daughters into schools with black people and  then giving them libertine ideas about being able to miscegenate with them--and abort the Rosemary's baby that ensued after that. Oh horror of horrors!

And THAT is why they've been supporting Bush this entire time: because they were certain he would appoint judges who would overturn all that.  But they picked the wrong man.  They should have tried to elect Buchanan, because Bush is about corporate money, not culture wars.

"We've been defending you these five years because of this moment."  And once his real base figures out that he really didn't give a damn about that moment, those defenses will end.

Look out, Mr. President.  Because you just made a very grave mistake.

 



"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." - F.D.R.

 
 
 


Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW




SPONSORED LINKS
United state coin United state citizenship United state patent
United state army United state military United state grant


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS