Re: Giuliani: Yeah, and there's no reason to think Republicans will become MORE aware of Rudy's pro-choice stand. The reason: they're stupid and uninformed, and don't care to GET informed. This was made clear (if it needed to be) from the extensive post-election poll in 2005 that showed Bush voters to be far more ignorant of their candidate's stands on issues than Kerry voters.

Your characterization of 50 percent of the nation as "stupid", "uninformed" and "ignorant" doesn't exactly sound like enlightened discourse, either. Why sling terms that just fuel new rounds of no-win partisan warfare?

No way Rudy gets the nomination. No way in hell. I am pretty certain that other Republican candidates will start hammering at him on social issues pretty soon. That will piss him off, he'll insult someone or go on a rant and that'll be it. And if that is not enough, count on the other loonies to start circulating this. And by the way, this comes straight from the infamous Freep site, so there you go...
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

Partisan warfare is no win because Congress is in virtual gridlock, too busy fighting, getting even and co-operating only to serve deep pocket special interests. They take no responsibility for realistically addressing health care, social security, Katrina recovery, environmental degradation, failing transportation and public works infrastructure, preditory lending, broken energy policy, broken education policy, broken farm policy, assault on the Constitution, the rule of law and international treaties, to name a few. Democrat or Republican, makes no difference.

The only hope of breaking the gridlock seems to rest in returning no incumbents of either party to Congress in the 2008 election, and finding a president with the capacity to inspire and lead more than 50 percent of the nation.

Party-of-one's call for an end to partisan warfare, or almost any call for bipartisan cooperation just makes me shake my head. The Democrats have spent six years cooperating with the administration and Republicans in Congress. What have we got to show for it? Among other things: the occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the Big Pharma Medicare bill, Judge Roberts, Judge Alito....Cooperation implies compromise, and I don't think our country can take much more compromise with these economic and social extremists.

The Democrats have been obstructionists too. They make noise and cave in, as with the latest Intelligence bill. What Democrats have absolutely failed to do is put forward reasonable, persuasive value-grounded alternatives that put the good of the nation before politics and corporate interests. They are complicit in all the bad legislation, doing nothing in a negotiated process to improve it. Republicans and Democrats have no trouble collaborating to fund each other's pork barrel projects or to slip lobbyist-favored legislation secretly into omnibus spending bills. The constant partisan warfare gives both sides an excuse for failing to govern.
We need a few real statesmen in Congress. History produced them. Why can't the future?

Poolman, are you saying there is no hope to change Washington? It's a very dismal and fatalistic outlook. I don't accept it. Peace.

...and has more foreign policy experience right now than Clinton did on day 1 of his 1st term.

You know why 70% still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11???? It's a coping strategy. They cannot come to terms with the fact that the Iraq war was all a big nothing (like Tony's mother would say). They can't wrap their heads around the fact they were deliberately lied to. It's hard to acknowledge you've been thoroughly fooled and bamboozled and that you went for it just like it was August 1914 all over again...

[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

actually, that 70% number is from 2003. last i heard it was about 40%

but still.

Your reponse is just pure fantasy that plays into Republican hands. Decrying the "partisan warfare" in Congress, given the assault on democracy and the commonweal led by Republicans over the past 7 years, is ridiculous. It's been the right wing that's neglected all the issues you list, not the Democrats.

As for "returning no incumbents" being the "only hope", this just makes you sound like a fool. First of all, it's just a fantasy, not the "only hope." Second, there are plenty of capable, more or less honest people in Congress. Your fantasy of a Kumbaya Congress populated by new-age folks who just wish to get along shows a complete ignorance not only of what democratic representative government is, but of human nature.

People are normally fallible, self-interested, and short-sighted. They occasionally can rise above narrow interests when facing a common threat, or when trying to achieve common interests, and can compromise some goals in the interests of achieving others. The idea that "partisanship" is responsible for "gridlock" is just palaver, a glib excuse for not thinking. Partisanship is the essence of representative government. You vote for a Congressman in the hopes that he will be a partisan to your causes, whatever they may be. If he fails to support your causes in the interests of being "nonpartisan", you'd accuse him of selling out his constituents and his principles.

Thinking that the opposition is stupid is a potentially fatal act o' hubris.

Knee-jerk ideologues . . . Fascist fucks . . . Jack_holes . . . Yes.

Stupid . . . Inbred idiots . . . NASCAR nipple-dicks . . . Not necessarily.

I'm not pessimistic at all, and I'm not the one issuing simple-minded "solutions" like "get rid of all incumbents." It's you who are pessimistic. You think the only hope is to replace every current officeholder, a deeply cynical and pessimistic viewpoint, not to mention a hopeless task achieveable only by time's grim reaper.

You mischaracterize and generalize all current officeholders as corrupt and beyond redemption, the current system as hopelessly corrupt, your fellow citizens as hyenas braying at each other from opposite sides of the political spectrum.

My point is that reality is far more subtle than the cartoonish image of our government that you have fixed in your mind.

You don't have a legitimate argument, which is why you see no room for "constructive response." You just hold a negative stereotype of our democratic process and institutions as corrupt, and our public servants as extremist minions.

There are some of these, of course, and they're mostly Republicans. But while you sit and say "all incumbents out!", I bet I can give you a list of at least 150 out of 535 congresspeople whose biographies, political views, and legislative records even you would find acceptable.

People who vote Republican aren't the opposition, they're the people we're trying to get to change their minds. The opposition is the right wing oligarchy, a relatively tiny number of our fellow citizens.

The people they hoodwink into supporting them at the polls are mostly, well, stupid, because they're mostly voting against their own self-interests, don't know where the candidates they're voting for stand on most issues, and tend to vote (especially for president) on image and not on substance.

And I don't think it's hubris to call voters stupid, either theirs or ours. Assuming the stupidity of voters has been the key to Rove's past success as a campaign strategist.

Thank you for this thoughtful, sophisticated, and doable proposal. The Republicans under the tutelage of Unkle Karl will no doubt be eager to join you and strive for the removal of his kleptocracy as well. Primary voters in all parties will now rush to the polls to punish their parochial pork-providers. Gerrymanders will vanish like summer dew on a Carolina cobweb. Vested interests will desist from bolstering their hand-picked marionettes.

This is quite a visionary proposition, one that has never been put forth before. You can certainly count on me!

"The people they hoodwink into supporting them at the polls are mostly, well, stupid"

How about ignorant and politically lazy?

Point: The idea that saddam was directly involved in 911 didn’t just pop in to peoples heads. Politically it was necessary for the bush admin.

Most Americans didn’t bother to dig deeper and find out what was really going on. It’s not all their fault. The media is supposed to help us. Not repeat admin talking points. The “liberal medias” lies were so thick most people couldn’t get to the truth if they had tried. But I'd say had the media done their job we might not be in Iraq.

Thanks for the eloquent sarcasm. I assure you I know the history of American politics, the ways of D.C. and am no pollyanna. I believe we need a grassroots movement to secure change in government. Targetting all incumbents is as good and practical a theme for that movement as any I have heard.

An alternative -- trust the Democrats, who will begin change soon -- was a great argument in 2006 that accomplished nothing but NOISE and inaction. Lack of veto proof majorities is not an excuse for drafting and passing no legislation. Make Bush use his veto every day and let the people see it happen. Force the Republicans into constant filibuster, and let their constituents see it happen. Do something that builds a record of ideas, proposals and legislation... and vetos, if necessary.

So my dilemma: continue to trust current incumbent, compliant Democrats, or look for new ones committed to change and willing to take bold action rather than work only to perpetually hold office. I have a cause, a quest, with Sancho Panza at my side (hehe). I will not yield to status-quo-mongers, Tankard, not even sarcastically eloquent ones. Peace.

You might want to mention this, party-of-one, from Slate's "Today's Papers" column:

The Senate approved the administration's changes to the terrorist surveillance program on Friday night, putting pressure on the House to act. The White House claimed the changes were needed after a secret court ruled that foreign communications routed through the United States could not be tapped without a court order. But the administration asked for a whole lot more than a simple fix to that problem.

The changes will give the attorney general broad authority to approve surveillance of all communications involving foreign suspects. Only if his procedures are deemed "clearly erroneous" could the special FISA court step in. Some wary Democrats put forward a separate proposal giving more power to the court, but it was defeated on Friday. It was all about politics, says the NYT and WP, and the Democrats didn't want to spend their summer vacation "fending off charges from Mr. Bush and Republicans that they left Americans exposed to terror threats." The good news for the Dems is that the changes will expire in six months, giving them half a year to grow a spine.

Awesome. Its not just about passing your agenda. Its also about being bowled over politically by the minority. The Dems cant even play obstructionist to the President's bill when they have the majority in both Houses and the President's approval rating is in the toilet.

Awesome.

story here with links to the newspaper coverage of th story

Stupidity and ignorance are revealed by behavior. Half the nation is by definition below average in intelligence and basic awareness. It's no stretch to assume that the good folks who gave us Bush, Cheney, and Fox News fit into that bottom half. In fact it would be stupid not to.

I don't know if a complete ban on advertising is necessarily the way to go; rather, the rules that make it incredibly hard for a challenger to raise funds might be more appropriately tackled. And the primary system for selecting challengers. And gerry-mandering.