Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sour Americans Hungry for Change as Election Approaches
DES MOINES, Iowa - A year before they choose a new government for the post-Bush era, Americans are desperate to change the country's course.
According to opinion polls and interviews with political experts and voters, the U.S. population is more liberal than at any time in a generation, hungering to end the Iraq war, turn inward and use the federal government to solve problems at home.
Still, polling indicates, some want to turn farther right, demanding that the country fence off its Southern border, expel illegal immigrants and rein in a federal government grown fat under a Republican government they now dismiss as incompetent.
The surveys point to one thing almost all Americans tend to agree on: They're deeply unhappy with the way things are going in the United States and eager to move on. There's virtually no appetite to extend the Bush era, as there was at the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1988 or Bill Clinton's in 2000.
- Just 1 in 5 Americans think the country is going in the right direction, the worst outlook since the Reagan-Bush era ended in 1992.
- Less than one-third of Americans like the way the current President Bush is handling his job, among the lowest ratings in half a century. The people had similarly dismal opinions just before they ended the Jimmy Carter era in 1980, the Kennedy-Johnson years in 1968 and the Roosevelt-Truman era in 1952.
- The ranks of people who want the government to help the poor have risen sharply since the early 1990s - dramatically among independents, but even among Republicans.
The public mood is evident in Iowa, the heartland state that votes first for major-party presidential nominees and a pivotal swing state in the last two presidential elections.
"People are very unhappy, very unsettled,'' said Megan Phillips, a teacher from Centerville, a town of about 6,000 in southern Iowa.
Phillips once considered herself a proud Republican. Small-town. Anti-abortion. Pro-gun.
But she soured on Bush's landmark education overhaul, the No Child Left Behind Act. And she turned against the war - and Bush - with a passion that underscores how deeply the national unity that rose up after 9-11 has given way to cynicism.
"People don't trust anything coming out of Washington,'' she said. "When Bush says we're winning the war in Iraq, I say, 'Oh really?' The weapons of mass destruction weren't there. Why are we still there? We want our people to come home. There are so many things at home that need to be taken care of."
Her husband, Matt, works two jobs, one in a power plant in town, the other raising cattle on their farm. He's also a Republican, but is starting to question the war and wonder whether the country should turn its focus homeward.
"Maybe we shouldn't be there. Maybe we should get out,'' he said. "I would never vote for a Democrat, and certainly not for Hillary Clinton. ... But - and I hate to say it - but maybe a Democrat is more apt to get things done at home.''
As the cost of the war continues to rise, that's one big common refrain: Stop spending money in Iraq, and spend it at home. It's feeding a resurgence of support for liberal notions of using the federal government in ways that had been in decline for more than a decade.
"We need to fix things,'' said Mary Howell, an independent from the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale. "We need to fix health care. We can spend billions in Iraq. But we have people at home who need help.''
Even with a healthy economy - a new census report this week showed the poverty rate declining for the first time this decade - a lot of people feel squeezed by gas prices, health-care costs and college tuition.
That doesn't drive everyone to seek help from Washington, but most want something different.
"Things are a mess,'' said George Wagner, an auto mechanic from Homestead, west of Iowa City. "Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Big business is running Washington. The little guy gets left behind."
Wagner, a libertarian, also wants the country to look homeward.
"We're not the policeman of the world. We should make friends with the people overseas we can do business with, secure the borders and take care of the people at home. Take care of the infrastructure. Older folks, medical stuff. If we stop spending so much overseas, we could give that money to churches to take care of people."
Of course, there are those who feel good about the economy, who don't want to return to spending federal tax dollars to help the needy, who support the war.
"Things are in pretty good shape," said Jim Granzow, a farmer and a Republican from Hubbard, Iowa.
Even among most Republicans, however, there's disappointment in Bush and a restlessness for change. Stop illegal immigration. Curb runaway federal spending. Win in Iraq.
Bill Hileman, a furniture salesman from Honey Creek, a small town near the Nebraska border, is a Republican who wouldn't want a third term for Bush.
"I'd look for another Republican,'' Hileman said.
His main complaint? He thinks Bush let illegal immigration run amok. "There are too many illegals, even here. It's hurting our economy and draining our resources."
Chad Kluver, a pharmaceutical sales rep from the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, voted for Bush but now wants someone who'll win the Iraq war.
"I'm more jaded than anything else," he said. "We were misled. But it would be ridiculous to back out now. We need to finish what we started. If we back out now, it was all in vain. ... I want a candidate who can get it done as soon as possible and get the troops home."
In a recent poll, 65 percent of Iowa Republicans said it was important to find a 2008 presidential candidate in the conservative mold of Reagan. Asked whether Bush fit that role, 8 percent said yes and 78 percent said no.
The survey also found that 51 percent of Iowa Republicans want to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.
"It's a sour mood," said David Johnson, a former aide to Kansas Republican Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. His public relations firm, Strategic Vision, conducted the poll for corporate clients.
"There's a feeling that things are not going well. There are concerns about the economy, concerns about Iraq. ... They don't want a third term for Bush, not even Republicans. Among Democrats, I've never seen anything like it. And independents just want to be done with him."
ON THE WEB
- More on the poll about the country's direction (.pdf).
- More on the Bush approval rating.
- More on the increase in support for government spending.
- More on the poll of Iowa Republicans.
Copyright 2007 McClatchy Newspapers

49 Comments so far
Show Allcelebrity said, "The time is ripe for a Kucinich Presidency. He has NO PEER this time around! ...".
BS. There're also MIKE GRAVEL, and Ron Paul!!
Which of the three would really be best would be known once all of them were elected president for respective terms of presidency, for if one of these three is ever elected while the other two aren't, then we still would not know what these other two would do.
Yet, and like Paul Craig Robets replied to me in an email when I questioned him because he mentioned Kucinich but not the two others, or maybe it was Ron Paul that Roberts spoke of, well, the reply was that if any of these three people got elected and stuck to their stated political pledges, then ... [expect] assassination. That's NOT unrealistic, and if it happened, then we'd still be back to ... ground ZERO; although really in the ... red zone.
People who blindly or blanketedly promote Kucinich do no one any favours, and we therefore must admit that while he campaigned to become the DP nominee to run for president in 2004, he literally said that there was or is no significant difference between Kerry and Bush, and that was, is very right, accurate. Instead of keeping himself in the running, Kucinich said that he'd side with whoever the DLC would nominate, and he did; and that was Kerry. Quite a contrasting set of positions, but it's ALL POLITICS, and politics ain't of the order of trustworthiness.
Politicians make decisions while pretending to represent their supporters and still manage to be self-contradictory. I understand, somewhat anyway, why Kucinich did as per above, but it nonetheless is NOT inspiring, at all.
They're all too coward to split away from the parties that they've been long members of, wanting to instead pretend that they can really change their parties, which is plain wishful nonsense, dreaming. NOT one person is going to change a party he or she is member of, unless it is very small in scope, membership, in terms of political representatives or candidates.
And we don't need a Peace Department; it's what [Defence] Department really should be about. We need, instead, to correct the DoD so that it really is about [defence], vs offence, aggression. Adding a so-called or initially-based PoD is NOT going to change anything, because those who corrupt the DoD and the rest of the U.S. govt, nationally and internationally are NOT going to allow a PoD to have much weight at all.
[Defence] is about peace and justice, and without that, you are not going to have peace. [Defence] is NOT about aggression but defence against aggression. PoD is going to be another meaningless department; although the DoD is not meaningless, for it is extremely about aggression, and that definitely is not without meaning.
A coins has two sides and both belong to the same coin. You need to SEE and understand the whole, before knowing what the whole entails.
Peace is the way only if it is based on justice, first and foremost, being the way. All we need is to correct the DoD. PoD is bandaid, and it ain't gonna last. It's wishful dreaming; and that's not conducive to real justice and then peace.
The U.S. does not need a PoD; it needs [real] Justice and according Defence departments. And that's besides the need to downsize the scope of powers of the federal govt. We already have Justice and Defence departments; we just need to seriously correct them.
People who whiningly "bitch" for peace while not focusing on the greater justice principle, and therefore neglect that we must have justice before we can really have peace, these people are NO good at all; really serving the interests of the mongers of war and for capitalistic gains more than serving the interests of justice, which is the sole way to have peace; JUSTICE.
And a person of serious, real justice does not back down on his or her political pledges and statements, only sticking with them; all the way, "through thick and thin".
Kucinich has fine bases for political and societal ideas or pledges, but he's messed up by not being willing to distinguish himself from the party he's member of when it came to U.S. presidential campaign; and I don't accept such weakness, although will not condemn his candidature for the 2008 presidential election. He should run for that alright; but hopefully won't repeat his 2004 lameness.
Lameness is NOT acceptable for political leaders or representatives; NO, definitely not. To err is human, and I accept it, but when it comes to politics, then I hold a higher standard of qualification. Kucinich should or must not again repeat his backtracking nonsense of 2004; else he may as well go back to being only a city mayor, when he evidently fared better.
Personally, I'm not wholly satisfied with Kucinich, Gravel or Paul, but recognise that they're the best that we have for 2008 candidates; and by far best, being the solely qualifiable. Still, my standards are higher set, all while being actually easy to accept, if we put extreme selfishness, greed, aside. Include that, and then we are not going to get anywhere; exclude it, and we'll be able to achieve plenty.
We have the potential. It's just that we do NOT have the adequate consensus, solidarity.
And we are most likely not going to achieve what is needed for consensus; I am afraid of, but recognise.
No one does any good in promoting Kucinich as if he's flawless. He f*cked up en masse in 2004.
So, we can conclude that the US population is _almost_ back to being as "liberal" as during Reagan's most triumphal years.
I'll try to view that as good news...
Interesting piece. I do see a growing green movement which does give me hope and its true that "sicko" and other factors have given healthcare its rightful frontpage attention in the public eye. I still think that the country is still hugely divided along the republican-democat divide and that the 2 party system in America is a huge obstacle to sustainable progress in this country. The pendulum is a good metaphor because policy can only move in 2 possible directions - that of one party, or that of the other. I think its time to get rid of this limited framework and allow other parties to be heard.
Yes, the pendulum swings over this pit of vipers.
Nature abhors a vaccume and the gods abhor hubrus. Every stable system must cycle from one extreme to another. Will America do this gently or with rivers of blood? Nature and the gods don't care.
VOTE DENNIS KUCINICH in 2008!
Progress for USA = progress for the world.
Deptartment of Peace; unite with others, not fight them. Peace through justice, sharing, cooperation, solving our planet's environmental crisis, changing the economic system, empowering citizens not threatening them.
Yeah.. Kucinich!!!
Why does his name always comes up.. I talk to so many people who like him... and think he is great.. but they won't vote for him!!?????
WHat the hell???
You all know you want him.... so just do it.. SUPPORT HIM and quit saying BUT and UMM so much when you talk about him.
The time is ripe for a Kucinich Presidency. He has NO PEER this time around!
The posters above me have hit it right on the mark. All polls show that the American public OVERWHELMINGLY has the same values and goals as Mr. Kucinich.
I LOVE the following from Caelidh (And I will only add the exclamation marks to the statement.): "SUPPORT HIM and quit saying BUT and UMM so much when you talk about him"!!!!!
As my mentor once (or twice) told me years ago: "Son, if you look for negatives, you are GUARANTEED to find them. SO STOP LOOKING AND LISTEN TO YOUR HEART!"
RE: DEMOCRACY - GOING YOUR WAY!
"Americans Hungry for Change as Election Approaches"
Yea - "desperate to change the country's course" they get...blitzkreig-Bush invasion #3, followed by robotics-from-planet-mars Business Week-endorsed DLC Clinton.
I support Kucinich and Gravel so far.....
If the People's will is of any reality, then they will start getting more attention from all sources......
Peace,
Ken Hausle
* I support Impeachment of DC
Of all the candidates running right now, Kucinich is the man with the right answers. I think that he is indeed the one to vote for if you want progress.
"In a recent poll, 65 percent of Iowa Republicans said it was important to find a 2008 presidential candidate in the conservative mold of Reagan. Asked whether Bush fit that role, 8 percent said yes and 78 percent said no."
This result shows beyond any shadow of doubt that Iowa Republicans have NO clue about what Reagan's "mold" was or just how much of it Bush is following-up on. Further, the man quoted as wanting a Republican candidate who will "finish what we started," indicates just how propagandized and conditioned citizens are who consider themselves informed and educated.
Republicans are only about 25% of our population, unfortunately the poor do not vote or are forced to stand in the rain for hours to do so. I care very little about the brain-dead portion of our population that continues to vote Republican and not much respect for the people who spend all their time complaining but never bother to do their duty at the ballot box.
And we have Karl Rove to thank for this. His grand plan to reshape the Republican party in order to permanently take over the U.S. government (make it a one-party political process) backfired on him. In his quest to pit one demographic against another, by mischaracterizing one group in the eyes of another, he has simply alienated EVERYONE against the Republicans.
Here's the part I don't get. He's supposedly really, really smart. Yet, this outcome is so predictable. How could he not have seen this coming? If he had, he may have changed his strategy. Maybe the next Karl Rove, that guy who's a member of the young republicans right now in college, will take his cue from his master and come up with another scheme to undermine our two-party representative democracy for some other hair-brained, weird worldview, 30 years hence.
A generation? And the rest! When in the past was free health-care (or close to it), paid from taxes, ever considered top of the people's agenda?
This is considered "news?" Jesus was a liberal, the country was founded by progressives, and "conservative theory" has never been accepted too far beyond the "elite" said theory serves exclusively. Sure, about 30% of the country fell for the religion-homophobia propaganda, but the MAJORITY of America HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIBERAL. There was even a time when all colleges and universities offered entire Liberal Arts programs. No, seriously, they did. It was Liberals who ended child-labor, worker abuse and wage-rape, who championed Civil Rights, etc. Aside from the Nixon radar blip - Earth Day, China - name one single "conservative" policy that has proved to actually better this country.
?
HAHAHA - Change? Change to what, Democrats? Our political system is just for show to give the illusion of choice, of change. Your owners (big corporations and the wealthy elite) will never allow change.
Three candidates represent real possible change, Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul. All three are written off and derided by the MSM. For instance, Democrats are told every day that their choice is between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. There will never be an change under America's current political, economic system.
I just love how the republicans think that the economy is great. How can you have a great economy when you have an 8 TRILLION dollar debt? That WILL come due, and have to be paid. Where's your great economy now?
expatincebu: How about voting for people who have a proven track record? Kucinich has an outstanding one in Congress and Mike Gravel certainly represents change in a positive way. Many people, myself included would love to see a Kucinich/Gravel ticket. We know about MSM and the unbalanced and biased reporting, but common folks like us help by spreading the word to others about the differences between the candidates and what they stand for. Taking a nihilistic stance only enhances the injustices and inequalities perpetrated by the power elite. If we want genuine progress, we have to fight for it.
Education is paramount. Ignorance is unforgivable. (I'll leave out the bliss part for a change)
Wanna know what Kucinich stands for? Here is the link to his new section on his platform:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/
It shows the comprehensive, progressive agenda that Kucinich stands for. It is virtually identical to the platform of the Green Party of the United States and also virtually identical to the positions of Ralph Nader.
There should be mandatory voting laws, and like in Japan it should be against the law for candidates to advertise on TV. People should READ what they have to say. We got these slick incompetent wealthy goons in office through mass brainwashing (TV).
Second, candidates should only campaign with a small set amount of money. Our Congress people should be our peers, not our overlords from the elite class.
People are sick of our corporate owned candidates, and an economy based solely on greed and individualism to such a degree that it borders on social Darwinism. Reagan made greed popular, and Bush ran the country off the cliff with it.
The pendulum always swings from the left to the right and back again.
I was going to suggest that the pendulum is swinging, however, it really appears as if there are more than one pendulum and that they are swinging in opposite directions.
We are a deeply divided country and getting more so every year. Eventually, something will have to give.
"changing the economic system, empowering citizens not threatening them."
Can you provide examples of how you will change the economic system without threatening people to accomplish it?
Seems to me all this article really shows is how
brain-dead (Iowa) Republicans really are.
Government should give money to churches? Maybe we should get out? Things are in pretty good shape? voted for Bush but now wants someone who'll win the Iraq war. I'd look for another Republican.
But I guess they're part of the 29%. Still hard to
believe 29% of a group of people can be so completely
out to lunch. Though perhaps these were the
children left behind.
The USA is responsible for the criminal invasion/occupation of Iraq with millions of dead, the illegal invasion/occupation of Afghanistan with untold thousands of dead, a leadership which believes itself to be above the law, which has repudiated International covenants to the extent that it is now considered a rogue nation, a leadership which spies on, incarcerates, and tortures it's own citizens as well as engages in kidnapping and torture of foreigners.
And the American public is as liberal now as when their government was running guns into sovereign democratic countries to destabilize and overthrow those democratically elected governments.
I would say that Americans are as uninformed as ever. Free the Press!
Yes, Kucinich has a proven track record of following the party line.
He will not stand up to the Dem leadership.
And we already know it's not Kucinich' platform we have problem with.
Ron Paul: Stuck in the 19 century style free market BS. His politics fit well with the KKK, CCC types.
Gravel: I don't know enough about him to say anything.
There are 4 Dem caucus attendees in my Iowa home. The other three rely on me to a great extent to keep them informed about "politics", and basically we are all in agreement on the issues.
Here's my one and only reservation about Kucinich: How does he plan to counter the tsunami of accusations the republicants have waiting to hurl at him? You know - when they swiftboat him with new-ageyness...or whatever they have in the files to build lies upon.
Though i know no candidate is going to start talking about the priority of murdering the idea of allowing unlimited personal fortunes, still, we WILL caucus (have already switched registration from independent to democrat in order to be allowed to caucus), and we WILL vote, so this point really matters to me. 4 people can sometimes make the difference as to wether a certain candidate becomes viable in our precinct, or not.
What is Dennis going to be hit with if he wins the D nomination, and how will he defend? Any ideas?
"Though perhaps these were the
children left behind."
TOO funny, peoplefirst!
jspkim..."Kucinich has a proven track record of following the party line. He will not stand up to the Dem leadership."
Check your facts before penning an opinion.
celebrity /
Yes, I did my home work and learned my lessons hard way.
I was doing the exactly the same thing you are doing 4 years ago.
Why is "religious intensity" viewed as a conservative thing. There are devoutly religious progressives out there.
Well once again, the myth of the "ugly American" needs to go away. It is a nasty stereotype like all others, and articles such as these help tear that down.
The graphs show that we are nearly as progressive we were in 87?
Errr, that means that at the end of Reagan's last term people we're feeling this way?
Wasn't there an election in 88?
Hmmph.....
I concur though Kucinich/Gravel in 08, not utopian perfection, by realistically the best shot we got, and actually pretty damn good IMO. At least the only ones keeping it real for the most part.
The imbecilic nazis we call "the media" won't allow Kucinich even to be heard or considered---after all, he's short and has the biggest earlobes of all our wonderful, brave, fascinating candidates! Is that how Americans (masters of the world) want to see themselves? Why, Dennis would ask people to THINK, and freedom just won't bear that! Happy Happy Happy! Oh God, another whole year of listening to the Democrats' WHORES---we've never needed change so badly and all we get are WHORES....
Even so--with corporate control holding all the keyes--we won't get anyone who will represent our interests.
I have a fantasy that one day candidates for office, like every other job seeker, will post their resume to the american people, sit for an interview with Bill Moyers and then go the hell away while the people decide.
Actually, I was talking with a coworker the other day and I said wouldn't it be interesting to have a TV show "The Next President" where candidates would have to compete in contests like debate, foreign policy, coalition building etc. They we could just call in and vote them out. The winner gets the white house. A Political Survivor if you will. At least in that case you'd get a higher percentage of americans voting!!
To all who say they like Kucinich and would prefer to have him as president but won't vote for him because he hasn't got a chance, I ask this question: "You WOULD vote for Mrs. Clinton even if you have to hold your nose because she DOES have a chance, even though she is more like a Republican than a Democrat; even though she has demonstrated that she is just another damned war-monger; even though she may wear out her weather-checking finger trying to devine which way the wind is blowing than voting for a man who has put his action where his mouth is?" To hell with today's Democrat! Either put Dennis on the ballot or else I won't vote at all. It's not a matter of voting for any Democrat rather than a Republican because all those "Democrats" who are said to have a chance are no different from the Republians and I'm not voting for one of them regardless of what they call themselves. If we had instant runoff elections this would not be an issue - Dennis would be a shoo-in. But then again, with electronic voting systems even instant run-offs would probably insure just another damned war-monger in office since, for well over a hundred years now, war-mongering is what we do.
I think we should send all the homeless people that left places like Indiana and Iowa for places they could survive,back. We could send the people that were put in the streets when Reagan closed all the mental health facilities too. I think the good republicans of both states have some explaining to do to the rest of the country.
Glaxia, I know clinton will be viable where I am - you can bet the farm on it. So will obama, I suspect. Neither could ever have my vote. On caucus night, if Dennis needs the four of us in order to become viable (meaning he'll have at least one delegate move on to the state convention), then he's got us firmly in his camp. But, if Dennis has enough people already to be viable, but the four of us could not give him a second delegate, then i have to consider how many delegates Edwards will have, and it's possible all or some of us would move to E's camp that night, in order to keep hillary or barak from pulling away into a big lead. Yes, mine will be a strategic vote that night, but please know it's all about me trying to figure out how best to help Dennis with the vote i have.
my dream ticket is Kucinich/McKinney, btw.
but i think my concerns about what the republicants are going to hit Dennis with are valid. i hope he's got a fight-back strategy thunk up. if anybody knows how gullible people are, it ought to be him. he'll have a time of it, i'm afraid, once the swiftboating starts.
How interesting is Matt's comment, "I would never vote for a democrat". I am a Canadian and don't know even one person who is an actual member of a political party. Everybody of course tends to one party or other but would switch their votes in a second if they were unhappy with the party in power. It is strange to us this attitude of life long, absolute allegiance (sp?) to a political party.
If sour Americans are hungry for change, let them eat sweet pennies.
"Wasn't there an election in 88?"
Yes, and the elected Bush I, and roundly defeated Dukakas, largely on the power of a blatantly racist ad campaign, I recall...
I guess that since he doesn't breath fire and has not been high-profile nationally because he has been out of Congress and a federal administration for several years (and people's memories are about as long as an inch-worm), too many people are not paying close attention to the Democratic-nomination candidate who fits what Iowans seem to say they want. Bill Richardson professes policies that most Americans want -- not to mention being the only candidate with a rich legislative AND executive background, PLUS international-relations experience.
Richardson's not fiery, but he's steady and experienced, and that seems to this moderately-progressive or progressively-moderate Democrat that he's just what our country needs in the wake of the flood of disasters visited upon it and the world over the past near-seven years by the Cheney/Rove/Gonzales/Bush cabal (note the order).
Please see and carefully read what you'll find at http://www.richardsonforpresident.com:80/home . An article (context is dated but details remain pertinent) worth reading is at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=fitting_the_bill .
And no, I'm not a part of Richardson's campaign. But I am pragmatic and, as a former 1960s semi-radical and retired publicist and writer, old enough and now (immodestly) smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. Richardson's wheat.
BLAH BLAH Kucinich, Blah Blah Blah Gravel, Paul, etc. Anybody who has been around for more than a few election cycles realizes that none of these "politicians" stand for anything.
More importantly an ignorant people cannot expect anything but more ignorant change. The AMERICAN PEOPLE voted for Bush and his policies.
We saw ALL OF THIS BEFORE -- in Vietnam. Lessons learned? Zero.
NO I'm sorry to have to tell you there is NO change in store that will make a difference. It is all a personal project.
"Yes, and the elected Bush I, and roundly defeated Dukakas, largely on the power of a blatantly racist ad campaign, I recall…"
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!
Not only was the country at it's most liberal in the past 20 years, according to this article, but it voted for the VP of the conservative ticket of the previous 8 years. That's like Cheney wining in 08.
Thanks for the optimism, I'm sure your intentions are good Thomma, but think a little first.
We don't need hype right now, and positive vibes as much as we need cunning people who can out smart these monsters.
White Rose--Amen! And thank you for putting it so well.
"Yes, and the elected Bush I, and roundly defeated Dukakas, largely on the power of a blatantly racist ad campaign, I recall…"
So once again, Americans are bad, bad, dumb, racist, horrible, people and everyone else on the planet is moral and good, except for a small band of alternately self-righteous and self-loathing liberals, eh?
I think this article along with others has disappointed a lot of people, so therefore it's being pooh-poohed.
Some of you people on CD come off as a bunch of elitists, concerned that a bunch of "poseurs" are like, invading your scene and stuff.
I guess when the progressives take over the gov't, you'll all become Republicans. Or deep down, you like everything just the way it is. I guess some people like to feel that they're special, different from all the Morlocks.
I just have to laugh at it anymore. I'm sure Limbaugh's staffers pass along all this junk to him. They see the wholesale bashing of Americans, and then old Rush passes that onto his cult.
"See how the liberals hate. They all wanna kill ya!"
Fortunately, the people are resisting it and embracing OUR values, despite the fact that people on our team keep spitting loogies on them.
I'm going for a lie down. This thread gives me a headache.
Earthian, about Kucinich:
"It is virtually identical to the platform of the Green Party of the United States and also virtually identical to the positions of Ralph Nader."
Yes. So why is he running as a Democrat?
Everybody: DENNIS KUCINICH IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. He is running for a nomination he can't possibly get: the party will make damn sure of that. To say nothing of the MSM. If he wanted to run for President, he'd switch to the Green Party, which would nominate him gladly (Nader's wonderful, but he's getting old, he's already lost 3 times, and he isn't a member of the party. Renominating him starts to look a bit masochistic.).
As it is, Kucinich's real role is as a stalking horse, keeping lefties attached to a hopeless cause. In the end, just as in '04, he'll support whatever DLC warmonger the party nominates, because he's "a loyal Democrat" - I heard him say so myself, 3 or 4 times in an hour, whenever he didn't sound like one. Figure that one out for yourself.
Clue: he isn't rich. He needs the job.
Summary
On Empowering Tomorrow, I found my comments to be extensive and realized that they should be a blog. The article is based on interviews and surveys from Iowans. Its notes their views about their quality of life, the state of our nation, economy, the indifffence of government, lack of leadership vision, the absence of personal empowerment, and the uncertainty of our future as a nation.
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -
Summary
On Empowering Tomorrow, I found my comments to be extensive and realized that they should be a blog. The article is based on interviews and surveys from Iowans. Its notes their views about their quality of life, the state of our nation, economy, the indifffence of government, lack of leadership vision, the absence of personal empowerment, and the uncertainty of our future as a nation.
http://unity2008.org/empowered.html
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
Author - The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -