There are 2 choices, 4 votes for wbiro's debate

The American Political Situation

On The Republicans Losing Both the Senate and the House of Representatives


  • Current Political Summary of America

    The Republicans losing both Houses can be attributed to several factors. . (1) Their lack of communicating their goals to the American people is chief among them. It is true most Americans would not understand high and lofty motives and goals, such as in Iraq, and must be cajoled into action, as with WMD’s; but on other issues the Republicans have appeared as uncommunicative deaf-mutes. In Iraq, for example, if Bush simply declared, “My goal is to accelerate the democratization of the most powerful, miserable, ignorant, poverty-stricken Middle East tyranny, hoping to lift their human spirit and stimulate free enterprise, therby creating a stimulus for the acceleration of the democratization of the rest of the Middle East, creating prosperity and peace, reducing the risk of mass-destruction by madmen, and creating a happy, happy world. I believe that addressing our current geopolitical problem is a worthy pursuit. How it will turn out I haven’t a clue!” he would have been OK! . (2) The election results are a tribute to the success of the major media’s six years of distortions and blatant, even obtuse attempts at brain-washing. Perhaps that is the reason why the Republicans did not communicate with the American people- a one-party media overwhelmingly biased against them, a media that was more concerned with winning the next election for the Democratic Party than reporting reality, or anything positive about the Republicans. In this case the Republican's "lack of communication" would be a "could not" rather than a "did not". . . (3) The planned investigations by the Democrat-led Houses into Bush’s actions can have two results- if Bush and Co. can defend all their actions with honor, then he will have justified all that they have done, Americans will finally find out what guided his actions, and his critics will be silenced. If the investigations find that, during the course of Bush’s noble intentions, corruption existed, then Bush's faults and errors will be exposed. Concerning corruption, I would not include the simple act of taking economic advantage of a screwed-up geopolitical situation that needs addressing anyway- that of the current Muslim Mafia systems of government. Corruption I would define here as illegal business practices, in this case, benefitting Americans. (4) The election results showed that the major medias still "had muscle", that they still had political influence, that they haven't died yet in the face of the Internet- but when Americans look back at what they did and the public trust they manipulated and abused during this period, it will be their death knell.

    75%  Voted for by wbiro, mudgod, bob2314.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • Not all is as we would like it to be
    It is doubtful that George Walker Bush could have convinced the American Congress and leadership, let alone the public, to engage in the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, even by being sincere and up front. The memories of Korea and Viet Nam are still too fresh. Now, to add to these, we have the experiences of Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    The argument that the media is "one party" and "biased toward the Liberals" has been exposed for what it is, a blatant lie, a strategy designed to obfuscate the issues, to mislead the American and world public. This reverse psychology of sorts is one of the oldest tricks in the books, to accuse your enemies of what you yourself are engaging in.

    Anyone with any degree of intelligence and independent thinking can see that "the Media" is not homogenous, that the very monicker is a lie. There IS no one media, just as there is no one American political philosophy. Just as we have Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, Democrats, Greens, even Communists, Native American Party, and much more, so too do we have a wide variety, a vast spectrum, of media.

    One only has to go to the newspaper and magazine section of any large book store, or to a kiosk in a big city such as New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, or Los Angeles, to see this is true. Of course, among the "Liberal media" you may find the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and yet even in this media you will find some very conservative fiscal policy experts and pundits.

    For the traditional conservatives, we have the Chicago Tribune, the Savannah Morning News, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, the New Orleans, Dallas, and other newspapers of the heartland. The newsletters and magazines of the Christian and secular conservatives tend to support this area of thinking. Yet even here, we have fault lines of difference.

    By now, many of us have become familiar with the label, "Neoconservative." Perhaps emblematic of this is Norman Podhoretz' of the New Republic. Cheney, Addington, and Rumsfeld are said to back George W. Bush in the Neoconservative evolution. Here, though, we still have the Moral Majority, including the 700 Club, the Southern Baptist Convention, and others closely following events, applying pressure whenever they see policy needs. Then again, recently many Pentecostalists and others have split from the ranks to take sides against such things as the Wars abroad, the Death Penalty, stem cell research, and other issues.

    So-called Liberals, ironically, seem to have some important truths on their side. Now, I grant you made some very good points. They may be a little slow on the uptake.

    However, they do learn, and they are getting their game and their groove back. Don't count the conservatives or right wing as having grasped for all eternity the upper hand. They will not keep the momentum. History, in its dialectic and cycles, will inevitably manifest itself with a comeback by the Liberals. Like it or not.

    We should be so lucky that Liberals and not Radical Marxists (Bolsheviks) or Islamic Tyrants take over the reins of power. No, I don't believe Islam is bad. Nor for that matter do I think a more sincere and consistent Communism is out of the question. The Stalinists and Maoists failed. Yet in theory, Communism can be effective and realized.

    Should you try to "attack" Liberals, you will suffer backlash. Better to calmly and politely point out the weaknesses in their arguments, and oppose them using logic, rational discussion, and good will. Honey will catch many more flies than a fly swatter.
    Voted for by cafegroundzero.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →