Comments on: How It Works http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/ Like Kryptonite To Stupid Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:43:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: JD http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16651 JD Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:12:45 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16651 Yes, please explain how this economy is not strong ... Yes, please explain how this economy is not strong …

]]> By: Frank_D http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16650 Frank_D Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:12:42 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16650 With a few changes and substitutions, this could be portrayed as the 10 - Step Scandal Deflection Program of the Clinton administration. Perhaps this is something peculiar to Presidents, or, more likely, IMHO, a case of "My special prosecutor can beat your special prosecutor." The Democrats opened the barn doors in 1972, and the horses have yet to be returned. With a few changes and substitutions, this could be portrayed as the 10 – Step Scandal Deflection Program of the Clinton administration.

Perhaps this is something peculiar to Presidents, or, more likely, IMHO, a case of “My special prosecutor can beat your special prosecutor.”

The Democrats opened the barn doors in 1972, and the horses have yet to be returned.

]]> By: Bill L. http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16649 Bill L. Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:12:42 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16649 "Bush's success on the anti-terrorist homefront..." "Strong economy..." Holy sh*t, that's some strong kool aid. Is it really worth it to go to the trouble of debunking those myths again? “Bush’s success on the anti-terrorist homefront…”

“Strong economy…”

Holy sh*t, that’s some strong kool aid.

Is it really worth it to go to the trouble of debunking those myths again?

]]> By: dugger1 http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16648 dugger1 Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:12:04 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16648 Elrod, I think Warner or Clinton are electable. One thing I expect: Up to the Party nomination, both will play more to the Party ideological (more left wing) core, then after the election they will tack right, especially on foreign policy. It may be interesting to see if Warner thinks his only shot is to run, at the ONSET, as a DLC moderate type - putting Hillary to his left. They then could split the 'right wing' Democratic vote and a party left winger, Edwards (?), sneaks in. IMO Edwards or a defined leftist candidate would lose to a moderate Repub like Guiliani who is perceived as strong on the WOT (but then, Guiliani may have trouble with the Repub nomination). Nobody talks about McCain's age (he would be about 72 when elected). I think it becomes a factor. Dugger, Random Electro Impulses Firing Elrod, I think Warner or Clinton are electable. One thing I expect: Up to the Party nomination, both will play more to the Party ideological (more left wing) core, then after the election they will tack right, especially on foreign policy. It may be interesting to see if Warner thinks his only shot is to run, at the ONSET, as a DLC moderate type – putting Hillary to his left. They then could split the ‘right wing’ Democratic vote and a party left winger, Edwards (?), sneaks in.
IMO Edwards or a defined leftist candidate would lose to a moderate Repub like Guiliani who is perceived as strong on the WOT (but then, Guiliani may have trouble with the Repub nomination). Nobody talks about McCain’s age (he would be about 72 when elected). I think it becomes a factor.

Dugger, Random Electro Impulses Firing

]]> By: elrod http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16647 elrod Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:12:25 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16647 Dugger, I agree. The irony is that a terrorist attack may redound to Bush's benefit. However, the Katrina debacle showed that that might be only partially true. Bush tried to look "tough" after Katrina and ended up looking stupid. Then he changed his image in order to look "caring". It still looked stupid. In a terrorist attack toughness counts much more. Still, the country is too divided now to rally around Bush the way it did after 9/11. I think that if the Dems nominate Mark Warner, the Dems will take the White House in 2008. If they nominate Hillary Clinton, it will be much tougher. Dugger,
I agree. The irony is that a terrorist attack may redound to Bush’s benefit. However, the Katrina debacle showed that that might be only partially true. Bush tried to look “tough” after Katrina and ended up looking stupid. Then he changed his image in order to look “caring”. It still looked stupid. In a terrorist attack toughness counts much more. Still, the country is too divided now to rally around Bush the way it did after 9/11.

I think that if the Dems nominate Mark Warner, the Dems will take the White House in 2008. If they nominate Hillary Clinton, it will be much tougher.

]]> By: Dugger http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16646 Dugger Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:12:00 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16646 Though, won't it be ironic if Bush's success on the anti-terrorist homefront actually brings about a complacency mindset among the voters that winds up benefiting the Democrats. Bush was elected IMO, becasue he was perceived as being stronger on T. So, another successful terrorist attack on the homefront would tend to remind the public more of the Democrats perceived weaknesses on this issue than perhaps Bush's single failing in letting sadi attack happen. Bush fatigue and a strong economy are offsetting factors. If the Democrats are smart enough to run a centrist, non retreating, Hillary Clinton, they may win. Dugger Though, won’t it be ironic if Bush’s success on the anti-terrorist homefront actually brings about a complacency mindset among the voters that winds up benefiting the Democrats. Bush was elected IMO, becasue he was perceived as being stronger on T. So, another successful terrorist attack on the homefront would tend to remind the public more of the Democrats perceived weaknesses on this issue than perhaps Bush’s single failing in letting sadi attack happen. Bush fatigue and a strong economy are offsetting factors. If the Democrats are smart enough to run a centrist, non retreating, Hillary Clinton, they may win.

Dugger

]]> By: Semanticleo http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16645 Semanticleo Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:12:53 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16645 I have speculated before about the american public and their interest in the nuts and bolts of 'how government works' and I still say Bush's recent poll tank and the current mild rebound is correlated more to gas prices than it is the issues of the day. Not that public opinion isn't 'tweaked' by these little news infarcts; but it's largely driven by 'pocketbooks'. I have speculated before about the american public and their interest in the nuts and bolts of ‘how government works’ and I still say Bush’s recent poll tank and the current mild rebound is correlated more to gas prices than it is the issues of the day. Not that public opinion isn’t ‘tweaked’ by these little news infarcts; but it’s largely driven by ‘pocketbooks’.

]]> By: elrod http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16644 elrod Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:12:10 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16644 Yes, nudnik, Iran-controlled Iraq will be in much better shape. The willingness of the Sunnis to accept the election results shows that the country is well on the path toward stability. Oh wait a minute, the Sunnis want a revote. So do the pro-American secularists. Yes, nudnik, Iran-controlled Iraq will be in much better shape. The willingness of the Sunnis to accept the election results shows that the country is well on the path toward stability. Oh wait a minute, the Sunnis want a revote. So do the pro-American secularists.

]]> By: nudnik http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/21/how-it-works/#comment-16643 nudnik Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:12:05 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1127#comment-16643 The biggest obstacle to Democrats is the fact that they have once again lined up on the wrong side of history. As in 2002, they will be properly painted as weak on defense and weak on security. Iraq will be in much better shape, the economy is humming, and the Dems are not part of either. Have fun in the minority....again. The biggest obstacle to Democrats is the fact that they have once again lined up on the wrong side of history. As in 2002, they will be properly painted as weak on defense and weak on security. Iraq will be in much better shape, the economy is humming, and the Dems are not part of either. Have fun in the minority….again.

]]>