Democratic PartyThe "How many of you guys also hate Bush?" thread made me wonder...
Bush's poll numbers show he's driving at least some people from the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party won the House based on "Hey, we're that party that doesn't have Bush in it :)" campaigning.
So...what do you think of the Democratic Party besides that they're not Bush? On their own, do you like or dislike them, and what do you think about their goals/candidates/general competence/likelihood of getting bribed/anything else?
|itainohime||Good questions. :)|
I hate the Democrats less than I hate the Republicans; how's that? If nothing else, it takes them much longer to become corrupt when they're in power than it did the Republicans.
Goals: The Party's strength is also its weakness. Democrats are supportive of diversity of thought, which means that everyone's got a different opinion on how certain things should be handled. While I don't think this is a bad thing, it makes the Party look to moderates and conservatives like they have no unity, and no goals. What it actually means is that individual Democrats have individual goals, whereas all Republicans are now expected to keep in lockstep with what Party leaders tell them to do.
Candidates: I like Barack Obama, because he's smart and articulate. By "articulate", by the way, I mean that he's able to concisely express himself and make his opponent look like a total moron at the same time. Russ Feingold's my hero. And I think John Edwards is a good candidate all around. Hillary makes me want to puke, though, just because a) she's a lot more conservative than people think and b) she's unelectable.
Competence: Depends on the Democrat. Just like it depends on the Republican.
Likelihood of getting bribed: The Democrats have not been targets for bribery of late, but that's because they have had no power. If they're the party in power again, that'll change.
|itainohime||Oh, and for the record: Democrats got elected in '06 because Americans are sick of the war in Iraq, and believed that they would be the party more likely to fight to end the war. Yeah, they also won because Bush is unpopular, but he's unpopular because of the war; that didn't happen in a vacuum.|
|facia||Really? I wasn't sure if they got elected in spite of the war (considering how much campaigning was done about how the Democrats are going to cut and run, don't change horses in midstream, stuff) but yeah, it's a pretty unpopular war and is linked to the Republican party much more than the Democratic, so you might be right.|
|hobbeth||You know, I'm not sure if that's completely true. I'm sure the war in Iraq may have had something to do with it. However, I don't feel the opposition to this war is as great as the protests of the Vietnam War in the 60s and early 70s. Plus a lot of people voted Democratic for a number of other reasons, closer to home/more personal reasons. I know I did. Abortion, social security, healthcare and education are what people I know - in many states - are as concerned with, or more so.|
|brianfly||During his Presidential campaign, Bush's foreign policy platform included support for a stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America, especially Mexico, and a reduction of involvement in "nation-building" and other small-scale military engagements. The administration pursued a national missile defense. Bush was an advocate of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. He said open trade was a force for freedom in China.|
After the September 11 attacks, Bush launched the War on Terror, in which the United States military and an international coalition invaded Afghanistan. In 2003, Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, which he described as being part of the War on Terrorism.
Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan.
Countries visited by President George W. Bush during his terms in office.
Bush began his second term with an emphasis on improving strained relations with European nations. He appointed long-time adviser Karen Hughes to oversee a global public relations campaign. Bush lauded the pro-democracy struggles in Georgia and Ukraine.
In March 2006, a visit to India led to renewed ties between the two countries, reversing decades of U.S. policy. The visit focused particularly on areas of nuclear energy and counter-terrorism cooperation, discussions that would lead eventually to the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This is in stark contrast to the stance taken by his predecessor, Clinton, whose approach and response to India after the 1998 nuclear tests was that of sanctions and hectoring. The relationship between India and the United States was one that dramatically improved during Bush's tenure.
Midway through vaccum cleaners Bush's second term, it was questioned whether Bush was retreating from his freedom and democracy agenda, highlighted in policy changes toward some oil-rich former Soviet republics in central Asia.
In an address before both Houses of Congress on September 20, 2001, Bush thanked the nations of the world for their support following the September 11 attacks. He specifically thanked British Prime Minister Tony Blair for traveling to the Washington to show "unity of purpose with America", and said "America has no truer friend than Great Britain."