The Politico reports that "Democrats try to get hip to young voters"
Convinced that increased turnout among young voters in 2006 helped them regain control of Congress in 2006, Democratic congressional leaders have launched a major charm offensive aimed at college students and recent graduates.What might the Democrats' "charm offensive" include?
First, they might brag how their excessive favoritism toward labor unions would make it easier for recent graduates to get good jobs.
They could also tout their refusal to make meaningful reforms to Social Security.
Kids don't care about health insurance and they don't care about retirement. Several of my peers from the 60s used to go around and say they wouldn't live to see 30.
But, if you paint the issue as one the youngsters pay into to support me in my retirement but there won't be any money for them, then you will see a different tune from the kids.
Right now, the Rs have not done a good job. Actually, maybe their messengers need to be several young kids.
Posted by: swatter on September 27, 2007 07:09 AMHow does the argument work against the Democrats?
"We're going to address Social Security for sure, this time, if you elect us?"
I'm convinced.
Posted by: BA on September 27, 2007 07:17 AMOh, there will be a cigar. I am sure BILL will see to that!
Posted by: pbj on September 27, 2007 09:13 AMThat's a good point, the GOP really doesn't have a great track record for doing much of anything in the six years they controlled all three branches of Govt. There does seem to be an extraordinarily high number of corruption cases against GOP officials coming from that era. Wonder why?
Short of that -- young people could care less.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 27, 2007 09:53 AMAs opposed to Democrats, who just cry about being investigated and then stifle the investigations? At least the Republicans kick corrupt people out. Corruption happens, get over it. That's the way of the world, unless you are suggesting that human nature has radically altered or something.
I'm sure the "Honorable" Mr. Jefferson was just keeping that money in the freezer cuz he don't trust them banks...
As for the war in Iraq, whatever will you do when we win? You know, win by leaving a secure and stable secular government and potential vital ally in the region?
BTW, did you ever answer my question about freedom of access to alternative media in Iran?
Posted by: Aaron on September 27, 2007 10:36 AMDoes anybody know who is going to run against Rob McKenna? I was wondering if Sidran would make another run, but apparently he's considering running for Mayor again in '09. Do the D's have anybody who can threaten him?
Posted by: cliff on September 27, 2007 11:40 AMWe established in a prior thread that this is not true. See the liar known as George Nethercutt and Senator Vitter from Louisiana.
did Democrats in Congress oppose Social Security Reform while the Republicans held majority?
They did, they also opposed the moronic free money giveaway to drug companies that the GOP called Medicare Reform.
I'm sure the "Honorable" Mr. Jefferson was just keeping that money in the freezer cuz he don't trust them banks.
I'm sure the fine people of Louisiana will remove him from office, I would.
Both parties are equally corrupt IMHO. The GOP just seems better at making a big fuss over nothing. College students are free to choose whatever party they want (and even vote for Ron Paul). That's the nature of democracy.
Meanwhile knowing that the average college student carries a huge amount of debt (student loans, etc) the GOP would be wise to let them have lower interest rates and issue more Pell Grants. That way they can get rich quicker and switch parties at an earlier age.
Nethercutt did break his promise to not run again. That is not necessarily a lie, however, if he did mean it at the time: breaking a promise and lying are not the same thing. In either case, that is not "corruption." And why in the world would the GOP kick Nethercutt out if the voters decided to reelect him despite that broken promise?
As to Vitter, there's no serious allegation he did anything illegal or, by political definitions, unethical. Period. Granted, his wife must be pretty angry at him, and maybe his constituents too, but if he is not doing anything illegal or politically unethical, the GOP has no business trying to undo the will of the voters.
You also mentioned Frist in the previous discussion: in fact, nothing in the autopsy proved Frist to be incorrect. All he said -- not what you want him to have said, but what he actually said -- is that given information he had, that he had questions about the diagnosis of PVS. He did not say she was not in a PVS, only that he was skeptical. There's nothing wrong with skepticism.
I think your use of the word "corrupt" is, well, corrupt.
McDermott wiretap recording
John Murtha Abscam
Feinstein MILCON
Jefferson freezer
And these people are all sitting in Congress.... Once you get through that, then we can talk about leaking National Security information, or stuffing it down you pants or destroying out behind a trailer (Sandy Burger) Which would've gottena a lowly Sgt like I was thrown in the brig or worse while he even got to keep his security clearance(!).
Posted by: Aaron on September 27, 2007 04:17 PMyou still haven't enlightened us as to the broadcast source of MTV Iran.
Posted by: Aaron on September 27, 2007 04:47 PMWhen I call for Republican candidates, I talk to anyone who is willing to listen.
Posted by: KW64 on September 28, 2007 09:21 PM