This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Undermining the Democrats
Published on January 25, 2007 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The state of the Union Speech was a piece of political theatre and it cerainly set the Republican fox amongst the Democrat pigeons. George Bush, struggling for political relevance did what every politician is distress does: he coopted the entire Democrat agenda for himself. This astute move will ceratinly gain him some political mileage, but the conservatives will feel that they have been betrayed and the Democrats will feel upstaged. This round to George Bush. The Democrats realising the gravity of the situation have decided to hit back and predictably lashed out at the Iraq policy or lack of it.

If George Bush wanted to win friends and influence people on Capitol Hill he has certainly not succeeded. If on the other hand, the purpose of his speech was to sow the seeds of discoprd he certainly performed well. More than half of his speech concerned the domestic issues and though a late convert to Al Gore's vision of an impending climatic apoclypse, Bush did make inroads into the Democratic support base. Similarly he touched base on issues like medicare, health insurance, minimum wage and immigration. All core issues in the forthcoming 2008 Presidential Polls. George Bush has run away with the domestic agenda of the Democrats and they are left with virtually no domestic issue of their own.

Hence the relevance of the Iraq war. George Bush made good use of the rhetorical ploy of making the support for the US troops in Iraq translate into support for his policy toward Iraq.

Comments
on Jan 25, 2007
The state of the Union Speech was a piece of political theatre and it cerainly set the Republican fox amongst the Democrat pigeons. George Bush, struggling for political relevance did what every politician is distress does: he coopted the entire Democrat agenda for himself. This astute move will ceratinly gain him some political mileage, but the conservatives will feel that they have been betrayed and the Democrats will feel upstaged. This round to George Bush. The Democrats realising the gravity of the situation have decided to hit back and predictably lashed out at the Iraq policy or lack of it.


The same ploy used but President Clinton. The only difference is he plans on following through instead of just providing lipservice. The Democrats should not feel upstaged since they have no plan other than to oppose the president.
on Jan 25, 2007
he coopted the entire Democrat agenda for himself.


It took you 6 years to realize that?
on Jan 26, 2007
It took you 6 years to realize that?


The fact that the neo con agenda has come unstuck and that the US is bogged down in an unwinable war in Iraq and that the public perception of the USa has dimmed means that the Democrats will have to come up with some radical new ideas.
on Jan 26, 2007
It's so interesting how you guys keep referring to a war that can't won.  It can be won if we have the resolve and a Congress led by democrats who are vested in defeat.
on Jan 29, 2007
It can be won if we have the resolve and a Congress led by democrats who are vested in defeat.


This Congress was elected only in November and Bush and the Bushmen has a majority in Congress for 12 years. You cannot shift the responsibility for the defeat of USA in Iraq on to the Congress. It was Bush was waged war not Congress.
on Jan 29, 2007
It can be won if we have the resolve and a Congress led by democrats who are vested in defeat.


This Congress was elected only in November and Bush and the Bushmen has a majority in Congress for 12 years. You cannot shift the responsibility for the defeat of USA in Iraq on to the Congress. It was Bush was waged war not Congress.
on Jan 29, 2007
This Congress was elected only in November and Bush and the Bushmen has a majority in Congress for 12 years. You cannot shift the responsibility for the defeat of USA in Iraq on to the Congress. It was Bush was waged war not Congress.


Once again you show your ignortance on American politics. First Bush CAN'T wage ANY war without congressional approval. And I'd like to know how Bush and his "Bushmen" had control for 12 years. Especially since Bush has only been President for 6 YEARS before that was CLINTON! And CLINTON had it for 8 YEARS prior to that.Now you wanna try again?
on Jan 29, 2007
Again I must say that "if" you're going to quote on American politics....you should study the subject matter before you speak.
on Jan 29, 2007
The fact that the neo con agenda has come unstuck and that the US is bogged down in an unwinable war in Iraq and that the public perception of the USa has dimmed means that the Democrats will have to come up with some radical new ideas.


I suspect you increase your english comprehension, or reread my response. Your answer is non-sequitar and purely troll bait.
on Jan 31, 2007
Bahu Virupaksha,

Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the below statement and why.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.