I am so annoyed at Bush over this immigration issue that I have decided to plan the Democrat's congressional campaign for them. If they follow my plan to the letter, they could steamroll the demoralized Republicans. If they refuse to listen, they will likely walk into yet another Karl Rove sucker punch and spend the campaign defending why they want to surrender to terrorists. The Republicans won an historic victory in 1994(was it really that long ago?) by nationalizing the mid-term congressional elections. Their vehicle was the Contract With America, and the driver was Newt Gingrich, a somewhat obscure Georgia congressman with bold ideas. By comparison, the Democrats of the day looked tired, corrupt and misguided. Sound familiar? The Democrats today should propose their own Contract, but call it something different like maybe the Independence Initiative("II") The II would lay out a bold but realistic series of steps to free America from the need to import oil. For example, they could promise to enact legislation requiring all cars to be able to run on E85(85% ethanol). They could promise tax credits for building ethanol plants. They could promise to repeal the sugar subsidy to give us access to cheap caribbean sugar for ethanol distillation. They could promise to fast track nuclear power plant construction. They could make a few minor promises on health insurance, like prohibiting cancellation due to bad health and requiring portability of policies. The key is to have simple, popular bite-sized issues that convey a positive agenda. And talk about nothing else. If the Democrats run on their Bush Is Hitler platform, they will once again scare away middle of the road voters. These voters are not interested in partisan wars. They want the attention of politicians who understand real world concerns, and frankly, they are ready to sacrifice some privacy to fight terrorism. Make that the battle ground and Republicans have the high ground.
Not sure if ethanol is a winning strategy, considering it's more expensive to produce, mroe costly to the consumer,as or more polluting, less fuel efficient and ruins engines. In addition, another obvious rebuttal is that the left has stonewalled every attempt to increase domestic oil production. Kerry is probably the only viable candidate. The swift boats are used up. Although, not sure if the Republicans even have one. Frankly, this country is definitely in need to a return to a system of checks-and-balances. Gridlock is Good!
I agree with your statement of the left stonewalling oil production, but I'm wondering if you could point to links that verify your claims about ethanol. My understanding is that ethanol does not pollute anywhere near as much as gasoline engines, is less costly, and does not ruin engines designed to run on it. Thanks.
http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/Fuels/Fuelfacts/EthanolFacts.html There are tons more, just search "cons ethanol gasoline" or perhaps "ethanol versus gasoline". The gist is, ethanol requires much more energy to produce and transport. It lowers MPG so more is burned to travel the same distance. Tapping a hole in the ground is more economical than distilling bio-mass. Crude is biomass after-all... Who knows what will happen in the future, but it is no magic-pill at the moment.
I think those stats about the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol refer to our current corn-based technology. Enormous amounts of energy are used in growing the corn. Brazil uses sugar to produce it. I believe we could obtain adequate amounts of sugar from poor caribbean countries if the politicians would break the stranglehold the sugar and now the corn industry have on congress.
interesting, but too complicated. if it can't fit within a 3-sentence sound bite, it's too complicated for the voting majority. rove proved that brilliantly - his followers ignored 100's of wasted billions, illegal wars, torture prisons, illiteracy of the candidate, etc., because of "gay marriage" and "flip flop". K.I.S.S. a simpler strategy - shrug off the terrorism stuff as old news, don't even answer it. focus instead on bush, demagogue, and play up the popular conception of republicans as fat cats sitting on yachts counting mounds of cash, while the poor suckers are paying daycare and 3.50/gal for gas. boss hogg vs. the dukes level stuff. promise gas at a buck a gallon (don't get into complicated details), cut to footage of bush holding hands with sheiks. show video clips of civil rights march crackdowns and katrina victims floating in water, cut to footage of bush at black tie events giggling. some naked abu ghraib pics here and there. and the closer is lots and lots and lots of video footage of illegal aliens jumping over random fences in the middle of the night and standing in huge lines at a welfare office.
focusing on Bush is what is wrong and has been wrong. Dems need to uderstand the concept of leadership not bitching. I think even one plan like AAA suggested would be enough. I want something done about oil dependency. Give a a plan and tell me you will put up a wall and that you will be tough on terrorism and you might get my vote. Now if you also cut spending you could turn me into a democrat.
This is exactly why the Dems lose. People are tired of hearing this shit. How many elections do you guys have to lose? This is the strategy the Dems have used and lost with every time. Instead of beating up a lame duck, or bitching about how bad things are, how about fielding some credible candidates that have a REAL plan that addresses problems? How about running a POSITIVE campaign? How about appealing to the vast majority? The Dems like to paint themselves as the majority party, but the reality is, you appeal to the lunatic fringe. The reason the Republicans win, is because they consistently get the cross-over and moderate votes. Karl Rove isn't your problem, it's the candidates. A moderate can't win a nomination, much less a general election.....they never have a chance because they can't get past the voting delegates, the majority of which are leftists, socialists or just crazy.