Hi Walter,
>
>>That's exactly what I'm questioning...why aren't the Dems raising specific policy issues?
>
>Oh they are, but their voice is not heard. Each arguments will be trashed as 'liberal' and by definition would not have value. The liberals have some serious issues, like not having a strong man that unites the camp.

But you have to wonder how did "liberal" get to mean a valueless thing? That didn't just happen.

Back when liberal meant to have strong principles on the rights of the individual I could be counted amongst them...but now? Now you have liberals led by a bunch of seriously unhinged ideologues.

>>And what constitutes the definition of how bad Bush is...
>
>Well, do a survey arround the world to compare previous presidents with Bush. Even surveys in your own country, will give a picture. I can say that in europe Bush is not popular. In general conservatives are not popular as european politics are far more to the left than even your liberals. If liberalism is good for us, it can't be that bad us is percieved in the US.

Last I looked, "bad" was not defined by popularity polls. Yes, Europe is far left of us which is probably a good thing seeing as how when they move to the right millions end up dying.

>>you are sadly mistaken if you think that it's a conservative issue how Bush is supposedly misperceived.
>
>If he is mispercieved by so many, you wonder why it is that way? (just blaming the liberals is not going to provide you the answer, though of course used by many as a cheap shot).
>

There are a myriad of reasons why this is so. It's a complex discussion. Too complex to go into details here.