You know............

[autigeremt 6,680]

I have to ask, not because I don't know, but because I want too see the comments of my fellow Tigers.

Why is it that the democratic candidates spend 90% of their time bashing Bush when they will be facing someone else in 08? It's pretty clear that they have very little substance at this point in time. I know we get the occasional health care lit or get out of Iraq lit (even then they fire a shot off the portside of Bush), but when are they going to focus on issues with real promise?

I know the GOP has it's own issues, but at least they have brought some substance to the table.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

For a couple of reasons:

1. It's primary season and bashing Bush is red meat for Democratic primary voters. It fires up the hardcore base.

2. It forces the Republicans into a tough position. On the one hand, Bush is still rather popular overall with Republicans so the GOP candidates can't just kick him to the curb. They have to be somewhat loyal. But in the general election, they'll have to appeal to the independents and swing voters in the middle who don't care for Bush for various reasons, the Iraq War being chief among them. If they express sentiments that are too cozy to Bush, the Dems will use it like a brickbat against them with those swing voters. If they aren't loyal enough or even go so far as to bash Bush themselves, they risk not even winning the GOP nomination. So it forces them to walk a careful tightrope with one eye on the now and one eye on November 2008.

That's the concise answer.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Why is it that the democratic candidates spend 90% of their time bashing Bush when they will be facing someone else in 08? It's pretty clear that they have very little substance at this point in time. I know we get the occasional health care lit or get out of Iraq lit (even then they fire a shot off the portside of Bush), but when are they going to focus on issues with real promise?

I know the GOP has it's own issues, but at least they have brought some substance to the table

I don't necessarily buy the full premise of your post, but to whatever extent they are doing what you consider to be "bashing Bush", they are running against the status quo and appealing to desires to change the status quo. Bush/Cheney are the status quo. Republicans have largely, with few exceptions, defended the status quo. I don't buy the notion there is no substance, especially in comparison to Republican candidates. There is a difference in you not agreeing with Dem proposals, and them not existing. Obama and Edwards have health care proposals, for example. Republicans, especially in the South, are already ga ga over Fred Thompson and I don't think he's said much of great substance so far.

Right now, both sides are trying to appeal to their base that is paying attention. That isn't most people.

Specifically, what is the real substance you believe Republicans have brought to the table and what are the "issues with real promise" you want to hear about?