Gloating completed....now let's talk. How can the Dems fix their party??

[rikzilla]

Suds,...et al...

My 48 hour period of giddy gloating has now drawn to a close. It was fun, refreshing, liberating, cleansing, and a long time coming. I've been a JREFer since the forum first opened, and the entire time have found myself part of a tiny albeit vocal minority.

I've put up with a barrage of insults and general nuttiness from irrational Bush haters who may make up a sizeable majority here,...but in the real world (yes, even within the Democratic party itself) are but a fringe element.

Now the Dems are busy looking at the wreckage of 2004 and are even now starting to plan a retooling, a reinvention for 2008. that Madonna-like revamping is going to have to look more conservative. That is the real victory as far as I can see.

My own prediction is that the Dems must distance themselves from the gay rights activists who insist on placing a "marriage" label upon current domestic partner laws. (Personally I am not against gay marriage even if they call it that....but it seems to me that the gay leaders are pushing their agenda to the detriment of individual gay people...as well as the Democratic party)

The rest of the loony left (ANSWER...MOVEON....etc) need to be given the old heave-ho by the Dems. They are currently the anchor of this party....and it's holding them back. They had an inkling of this during their brief fling with Gov. Dean....then they corrected in midstream and went with the newly renovated views of John Kerry....but it wasn't enough. Kerry's veneer was too thin. His flip-flops too obvious. While it's true Bush didn't win in a landslide over Kerry....had he faced Dean (the real face of the Dems) it seems obvious to me that the landslide victory and mandate would have gone to Bush in a more obvious way.

So, the Dems need to keep doing what they attempted too late in 2004....that is move to a more moderate/conservative candidate and platform. This, IMHO, spells doom for the hoped for presidency of Hillary Clinton.

So...my election-induced inebriation is over. I'll not apologise though...it was fun, and long suffering me deserved it. Lets all get on with the business of saving the world through skeptical debate. ;)

The topic is: How must the Dems re-tool in order to win in the midterms in 2006,...and later in 2008??

-z

[Ed]

First off, they have to recognize that hanging out with Hollywood types does not do much for them with regular people. They have to understand that politics that are significnatly left of center will not resonate eventhough there is a sizeable minority that would wish it to be true. They come across as elite and arrogant, know it alls that look down their noses at most people in this country, I think. The major issues, IMHO, are image related.

[Rob Lister]

All they have to do is to appear more honest to the majority than they republicans.

Perhaps, they already are. If not, the best way to accomplish that is to actually BE more honest than the republicans.

[geni]

You know after a couple of decade you would have though the republicans would have changed tyhier tatic of prtraying the deomcrats as far left and trying to define where the polictical centre is. Looking at recent election results the halfway point between the left and the right is pretty close to being halfway between the parties.

[Jocko]

An excellent start would be to discourage its minions at the New York Times from coronating Hillary as the candidate in 2008. That's like an action plan that suggests the best way to get rid of termites is to burn down your house.

Less reliance on icons and more attention paid to substantive moderates is the only way they're going to have a shot in '08.

[Frank Newgent]

Simply wait for the Republicans to start falling from cliffs.


ARKANSAS CITY (EAP) -- A Little Rock woman was killed yesterday after leaping through her moving car's sunroof during an incident best described as a "mistaken rapture" by dozens of eye-witnesses.

Thirteen other people were injured after a twenty-car pile-up resulted from people trying to avoid hitting the woman, who was apparently convinced that the rapture was occurring when she saw twelve people floating up into the air, and then passed a man on the side of the road who she believed was Jesus.

"She started screaming `He's back! He's back!' and climbed out through the sunroof and jumped off the roof of the car," said Everet Williams, husband of 28-year-old Georgann Williams who was pronounced dead at the scene.

"I was slowing down but she wouldn't wait till I stopped," Williams said. She thought the rapture was happening and was convinced that Jesus was gonna lift her up into the sky," he went on to say.

"This is the strangest thing I've seen since I've been on the force," said Paul Madison, first officer on the scene.

Madison questioned the man who looked like Jesus and discovered that he was on his way to a toga costume party, when the tarp covering the bed of his pickup truck came loose and released twelve blow-up sex dolls filled with helium, which then floated up into the sky.

Ernie Jenkins, 32, of Fort Smith, who's been told by several of his friends that he looks like Jesus, pulled over and lifted his arms into the air in frustration and said "Come back," just as the Williams' car passed him, and Mrs. Williams was sure that it was Jesus lifting people up into heaven as they drove by him.

"I think my wife loved Jesus more than she loved me," the widower said when asked why his wife would do such a thing.

When asked for comments about the twelve sex dolls, Jenkins replied "This is all just too weird for me. I never expected anything like this to happen."

I didn't make this up.

[Rob Lister]

They might want to disassociate themselves from the likes of these as well.

http://instapundit.com/images/ashamedsfsm.jpg

and this (Sorry for the portrayed language but I think it was contextually necessary.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/143-4328_IMG.JPG

[AtheistArchon]

- I say we just start adopting the tactics that won for Bush. If we're courting the fundies, farmhands, and fat-cats, that is (and we just learned that you don't win in 'Merka unless you appeal to the majority... or at very least the people with the majority of the money).

1. Get into the churches. I mean now. Drop the entire gay rights thing completely; 'Merka clearly isn't ready for such enlightened thinking yet. Claim the moral highground using cool terms like "VALUES" and "FAMILY" and "LIFE". At the same time, tell our opponents to go f*ck themselves. Start quoting scripture. Christian scripture of course... we're not running in Afghanistan! (We already just appoint people there.) Drop abortion completely, campaign to do away with Roe v. Wade. And, since one Republican senator is currently pushing for the death penalty for any woman who has an abortion, one-up him: call the the death penalty for her, her doctor, and the guy who knocked her up as well. Do all this, and Democrats will get ten million votes easily.

2. Court the ignorant. Sponsor some NASCAR races... maybe even purchase our own car and driver. Have him kneel next to his car and pray before and after every race, and make sure the camera shows it. (Bonus!: we'll get some kinda rich selling plastic crap in Wal-Mart with our racing logo on it or some half-assed charicature of Calvin pissing on an opposing number while wearing our T-shirt.) Make conspicuous Dems start carrying large, obscenely dangerous guns under their sport coats while on TV and at events. Make them throw in a Zell-Miller-ish "Hyuck!" once in a while. In fact, bring Zell into the fold as Karl Rove's counterpart on the Democrat side.

3. Kill people indiscriminately in the name of freedom. No, I'm serious... manufacture some candy excuse to kill a group of people who look different from us or, even better, aren't Christians. Blow them away to "Bodies" by Drowning Pool. Make Army recruitment videos showing the nose-cam of various missiles impacting. After it's all over, joke about how we can't remember what the candy excuse was after all. Shrug amiably. Have the conspicuous Dems mentioned earlier practice spinning their guns on their fingers.

4. Cut taxes. Dramatically. For everyone. Then borrow more money. The people will love us.

5. Have the Democratic nominee lobotomized. This will endear him to the 'Merkan people by not appearing "too intellectual" or "too smart". Pick him out of a trailer park. Make sure he's on welfare at the time, he also can't be too wealthy... unless he's a cowboy. For bonus points, claim the nonsense he babbles is really angels speaking through him in "tongues". Ensure he has not only a DUI, but is a convicted rapist who "found Jesus" while in prison and so can testify to the miracle of the life-changing power of our lord and savior. Inflict bruises and bumps upon him weekly, even if he doesn't stumble over his own feet... 'Merka isn't fond of people with too much dexterity either. Hide some PCP on him.

6. Make all military contracts retroactively life terms. Slip this in somewhere in the fine print... enlisted solders never read the enlistment contract anyway. Presto, no draft! Incorporate the Salvation Army into the armed forces proper. Give them the biggest guns. Have golden crosses emblazoned on the hilts. Perhaps give them cool-ass leather trenchcoats. 'Merka loves well-dressed military men who kick ass.

7. Abandon Bono, Bon Jovi, and all other "Hollywood" elites. Embrace Nashville instead. Hire a weed-chewing millionaire hayseed to write a song about "VALUES" and "FAMILY" and "LIFE". Have him wear a revolver. Show him praying in the video. Give him a tax cut.

- If we did these things, my friends, there would be a one-party system... Republicans would do no better than Nader. I guarantee it.

[Tony]

Both parties need fixing. The republicans need to stop acting like Jesus is ruler of the USA, and the democrats need to stop being general hypocrites.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Simply wait for the Republicans to start falling from cliffs.




I didn't make this up.


Can you post a link to that. I want to save it as one of my favorites.

[clk]

Originally posted by Tony
Can you post a link to that. I want to save it as one of my favorites.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/rapture.htm

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
They might want to disassociate themselves from the likes of these as well.

http://instapundit.com/images/ashamedsfsm.jpg

and this (Sorry for the portrayed language but I think it was contextually necessary.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/143-4328_IMG.JPG The Dems are not more associated with this than the Republicans are associated with Timothy McVeigh. But of course the dishonest political discourse of this country peddles such myths willingly.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Tony

Can you post a link to that.
Out of consideration to Lister's family I believe that any further publicity of the matter would be uncharitable.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc
The Dems are not more associated with this than the Republicans are associated with Timothy McVeigh. But of course the dishonest political discourse of this country peddles such myths willingly.

Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Jocko
Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision. Keep on believing what, exactly? I don't doubt that the ignorant masses make this connection, with a little help from the lying liars. What to do? Lie bigger and better than they do? Is that the "confront it" you advise? I never heard any rhetoric from the Dem party or candidates this year at variance from the "America is great; onward and upward" cant. What, precisely, is the "ignore it" that you infer?

[AtheistArchon]

Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision.

- You know, Republicans have been riding the hate wagon for a few years now. "Why do you hate America??" and "You evil part of haters, you just can't get past your hatred for W, why are you so full of hate??" Nonsense. I have a Christian kook over at Tweb who spouts this crap daily, and is dead-set convinced that Bush craps gold bullion and Dems are all closet Stalin worshippers.

- It's true that Democrats are more likely to use harsh language, and it's also true that there are dangerous kooks on both sides of the fence, but this whole "yer allllll haters!" thing is for the softheaded. Demonstrably so.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Suds,...et al...



I could care less what the Democrats do besides stop being morons who allow the Republicans to force the agenda.

Most of the Democrats' problems are rhetorical, and largely stem from allowing themselves to be defined by others, sorta like what is going on in this thread. It is solely an image problem.

The Democrats running this election just aren't good politicians. They are the kinds of people that think that quality matters more than marketing, that if they can make a better hamburger than McDonalds then McDonalds will be put out of business. This makes them fools, noble fools, but fools nontheless.

It isn't enough to be right, you have to be able to convince people, and the great mass of people have neither the time or inclination to actually sit down and analyze political issues. They go with gut feelings, and swaying those gut feelings is a question of marketing, not deeply considered analysis.

Consider gay marriage. It gets painted as some sort of depraved and disgusting idea. People in the public eye that favor it get crushed in the public forum because they concentrate on hazy things like fairness and equal rights. While I agree with the fairness issue, this is wrong way to frame the issue to appeal to moderate voters. The way to attack this issue is to make an emotional statement that holds up under scrutiny. Watch me:

Opposition to Gay Marriage is Oppositon to the Well Being of Our Children.

Allowing Gays to marry would not only create tens of thousands of new homes, allowing for a better chance for a child to be raised by caring parents in a stable atmosphere rather than a prison like atmosphere being trained for a life of crime, but also encourage monogamy and stable lifestyles for homosexuals, which would go a long way to containing both AIDS as a public health crisis, but also help make homosexuality more mainstream and thus a less attractive lifestyle to naturally rebellious children.


OK, it needs work, but do notice that I even managed to slip a little appeal to homophobia in the end of the thing. This kind of thing would be much more effective to centrists and pragmatists than some crybaby "Banning gay marriage is unfair" crap, seeing that this kind of fairness is only going to matter to the left anyway...

In short, the left needs to grow up and realize that the left is not their audience, and that reasoning they find watertight may not appeal so much to the pragmatic center that is looking to vote more based on emotion than dry analysis. This does not mean changing positon, rather looking towards practicality rather than justice.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Allowing Gays to marry would not only create tens of thousands of new homes, allowing for a better chance for a child to be raised by caring parents in a stable atmosphere rather than a prison like atmosphere being trained for a life of crime, but also encourage monogamy and stable lifestyles for homosexuals, which would go a long way to containing both AIDS as a public health crisis, but also help make homosexuality more mainstream and thus a less attractive lifestyle to naturally rebellious children...
...

OK, it needs work, but do notice that I even managed to slip a little appeal to homophobia in the end of the thing.

That was actually pretty darn good and in keeping with my original reply. Tell the truth. It's possible that you might want to leave out how those in your profession would profit from such a policy. :)

As to your thoughts on Image, well, I don't know if the Reps are doing it to them or if the Dems are doing it to themselves. If "allowing themselves to be defined by others" includes inviting the likes of Whoopie to speak for him, then sure.

Of course, I thought that Bush allowing Zell Miller to speak for him was just as dumb, in not as harmful.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc
Keep on believing what, exactly? I don't doubt that the ignorant masses make this connection, with a little help from the lying liars. What to do? Lie bigger and better than they do? Is that the "confront it" you advise? I never heard any rhetoric from the Dem party or candidates this year at variance from the "America is great; onward and upward" cant. What, precisely, is the "ignore it" that you infer?

What, precisely, of "fairly or not" did you miss?

I'm not in the business of helping the opposing party, but you and Archon are shaking your fists uselessly at the storm a-la King Lear, and like him you'll never see the folly of it until it's too late. The Dems have an image problem that grows worse year after year, as evidence by steady losses in congress and governorships. You can just tsk-tsk at the unwashed masses or you can take an honest look at why the Dems are becoming increasingly marginalized. I suggest that it may be in large part because they allow themselves to be defined by marginal influences. No one can fix that but the Democratic party.

Let me re-position things a tad: do you think Hillary is the right choice for the '08 nomination, and if so, why? If not, then who?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I've put up with a barrage of insults and general nuttiness from irrational Bush haters who may make up a sizeable majority here,...but in the real world (yes, even within the Democratic party itself) are but a fringe element.

I can assure you that Bush haters are not a minority in the Democratic party. He has been one of the most divisive presidents in the 20th century. That's okay if you're Republican, but for Democrats...who make up roughly half the country...it sucks.

And we are roughly half the country. Regardless of the slim majority you carry, and the amount of states you carry electorally, we're still here and we're not going away.


Now the Dems are busy looking at the wreckage of 2004 and are even now starting to plan a retooling, a reinvention for 2008. that Madonna-like revamping is going to have to look more conservative. That is the real victory as far as I can see.

What are you talking about? Regardless of what retooling the face of the Democratic party makes, Democrats aren't about to change their minds about issues like war, the environment, the economy, and such. What are you suggesting...we become more conservative? Here's a hint: We aren't conservative because we don't agree with you about said issues.

How depressing would it be to have a country that ran an election with two conservative presidents, each saying the exact same thing?


My own prediction is that the Dems must distance themselves from the gay rights activists who insist on placing a "marriage" label upon current domestic partner laws. (Personally I am not against gay marriage even if they call it that....but it seems to me that the gay leaders are pushing their agenda to the detriment of individual gay people...as well as the Democratic party)

Gay marriage is YOUR issue, not the Democrats. The Democrats don't even agree upon it amongst themselves, and it certainly isn't a major issue politically when one weighs all the others.

I would like gay marriage to be legal, but there are more important issues at stake here. The bottom line is the Republicans used the religious right to frighten its people to vote...because of the unsubstantiated fear that the Democrats wanted to get into office merely to legalize gay marriage. What a scam.

But regardless, gay marriage is going to be legal, sooner or later. Sooner or later, regardless of the religious nuts, we can't keep opressing this minority and call ourselves a free country. Putting it up to a state vote was disgusting. Civil rights and minority discrimination are not a majority rules issue. Can you imagine in the 60s if people were allowed to vote on whether blacks could have civil rights?

The rest of the loony left (ANSWER...MOVEON....etc) need to be given the old heave-ho by the Dems. They are currently the anchor of this party....and it's holding them back.

We'll decide our own issues and associates, my friend. The last thing we need is a bunch of smug conservatives telling us to be more conservative or we'll lose more elections. Speaking for myself, I care more about my personal views and sticking to my guns than winning elections.

As for loony associates, you have quite a few...in fact, you have a president who thinks God has placed him in charge of the country. Give the man a strait jacket.

[varwoche]

I think it will take a massive, long term de-programming effort (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48093).

And this nuance crappola is getting the dems nowhere. Nuance needs to be jettisoned post haste in favor of the black/white, good/evil model preferred by so many Americans.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Jocko
What, precisely, of "fairly or not" did you miss?

I'm not in the business of helping the opposing party, but you and Archon are shaking your fists uselessly at the storm a-la King Lear, and like him you'll never see the folly of it until it's too late. The Dems have an image problem that grows worse year after year, as evidence by steady losses in congress and governorships. You can just tsk-tsk at the unwashed masses or you can take an honest look at why the Dems are becoming increasingly marginalized. I suggest that it may be in large part because they allow themselves to be defined by marginal influences. No one can fix that but the Democratic party.Well, I'm not under the illusion that my fist-shaking in this thread is the kind of thing that will win back the masses. This is the part of the discourse where we figure out the problem, and hearing your pov is quite useful. But more than allowing ourseleves to be defined by marginal influences on our side, the bigger problem is being defined by the mischaracterizations of the other side, as nicely outlined by Suddenly above.
Let me re-position things a tad: do you think Hillary is the right choice for the '08 nomination, and if so, why? If not, then who? Hell no. Listening to Hillary is like hearing nails on a blackboard. I have never understood her popularity, and I hope to high Hell (praise Satan!) that she is stoppable in the 2008 primary. And though she be a centrist by reasonable measures, she is forever defined in the public imagination as a lefty loon.

I'll back Edwards in 2008. He has supportable policy positions and has the right stuff, in my opion, to bring home the prize. It's not just a matter of his southern roots, but his personality and rhetorical skill connect with "middle America" in a very natural way. He is postively Clintonian (Bill). And you know what, he gives "liberalism" a good name.

We'll see who else emerges. There are other good ones too. Just don't let it be Hillary.

[AtheistArchon]

I'm not in the business of helping the opposing party, but you and Archon are shaking your fists uselessly at the storm a-la King Lear, and like him you'll never see the folly of it until it's too late. The Dems have an image problem that grows worse year after year, as evidence by steady losses in congress and governorships. You can just tsk-tsk at the unwashed masses or you can take an honest look at why the Dems are becoming increasingly marginalized.

- Actually, I was more serious than you might realize. Tsk-tsking at the unwashed gets nobody anywhere, you are absolutely right. The only thing one must choose is whether to keep the 'noble idealism' put forward recently, which has failed, or to abandon it in favor of what works: NASCAR and Jesus. Go that route, and you will win. It's been shown.

- Myself, I've adopted a Carlin-esque stance of attempting to row out as far as I can from the ship and then stop to watch it sink, cheering. What else can I do?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It isn't enough to be right, you have to be able to convince people, and the great mass of people have neither the time or inclination to actually sit down and analyze political issues. They go with gut feelings, and swaying those gut feelings is a question of marketing, not deeply considered analysis. Unfortunate, but dead-on. Democrats need to nominate a better, more photogenic politician. It won't hurt matters if this person understands that nuance is a dirty word, and best if he/she doesn't speak French.

[TragicMonkey]

I think the best hope for the Democrats is to officially split. The moderates need to abandon the party altogether, and form a new party focused mainly on economics and domestic concerns. For social issues, they should be cautiously progressive (civil unions rather than marriage, etc). For foreign policy, they should mouth some blather about encouraging global freedom, but not wasting resources or risking the prosperity of America. They should be secular by policy, but appear individually religious--leave the motto on the coins and let them keep the Pledge, it's just throwing a bone to the masses and doesn't really matter. The main point would be to compromise idealism with pragmatism, and not to try to perfect America before it's quite ready to be perfected.

That would leave the more radical elements behind in the Democratic Party, where whatever good intentions they have is obscured by hotbutton social issues and a history of bickering and corruption (shared entirely, in all three respects, by the Republican Party, I might point out), and the party could die a long-deserved death.

I also think the Republicans should split, so the crazy religious and the regular conservatives don't have to put up with each other in order to get votes. Perhaps the regular conservatives would end up merging with the moderate former democrats....dare I hope for a Moderate Party of Moderates? Where they have ideals, but work for them realistically, and have ambitions but make sure they can pay the bills first?

[Thurkon]

Let me ask a final few questions to the conservatives on this thread who aren't religious:

Are you happy that your party won because you are now for some reason the official Christian party?

Does it make you nervous that your party must now, whether those in charge want to or not, make reasonable concessions to this religious base in order to appease it?

[rikzilla]

Lots of good responses! :)

Here's how it breaks down in my eyes:

AthiestArchon: Cynical, hatefilled fistshaking.
Suds: Elitist, anti-democratic feelings of remorse that average Americans are too stupid to pay attention. Suggests repackaging of the same old leftist pablum because a slicker presentation is bound to fool the masses into voting for them.
RobLister: A rational plea to not let the Reps define the Dem party. Good....a constructive idea. Now define yourself in such a way as to get America to vote Dem....and without insulting their intelligence as Suds is willing to do.
Thurkon: Denial is not just a river in Egypt folks, his position sums up like this: Irrational Bush-haters ARE the majority of Dems!!! We need not move to the right, nor disassociate ourselves from our soul-mates at MOVEON and ANSWER!!!


Thurkon also says:
How depressing would it be to have a country that ran an election with two conservative presidents, each saying the exact same thing?


Well, the "new" Democrat Bill Clinton did pretty well by defining himself more to the middle. Basically BC's initial presidential campaign was exactly that Bush: old school conservative. Clinton: "new" Dem = a move to the center = a move away from loony leftism = a move TOWARDS conservative positions.

It worked pretty well for him.

Right now, absent a massive and spectacular military defeat in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc....I don't see how you guys will recover without conjuring up another Dick Morris to lead ya'll to the center again. Better start rooting for Usama, Zarqawi, and the insurgents..... oh, wait,....you guys have secretly been doing that for quite some time.... ;)

-z

[Matabiri]

I think the party needs to make it clear what it stands for - a restatement of their fundamental goals, views, and concerns.

I heard a lot of people say that they "didn't know what Kerry stood for". I think that making it clear what Democrats' guiding principles are would help (and help alienate the loony fringe). I'd quite like the Republicans to do it too, so that people can compare how well Bush represents them...

Edit to add: in the UK, in the run-up to general elections, the parties publish manifestos which lay out their policies and positions. These are generally available in libraries, book stores, etc. Is there any material like that in the US, or is it assumed that everyone knows what the parties represent?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think the best hope for the Democrats is to officially split. The moderates need to abandon the party altogether, and form a new party focused mainly on economics and domestic concerns. For social issues, they should be cautiously progressive (civil unions rather than marriage, etc). For foreign policy, they should mouth some blather about encouraging global freedom, but not wasting resources or risking the prosperity of America. They should be secular by policy, but appear individually religious--leave the motto on the coins and let them keep the Pledge, it's just throwing a bone to the masses and doesn't really matter. The main point would be to compromise idealism with pragmatism, and not to try to perfect America before it's quite ready to be perfected.

That would leave the more radical elements behind in the Democratic Party, where whatever good intentions they have is obscured by hotbutton social issues and a history of bickering and corruption (shared entirely, in all three respects, by the Republican Party, I might point out), and the party could die a long-deserved death.

I also think the Republicans should split, so the crazy religious and the regular conservatives don't have to put up with each other in order to get votes. Perhaps the regular conservatives would end up merging with the moderate former democrats....dare I hope for a Moderate Party of Moderates? Where they have ideals, but work for them realistically, and have ambitions but make sure they can pay the bills first?

Favorite post so far...thanks TM. I'd love to join you in such a party. Sadly though, we must return to Earth. :(

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Let me ask a final few questions to the conservatives on this thread who aren't religious:

Are you happy that your party won because you are now for some reason the official Christian party?

Does it make you nervous that your party must now, whether those in charge want to or not, make reasonable concessions to this religious base in order to appease it?

Strawman. The Republican party has many Xtians in it...true...but aren't there alot of Jeebus freaks on the Dem side as well??

How is it even remotely reasonable to label the Rep party in this way?? If the Rep party was 100% rightwing xtian nuts they'd have run Pat Robertson for prez....remember Pat Robertson?? He never had a chance at the Republican nomination back in...when?? Was it '96...can't remember....??

-z

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc
Well, I'm not under the illusion that my fist-shaking in this thread is the kind of thing that will win back the masses. This is the part of the discourse where we figure out the problem, and hearing your pov is quite useful. But more than allowing ourseleves to be defined by marginal influences on our side, the bigger problem is being defined by the mischaracterizations of the other side, as nicely outlined by Suddenly above.

Then you seem to be conceding there is nothing you can do, since you're not going to set the GOP's agenda anytime soon, let alone their PR machine. I really don't think that's the case- Americans expect mud-slinging between parties. They both do it. Simply saying the GOP is better at it seems like a dodge, especially when you look at all the other factors in play. Again, I think much of moderate America is extremely turned off by examples like the ones pictured above. Just this morning, in fact, an otherwise reasonable person in my office ranted that Bush wasn't HER president because she voted the other way. I see a lot of this attitude. Anecdotal, true, but it's becoming a commonly-accepted anecdote. In politics that's as good as reality.


Hell no. Listening to Hillary is like hearing nails on a blackboard. I have never understood her popularity, and I hope to high Hell (praise Satan!) that she is stoppable in the 2008 primary. And though she be a centrist by reasonable measures, she is forever defined in the public imagination as a lefty loon.

I have nothing but high respect for your assessment. I agree completely on all points. But that then begs the question: why are top Dems and liberal voices (NYT, for example) already pushing her? Surely you can't say the GOP is behind that? It's the Dem's own leadership, and THIS is the core of their problem.

I'll back Edwards in 2008. He has supportable policy positions and has the right stuff, in my opion, to bring home the prize. It's not just a matter of his southern roots, but his personality and rhetorical skill connect with "middle America" in a very natural way. He is postively Clintonian (Bill). And you know what, he gives "liberalism" a good name.

We'll see who else emerges. There are other good ones too. Just don't let it be Hillary.

I think Gephardt was a better candidate... not sure if Edwards can reprise Clinton's charisma. Even a good imitation falls flat if you can tell it's an imitation. Still, I'd take him over Kerry on policy issues alone.

Do you think the Dems will shut the door on Hillary, as most thinking people regardless of party think they should?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Matabiri
I think the party needs to make it clear what it stands for - a restatement of their fundamental goals, views, and concerns.

I heard a lot of people say that they "didn't know what Kerry stood for". I think that making it clear what Democrats' guiding principles are would help (and help alienate the loony fringe). I'd quite like the Republicans to do it too, so that people can compare how well Bush represents them...


LOL. Neither party can do that, because neither party actually represents what it says it does. Republicans are supposed to be for states' rights, a smaller federal government, and fiscal solvency and responsibility. Heaven only knows what the Democrats are supposed to be for, it used to be "spending money" but now they both do that.

[AtheistArchon]

Here's how it breaks down in my eyes:

AthiestArchon: Cynical, hatefilled fistshaking.

Suds: Elitist, anti-democratic feelings of remorse that average Americans are too stupid to pay attention. Suggests repackaging of the same old leftist pablum because a slicker presentation is bound to fool the masses into voting for them.

RobLister: A rational plea to not let the Reps define the Dem party. Good....a constructive idea. Now define yourself in such a way as to get America to vote Dem....and without insulting their intelligence as Suds is willing to do.

Thurkon: Denial is not just a river in Egypt folks, his position sums up like this: Irrational Bush-haters ARE the majority of Dems!!! We need not move to the right, nor disassociate ourselves from our soul-mates at MOVEON and ANSWER!!!

- Like I said above, Republicans have been riding the hate wagon for a few years now. It's way easier to scream "hater!" than to apply your noggin and address the issue. It's even better when you make your very platform dependent upon demonizing Democrats as "haters" with every other breath.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jocko
Do you think the Dems will shut the door on Hillary, as most thinking people regardless of party think they should?

Personally man, I'm hoping they don't. To them Hillary is their wet dream. A WOMAN...and A SOCIALIST! Hillary as prez would be a liberal's slam-dunk.

Hopefully they won't be able to resist. A Hillary nomination = A Republican MANDATE.

-z

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
LOL. Neither party can do that, because neither party actually represents what it says it does. Republicans are supposed to be for states' rights, a smaller federal government, and fiscal solvency and responsibility. Heaven only knows what the Democrats are supposed to be for, it used to be "spending money" but now they both do that.

Well... exactly. It probably goes with your "split the party" idea, although it would require considerable political will to upset the contemporary two party juggernaut.

Originally posted by Jocko
Then you seem to be conceding there is nothing you can do, since you're not going to set the GOP's agenda anytime soon, let alone their PR machine.

I think it's a mistake to define one party in terms of its opposition to the other party - that just allows the party who're "better" at negative campaigning to undermine them. Any sensible suggestions shouldn't refer to the Republicans.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Personally man, I'm hoping they don't. To them Hillary is their wet dream. A WOMAN...and A SOCIALIST! Hillary as prez would be a liberal's slam-dunk.

Hopefully they won't be able to resist. A Hillary nomination = A Republican MANDATE.

-z

Don't misunderstand me- my question was positioned as a strategist, not as a partisan. On a personal level, I think:

1. They will nominate Hillary and brush aside superior candidates (as they did this year and as the GOP did in '96 and '00), and
2. She will perform an amazing impersonation of Walter Mondale, except she'll carry NY instead of MN.

At the end of the day, I still think the nation benefits from a quality election between two quality candidates, regardless of the eventual winner. Who wouldn't love to have seen a McCain-Dean debate?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Like I said above, Republicans have been riding the hate wagon for a few years now. It's way easier to scream "hater!" than to apply your noggin and address the issue. It's even better when you make your very platform dependent upon demonizing Democrats as "haters" with every other breath.

Now you're just getting delusional. Show me a protester with a "F-Kerry" message if you want me to believe that one. Show me a Coulter-produced film. Show me a broadcast news program discarding every shred of journalistic integrity just to cast a bad light, however incorrect, on Kerry. It all adds up, as the elections showed. The Dems didn't just lose the white house, they lost seats in both houses and in governors' mansions. The message has been rejected.

You're stuck in the belief that nearly 60 million people voted the way they did because they just didn't know any better (on "hater" grounds), and then you try to condemn those who call the Dem leadership elitist. Heal thyself pronto, or get used to repeating this performance every four years.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
Show me a protester with a "F-Kerry" message if you want me to believe that one.

Buy them here (http://tinyninjas.com/store/cpshop.cgi/2926602594).

However, Bush/Kerry were not symmetrical candidates - Bush had been President, a figurehead, a newsworthy figure, and managed to really arouse anger. Kerry had slogged away in the senate, and not enough was known to arouse that hatred.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Strawman. The Republican party has many Xtians in it...true...but aren't there alot of Jeebus freaks on the Dem side as well??

How is it even remotely reasonable to label the Rep party in this way?? If the Rep party was 100% rightwing xtian nuts they'd have run Pat Robertson for prez....remember Pat Robertson?? He never had a chance at the Republican nomination back in...when?? Was it '96...can't remember....??

-z

Hardly a straw man argument. I never said the Republicans were 100% Christian. Obviously not, as I addressed the question to the ones who weren't.

But make no mistake: the religious right, more than ever before, has a stranglehold on this party. To deny this is pure blindness considering the last election. Wake up, the people came to vote in droves for moral reasons this year. Gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion...these are hot button Christian issues.

Doesn't really make sense when you consider Christ was a pacifist. But the southern Baptists don't care about that.

The question remains: Does this make the non-religious conservatives uncomfortable to know that this administration now arre aware that the polls show the churches and "moral" issues had the biggest influence on voter turnout?

[nightwind]

Well, evidently Democrats are going to have to play the game. And its not going to have to be by a lot, since it was a pretty close election.


They need to look at what the Republicans do and mimic some of the behaviors

First off, you evidently do not need anyone that is that intelligent. And the issues that should really be important, such as environment, etc. are not really that important to people. And even if you are intelligent, and have sense enough to take a sensible stance on things, in order to get elected you are going to have to play to what makes you look awesome to the populace. This may mean you must take a stupid position on things. You will probably have to go against what you really believe in some cases.

Here are some suggestions that might help.

1. First off don't really pay that much attention to protecting the borders. Thiis will help get the hispanic vote, and it did make a difference in this election. Or you could possibly even totally open up the borders, but you probably should make it look as if you are trying, even if you don't care. But in talking symphathize some with the folks crossing the border, etc

2. Choose somone who is very good looking, projects themselves well in the media, and is acceptable to the bubbas out there. You don't want to appear perfect though. The inability to speak sometimes or think clearly is sometimes appealing to people. Makes you look more normal.

3. Be for guns of all kinds and maybe even promote programs such as concealed carry. This will get the NRA behind you.

4. Talk a lot about religion, God, etc., how much you pray, etc. Even if you are an atheist, you must do this. But it must be a main stream type of religion that people can identify with. If religious movies come out, no matter how ridiculous, talk about how great they are and the impact that they have on your life

5. Also, I agree with the concept that you need to find some kind of group of people to kill. Perhaps another religious group, that you can perceive as evil and even compare maybe the leader to Satan, etc. This makes you look like a tough guy who is protecting America and fighting the evils of the world. It seems to work.

6. Probably be married, and to somone who pretty much is the type that stays quiet, smiles a lot, looks like they bake a lot of pies, etc.

7. While issues such as gay marriage are really pretty minor issues in the scheme of things, you need to oppose anything like this. This will ally the religious fanatics, money preachers, etc. behind you.

8. To appeal to the religious fanatics, you are also going to most likely be against pro-choice, etc. and portray yourself as a staunch anti-abortion person, with a lot of moral convictions, whether you are or not.

9. Be against all forms of taxes, maybe even hinting at doing away with the income taxes and continually talk about tax cuts. People are really not that concerned about the deficit, etc.

10. Be on the side of the big corporations, etc. The have money, and can help a lot in the campaign, etc.

11. Mention that you have great health care plans, but this issue evidently really does not matter that much, and this is an issue that wealthy Americans are really not concerned with.

12. The environment evidently is a pretty minor issue to people, even though this coulld realistically be the greatest single threat to the world. I guess it really doesn't matter that much. And you cannot alienate yourself from the corporations by being too tough, as far as environmental laws, etc. All you really have to say is that you are for the environment, you really dont' have to do anything.

13. Talk about how great things are, even if they are not.

14. You really don't have to be that much for Science. The populace seems to put issues of abortion, etc. as more important than stem cell research, etc. Bush was pretty effective in just telling people he was sending us to the moon, mars, etc. This makes you look like a science person, and people really don't care if you do it or not.

15. Portray your opponent pretty much as Satan. In politics you can pretty much lie and say whatever you want, and people really don't care whether true or not. So get a team up, and cook up as evil a things as you can, and spread some way.

These ideas I believe would be a start in making someone electable.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Hardly a straw man argument. I never said the Republicans were 100% Christian. Obviously not, as I addressed the question to the ones who weren't.

But make no mistake: the religious right, more than ever before, has a stranglehold on this party. To deny this is pure blindness considering the last election. Wake up, the people came to vote in droves for moral reasons this year. Gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion...these are hot button Christian issues.

Doesn't really make sense when you consider we are in a war that was a pre-emptive strike and Christ was a pacifist. But the southern Baptists don't care about that.

The question remains: Does this make the non-religious conservatives uncomfortable to know that this administration now arre aware that the polls show the churches and "moral" issues had the biggest influence on voter turnout?

[rikzilla]

Thurkon,

If I believed for one minute that what you said was really true...then yes I'd be uncomfortable, nervous, etc....

However we're talking about the Republican party of GWB, not Pat Robertson or David Duke. Those people have been repudiated. Had they not I'd have been a Kerry voter.

As it stands now I'm not that worried about God's people...but I am keeping a wary eye on them.

-z

[IXP]

How can the Democrats win? Either educate the current population or find another one.

In a poll during the lead-up to the Iraq adventure, one of the news organizations did a poll, asking:

"How many of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens".

I don't remember the exact results, but nearly half thought all of them were and the number that knew none of the were Iraquis barely made double digits. How can anyone make a case for good polcies when the public is so misinformed? The Republicans win because they know this and use it to their advantage.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Buy them here (http://tinyninjas.com/store/cpshop.cgi/2926602594).

I didn't say I was in the market for one, I said show me a photo of someone pushing incendiary crap in front of a camera. Surely, the "haters" must have had ONE photo snapped in the last year?

However, Bush/Kerry were not symmetrical candidates - Bush had been President, a figurehead, a newsworthy figure, and managed to really arouse anger. Kerry had slogged away in the senate, and not enough was known to arouse that hatred.

Excuses, nothing more. Kerry became extremely well-known and it was his "slogging" that cost him the election. Al Gore was well known for EIGHT years - show me a "symmetrical" example of hatred against him if you can.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
I didn't say I was in the market for one, I said show me a photo of someone pushing incendiary crap in front of a camera. Surely, the "haters" must have had ONE photo snapped in the last year?

I know you're not in the market for one. I was just demonstrating that one exists. For all I know, people were covered in those stickers at Bush rallies, just no-one who'd signed a loyalty pledge was silly enough to let a picture of one sneak out*...

If you do a Google on the terms specified, you'll find a lot of political commentary with those words in them. I can't be bothered to trawl through it all looking for any pictures though.

Originally posted by Jocko
Excuses, nothing more. Kerry became extremely well-known and it was his "slogging" that cost him the election. Al Gore was well known for EIGHT years - show me a "symmetrical" example of hatred against him if you can.

No, well known or not, Kerry didn't have anything like the profile or public image that Bush achieved for, say, invading Iraq.

Do Googles on "F*** Clinton" or "F*** Gore" - the Republican hatred is out there, maybe not in images, but in words (you'll also hit a lot of Nader sites...).

*I don't actually believe this, before you ask. Just postulating.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by hgc
The Dems are not more associated with this than the Republicans are associated with Timothy McVeigh. But of course the dishonest political discourse of this country peddles such myths willingly.

I know it's been awhile since this was posted but I have to respond. I disagree completely and I think it's that kind of disconnect with how people think that got the Democrats beaten by a lousy candidate with a lot of problems. Rightly or not, many people in middle America associate the "I'm ashamed to be an American" and the "Bush is a Nazi" folks with the Democrats and it turns the off completely. Even if they happen not to like what Bush is doing, they dislike that other stuff a whole lot more.

The Democrats used to be considered the party of the common people while the Republicans were considered the party of the elite. I'm not sure how they did it but the Republicans have taken that "party of the common people" thing away from the Democrats. And since most people are common people, that's not a minor thing.

I don't know what the Democrats can do. One thing that would help would be to disassociate themselves (in public at least) with pompous celebrities. More generally they have to work on their communication style. The Republicans are kicking their butts at framing the issues. Democrats have to show, in a non-annoying manner, how the things they're pushing help the regular person.

If the Democrats were going to lose this time then I think it's good for them to lose the way they did. If they lost in a different way then maybe they'd have been foolish enough to nominate Hilary in 2008 and as someone said earlier, a Hiliary nomination is equivalent to a Republican mandate.

Here are a couple scary statistics...the Democrats haven't gotten a majority of the vote for President since 1976. And the last time before that was 1964. Clinton won twice with a plurality when a third party candidate siphoned off votes but the third party candidate was probably siphoning off more Republican votes than Democrat votes. And the Democrats are losing ground in Congress and Governorships too. This isn't just over an election or two but rather over decades. Maybe we're just seeing a long term shift in American politics.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jocko
Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision. I don't think it is "hatred" that is the Democrats problem. The Republicans have a far more prolific and organized hate machine in place (e.g. Limbuagh, Hannity, and the majority of radio talk shows) and it does nothing but boost their approval.

I think the major problem the Democrats face are an effective way to counter the Republicans propoganda. For example, Kerry was never able to shake that "global test" meme that Bush put out there, even though it is easy to dispell when seen within context. The propoganda machine took those two words and turned it into the exact opposite of what Kerry was saying and the Democrats simply couldn't counter that, for whatever reason.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't think it is "hatred" that is the Democrats problem. The Republicans have a far more prolific and organized hate machine in place (e.g. Limbuagh, Hannity, and the majority of radio talk shows) and it does nothing but boost their approval.

I think the major problem the Democrats face are an effective way to counter the Republicans propoganda. For example, Kerry was never able to shake that "global test" meme that Bush put out there, even though it is easy to dispell when seen within context. The propoganda machine took those two words and turned it into the exact opposite of what Kerry was saying and the Democrats simply couldn't counter that, for whatever reason.

Meme? Kerry's the one that opened his mouth and spat out "global test". You may say it was taken out of context...but was it? In what context would "must pass a global test" be compatible with; "when it comes to America’s national security, I'll never give a veto to any other country. "

This is why JFK lost. He speaks with forked tongue. If kerry really believes in the importance of the "global test"....then how can he repudiate it with his follow-up commentary? If Kerry really believed the follow up,...then why did he ever let "global test" get past his tonsils????

That's no evil Rovian Republican meme Upchurch....it's just Kerry shoving his foot in his mouth.

-z

[crimresearch]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jocko
Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen...


The Democrats had this same 'moment of introspection' after the shock of seeing Reagan win by such a wide margin, and again, after losing control of Congress...in both cases, the reaction was along the lines posted by many in this thread:

'The Republicans must have won by being lying cheating hatemongers, so we need to do that even more in order to win'...and so James Carville became the new darling of the Democratic party, and 'win at any cost' became the new motto.

Until the Democrats are willing to honestly admit that these losses are entirely their own fault, and quit trying to cast blame elsewhere, they will continue to make the same mistakes, chief among them of alienating people who don't want to vote for hate at the behest of shrill, angry, white people...which is what the Democrats have become.

They chased off the religious black voters with their attack rhetoric, and more and more they are alienating thoughtful liberals of every stripe.

And by pinning their hopes on angry young white kids who will show up to carry signs, and throw bricks...but not show up to vote, the Dems are doomed to a downward spiral.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Thurkon,

If I believed for one minute that what you said was really true...then yes I'd be uncomfortable, nervous, etc....

However we're talking about the Republican party of GWB, not Pat Robertson or David Duke. Those people have been repudiated. Had they not I'd have been a Kerry voter.

As it stands now I'm not that worried about God's people...but I am keeping a wary eye on them.

-z


You are in serious denial.

Are you saying GWB is lying about his strong faith, and that his statements implying God directs his hand as the president are exaggerations to appease the voters?

Are you saying the fact thatmorals was the driving reason for the Bush re-election will have little to no effect on this, and future, Republican policy decisions?

I think you're a bit deluded.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Al Gore was well known for EIGHT years - show me a "symmetrical" example of hatred against him if you can. [/B]

Come on, Jocko...Clinton anyone?

Enough said.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jocko
Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision.

Actually, neither moderate former republicans like me, or democrats are in any way associated, but I have to give you credit for selling your utter lies to the ignorant.

[jj]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Are you saying the fact thatmorals was the driving reason for the Bush re-election will have little to no effect on this, and future, Republican policy decisions?

I think you're a bit deluded.

Furthermore, the morals of the draft dodger who smeared the war hero.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by crimresearch

Until the Democrats are willing to honestly admit that these losses are entirely their own fault, and quit trying to cast blame elsewhere, they will continue to make the same mistakes, chief among them of alienating people who don't want to vote for hate at the behest of shrill, angry, white people...which is what the Democrats have become.


I call total B.S. on all of this.

Republicans, over the last decade, have perfected hatred of the other candidate.

Clinton, anyone?

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes...only recently have the left even attempted to counter this constant hate machine.

I'm sorry...the reason Bush has inspired such hatred in Democrats is because he's led us into a questionable war and he's such an extreme conservative. He makes his Dad look like a liberal.

Argue it if you must, but at least the hate has a provocation, not just a party name. There was no such hate campaign against Bush I, Reagan, Gingrich, et al.

But look what the Swift Vets did to Kerry. Now that was hate for hate's sake...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj
Furthermore, the morals of the draft dodger who smeared the war hero.

What's Clinton vs Dole have to do with anything???

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
What's Clinton vs Dole have to do with anything???

-z

As usual, showing contempt for the facts and the people who point them out.

Yes, Rik, I know your bigot is installed for 4 years.

Like you guys were saying in another thread, why don't you just let the NE and the Pacific states seceed to Canada.

You've made it clear you don't want us. You've made it clear that the economic strength of the country isn't from that part of the country, too, in your opinions, so why not just get rid of us. Give Washington, Oregon, Californacatia, all of New England, PA, Illnois, Wi, and Mn to Canada.

After all, you don't want it.

And, as you well knew, it's Bush who is the obvious draft dodger, and Kerry the decorated war hero.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thurkon

But look what the Swift Vets did to Kerry. Now that was hate for hate's sake...

Okay,...now ask yourself why a "war hero's" fellow soldiers would band together in abject hatred to denounce ...not just one of their own...but one of their "heros"????

Let's look at it with the same weird glasses that most self-hating, hand-wringing liberals did after 9/11, when the first question past their trembling lips was "Why do they hate us???"

So Thurkon....why do Kerry's very own fellow Navy buddies hate him? Could it be because he went before Congress and denounced them as "war criminals"?? That he threw his medals/ribbons...or was it someone else's ribbons/medals??? Perhaps he didn't throw them BEFORE he threw them....who knows.

It wasn't hate for hate's sake Thurkon....it was good old fashioned vengeance served cold and well aged. I spent 6 years in the Army Thurkon....I don't know a single man that I served with who hated me. Apparently the only friends Kerry made during the war were in Hanoi. The American people have shown him, and all the other Jane Fonda-like thinkers the door....Good riddance to them all.

-z

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I call total B.S. on all of this.

Republicans, over the last decade, have perfected hatred of the other candidate.

Clinton, anyone?

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes...only recently have the left even attempted to counter this constant hate machine.

I'm sorry...the reason Bush has inspired such hatred in Democrats is because he's led us into a questionable war and he's such an extreme conservative. He makes his Dad look like a liberal.

Argue it if you must, but at least the hate has a provocation, not just a party name. There was no such hate campaign against Bush I, Reagan, Gingrich, et al.

But look what the Swift Vets did to Kerry. Now that was hate for hate's sake...

Apparently you weren't paying attention, but the Democrats spent $50 million trying to find some way to impeach Reagan...and more than that during the first Bush administration.
And Robert Byrd, the respected elder statesman of the Democratic Party is a non-stop racist hate spewing machine...
Not to mention James Carville's decades of hatemongering, for the delight and amusement of the party faithful.

And for some of us minorities with long enough memories, any group of angry white people (*particularly* Democrats) carrying torches, and yelling 'Git 'em!' is reason enough to go the other way.

You may think that anger, hatred, violence, and a lynchmob mentality are a good thing as long as the 'good' side is doing it, or as long as they have a good enough provocation...but you are just plain wrong.
Both parties adopted attack politics long ago... and as time went on, the Democrats chased away many progressives, pacifists, and minorities because of it.
We may not have anywhere else to go, but it doesn't mean we have to shut up or pretend that it is a good thing.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't think it is "hatred" that is the Democrats problem. The Republicans have a far more prolific and organized hate machine in place (e.g. Limbuagh, Hannity, and the majority of radio talk shows) and it does nothing but boost their approval.

Counterpoint: those people are listened to by existing republicans for the most part - and for every Hannity you produce, I'll raise you a Whoopie and a Sean Penn, who have broader appeal as celebrities. Their venom is every bit as potent, if less polished.

I think the major problem the Democrats face are an effective way to counter the Republicans propoganda. For example, Kerry was never able to shake that "global test" meme that Bush put out there, even though it is easy to dispell when seen within context.

Such as lies about Tora Bora? Please, Upchurch, you're smarter than this. Do you really believe 60 million voters sided against Kerry because Bush's propaganda was THAT much better? Think about it.

The propoganda machine took those two words and turned it into the exact opposite of what Kerry was saying and the Democrats simply couldn't counter that, for whatever reason.

Maybe he couldn't counter it because it was an accurate reflection of his sentiment, if not his words.

Honestly, I want to hear one course of action to improve the appeal of the Dems without all the hand-wringing about slung mud. Both sides do it about equally well. The problem is that Dem leadership can't look beyond that thin excuse - because that would mean accepting responisiblity and taking on hard work to improve things. This attitude is a perfect reflection of the stereotypical view many Americans have of liberals, and it's up to the liberals to prove it's not so.

Though difficult, I don't think it's an impossible task. It just requires some hard reckoning, and post-election rhetoric and Hillary's prominence says to me the Dems haven't learned a damn thing except a new excuse for failure.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj
As usual, showing contempt for the facts and the people who point them out.

Yes, Rik, I know your bigot is installed for 4 years.

Like you guys were saying in another thread, why don't you just let the NE and the Pacific states seceed to Canada.

You've made it clear you don't want us. You've made it clear that the economic strength of the country isn't from that part of the country, too, in your opinions, so why not just get rid of us. Give Washington, Oregon, Californacatia, all of New England, PA, Illnois, Wi, and Mn to Canada.

After all, you don't want it.

And, as you well knew, it's Bush who is the obvious draft dodger, and Kerry the decorated war hero.
:dl:

(all the reply necessary...)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Number Six
I know it's been awhile since this was posted but I have to respond. I disagree completely and I think it's that kind of disconnect with how people think that got the Democrats beaten by a lousy candidate with a lot of problems. Rightly or not, many people in middle America associate the "I'm ashamed to be an American" and the "Bush is a Nazi" folks with the Democrats and it turns the off completely. Even if they happen not to like what Bush is doing, they dislike that other stuff a whole lot more.

... Perhaps I didn't make myself totally clear. By stating that the Dems are not associated with this kind of crap, I was referring to the reality of the situation, not to the misinformed (by Republican spin) notions of people who believe it. You said "rightly or not," and I agree. I pick not rightly.

So to the larger question, how to counter this notion? There are two main paths, not necessarily divergent: present a positive, easy-to-understand-and-encapsulate vision and message about how to improve America and hammer the ever living ***** out of the Republican politicians (not rank-and-file) for all kinds of bad values and misdeeds. Don't try to explain away the bad stuff they say about us. The people who believe it will never give an ear to the rebuttal. Drown it out with the alternative message -- positive and negative.

[BPSCG]

Okay, I'm here to chew bubble gum and tell you all of you are wrong. And I'm all out of bubble gum.

Yeah, the Dems have problems, big ones. But it has nothing to do with "the Republican hate machine" or "the Republican lies machine." You'll be losing elections as long as you keep campaigning on that belief.

Suddenly (Yes, Suddenly! Of all people! Go figure!) touched on it back on page 1, when he outlined how to make same-sex marriage acceptable to the rest of the country.

The Democratic party was once upon a time the party with Ideas. Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Bank regulation and deposit insurance. Civil rights for black people. Medicare

These were ideas you could sell to the rest of the country, and the rest of the country would say, "Hey, them are great ideas! I'm voting for the Democrats!" The Dems didn't have to paint the Republicans as evil, because people were voting for the Democrats, not against the Republicans.

But their last good idea was Medicare, in 1966. For close to the last forty years, the Democrats' definition of a Good Idea amounted to expanding the old ones, even when the cost started getting prohibitive.

Meanwhile, who starts coming up with Good Ideas? Why, those stodgy old Republicans! Lower taxes. Standing up to communism. Fighting terrorists around the world, not just after they land here. And, yes, "family values." Don't underestimate how powerful an idea that is for getting people to come out and vote for you.

These were ideas you could sell to the rest of the country, and the rest of the country would say, "Hey, them are great ideas! I'm voting for the Republicans!"

The Democrats need to find Good Ideas that will make people want to come out and vote for them in large numbers. They have to find issues and ideas that will make people want to vote for them, not vote for them simply as the lesser of the two evils.

Identify the Good Ideas and the Good Issues and run on them. Then watch the country come back.

But you better hurry. Because Bush is already grabbing Social Security reform and tax reform, and in about fourteen minutes, they're going to be his ideas.

Oh, yeah, and find out where George Bush is having Pat Buchanan's, Pat Robertson's, and David Duke's phone calls forwarded, and have Barbra's and Mike's calls sent there, too.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
For close to the last forty years, the Democrats' definition of a Good Idea amounted to expanding the old ones Gee, that sounds sorta conservative. ;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Come on, Jocko...Clinton anyone?

Enough said.

Except we were talking about a presidential CANDIDATE, not a president ending his second term and therefore not running. And I'm still waiting for someone to show me any evidence of this "hate" that now assumes blame for the Dem's complete and utter collapse, when the only hate I see is coming FROM the left, not AT it.


Edited to make less hateful. :D

[Tmy]

"FIX" the Dems???? Whats to fix.........THEY ALMOST WON! KERRY PULLED IN 48%!!!! Its like taking your team to the superbowl and losing by a last second feild goal (to the favored team). You lost but it that doesnt mean you have a crappy squad. You need to reload, not rebuild. The Dems do have to tweek a few things. But all is not lost.

I think people exaggerate the red/blue state map just cause the reds are physically larger.

[hgc]

You know, I distinctly remember that in 1992, after Clinton won and had solid majorities in Congress, the Republicans looked to be pretty far out in the woods. But only 2 years later they took the Congress firmly into grasp. Things can turn on a dime. Remember, Bush only won by 3%. The Dems are only a few good ideas away from capturing a majority again. I just hope that the most important of these ideas, not running Hillary for president, will win out.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
"FIX" the Dems???? Whats to fix.........THEY ALMOST WON! KERRY PULLED IN 48%!!!! Its like taking your team to the superbowl and losing by a last second feild goal (to the favored team). You lost but it that doesnt mean you have a crappy squad. You need to reload, not rebuild. The Dems do have to tweek a few things. But all is not lost.

I think people exaggerate the red/blue state map just cause the reds are physically larger.

All right, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, let's replace "fix" with "tweak" as you suggest. So how do you "tweak" the Dems so they can win an election?
Please note this doesn't change the question itself one jot, but whatever makes you feel better is fine with me.

And it's not just 3.5 million votes, Timmy. It's 3 seats in the senate, half a dozen or so in the house and a few more governorships going "red." And this is all on top of the numerical advantages they ALREADY HAD. It's systemic, it's been going on for over 10 years, and it seems to be accelerating. So what are you proposing they do to stem the bleeding? Because at this rate, the Dems will be as relevant as the Whigs in 30 years.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jocko
Keep on believing that, and you'll continue to lose elections. Dems, fairly or not, are VERY associated with crude hatred like this. Ignore it or confront it, it's your decision.

I recall the episode where that noted political thinker Whoopie Goldberg made a number of off color comments about Bush. Kerry was present, did not repudiate the remarks and made some smarmy comment about these entertainers representing what is good about america. He embaressed himself and insulted the office that he aspired to. People do notice these things. I suspect that he was trying to ingratiate himself with that whopping 17% of young voters.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
:dl:

(all the reply necessary...)

Then I take it you approve, just let the NE and West leave the USA and join Canada?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
Gee, that sounds sorta conservative. ;) Mock all you want. Remember 1994 and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America"? It was a list of ideas, lots of them. Maybe they weren't all good, but people sat up and noticed, "Hey, the Republicans have some good ideas here." Gingrich saw that acting like the minority party that did nothing but complain about what the majority party was doing would condemn them to permanent minority-hood.

Newt sandbagged the Dems. They'd gotten fat and happy and lazy and complacent because for decades, they had been the party of ideas. And even though they'd run out of ideas almost thirty years before, they didn't have to worry, because the congressional Republicans never challenged them with ideas of their own. Gingrich changed all that. He blindsided the Dems, and all they could come back with was snide blasts about it being a "Contract On America" (har!), because they had nothing of substance to counter with.

That year, the Republicans captured both houses for the first time since Eisenhower, probably the first time in the lifetimes of many of the people here. And apart from (I think) two years when the Dems briefly held the senate, they've held on both houses since then.

The Dems better come up with something fast, else in 2008 it's going to be McCain or Pataki or Giuliani or Powell running as the leader of the party that saved Social Security (or tried to, in the face of Democratic obstructionism) against the much-beloved Hillary Clinton.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj
Furthermore, the morals of the draft dodger who smeared the war hero.

Unfortunately remarks like this are all too common amoung democrats and do have a negative influence.

[daenku32]

Considering that Republicans strongest arguments in the campaing were Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt or Kerry presidency, I'd say us Democrats were too nice to Republicans.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
"FIX" the Dems???? Whats to fix.........THEY ALMOST WON! KERRY PULLED IN 48%!!!! Its like taking your team to the superbowl and losing by a last second feild goal (to the favored team). You lost but it that doesnt mean you have a crappy squad. You need to reload, not rebuild. The Dems do have to tweek a few things. But all is not lost.

I think people exaggerate the red/blue state map just cause the reds are physically larger.

The point is he lost against someone I could have won against. That takes hard work. You have to really work had to do that.:D

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- I say we just start adopting the tactics that won for Bush. If we're courting the fundies, farmhands, and fat-cats................(snip)........... If we did these things, my friends, there would be a one-party system... Republicans would do no better than Nader. I guarantee it.

I think this is a good example of what the Democrats should not do, and what cost them the election. We have enough Michael Moores, and no-one seems to be listening...

Instead of calling their opponents "stupid fundies" and attacking straw man versions of Bush's constituency, Democrats need to have an honest look at themselves. (http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html) We could use a good, serious opposition party in this country, and the current Democrats are failing badly.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko


And it's not just 3.5 million votes, Timmy. It's 3 seats in the senate, half a dozen or so in the house and a few more governorships going "red." And this is all on top of the numerical advantages they ALREADY HAD. It's systemic, it's been going on for over 10 years, and it seems to be accelerating. So what are you proposing they do to stem the bleeding? Because at this rate, the Dems will be as relevant as the Whigs in 30 years.

First off Kerry was the underdog and its not like hes a Bill Clinton charmer. He was up against a wartime incumbant and still pulled off a sizeable vote. For all Bushs f-up's he seems to be pretty teflon. I mean this guy escaped blame for everything up until about July of this year.

Now all those state losses. They mostly came from jesus-ville. I see the big problem is that the Dems arent as good with mudslinging.

****! THe Repubs had grown men using the term "flip flop". Turned Kerry into jane Fonda, convinced everyone that he was a satanist -witch who wants gays to be married (he said he was against), he wants porn shown in our schools, he'd turn our troop over to French command, he'd leave Iraq tomorrow.

It was brillant how they created his image.

The Dems need to just put up some guy whos not so polished. They need a loveable blockhead.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ed
Unfortunately remarks like this are all too common amoung democrats and do have a negative influence. So why when the Republicans do it, it works great? I really want to know.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Tmy
Turned Kerry into jane Fonda, convinced everyone that he was a satanist -witch who wants gays to be married (he said he was against), he wants porn shown in our schools, he'd turn our troop over to French command, he'd leave Iraq tomorrow.


The most disturbing thing about your statement is that there's only one thing in it I would actually object to!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, I'm here to chew bubble gum and tell you all of you are wrong. And I'm all out of bubble gum.

Yeah, the Dems have problems, big ones. But it has nothing to do with "the Republican hate machine" or "the Republican lies machine." You'll be losing elections as long as you keep campaigning on that belief.

Suddenly (Yes, Suddenly! Of all people! Go figure!) touched on it back on page 1, when he outlined how to make same-sex marriage acceptable to the rest of the country.

The Democratic party was once upon a time the party with Ideas. Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Bank regulation and deposit insurance. Civil rights for black people. Medicare

These were ideas you could sell to the rest of the country, and the rest of the country would say, "Hey, them are great ideas! I'm voting for the Democrats!" The Dems didn't have to paint the Republicans as evil, because people were voting for the Democrats, not against the Republicans.

But their last good idea was Medicare, in 1966. For close to the last forty years, the Democrats' definition of a Good Idea amounted to expanding the old ones, even when the cost started getting prohibitive.

Meanwhile, who starts coming up with Good Ideas? Why, those stodgy old Republicans! Lower taxes. Standing up to communism. Fighting terrorists around the world, not just after they land here. And, yes, "family values." Don't underestimate how powerful an idea that is for getting people to come out and vote for you.

These were ideas you could sell to the rest of the country, and the rest of the country would say, "Hey, them are great ideas! I'm voting for the Republicans!"

The Democrats need to find Good Ideas that will make people want to come out and vote for them in large numbers. They have to find issues and ideas that will make people want to vote for them, not vote for them simply as the lesser of the two evils.

Identify the Good Ideas and the Good Issues and run on them. Then watch the country come back.

But you better hurry. Because Bush is already grabbing Social Security reform and tax reform, and in about fourteen minutes, they're going to be his ideas.

Oh, yeah, and find out where George Bush is having Pat Buchanan's, Pat Robertson's, and David Duke's phone calls forwarded, and have Barbra's and Mike's calls sent there, too.

Man I sure WISH you were my sock-puppet!! Hell, I'd even volunteer to be yours....the quality of my posts would go way up!

You rock man....REALLY.....that last paragraph!!!! WOW! It should be carved backwards into every liberal Democrat's forehead.

-z

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Meme? Kerry's the one that opened his mouth and spat out "global test". You may say it was taken out of context...but was it? In what context would "must pass a global test" be compatible with; "when it comes to America’s national security, I'll never give a veto to any other country. " You're kidding me. You and Jocko actually think Bush's misunderstanding of the "global test" is an accurate depicition of Kerry's position?

Here is the complete quote of what Kerry said:No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?
What Kerry was meant by "passing the test" is that it is important that both the country, and the world, understand that the reasons for a preemptive attack are legitimate. The "test" he referred to isn't about asking permission to do it, it's about being able to justify it, either before or after the fact. It's a test of evidence.

Compare to Bush's response:He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals.Obviously, this is in no way what Kerry said. It's a straw man argument. I realized that the moment I heard Bush say the words during the debate. But, for whatever reason, the straw man was generally believed by the press and the public and Kerry was unable to counter act the propoganda.

[Ed]

Originally posted by hgc
So why when the Republicans do it, it works great? I really want to know.

The election is over. Now it sounds mean spirited and spiteful. Whatever it is it is nonproductive.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by hgc
So why when the Republicans do it, it works great? I really want to know.

I gave you my opinion of why at the beginning of this thread. Bush was more credible. Deservingly? I don't know but I think so. Much more? Not in my opinion. I'd say about 3% more overall.

[agnostic_god]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The topic is: How must the Dems re-tool in order to win in the midterms in 2006,...and later in 2008??

As a libertarian that normally votes republican, the dems would get my vote if they would turn away from socialism and judicial activism. In other words, act like libertarians.

As to this election, I thought that Bush was such a tool that I could have held my nose and voted for a democrat if they had put up someone decent like Joe Lieberman, but being moderate doesn't fly very well with the fringe elements.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Man I sure WISH you were my sock-puppet!! Hell, I'd even volunteer to be yours....the quality of my posts would go way up!

You rock man....REALLY.....that last paragraph!!!! WOW! It should be carved backwards into every liberal Democrat's forehead.

-z Shhh... don't want to tip the others off.

BTW, how do you manage to keep your sanity as one of the right-thinking (:D) nine percent in DC? I'd go nuts, I swear to God.

[patnray]

I think Suddenly is correct in his first post. I have been saying the same thing for years. Why to the dems let the reps frame the debates in terms favorabile to the reps?

Spiro Agnew said the liberals were an "effete corps of impudent snobs." Sometimes it seems like the dems have spent the last 30 years trying to prove he was right...

"Morality" is a huge smoke screen used to pump up people's passions but with little real substance. And the reps don't realy want to solve any alleged moral issues because it brings them votes as long as it is not "resolved".

Take abortion. The reps have, for years, maintained the false dichotomy between "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". But they never take any action that would actually reduce the demand for abortion. Bush's first act as president was to sign an executive order that results in more abortions being performed yet he is praised for his "anti-abortion" stand. Though others were joking about the dems becoming the anti-abortion party, that is actually a good idea. They should, while maintaining the right of women to decide, sponsor the "Abortion Prevention Act", which would include requiring abstinance based sex education that includes full and honest discussion of all methods of birth control. It would include programs to make birth control more available to any one who wants it. They should force the reps to take a stand: either support the act or come out from behind the "sanctity of life" shield and expose their real motivations (and vote against reducing abortions). Then, in 2008 they can repeat ad nausium that "The republican candidate vote against reducing abortions 20 times..."

Not that I think there are currently any dems with enough vision, courage, and eloquence to do such a thing...

They need to make similar aggressive and progressive attacks on all the "moral" issues, similar to the proposal earlier in this thread to find a realistic compromise on the gay marriage issue. Position themselves as the party that wants to actually solve these issues, not just use them to maintain their power.

It's too early to be naming names for 2008. Not to early to begin grooming people, but they really have to concentrate on the 2006 elections. I firmly believe they can make inroads into the heart of the "red" states if they aggressively redefine the moral issues.

Realistically, they will probably make small changes in the hope of winning just one more big state. But, IMHO, they will be far more successful in the long run by taking dead aim at the hypocrisy that lets the reps pretend to be more moral than the dems.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

(...remainder snipped and emphasis added by BPSCG, but context is preserved...)
I've pointed this out before: That last bolded phrase is in direct conflict with the first sentence.

What would President Kerry do if he presented incontrovertible evidence that showed that, say, Iran had a nuclear weapons reactor, and Jacques Chirac said, out of honest conviction, or stubbornness, or pique (good French word there), or wanting to protect his investments in an Iranian kickback scheme, or out of simple insanity, said "Non, Monsieur le President, I am not convinced, and neither is my good friend Chancellor Schroeder. I am not convinced by these obviously Photoshopped pictures, I do not believe you have legitimate reasons for proposing this multilateral invasion, and I shall instruct my ambassador to vote 'non' on your proposed resolution at the United Nations"?

Would he invade anyway? If so, then he was lying when he said he would only do it if he could prove to the world that he did it for "legitimate reasons."

If not, then he has no business being the President of the United States.

If Kerry was unable to respond to Bush's characterization of his position, it was because his position was untenable to begin with. Don't try to tell us that his twenty years of debating experience on the floor of the United States Senate left him powerless in the grasp of the rhetorical mastery that is George W. Bush. Kerry's own words kneecapped him; all Bush did was remove the rhetorical flourishes from his little speech and lay bare what Kerry was really saying. And the American people heard it, and voted accordingly.

[hgc]

Originally posted by patnray
...

Take abortion. The reps have, for years, maintained the false dichotomy between "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". But they never take any action that would actually reduce the demand for abortion. Bush's first act as president was to sign an executive order that results in more abortions being performed yet he is praised for his "anti-abortion" stand. Though others were joking about the dems becoming the anti-abortion party, that is actually a good idea. They should, while maintaining the right of women to decide, sponsor the "Abortion Prevention Act", which would include requiring abstinance based sex education that includes full and honest discussion of all methods of birth control. It would include programs to make birth control more available to any one who wants it. They should force the reps to take a stand: either support the act or come out from behind the "sanctity of life" shield and expose their real motivations (and vote against reducing abortions). Then, in 2008 they can repeat ad nausium that "The republican candidate vote against reducing abortions 20 times..."

... Thank you. This is the prescription. Make a positive proposal, give it an easy-to-understand name, paint the opponents of it as being the cause of our moral downfall. I hate it because it's intellectual reductionism, but then that's politics.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hgc
Thank you. This is the prescription. Make a positive proposal, give it an easy-to-understand name, paint the opponents of it as being the cause of our moral downfall. I hate it because it's intellectual reductionism, but then that's politics.

Also better than the professional victimhood declared by may Dems in recent days. I'm glad to see there are exceptions. A stronger Dem party means a stronger America, even if for no other reason than it makes the GOP work harder and all Americans think harder.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Don't try to tell us that his twenty years of debating experience on the floor of the United States Senate left him powerless in the grasp of the rhetorical mastery that is George W. Bush.

Dog Laughing is not polite in this case but you certainly nailed it in a dog-laugh sort of way.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Okay,...now ask yourself why a "war hero's" fellow soldiers would band together in abject hatred to denounce ...not just one of their own...but one of their "heros"????

They weren't his "fellow soldiers". They were guys who happened to patrol the same river as him now and then. His "fellow soldiers" not only supported him during his campaign, they called him a hero for his leadership on the boat.

But I guess we should trust the words of a bunch of guys who didn't know him...


So Thurkon....why do Kerry's very own fellow Navy buddies hate him? Could it be because he went before Congress and denounced them as "war criminals"??

Again, they weren't his buddies.

And yes, the Swift Vets hate him because he went before Congress and testified about Vietnam war crimes. Regardless, that does excuse the fact that they lied about his actual service in the Navy. If you don't like his actions before Congress, speak about those. That's not what they did. They contradicted the official records that Kerry's superior wrote up, and they contradicted the testimony of the vets who had actually been on the boat with Kerry...so their lies not only besmirched Kerry, but all those who served in those various battles.

And there were war crimes happening in Vietnam. And yes, they happen in any kind of martial conflict, but that doesn't make it alright. Just as there is corruption, graft and abuse of power in the police force, fellow officers with a conscience shouldn't be expected to roll over and allow it. These things have to be dealt with as much as possible if we're going to continue to strive and make this planet more civilized and enlightened.


That he threw his medals/ribbons...or was it someone else's ribbons/medals??? Perhaps he didn't throw them BEFORE he threw them....who knows.

My father was in Vietnam, as was my uncle. My uncle was a tunnel rat who witnessed horrors you probably couldn't imagine, and suffered post war trauma for years afterwards. He was appalled at the way vets were treated by the government during and after the war, and threw his Purple Heart into the ocean. But I'll be damned if he didn't earn it, and earn the right to do that.

Protesting a war and the actions of an administration during wartime is what makes this America, and is a guaranteed right. Those who served in such a conflict and witnessed all of the madness firsthand have every right, if not more so, in doing just that.

It wasn't hate for hate's sake Thurkon....it was good old fashioned vengeance served cold and well aged. I spent 6 years in the Army Thurkon....I don't know a single man that I served with who hated me.

You are misinformed. Do a little research on this...none of the Swift Vets actually served on Kerry's boat. Zero.

They also were strangely silent about all of these "revelations" about Kerry (a man most had never met) until the Republican smearmeisters decided to get them in gear for the election year.

The American people have shown him, and all the other Jane Fonda-like thinkers the door....Good riddance to them all.


Jane Fonda met with the North Vietnamese, and deserves all the bile she gets. Comparing her with Kerry is an idiotic Republican smear tactic. There is no comparison.

Good riddance? They're still here, and Kerry is still in the Senate. Funny how the right talks about American freedom, yet is quick to brand anyone who actually exercises their freedom of speech a traitor.

You sure you understand the Bill of Rights and the principles this country is founded upon?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I've pointed this out before: That last bolded phrase is in direct conflict with the first sentence.

What would President Kerry do if he presented incontrovertible evidence that showed that, say, Iran had a nuclear weapons reactor, and Jacques Chirac said, out of honest conviction, or stubbornness, or pique (good French word there), or wanting to protect his investments in an Iranian kickback scheme, or out of simple insanity, said "Non, Monsieur le President, I am not convinced, and neither is my good friend Chancellor Schroeder. I am not convinced by these obviously Photoshopped pictures, I do not believe you have legitimate reasons for proposing this multilateral invasion, and I shall instruct my ambassador to vote non on your proposed resolution at the United Nations"?

Would he invade anyway? If so, then he was lying when he said he would only do it if he could prove to the world that he did it for "legitimate reasons."

If not, then he has no business being the President of the United States.

If Kerry was unable to respond to Bush's characterization of his position, it was because his position was untenable to begin with. Don't try to tell us that his twenty years of debating experience on the floor of the United States Senate left him powerless in the grasp of the rhetorical mastery that is George W. Bush. Kerry's own words kneecapped him; all Bush did was remove the rhetorical flourishes from his little speech and lay bare what Kerry was really saying. And the American people heard it, and voted accordingly.

Bingo. Another little Freudian slip of his in the 3rd debate was a response in which he mentioned the rights the government "afforded to its citizens." In fact, he repeated the same phrase twice or three times in the same response.

Apparently he's never read the declaration of independence or the constitution... both clearly state that government does not grant rights; it only preserves and protects them.

Has anyone else commented on that little foible, or am I just paranoid?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by hgc
Thank you. This is the prescription. Make a positive proposal, give it an easy-to-understand name, paint the opponents of it as being the cause of our moral downfall. I hate it because it's intellectual reductionism, but then that's politics. Leave out the part about painting one's opponents and you have what the Dems used to be able to do before they got fat and lazy. "Let's take care of our elderly when they can't work any more. Let's call the proposal Social Security."

[Furious]

10 steps to regaining the presidency from an incumbent party:

1) Let a buffonish popular two term president get your base really riled up and voting in droves by painting him as having the most extreme elements of his party, even though that isn't the case. This sentiment will last for years beyond that president.

2) During the primaries, submarine or ignore qualified centrist candidates with long legislative voting records, and instead get a buffonish governor without a distinguishing record. Make sure nothing negative can ever stick to them.

3) Have your candidate speak publicy as a centrist, preferably molding moderate ideas from the other party and making them your own. Make up your own buzzword for the idea to be repeated ad naseum.

4) Have your candidate simply meet in private with leaders of the fringe elements of your party to gain their support, but make sure there is little to no publicity surrounding those meetings that would paint you in a negative light.

5) Choose one polarizing social issue that most Americans agree with your candidate on that keeps the extremists in your party thinking your candidate is directly in line with them on every social issue, but publicly be curiously silent on every other issue beyond the one. The other candidate may or may not agree with your candidate on that social issue, but exploit any minor difference so that a lot of people believe the other candidate is totally opposed to yours.

6) Have a character or personal flaw in your candidates distant past that is embarrasing, but is obviously not relevant to running a country. The other party will demonize your candidate for his character, but a vast majority of Americans will be able to empathize and will be annoyed at the other party for focusing on something so trivial.

7) Promise tax cuts, regardless of their feasiblity.

8) Have your candidate be from the South with a noticable, folksy accent.

9) Have a Vice Presidential candidate with little or no charisma, but who is publicly viewed as smarter than your presidential candidate.

10) Have your candidate be a white Christain male. (Only stating the obvious to fill out the ten.)

Bonus! To get re-election as President:

1) Make sure there is some overbearing person with an official title that is close to the President that appears to the other party to be weilding too much control or power in your adminsitration that ends up being the figurehead of all that is evil about your presidency. Make sure they have several verbal slips in public that emphasize that effect so that while the other party might not like your candidate, they
really hate the overbearing person.

2) Appoint an Attorney General that really crafts bozo moves regarding civil liberties that get people killed or locked up and stick by them vehemently as the other party vilifies them during public Congressional hearings.

That way, by the time re-election rolls around, the voters will be completely sick of partisan bickering, such that even a marginal president with some obvious flaws during the presidency looks good compared to how hateful the other party is.

[Tmy]

The Dems need someone who can pass the old "Who would I rather drink a beer with." test.

Go back 25 years and in all the elections the winner is the beer guy!

Bush Clinton
Clinton Dole
Bush Gore
Reagan Mondale
Reagn Carter
Bush Dukakis

Who woud you rather drink with??

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Thurkon
They weren't his "fellow soldiers".

Dude! Stop! You're getting yourself caught up in an argument that has no value. IT DOESN'T MATTER! The election is over. Those talking points, on both sides, died on noon of the 3rd. You need to look at the title of the thread.

Why did that [the swift-boat] message work better than the F911 message? Better than the Draft message? Better than the National Guard message?

That's the question.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thurkon

Jane Fonda met with the North Vietnamese, and deserves all the bile she gets. Comparing her with Kerry is an idiotic Republican smear tactic. There is no comparison.


Except that Kerry DID meet with the North Vietnamese in Paris, in 1971 I believe. He was a commissioned but inactive officer in the Navy at the time, operating without diplomatic credentials under no government sponsorship. He met with the enemy in time of war, Thurkon.

You're right, there IS no comparison. Fonda deserved bile - Kerry deserved a firing squad.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I've pointed this out before: That last bolded phrase is in direct conflict with the first sentence.

{snip}

Would he invade anyway? If so, then he was lying when he said he would only do it if he could prove to the world that he did it for "legitimate reasons."He's talking about being confident in the intellegence and being able to prove he had legitimate reasons during or after making a pre-emptive attack. I quote Kerry again, since you seem so insistant on not reading what the man actually said but rather relying on Bush's straw man:...your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.Note the present and past tense forms of the verbs, respectively.
If Kerry was unable to respond to Bush's characterization of his position, it was because his position was untenable to begin with. Don't try to tell us that his twenty years of debating experience on the floor of the United States Senate left him powerless in the grasp of the rhetorical mastery that is George W. Bush. Did you even watch the debate? After Bush's rediculous straw man, the commentator asked a new question that went to Bush. It was several minutes before Kerry was even allowed to speak again and then he focused on the actual content of Bush's remarks rather than his mischaracterizations. In retrospect, it was stupid of him to ignore Bush's laughable mis-characterization, but that's what I'm saying. The Democratic party does a horrible job of challenging the GOP on straw men like this.
Kerry's own words kneecapped him; all Bush did was remove the rhetorical flourishes from his little speech and lay bare what Kerry was really saying. And the American people heard it, and voted accordingly. As John Stewart pointed out, if Kerry had said something like "tour of duty", the Republicans would have jumped on him for saying "doodie". :rolleyes:

In the future, I highly recommend you watch/listen/read the source material rather than blindly accepting the sound clip relying propoganda.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by BPSCG

The Democratic party was once upon a time the party with Ideas. Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Bank regulation and deposit insurance. Civil rights for black people. Medicare

These were ideas you could sell to the rest of the country, and the rest of the country would say, "Hey, them are great ideas!

The Democrats need to find Good Ideas that will make people want to come out and vote for them in large numbers. They have to find issues and ideas that will make people want to vote for them, not vote for them simply as the lesser of the two evils.


You mean ideas like civil rights for another oppressed minority...like, say, gay people?

Or how about the idea of protecting our environment instead of rolling back all environmental protections?

Or how about the idea of planning better for a war? Like, say, not requiring some of the troops to buy their own body armor?

Funding stem cell research?

These are good ideas, and nearly half the country agreed. The thing is, you don't agree...which makes sense, after all, being that you're conservative.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Dude! Stop! You're getting yourself caught up in an argument that has no value. IT DOESN'T MATTER! The election is over. Those talking points, on both sides, died on noon of the 3rd. You need to look at the title of the thread.

Why did that [the swift-boat] message work better than the F911 message? Better than the Draft message? Better than the National Guard message?

That's the question.

And it is one that the Democrats probably won't be able to answer, based on their unwillingness to answer it after the 2000 loss of the Presidency.

And as we've seen, 4 years of whining about talking points and parroting agit-prop only served to hand the Presidency to the Republicans a second time in a row...

The way things are going, we will soon have a 1 party system, as the Dems continue their rush to marginalize themselves, and drive more and more people away from their impotent negative messages.

One can only hope that a new and viable party will emerge with a truly progressive agenda, and an inclusive policy coupled with a positive message.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And it is one that the Democrats probably won't be able to answer, based on their unwillingness to answer it after the 2000 loss of the Presidency.

And as we've seen, 4 years of whining about talking points and parroting agit-prop only served to hand the Presidency to the Republicans a second time in a row...

The way things are going, we will soon have a 1 party system, as the Dems continue their rush to marginalize themselves, and drive more and more people away from their impotent negative messages.

One can only hope that a new and viable party will emerge with a truly progressive agenda, and an inclusive policy coupled with a positive message.

I still think Suddenly and BPSCG were dead on target.

Perhaps they need something like the Newt's Contract With America. It was rhetoric, to be sure, but it was very effective.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Jocko
Also better than the professional victimhood declared by may Dems in recent days. I'm glad to see there are exceptions.
Don't get your hopes up. I'm not a democrat... I'm a "radical independant". Fiscally conservative (I voted against the stem cell initiative in CA). Socially progressive (see my definition of anti-abortion above). Somene who eschews cosmetic solutions in favor of tackling the root cause of problems (killing terrorists is a cosmetic solution). Although I donated to the DNC and voted for Kerry, I have supported republicans in the past with both votes and $...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
(killing terrorists is a cosmetic solution).

I agree. And while cosmetics are nice, getting rid of the breeding grounds is more important. You should start a thread on that.

[epepke]

If the Dems want to win, they need to start being real cynical bastards.

If one is for stem cell research, don't talk about the benefits. Instead talk about the opponent wants to kill all the poor, innocent extra embryos produced in fertilization clinics, rather than give them a chance at life through stem cell research. Oh, the humanity!

When members of the opposition protest, speak condescendingly of them, smirkingly declaring how wonderful it is that the Dems kept civil rights alive so that these anti-Americans could protest.

Turn everything around. If the opposition is in favor of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, talk about how they are in favor of Big Government and how much you're in favor of states' rights. Paint the opposition as people who want to rewrite the Constitution at the drop of a hat. Punctuate it with terms of respect for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Never, ever, ever become defensive. If you are under attack, you can attack the means of attack, but always attack.

Print up a statement of principles. Make every line item something that you know full well that the President has little if any control over.

If someone calls you a "tax and spend" Democrat, call them a "spend and spend and run up the credit card" Republican. Hardly anyone is capable of understanding words like "trillion," but they do understand the bills they have to pay every month.

Don't suck up to academics. Try to alienate them as much as possible. Mr. and Mrs. America with the crocheted duck toilet paper roll covers inherently distrust academics, and they'll be on your side. As a sop, provide some actual information through a semi-secret channel that people who like academics can use to make them feel that they're smart if they agree with it.

If you're male, have a wife who has been diagnosed with ADHD. Show her a lot in public. The opposition will make fun of her. Respond by saying how cruel they are, and how they don't understand that love conquers all.

Don't ever show yourself going to church, because if you've gotten this far, you're a rich elite schmuck who probably drinks scotch with the bishop. Instead, arrange to make speeches at the grodiest and homiest churches you can find. Become an ordained minister if necessary. Never ever miss an opportunity to show up when a church is burned down by an arsonist.

Take a tip from "In the Mold of Yancy" by Philip K. Dick. Have strong, certain opinions about things inconsequential. Be vague about things consequential and always redirect the questioning to basic values, you know, the kind that are useless without thought. Ignore the thought.

[Luke T.]

Sorry for jumping in late to this topic, but it’s been a hard week. Wife out of town, I’m alone with the kids. Helllllllp!

Originally posted by Suddenly
Most of the Democrats' problems are rhetorical, and largely stem from allowing themselves to be defined by others, sorta like what is going on in this thread. It is solely an image problem.

It is an image problem, but not with others defining them. The problem is that they took a liberal (Kerry) and tried to pass him off as a moderate. They created a false idol. The American people can see through that crap.

It isn't enough to be right, you have to be able to convince people, and the great mass of people have neither the time or inclination to actually sit down and analyze political issues. They go with gut feelings, and swaying those gut feelings is a question of marketing, not deeply considered analysis.

That belief/attitude seriously sells the American people short. It is the Left’s biggest weakness to think the Right won because they appeal to people’s stupidity. That is totally elitist thinking and completely out of touch with America.

Think about this. Kerry was getting his ass kicked in all the polls, and Bush was clearly going to win this election up until the debates. And then Kerry kicked Bush’s ass in the debates. Bush came across as a rube, while Kerry looked like the statesman. And that is not only my (Bush supporter) opinion, but a nearly universal one. And suddenly Kerry was pulling ahead and got neck and neck with Bush.

Now did Kerry come across as an appealer to people’s stupidity during the debates? Hell, no. So how do you explain his surge in the polls after that?

In short, the left needs to grow up and realize that the left is not their audience, and that reasoning they find watertight may not appeal so much to the pragmatic center that is looking to vote more based on emotion than dry analysis. This does not mean changing positon, rather looking towards practicality rather than justice.

I agree, except for my above objection to your emotion-based appeal argument. And substitute “right� for “left� in that statement, it is just as applicable.

Originally posted by hgc
I'll back Edwards in 2008. He has supportable policy positions and has the right stuff, in my opion, to bring home the prize. It's not just a matter of his southern roots, but his personality and rhetorical skill connect with "middle America" in a very natural way. He is postively Clintonian (Bill). And you know what, he gives "liberalism" a good name.

Perhaps you are unaware that Edwards is now out of a job. His seat just went to a Republican.

edited to fix attribute errors

[Luke T.]

Americans may get silly over religion, but when it comes to politics, they are skeptics. They don't trust politicians.

The worst you can say about Americans and politics is that they are not well-informed. Blank slates. That doesn't mean they are stupid. They are capable of grasping complex ideas.

We are an inventive, industrious, hard-working country. As a result, our primary preoccupation is with making a living. We get angry when we feel someone else's hand in our wallet. Very angry. That's why politicians are down there with telemarketers. They want our hard earned money for a bad or bogus product in return.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
They might want to disassociate themselves from the likes of these as well.
Yes, right away. I will immediately disown these people whom I've never met.

While we're at it, can you get Ann Coulter to quit calling me an anti-american traitor, and a whole raft of fundamentalist preachers to quit referring to my beliefs as "Satanic?"

[a_unique_person]

They don't have to do anything. If americans want to vote for insane policies that lead to disaster, all they have to do is wait for the disaster to happen.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The way things are going, we will soon have a 1 party system, as the Dems continue their rush to marginalize themselves, and drive more and more people away from their impotent negative messages. Yes, that's why 55 million people showed up to vote for Kerry.

This election was won by razor-thin majority. Conservatives need to get over themselves real quick and realize that it was not in any way shape or form a mandate. A sudden lurch to the right is all it's going to take to bring the party to the ground. The 49% of people who are unhappy are not just moping, and dismissing their opinions as marginal is a major mistake.

Much of the strategy is going to consist of giving rope to those who are twisting it around their own necks. Actual policies of George Bush (rather than nebulous beliefs) are proven disastrous and unworkable. I give it 2 years before the party starts to eat itself.

[gnome]

I don't feel that the Democrats need to shift their own party closer to the center, or try to make conservative issues their own.

If people want Republicans, they'll vote for them. You don't solve the problem by becoming the Republicans unless all you're interested in is power, and you don't care what your issues are. Switch to the Republican Party if you feel that way. It's their turn for a while.

They need to work on their message... I personally believe the reason most people don't vote for Democrats is because they misrepresent themselves, and (especially) allow others to misrepresent them--they fall victim again and again to the most elementary of rhetorical traps.

Less attention on fund-raising and more attention on educating people on their core issues.

They need orators, public speakers as good as Clinton or better. Recognize that people accepting a conservative stance on an issue often have a legitimate grievance, and provide an alternative. For example: People upset about illegal immigrants disrupting the job market. Instead of just condescending that point of view and calling it ignorant, why not point out that they should more properly direct their anger at the employers that hire the illegal immigrants, and suggest solutions centered around that?

THIS is how the Democratic party can make a real comeback. Will they? Probably not.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Jocko
You're stuck in the belief that nearly 60 million people voted the way they did because they just didn't know any better The evidence is very strongly that they didn't. 70% of them believe that Iraq had WMD, that we are fighting "terrorists" over there, that morals matter more than bread on the table, and so on.

People can be wrong, people can have different opinions, and people can be misled. The real question is, how long can they be misled against their own best interests before they figure it out, and get really mad?

Fortunately, that question has already been answered (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1932.html). People will choose style over substance only as long as it doesn't personally impact them. When it does, look out.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Fortunately, that question has already been answered (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1932.html). People will choose style over substance only as long as it doesn't personally impact them. When it does, look out.

What an interesting choice you made. There is an even better, more dramatic one on the same site here (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html), but you probably already knew that...

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
What an interesting choice you made. There is an even better, more dramatic one on the same site here (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html), but you probably already knew that... Yes, but the circumstances now are far more like the ones that put FDR in power than the ones that put Reagan in power. The stock market is roaring, corporate profits are soaring, but working wages are stagnant and costs for basic necessities just keep going up. We are at the end of a conservative pendulum swing. Reagan was at the beginning.

[Luke T.]

The Democratic Party has not won more than 50 percent of the popular vote for President since 1976. And then it was 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And that was after Watergate when the Republican party was most damaged.

Some numbers from Slippy Toad's linked site:

1960 - Kennedy - Dem - 49.7 percent

1964 - Johnson - Dem - 60.6 percent

1968 - Nixon - Rep - 43.4 percent

1972 - Nixon - Rep - 60.3 percent

1976 - Carter - Dem - 50.1 percent

1980 - Reagan - Rep - 50.8 percent

1984 - Reagan - Rep - 58.8 percent

1988 - Bush Sr. - Rep - 53.4 percent

1992 - Clinton - Dem - 43 percent

1996 - Clinton - Dem - 49.2 percent

2000- Bush Jr. - Rep - 47.9 percent

Kinda gives all this talk about alienated-voters-that-must-not-be-ignored-and-who-are-about-to-be-f***ed-over of the party that lost this time around chat less impact, eh?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Yes, but the circumstances now are far more like the ones that put FDR in power than the ones that put Reagan in power. The stock market is roaring, corporate profits are soaring, but working wages are stagnant and costs for basic necessities just keep going up. We are at the end of a conservative pendulum swing. Reagan was at the beginning.

A roaring stock market and soaring corporate profits. In 1932.

Ooooookayyyyy....

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
A roaring stock market and soaring corporate profits. In 1932.

Ooooookayyyyy.... There was a period that preceded 1932 in which this was true. The election of 1932 was about the utter and complete failure of those policies.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Democratic Party has not won more than 50 percent of the popular vote for President since 1976. And then it was 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And that was after Watergate when the Republican party was most damaged.

Some numbers from Slippy Toad's linked site:

1960 - Kennedy - Dem - 49.7 percent

1964 - Johnson - Dem - 60.6 percent

1968 - Nixon - Rep - 43.4 percent

1972 - Nixon - Rep - 60.3 percent

1976 - Carter - Dem - 50.1 percent

1980 - Reagan - Rep - 50.8 percent

1984 - Reagan - Rep - 58.8 percent

1988 - Bush Sr. - Rep - 53.4 percent

1992 - Clinton - Dem - 43 percent

1996 - Clinton - Dem - 49.2 percent

2000- Bush Jr. - Rep - 47.9 percent

Kinda gives all this talk about alienated-voters-that-must-not-be-ignored-and-who-are-about-to-be-f***ed-over of the party that lost this time around chat less impact, eh? Well, again, you are reading from the wrong cycle of history. But go ahead. Just keep fooling yourself if it pleases you. I just hope the crash isn't as bad this time around.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
There was a period that preceded 1932 in which this was true. The election of 1932 was about the utter and complete failure of those policies.

Ah. You are prognositicating a major collapse of the American economy because of Bush. I see now.

Well, again, you are reading from the wrong cycle of history. But go ahead. Just keep fooling yourself if it pleases you. I just hope the crash isn't as bad this time around.

The Democratic version of wishful thinking, ladies and gentleman. Pessimistic, as always.

[gnome]

Originally posted by gnome
If people want Republicans, they'll vote for them. You don't solve the problem by becoming the Republicans unless all you're interested in is power, and you don't care what your issues are. Switch to the Republican Party if you feel that way. It's their turn for a while.

I just wanted to clarify: I don't think all Republicans want is power. But if you're changing your beliefs to get elected, clearly power is the objective.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Yes, that's why 55 million people showed up to vote for Kerry.

This election was won by razor-thin majority. Conservatives need to get over themselves real quick and realize that it was not in any way shape or form a mandate. A sudden lurch to the right is all it's going to take to bring the party to the ground. The 49% of people who are unhappy are not just moping, and dismissing their opinions as marginal is a major mistake.

Much of the strategy is going to consist of giving rope to those who are twisting it around their own necks. Actual policies of George Bush (rather than nebulous beliefs) are proven disastrous and unworkable. I give it 2 years before the party starts to eat itself.

Nice, but it has nothing to do with what I said, or with the reality that this wasn't a sudden anomaly.

There were more than enough people in this country who disagreed with Republican platforms for Kerry to win, but the Democrats chased them off, on every possible level...
(44% of Hispanics, and 11% of blacks voted against Kerry...was it because they were all a bunch of racists who enjoyed the torturing and killing of people of color? Or was it because the Democrats represented something that they couldn't stomach?)

And now the Dems are standing there blaming the people they chased away. blindly and arrogantly refusing to admit that there is even a problem, much less that they are to blame for it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by gnome
I just wanted to clarify: I don't think all Republicans want is power. But if you're changing your beliefs to get elected, clearly power is the objective.

And how many times did Kerry change his beliefs during his campaign?

:id:

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And how many times did Kerry change his beliefs during his campaign? The "flip-flop" meme was of course mainly propagated by that fair and balanced firehose of bullsh*t, FOX News. That Bush is a major flip-flopper (http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000820.html) is well-documented.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thurkon
You mean ideas like civil rights for another oppressed minority...like, say, gay people?

Or how about the idea of protecting our environment instead of rolling back all environmental protections?

Or how about the idea of planning better for a war? Like, say, not requiring some of the troops to buy their own body armor?

Funding stem cell research?

These are good ideas, and nearly half the country agreed. The thing is, you don't agree...which makes sense, after all, being that you're conservative. I don't want to beat up on you as a new member (or new participant - you've been here over a year), but if you've read any of my posts that discuss rights for gays, you understand that I strongly favor them. As far as the others go, I don't recall expressing any opinion on any of them.

In any case, the question isn't what do I think; it's what do the Dems have to do to sell their issues? Isn't there something out there that the Dems stand for that's important to a large majority of the country - not "nearly half"?

Why didn't they grab Social Security reform and run with it? It belongs to Bush now, and all they can do now is either say "us, too", or "Bush wants to kill Social Security."

[SezMe]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Lots of good responses! :)

Here's how it breaks down in my eyes:
Elitist, anti-democratic feelings of remorse that average Americans are too stupid to pay attention.[/B]
I spent a lot of time on the phone this election season and I can fully attest that most Americans are really dumb. Not because they did not agree with me, but because they did not know who the candidates were, what local initiatives were even on the ballot, much less what the arguments were on both sides, etc.

OK, this is "Elitist" but I am fully prepared to say out loud that most American voters are ill-informed, uninformed, and apathetic. I thought I would never say it but universal sufferage begets univeral stupidity. Should there be a requirement that a voter have to be able to think in order to vote? Yeah, I know that the ability to think cannot be tested; it is more of a philisophical question that a practical one>

[Kopji]

'Being in the mainstream' is not always the right place to be, or representative of a virtue. Ask any true believer if they would be less likely to believe if they were the "only one". Martyrs of various causes through history are witness that one voice or action is often all that's needed.

What I see really wrong with our current brand of 'clarity' is that there is no thinking needed. Thinking that might educate us and demand better decisions in the future. We are far too happy to leave understanding the policy to others.

Democrats need a platform that includes involving Americans in the issues of the world around us, instead of providing pat answers.

The 'blue' and 'red' on the voting maps needs to be more mixed, and not just islands of blue in seas of red. If democrats think that it takes more education to make democrats, then educate people.

Maybe this stance does not mean Republicans are stupid, just that they are in a more natural state. :)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Yes, right away. I will immediately disown these people whom I've never met.



It's not about you unless you are happen to be a mover and a shaker in the DNC. The DNC should distance themselves from these people. It appears that they embrace them. And not just these, but those others that are the "heart and soul of our country" and represent "real American values", like Whoopie, et al.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Upchurch
He's talking about being confident in the intellegence and being able to prove he had legitimate reasons during or after making a pre-emptive attack. I quote Kerry again, since you seem so insistant on not reading what the man actually said but rather relying on Bush's straw man:Note the present and past tense forms of the verbs, respectively.Okay, you know what? I'm going to give you that last point, because on careful re-reading of what Kerry says, I notice you're right about the mixing of tenses. In effect, Kerry was saying (and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting), "Yes, the U.S. will act unilaterally if necessary when I'm president, but only if I have what I believe to be evidence that will be persuasive, in retrospect, to the rest of the world."

There are still some problems with that position:

1) I believe Bush did think he had persuasive evidence. It may have turned out the intelligence was faulty, or was correct at the time it was collected but outdated when the war started (I'm thinking the WMDs here), but the president has to make decisions on the best evidence available to him. Intelligence is never perfect, and anyone who waits for perfect intelligence is a fool. Would Kerry have acted differently, had he been in Bush's place, with the same evidence?

2) Let's go back to my previous example of Iran with a nuclear weapons reactor. President Kerry has good evidence that they're about to go online, and Iran has been making sabre-rattling noises about how the Great Satan will soon learn to fear the wrath of Allah's vengeance. He knows we can destroy the reactor, but he also knows that when President Chirac demands an explanation, he will not have enough evidence to, as he put it, "prove to the world that we did it for legitimate reasons."

Does he do it anyway? Or does he risk a white-hot crater where New York once was, because he knew he wouldn't be able to prove his case, in retrospect, to Jacques Chirac. Answer quickly, because eight million New Yorkers need to know.
Did you even watch the debate? Oh, please. Mrs. BPSCG and I strove mightily during this campaign to stay on affectionate terms, and we prefer to go to bed on speaking terms. And admit it, you learned nothing new of any significance from these debates; they were set up for the political illiterati and ignorami who thought John Kerry was that rubber-faced actor they saw in The Mask.

After Bush's rediculous straw man, the commentator asked a new question that went to Bush. It was several minutes before Kerry was even allowed to speak again and then he focused on the actual content of Bush's remarks rather than his mischaracterizations. In retrospect, it was stupid of him to ignore Bush's laughable mis-characterization, but that's what I'm saying. The Democratic party does a horrible job of challenging the GOP on straw men like this.Oh, please, again. Bush is a better debater than Kerry? The agile-minded, sharp-witted Bush seizes on a subtle weakness in a Kerry argument and with one rapier sentence, slashes it to ribbons before a nation completely blind to his rhetorical sleight-of-hand?

No, that's not what happened. What happened was that Kerry, who is supposed to be so articulate, found he had adopted so many positions during the primaries and the presidential campaign, that he couldn't take a clear stand. That's why his statements were so (to use the over-abused term) "nuanced." Having found himself trailing the antiwar Howard Dean in the polls, he had to present himself to the Democratic voters as the sane antiwar candidate. That got him the nomination, but then he found himself against Bush, where he now had to say he was not the antiwar candidate, just the anti-bad-execution candidate (except that it was "the wrong war blah blah blah...").

He put himself in the position of having to thread a very fine needle, of having to finesse a very delicate political position, of having to persuade the anti-war voters that he was about as antiwar as Dean, and the pro-war voters that he was about as pro-war as Bush.

When you stretch a position that far, somewhere it has to be very, very thin, and it doesn't take much to break it.
As John Stewart pointed out, if Kerry had said something like "tour of duty", the Republicans would have jumped on him for saying "doodie". :rolleyes: He said "doodie"? :D
In the future, I highly recommend you watch/listen/read the source material rather than blindly accepting the sound clip relying propoganda. Actually, I did neither. In this exchange, I've relied on your supplied transcript.

[Richard G]

I'll take a stab, though I know they will never listen.

Stop being the party of socialism, gun grabbing, perversion, and appeasment/ surrender.

Don't take money out of my pocket and give to a bum who won't work. I'll pay for MY health care, you pay for YOURS.

Leave my guns alone. I am a free man, and am entitled to defend my land, and my life.

Do what you want behind closed doors, but I don't want to see your digusting displays of homosexuality in public. I don't want my kids to see it. I don't want my kids to HEAR about it. Do what makes you happy, but don't ram it down my throat. Beatiality is the only thing I can think of that is more disgusting.

Be an American damn it. Stop acting like your loyalties lie with the rest of the world. Put an American made boot in the ass of the enemy. Americans will not tolerate limp wristed weaklings that prefer to be in bed with the enemy, and propogate their lies, rather than fight for absolute, unconditional defeat of the enemy.

They will never listen, and they will lose their butts in the next election too. Thats just fine by me.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Richard G
Stop being the party of socialism, gun grabbing, perversion, and appeasment/ surrender. Without answering the "socialism" barb just yet, the "gun grabbing" issue is long gone, "perversion" is in the eye of the beholder and none of your business, and if "appeasment/surrender" is "wishing one's government would keep its focus on the real enemy" then I guess I'll take that label.Don't take money out of my pocket and give to a bum who won't work.You mean like the executives of Enron and Halliburton? I'll pay for MY health care, you pay for YOURS. At the present rate of increase, our healthcare system will be unworkable in another five or six years, I believe. Every other civilized post-industrial nation in the world has a system, and it works for them. Ours does not, and is falling behind every year. At some point we're going to go off a cliff with our system, and then NO ONE will have healthcare. Leave my guns alone. I am a free man, and am entitled to defend my land, and my life. Blah blah frickety blah. Do what you want behind closed doors, but I don't want to see your digusting displays of homosexuality in public. I don't want my kids to see it. I don't want my kids to HEAR about it. Do what makes you happy, but don't ram it down my throat. Beatiality is the only thing I can think of that is more disgusting. Who do you think you are dictate what people can and cannot do, and where they can do it, after your "my guns, my land" rant?
Be an American damn it. Stop acting like your loyalties lie with the rest of the world. Put an American made boot in the ass of the enemy. Who are you to define who is an American? I don't recall asking for your permission to exist, and furthermore I don't require it. As for an "american made boot" most boots are made in China these days. People who actually work for a living are aware of this.Americans will not tolerate limp wristed weaklings that prefer to be in bed with the enemy, and propogate their lies, rather than fight for absolute, unconditional defeat of the enemy. In bed with the enemy? You mean like making oil deals with the Saudis? You mean like letting all of the immediate family of OBL skedaddle out of the nation within a few days of the attacks? WHO is in bed with WHO?

[Richard G]

Those tired arguments lost you the election, BIG TIME. You better come up with some new material for 2008.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Richard G
< snipping most of the blather >

Leave my guns alone. I am a free man, and am entitled to defend my land, and my life.

Do what you want behind closed doors, but I don't want to see your digusting displays of homosexuality in public. I don't want my kids to see it. I don't want my kids to HEAR about it. Do what makes you happy, but don't ram it down my throat.I see. You wish to retain your freedom, but you would restrict the freedom of others. How very Taliban.

I also note the "ram it down my throat" Freudian slip.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I see. You wish to retain your freedom, but you would restrict the freedom of others. How very Taliban.

I also note the "ram it down my throat" Freudian slip. First paragraph: Well said.

Second paragraph: Trudge to kitchen. Grab paper towel. Trudge back. Wipe coffee off monitor.

[Dorian Gray]

Gloating completed - begin condescension.

The Dems still only lost by a small margin - 4%. It's not like there was a landslide. And the same is true of Bush's last term. It's a divided nation. Now the "gracious" Republican conservative talk radio guys are claiming a huge win, as though everyone except "those liberals" saw the light. "Those liberals" apparently comprise nearly half the population.

"Fix" is ridiculous. Both parties need to field candidates that are electable proactively, not as a rejection of the other guy or the lesser of two evils.

What needs to be "fixed" is that there needs to be more centrism and moderation rather than polarization. It is precisely this condescending and patronizing attitude from conservatives that is polarizing the country. Conservatives cannot dictate morality, and cannot force their beliefs on everyone.

There's a huge difference - with liberals in power, conservatives are still free to practice their values. With conservatives in power, liberals are NOT free to practice theirs. Example: If abortion is legal, and you are not for abortion, you don't have to get one. if it's illegal, and you want to get one, you can't.

If gay marriage is legal, and you don't want to marry a member of your own gender, you don't have to. If gay marriage is illegal, and you do want to marry a member of your own gender, you can't.

That is something conservatives completely fail to get. Liberalism ENCOMPASSES conservatism - i.e., it is possible to be conservative in a liberal society precisely BECAUSE it is liberal. Conservatism EXCLUDES liberalism - i.e., it is NOT possible to be liberal in a conservative society. This is why I claim that conservatives want to force their beliefs on everyone - because when they get their way, I am not free to believe what I want and act how I want.

Conservatives are HUGE on laws that affect segments of society. Gays, blacks, the wealthy, women, farmers, etc. In other words, they are for laws that DO NOT treat everyone the same. Another reason that I am not a conservative.

I am instead a capitalist/globalist.

[Rob Lister]

Dorian, glad to see you recovered.

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
"Fix" is ridiculous. Both parties need to field candidates that are electable proactively, not as a rejection of the other guy or the lesser of two evils.

How's you're party doing in relation to the other?

Obama was a good choice.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"...44% of Hispanics, and 11% of blacks voted against Kerry...was it because they were all a bunch of racists who enjoyed the torturing and killing of people of color? Or was it because the Democrats represented something that they couldn't stomach?

Bump...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Bump...

It is very simple, really, they think that Bush will make them richer.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Richard G
Those tired arguments lost you the election, BIG TIME. You better come up with some new material for 2008. And if the economy turns turtle, Bush will get the boot in the blink of an eye.

[gnome]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
And how many times did Kerry change his beliefs during his campaign?

:id:

I'm sorry, but I emerged from the campaign season (especially the debates) with a pretty clear idea of how he felt all along. It's a complex position but it fits. That's one reason I liked him actually, because I think that one's response to a war that is a noble effort emerging from questionable judgements, cannot be a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Take me for example. I believe that the Iraq war was not yet necessary and that we were sold lies to justify it. However, I'm also glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I don't like George Bush or the way he's handled this war, but I would rather it was more successful now that we're there. I wouldn't see more Americans and Iraqis killed just for him to have egg on his face.

That's a lot of points to make... if I were to hold one in isolation it might seem inconsistent with the others... especially if someone was TRYING to make it sound confusing.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And if the economy turns turtle, Bush will get the boot in the blink of an eye. (...anyone want to explain to a_u_p about U.S. presidential term limits...?)

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Except that Kerry DID meet with the North Vietnamese in Paris, in 1971 I believe. He was a commissioned but inactive officer in the Navy at the time, operating without diplomatic credentials under no government sponsorship. He met with the enemy in time of war, Thurkon.

You're right, there IS no comparison. Fonda deserved bile - Kerry deserved a firing squad.

Once again, you are way off base.

Fonda met with the North Vietnamese army in Vietnam to give the "suffering" North Vietnamese sympathy.

Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war.

No comparison.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
In any case, the question isn't what do I think; it's what do the Dems have to do to sell their issues? Isn't there something out there that the Dems stand for that's important to a large majority of the country - not "nearly half"?

A robust economy?

An intelligent plan for Iraq?

Furthermore, did I miss the part in the last election where a "large majority" voted Republican?

Didn't think so.



Why didn't they grab Social Security reform and run with it? It belongs to Bush now, and all they can do now is either say "us, too", or "Bush wants to kill Social Security." [/B]


It only belongs to Bush if he can do it.

Like winning the War on Terror. Just because he says he's winning it doesn't mean he's really winning it. Many speculate there's more terrorists now than ever.

In fact, one of the most intelligent things Bush ever said was that there is no way to really win the War on Terror. There will always be those who use extreme methods and attack civilians to achieve their goals. The best we can probably do is attack the organized groups as best we can, which is why we should have been more aggressive in Afghanistan.

Instead, we are fighting a steadily increasing group of insurgents, with a few civilian-beheading terrorists thrown in, in a country that didn't support religious extremism before the war. These aren't the people we originally went to war against.

People keep talking about liberating Iraq and making Iraq stable, but I could care less about Iraq in the big picture. The reason for the War on Terror, and our going to war in Afghanistan, was to make America safer. That was our ultimate goal. The problem is, nothing that has been accomplished in Iraq has done anything to further that goal. In fact, some would argue we are more hated and vulnerable than ever.

[Tmy]

[Originally posted by crimresearch
and 11% of blacks voted against Kerry...was it because they were all a bunch of racists who enjoyed the torturing and killing of people of color? Or was it because the Democrats represented something that they couldn't stomach? ]

Those outliers are part of the Jesus squad. They voted Bush based on the dealbreakers of abortion and gay rights. Considering the 11% is a smaller # compared to the % of church going blacks, it implies that many did rebel from their church because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for a bunch of people of color killing racists.;)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
[Originally posted by crimresearch
and 11% of blacks voted against Kerry...was it because they were all a bunch of racists who enjoyed the torturing and killing of people of color? Or was it because the Democrats represented something that they couldn't stomach? ]

Those outliers are part of the Jesus squad. They voted Bush based on the dealbreakers of abortion and gay rights. Considering the 11% is a smaller # compared to the % of church going blacks, it implies that many did rebel from their church because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for a bunch of people of color killing racists.;)


Minorities may be property of the Democratic Party in your mind, but in the real world they are just as capable as anyone else of making up their own mind on who to vote for...and if they choose someone else, that doesn't mean that they must have been brainwashed by a church.

The fact is, that more and more minorities are realizing (for a variety of reasons) that the Democratic Party is not their party, and as long as the Dems indulge in plantation fantasies, and refuse to admit to the reality, they will keep on losing voters.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Once again, you are way off base.

Fonda met with the North Vietnamese army in Vietnam to give the "suffering" North Vietnamese sympathy.

Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war.

No comparison.

Except that they're both acts of treason. If you choose to ignore that, then you are beyond rational discourse. It is a demonstrable fact, well-documented and airtight. Your feelings on Kerry's motivations are as irrelevant as the moron on the street who thinks OJ is innocent. Just because neither Kerry nor he answered for their crimes doesn't relieve their guilt.

Now be honest, you never even heard about that little Paris meeting until I mentioned it, did you? And POWs were not the only subject discussed... Google a bit more and learn precisely what you are defending.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thurkon
A robust economy?

An intelligent plan for Iraq?

Furthermore, did I miss the part in the last election where a "large majority" voted Republican?

Like winning the War on Terror. Just because he says he's winning it doesn't mean he's really winning it. Many speculate there's more terrorists now than ever.

>snip<

The problem is, nothing that has been accomplished in Iraq has done anything to further that goal. In fact, some would argue we are more hated and vulnerable than ever.

Ladies and gentlemen, the future of the Democratic Party. At this rate they will only exist in the form of a Smithsonian exhibit by the year 2050, a tragic monument to a party that thought it was smarter than America, a party that takes minorities for granted even as they increasingly leave the party, generally refused to evolve and got steamrolled by a country that understands what's at stake.

Thurkon, I hope you get to be one of Hillary's delegates in '08. You might even get your picture in the Smithsonian.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Minorities may be property of the Democratic Party in your mind, but in the real world they are just as capable as anyone else of making up their own mind on who to vote for...and if they choose someone else, that doesn't mean that they must have been brainwashed by a church.

The fact is, that more and more minorities are realizing (for a variety of reasons) that the Democratic Party is not their party, and as long as the Dems indulge in plantation fantasies, and refuse to admit to the reality, they will keep on losing voters.

Everyone is free to make up their minds. Everyone loves to put out stats "blacks voted this" "rural people voted this" "rich voted that", the thing is that none of us fit into just ONE lable. People have all sorts of reasons for voting. A black person may vote for X not cause X is good for black issues, but instead good for rich peoples issue. So black person (who is alos a rich person) is voting based on his rich sides motives.

I think its funny how you take the small # of blacks that voted for Bush and turn that into a victory. Theres a % of gay voters who also voted Bush. Can you really say they did that cause they see Bush as being good for the gay community?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Minorities may be property of the Democratic Party in your mind, but in the real world they are just as capable as anyone else of making up their own mind on who to vote for No more or less capable than the rest of the population. Which is not highly capable, imo.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Once again, you are way off base.

Fonda met with the North Vietnamese army in Vietnam to give the "suffering" North Vietnamese sympathy.

Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war.

No comparison.

Please post your references showing that it is OK for an officer OR a private citizen, during time of war to meet with the enemy on his own initiative.

Don't bother starting here, though:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. "


And BTW, Kerry himself claims he was only in Paris in 1970, and says nothing about freeing POWs...why don't you back up your version of that with some factual links too?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry told the New York Times on April 24 that his first meeting with the Vietnamese communists in 1970 was "not a big deal."

''People were dropping in (at the Paris Peace Talks). It was a regular sort of deal," Kerry explained to the New York Times...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200406\SPE20040604a.html


You know Thurkon, if you are uncomfortable dealing with facts, and reality, and backing up your assertions, this might not be the best forum for you.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You're kidding me. You and Jocko actually think Bush's misunderstanding of the "global test" is an accurate depicition of Kerry's position?

Here is the complete quote of what Kerry said:
What Kerry was meant by "passing the test" is that it is important that both the country, and the world, understand that the reasons for a preemptive attack are legitimate. The "test" he referred to isn't about asking permission to do it, it's about being able to justify it, either before or after the fact. It's a test of evidence.

Compare to Bush's response:Obviously, this is in no way what Kerry said. It's a straw man argument. I realized that the moment I heard Bush say the words during the debate. But, for whatever reason, the straw man was generally believed by the press and the public and Kerry was unable to counter act the propoganda.

Upchurch,

I've been away from the computer this last weekend....and I understand that this posting of yours has already been debated by nimbler minds than mine. I've read their responses to you and here's how it looks to me.

Kerry said what he meant and meant what he said when he said both things. I think he meant exactly that a "global test" must be passed by superior intelligence and evidence...and that we only get there with massive amounts of international cooperation. He also meant that in the face of such superior intel he would not let other nations or the UN dictate US national security. He would indeed pre-empt armed with such clear evidence...and the world would eventually have to go along since he'd be proven correct....etc...etc....la-de-da.

That's all real nice....and if it could work out that way it would be the best possible outcome. We'd be free and secure...and the world would love us.

But that's not going to happen. In the REAL world there is very little air-tight intel. In the real world even our own allies spy on us and if you think the CIA and FBI had trouble meshing in mutual admiration and cooperation, what kind of iron-clad intel do you think will be "proven" between the US intel agencies and European ones??? The answer is that JFK's great intel based on great international cooperation is a mirage. It's not going to happen. It sounds nice in a debate...but as BPSCG's post pointed out, it's not likely to convince everyone in the world even if it was super-good intel! Hell, there are some people who STILL think that UBL is innocent of 9/11!

The fact is, no matter what Kerry stated in the debate, that his idea of bringing the whole world happily aboard his pro-American bandwagon is hopelessly naïve. Pair this position with Bush's realistic and unambiguous statement (I paraphrase) That he will do anything/everything in his power to keep America safe no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

As an American who vividly remembers seeing my countrymen flinging themselves from the top of the burning WTC....Bush's stand resonates. It is firm...decisive...and easily understood. Against it Kerry appears wishy-washy and vague.

Bush is said to have lost that debate...but in that debate, the vagueness of John Kerry's many positions lost him the election.

-z

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Everyone is free to make up their minds. Everyone loves to put out stats "blacks voted this" "rural people voted this" "rich voted that", the thing is that none of us fit into just ONE lable. People have all sorts of reasons for voting. A black person may vote for X not cause X is good for black issues, but instead good for rich peoples issue. So black person (who is alos a rich person) is voting based on his rich sides motives.

I think its funny how you take the small # of blacks that voted for Bush and turn that into a victory. Theres a % of gay voters who also voted Bush. Can you really say they did that cause they see Bush as being good for the gay community?

And when the Democratic party is more and more seen by minorities as the party that is NOT good for minority isues, how far can you stretch your excuses that they must be voting because of something else? When it hits 51% minority voters, will you still call them 'outliers'?

It isn't a 'victory for Bush' that you should be worrying about, but the fact that you are unable to see it as a loss for the Democrats is exactly the reason that more and more minorities are rejecting the Dems.
We've spent too many years fighting for civil and individual rights to have the neo-racists that control Democratic policy and attitudes continue to take our votes for granted.

And the safety valve that there is no one better, is starting to fall apart...whether minorities vote 3rd party, or don't vote at all, or vote Republican....

They are all voting 'Anybody but the Dems'.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Ladies and gentlemen, the future of the Democratic Party. At this rate they will only exist in the form of a Smithsonian exhibit by the year 2050, a tragic monument to a party that thought it was smarter than America, a party that takes minorities for granted even as they increasingly leave the party, generally refused to evolve and got steamrolled by a country that understands what's at stake.

Thurkon, I hope you get to be one of Hillary's delegates in '08. You might even get your picture in the Smithsonian.

Blah blah, condescending attitude, blah blah, I'm going to talk down to you and regurgitate asinine party line quotables, blah blah frickin' blah, watch me avoid an original thought as I dodge the entire discussion but still claim VICTORY!

You're a riot, man. Here's something for the Republicans once and for all: You guys didn't win by that much. You're not discussing the Green Party, guys... we are half the frickin' country, and we aren't going anywhere.

And the Democrats refuse to evolve...guys, you won the presidency for religious reasons! Talk about a group that needs to evolve...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Please post your references showing that it is OK for an officer OR a private citizen, during time of war to meet with the enemy on his own initiative.

Don't bother starting here, though:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/953.html

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. "


And BTW, Kerry himself claims he was only in Paris in 1970, and says nothing about freeing POWs...why don't you back up your version of that with some factual links too?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry told the New York Times on April 24 that his first meeting with the Vietnamese communists in 1970 was "not a big deal."

''People were dropping in (at the Paris Peace Talks). It was a regular sort of deal," Kerry explained to the New York Times...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200406\SPE20040604a.html


You know Thurkon, if you are uncomfortable dealing with facts, and reality, and backing up your assertions, this might not be the best forum for you.


You know, I don't really care enough about this to research it to death. Even if technically it was treason, at least his motives were ostensibly noble. My point was that Fonda's motives weren't, so to compare the two is ludicrous.

Wasn't GW up to some rather treasonous activities at the time?

[Number Six]

It used to be that the Republicans were perceived as the party of the elite and the Democrats were perceived as the party of the common man. I'm not sure how they did it but the Republicans have somehow managed to reverse that.

And this doesn't only have to do with the Presidency but also Congress, Governorships and the percentage of people registered to each of the parites, all of which have been going more and more in favor of Republicans for a decade or two (or maybe more, I don't know).

Some people say that since the percentage of minorities is increasing and minorities are more likely to be Democrat then it bodes well in the future for Democrats but that assumes those people will continue to be Democrat. Recently even the percentage of minorities that have been voting Republican has been increasing.

Even if Kerry had gotten 150 K (or whatever) more votes in Ohio and won the Presidency the Republicans would still have both houses of Congress and most governorships.

I don't know how the Democrats can turn it around but they've got to do something. They've got to do a better job of framing the issues. And disassociating themselves pompous celebrities and from people that equate Bush with Hitler would help too. As a general rule, whenever the US is at war, anytime anyone anywhere calls the President a Nazi it is going to increase support for the President. It astounds me that some activists could be so out of touch with the American voter mindset that they could think equating Bush with Hitler is an effective tactic to defeat Bush at the ballot box.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thurkon
You're a riot, man. Here's something for the Republicans once and for all: You guys didn't win by that much. You're not discussing the Green Party, guys... we are half the frickin' country, and we aren't going anywhere.Have a look at some numbers. First is year, second is number of Democratic senators in January of that year, third is number of Democratic representatives:

1991 - 56, 267
1993 - 57, 258
1995 - 48, 204
1997 - 45, 206
1999 - 45, 211
2001 - 50, 212
2003 - 48, 204
2005 - 45, 202

Right now, the Republicans control the executive branch. You can claim Bush didn't win by a huge percentage, but you can't argue with the fact that he's the first president since 1988 to win over 50% of the popular vote.

The Republicans control both houses of congress by the widest margins since Herbert Hoover was president.

Do you see a disturbing trend here? You claim "we are half the frickin' country, and we aren't going anywhere." The evidence would suggest otherwise. It appears, little by little, you're becoming Republicans. What are the Democrats doing to reverse that trend? You can talk about getting your base out on election day all you want, but if your base is shrinking... You can ridicule Republican voters as being Jesus lovers all you want, but either Jesus has converted a hell of a lot of people since 1991 or increasing numbers of people who don't vote their Sunday convictions are voting for Republicans.
And the Democrats refuse to evolve...guys, you won the presidency for religious reasons! Talk about a group that needs to evolve... You keep on believing that. While Bush presents ideas for saving Social Security, you keep on talking about your base. While Bush works on a complete overhaul of the tax system, you keep on ridiculing the red-staters as religious nuts.

In short, while Bush works on things that the voters want him - want somebody, want anybody - to work on, you keep on ridiculing those voters. See if you can drop those numbers down to 40 and 200, respectively, in 2008.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That belief/attitude seriously sells the American people short. It is the Left’s biggest weakness to think the Right won because they appeal to people’s stupidity. That is totally elitist thinking and completely out of touch with America.


The right did not win by appealing to stupidity, and to see my post as claiming that is, oddly enough, an example of what exactly it is that I am claiming, that the right wins by defining the issue and then claiming it has the simple answers while the other side has a bunch of confusing mumbo jumbo.

Just like you (with the help of some useful idiot lefties, i.e. "Jesusland") are managing to make this appear to be a question of the intelligence of those voting for Bush, that the right's answers are simple but wrong while ours are nuanced but correct. The reality is that the right is in effect choosing the questions, and therefore can give simple answers while the left can only oppose the right with not so simple answers.

Abortion is a great example. Somewhere the issue got defined with anti-abortion meaning those that want laws banning the practice while those not wanting such laws were pro, or at least anti-anti-abortion. That the latter may support policies that will actually reduce abortion is not really viewed as relevant to the litmus test type defintion imposed by the right. They oppose banning the practice, thus they are pro-abortion.

Now, imagine that the issue was seen not framed as to legality, but by what policies were likely to reduce abortion. Those that want better sex-ed and availability of contraceptives claim the anti-abortion mantle. Those that oppose these benefits are seen as wanting more abortions, nevermind that they want these things to be illegal.

What results is what I will call "Suddenly's First Law of Politics," (although it may already exist, I plead ignorance if it does) which is that the side that can make it's argument in the simplest terms wins. This does not mean that philosophical issues are decided by pithy phrasemaking. Quite the opposite, what matters is the difficult and slippery task of framing the issue in such a way that a your viewpoint is served by a shorter answer.

Kind of like shooting the arrow and then drawing a circle around it.

Rather than say that Bush et al capitalized on abject ignorance, I would say that the right in recent history has done a better job framing the issues to allow for their solutions.

The mass of people in this country do not have the time, desire, or in most cases the ability to parse through the above "framing of issues" flotsam. This isn't anti-elitism, just recognition that these people have jobs and lives, and with the anti-elitist winds blowing, tend to be culturally prone to seeing any type of extended analysis as flim-flam from the start.

In fact, there are those reading this right now that think this whole explaination is just some sort of weirdly circular way of calling Bush voters stupid. What I am saying is that they are normal people, somewhat apathetic and willing to believe authority, somewhat anti-intellectual, and for the most part easily manipulated by emotion, specifically in the areas (in no particular order) of 1) concern for the children 2) religion 3) patriotism and 4) economics.

This differs them from Kerry voters in that the mass of Kerry voters are the same exact thing, more or less. Only the specifics of these traits are different, with Kerry people tending to be slightly less anti-intellectual but as a tradeoff they tend to be easier to manipulate as to concern for the children and economics.

In the end, it is the fault of the Democrats for being asleep at the wheel and allowing the right to at a grassroots level change the very way these issues are framed in the public arena.




Think about this. Kerry was getting his ass kicked in all the polls, and Bush was clearly going to win this election up until the debates. And then Kerry kicked Bush’s ass in the debates. Bush came across as a rube, while Kerry looked like the statesman. And that is not only my (Bush supporter) opinion, but a nearly universal one. And suddenly Kerry was pulling ahead and got neck and neck with Bush.

Now did Kerry come across as an appealer to people’s stupidity during the debates? Hell, no. So how do you explain his surge in the polls after that?

First of all, my analysis pertains more to the falling popularity of the left in general, not exclusively to this campaign. This campaign is but a drop in the bucket as to the shift to the right in this country and why it happened.

Second, this is not a question of stupidity, as per my above statement.

One answer is, assuming the polls are correct, that Bush looked like a fool in the debates. Kerry looked more presidential. This is the emotional impact.

Other than that, speaking very generally, he may have temporarly sold some of the public on less simple responses to these framed issues, but the First Law got him in the end as the simpler Republican stances were pounded into the electorate post debate.

That most Americans dislike and distrust nuance is more a question of culture than it is intelligence. The candidate that uses "straight talk," and suggests the "simple common sense proposals" is seen in a positive light. What goes unnoticed is that this talk is only "straight" and the proposals "simple" based on the way issues are framed. Consider the following terms:

1) "Tort Reform"
2) "Pro-Life"
3) "Defend Marriage"
4) "People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals
5) "Supports the Second Amendment"
6) "Economic Justice"


These are simple terms used to describe what are highly debatable positions. If these positons are taken seriously, they create a huge practical advantage for one side in the way public debate works in this country, the eight second sound bite. The side who is on the short end of the term has a choice of two traps. They can either ignore the problem of definiton, and sound somewhat non-sensical and admit they oppose "tort reform", or they can burn time explaining why what is commonly known as "tort reform" is hardly reform as in reality it will zzzzzzzzz

While the tort reform proponent has a nicely created buzzword that allows for simple use. "I support tort reform because I like children and do not want those sleazy lawyers to run noble doctors out of town." Tight and simple.

Huge advantage when conversing with an electorate that has better things to do than sit around deconstructing the language of politics.

Very 1984, not in the viewscreen / oppression theme of the novel, rather the parts that discuss manipulation of political thought through creation and destruction of language.

If you wan't a less ominous source for the concept, George Carlin's new book discusses the idea in length as well...

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Thurkon
You know, I don't really care enough about this to research it to death. Even if technically it was treason, at least his motives were ostensibly noble. My point was that Fonda's motives weren't, so to compare the two is ludicrous.

Wasn't GW up to some rather treasonous activities at the time?

No the point is, that when you have real liberals, and minorities, and Republicans, AND the election results telling you that the tired old Democratic Party dystopia is broken, all you can do is resort to condescending stereotypes, racist and otherwise, and regurgitate asinine party line quotables, because you have no facts. In other words, 'Kill the messenger'.

And it is that same whining, fingerpointing, dishonest, neo-racist attitude that is driving minority voters away from the Dems in droves. Left unchecked, it will drive away a whole lot more.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The right did not win by appealing to stupidity... I disagree. I am unable to reconcile the fact that, according to a recent poll, that over 50% of Bush voters believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11.

I am unable to recall an electorate as profoundly confused about a topic of such profound importance.

Of course, the closer the election the more reasons there are for the outcome.
article (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/28/Decision2004/America_s_misinformat.shtml)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Kind of like shooting the arrow and then drawing a circle around it.

(...snip...)

Other than that, speaking very generally, he may have temporarly sold some of the public on less simple responses to these framed issues, but the First Law got him in the end as the simpler Republican stances were pounded into the electorate post debate. This excellent post is deserving of a much better reply than what I'm posting here. I'm sure (I hope) it will get a lot of attention.

One thought: It's easier to draw a circle around the arrow if there's only one arrow to draw the circle around. As I've stated elsewhere, Kerry went into the campaign with the Howard Dean albatross tied around his neck. He had been trailing Dean badly in the primary polls (I honestly thought he was through when I heard he'd mortgaged Teresa's, er, his house to raise cash for the campaign) because Dean's take-no-prisoners opposition to the war was what got the likely Democratic primary voters all warm and happy. He'd been speaking more or less in favor of the war until then, but decided he had to fight Dean as being an anti-war candidate himself, with the advantage of not being a wild man.

That got him the nomination. But in the presidential campaign, that arrow Kerry had shot right next to Dean's was nowhere near where the majority of voters wanted it. So he had to shoot another one back in Bush's direction. Bush already shot his and painted the circle around it. Kerry now had two arrows, nowhere near each other. If he painted a second circle, Bush simply said "flip-flop." If he just painted one big circle, the voters said, "huh?"

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by BPSCG
This excellent post is deserving of a much better reply than what I'm posting here. I'm sure (I hope) it will get a lot of attention.

One thought: It's easier to draw a circle around the arrow if there's only one arrow to draw the circle around. As I've stated elsewhere, Kerry went into the campaign with the Howard Dean albatross tied around his neck. He had been trailing Dean badly in the primary polls (I honestly thought he was through when I heard he'd mortgaged Teresa's, er, his house to raise cash for the campaign) because Dean's take-no-prisoners opposition to the war was what got the likely Democratic primary voters all warm and happy. He'd been speaking more or less in favor of the war until then, but decided he had to fight Dean as being an anti-war candidate himself, with the advantage of not being a wild man.

That got him the nomination. But in the presidential campaign, that arrow Kerry had shot right next to Dean's was nowhere near where the majority of voters wanted it. So he had to shoot another one back in Bush's direction. Bush already shot his and painted the circle around it. Kerry now had two arrows, nowhere near each other. If he painted a second circle, Bush simply said "flip-flop." If he just painted one big circle, the voters said, "huh?"

It is a good example of a particular case. My first feeling that Kerry was doomed as well as when I decided to vote for him once and for all was the exact same moment, when I was held captive at the eye-doctor's waiting room and as a result was watching FOX news. They had a speech of Kerry explaining his stance on the war, he was explaining the difference between his decision to vote to give the president authorization and the President's decision to go to war and how that war was and is being conducted.

He defended his vote to authorize and said he would do it again, as it was the right thing to give the President that power at that time. However, he said the President made a mistake in how that power was used. He then explained how if he were elected, immediate withdrawl was a bad idea but that he had a better chance of getting this thing over soon since he could better recruit allies.

Seemed reasonable, but my "First Rule of Politics" alarm was ringing. I liked his stance as a voter. I hated it as a neutral assesment of political tactics.

The FOX people in the post-speech analysis drove this home, by using the term "flip-flop" at least 10 times, and saying that they would really like Kerry to make up his mind.

In the end, his position was too nuanced. A big part of the need for nuance is what you have identified, his need to emphesize his disagreement with the war to get the nomination. This provided a wealth of quotes that could be taken out of the larger context to create the appearance of chaging his position.

Clear "First Law" example. One that I cannot come up for a simple solution to. The war issues are so well framed by the right that even trying to see where to start is difficult. The idea that dissent is treason and/or against the troops is one underlying problem. Another is the general idea that changing one's mind is a bad thing anyway, an point impossible for the Dems to counter on the fly since he really didn't change his mind, and to claim that he didn't do it while saying it wasn't a bad thing to do anyway would have been the ultimate in First Law sins...

Makes me wonder if he would have been better off just accepting the premise that he changed his mind that while he has his head up and will make decisions based on new information, Bush is happy to pilot the ship right into the reef to prove he is never, ever wrong.

From a pure tactical (message neutral) perspective this election was a blowout for the Republicans, close to the '88 election where Dukakis was lucky not to actually hurt himself.

This is why the closeness of the vote totals is striking. For it to be this close with the crappy campaign put on by the Dems suggests that they had the issues on their side. This may explain why I have been so, well, :rolleyes: towards the "people are too stupid and that is why they vote for Bush" camp. It is like the Yankees blaming the Designated hitter rule. The intelligence of the electorate is something a political party must adapt to, whether you think they are stupid, smart, or just tragically human.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Abortion is a great example. Somewhere the issue got defined with anti-abortion meaning those that want laws banning the practice while those not wanting such laws were pro, or at least anti-anti-abortion. That the latter may support policies that will actually reduce abortion is not really viewed as relevant to the litmus test type defintion imposed by the right. They oppose banning the practice, thus they are pro-abortion.

Now, imagine that the issue was seen not framed as to legality, but by what policies were likely to reduce abortion. Those that want better sex-ed and availability of contraceptives claim the anti-abortion mantle. Those that oppose these benefits are seen as wanting more abortions, nevermind that they want these things to be illegal.


Is there a surgical glove on the "Invisible Hand"?

"When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s," he wrote. "This was an average decrease of 1.7 percent per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade.

"Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened."

Although federal statistics on abortion rates only go up to the year 2000, Stassen extrapolated a national rate by analyzing 16 states that reported annual abortion figures for multiple years from 2001 to 2003. In those 16 states, there was a net gain in abortions between 2000 and 2003.

In the three states with statistics that ran through 2003--Kentucky, Michigan and Pennsylvania--all three showed an increase over the period.

Of the 13 states whose statistics ran through 2002, most showed a net increase in the abortion rate (a 14.6 percent average increase) and some showed a small decline (a 4.3 percent average decrease).

Extrapolating figures to the national level, Stassen said, "52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected" had the abortion-rate decrease of the 1990s continued.

Stassen attributed much of the increase to economic hardships.


http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2458

[Ed]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Upchurch,

The fact is, no matter what Kerry stated in the debate, that his idea of bringing the whole world happily aboard his pro-American bandwagon is hopelessly naïve. -z

It is anything but naive, it is remarkably sophisticated and calculating. What he did was to simply say what his constituancy would like to believe, that is that "we can all cooperate and get along". It also, in effect, removes responsibility from the american people and places it on a sort of uber-state who's approval of actions, at whatever level, exonerates any individual. It is a conceptualization of the ultimate big government buerocracy, vast, unwieldly and completely unaccountable.

Bush effectively blamed a number of states/institutions for the Iraq blunder. President Kerry outlined his version of "cover your ass". In both cases it is incumbant upon the President to take such responsibility.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
It is anything but naive, it is remarkably sophisticated and calculating. What he did was to simply say what his constituancy would like to believe, that is that "we can all cooperate and get along". It also, in effect, removes responsibility from the american people and places it on a sort of uber-state who's approval of actions, at whatever level, exonerates any individual. It is a conceptualization of the ultimate big government buerocracy, vast, unwieldly and completely unaccountable.

Bush effectively blamed a number of states/institutions for the Iraq blunder. President Kerry outlined his version of "cover your ass". In both cases it is incumbant upon the President to take such responsibility.

I think it was more a case of him saying "we should try to get along and co-operate". For Dubya's father, that approach paid off hugely with Gulf War I. If you don't even try, but just pick up your ball and go home at the first sign of trouble, then taunt every one because you have, is the sign of an immature, petulant little boy. But I didn't say that about Dubya.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you don't even try, but just pick up your ball and go home at the first sign of trouble, then taunt every one because you have, is the sign of an immature, petulant little boy. But I didn't say that about Dubya. You mean Bush didn't even try to get France, Germany, Russia, and China to join the coalition of thirty other countries?

Well, that was pretty stupid of him, wasn't it? If he'd just asked, I'm sure they'd have signed on...

Oh, wait...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Suddenly
He defended his vote to authorize and said he would do it again, as it was the right thing to give the President that power at that time. However, he said the President made a mistake in how that power was used. He then explained how if he were elected, immediate withdrawl was a bad idea but that he had a better chance of getting this thing over soon since he could better recruit allies.

The FOX people in the post-speech analysis drove this home, by using the term "flip-flop" at least 10 times, and saying that they would really like Kerry to make up his mind.

Excellent point. Nuance is the key word, and it highlights the difference between political standpoints. The current administration, by and large, seem to want to present everything as either/or...black/white. Its a simplistic and, I would imagine, easier way to exist in the world. Terrorists/good guys...with us or against us. Unfortunately, the world isn't that simple.

But people would like it to be...I know I would. So its easy for the administration to manipulate people through this desire. That's why it was deemed a virtue that Bush was "resolute", regardless of whether what he was resolute about was misguided or not. Kerry was a "flip-flopper" and didn't support our troops, and even though this was a blatant mischaracterization...by the time one explains that Kerry didn't vote against aiding our troops, he voted against a proposed bill because he was supporting a different version of that bill...the damage is done and those who favor a more simplistic political worldview have stopped listening.


From a pure tactical (message neutral) perspective this election was a blowout for the Republicans, close to the '88 election where Dukakis was lucky not to actually hurt himself.

I still don't see it that way...not that it really matters. At least in the presidential race, no one knew beforehand who the winner would be. It was fairly neck in neck to the end. I can't remember, but it seemed fairly obvious at the time that Dukakis didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.


This is why the closeness of the vote totals is striking. For it to be this close with the crappy campaign put on by the Dems suggests that they had the issues on their side. This may explain why I have been so, well, :rolleyes: towards the "people are too stupid and that is why they vote for Bush" camp. It is like the Yankees blaming the Designated hitter rule. The intelligence of the electorate is something a political party must adapt to, whether you think they are stupid, smart, or just tragically human. [/B]

I don't think the Democratic campaign ever had the official stance that the American electorate are a bunch of morons.

But I sure do. That's just me.

Two reasons.

(1) Voting for moral reasons. The conservatives here keep downplaying this crucial aspect of this election, but the polls show this was a major, if not the deciding, factor. As an atheist, I find this intellectually bankrupt to begin with.

(2) They don't seem to understand their own religion. Not that Christians should automatically vote for Kerry, but they certainly should not automatically vote for Bush, as a good many do. The Republicans have used abortion and gay marriage to tout their Christian moral values, yet as a Christian one should consider: (a) Christ was a pacifist, and certainly would have objected to war in any form, and (b) Christ was not a capitalist, and was more akin to a socialist. In this regard he would probably favor the Democratic health care agenda, welfare, etc. Greed was mentioned far more as a cardinal sin than homosexuality in the Bible.

[patnray]

This is what I have been saying to everyone who has contacted me to express their disappointment about the outcome of the elections: "What did YOU do to make a difference in 2004? What will YOU do to make a difference in 2008? Start now."

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
This is what I have been saying to everyone who has contacted me to express their disappointment about the outcome of the elections: "What did YOU do to make a difference in 2004? What will YOU do to make a difference in 2008? Start now."

This advice could be bad for the dems. Sometimes 'the things people do' have a negative impact because they don't understand (yet) how they goofed the last time.

Best advice:
1) be (more) honest (than they are).

That should do the trick.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Clear "First Law" example. One that I cannot come up for a simple solution to. The war issues are so well framed by the right that even trying to see where to start is difficult. The idea that dissent is treason and/or against the troops is one underlying problem.

Many years ago I heard a version of your "Law": The more people a campaign is designed to reach the simpler the message must be."

As for the war issue, this is a good example of letting the oppopsition frame issues. I do not understand why the democrats did not have the courage or wisdom to attack this point. Bush removed the protection that the Geneva Convention provided to American troops and left them without any guidelines for proper behaviour in their absence, then prosecuted the troops, not their superiors, when their behaviour crossed an apparently invisible line. As long as the Geneva Convention applies, our troops know exactly what is allowed and what is not. I do not understand why the democrats did not make this a bigger issue and rally in support of the soldiers being prosecuted (not condoning their behaviour, but attacking the lack of guidance from the top). Bush was caught in a clear "flip flop" here. After months of claiming that the Geneva Convention did not apply to "illegal combatants" he produced an obscure memo that said that we should apply it to them anyway. Clearly that message was not relayed to the troops. Why was Bush's willingness to sacrifice these soldiers to protect his own butt not a big issue?

IMHO, the democrats lack the courage to claim the moral high ground.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by patnray


IMHO, the democrats lack the courage to claim the moral high ground.

I'd worry more about the capacity before addressing the courage issue. I think the Dems have communicated a very cohesive policy - just most of America ain't buying it.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
This advice could be bad for the dems. Sometimes 'the things people do' have a negative impact because they don't understand (yet) how they goofed the last time.

Best advice:
1) be (more) honest (than they are).

That should do the trick.
Your point is well taken. However, these are people who, before the election, were wringing their hands and telling me how important this election was. I had urged them, for months, to get off their butts and get involved. They all had excuses for why they couldn't, personally, do anything. So I get some satisfaction from goading them to be more active...

[patnray]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'd worry more about the capacity before addressing the courage issue. I think the Dems have communicated a very cohesive policy - just most of America ain't buying it.

They lack the courage. It was the democrats, under Clinton, who forced Jocelyn Elders to resign after suggesting masturbation as a form of safe sex. Claiming the moral issues will entail controversy. They run and hide rather than embrace the debate.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You mean Bush didn't even try to get France, Germany, Russia, and China to join the coalition of thirty other countries?

Well, that was pretty stupid of him, wasn't it? If he'd just asked, I'm sure they'd have signed on...

Oh, wait...

He could have tried this little thing called "evidence". After all, "we know he has them, and we know where they are" but they´re not going to show anyone, and they´re not going to find any once the invasion was over...

Sure as hell THAT behaviour wins you allies.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by patnray
It was the democrats, under Clinton, who forced Jocelyn Elders to resign after suggesting masturbation as a form of safe sex.

Elders' comment wasn't that. It was simply that masturbation should be one of the topics covered in high school sex ed classes, with the suggestion of the ghost of a possibility that masturbation isn't so intrinsically sinful that it cannot be mentioned.

Turns out it can't be mentioned, not by people wanting to keep her job.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Excellent point. Nuance is the key word, and it highlights the difference between political standpoints. The current administration, by and large, seem to want to present everything as either/or...black/white. Its a simplistic and, I would imagine, easier way to exist in the world. Terrorists/good guys...with us or against us. Unfortunately, the world isn't that simple.

That is just the point I am trying to make. I don't think this black/white thing has so much to do with the difference in political viewpoints as it does with how good a job the Dems are doing in getting out the message.

We can complain that their simple message is banal and criticise the people that buy it, but this represents what is the surest path to repeated failure. It mistakes seeing through the game with winning the game.

If the Democrats accept the mantle of being a party of nuanced ideas with the Republicans being the party of simple ideas, the Democrats are in big trouble.


But people would like it to be...I know I would. So its easy for the administration to manipulate people through this desire.
I'm not so sure it is that "easy." More likely it only seems easy since the Dems seem unable to try to engage in the kinds of rhetoric and tactics that would allow them to have the simple answers to difficult questions.

The more I think about it, the more the idea that the left in general and the Democratic Party in particular has a fixation with seeing through the game rather than winning it sums things up quite nicely. That somehow this "seeing through the process" makes them "smarter" than Republicans who just accept the process for what it is and gain a massive rhetorical advantage on the Democrats.

That's why it was deemed a virtue that Bush was "resolute", regardless of whether what he was resolute about was misguided or not. Kerry was a "flip-flopper" and didn't support our troops, and even though this was a blatant mischaracterization...by the time one explains that Kerry didn't vote against aiding our troops, he voted against a proposed bill because he was supporting a different version of that bill...the damage is done and those who favor a more simplistic political worldview have stopped listening. Yep. The Democrats handled that badly. They would rather debate details and be indignant about petty imprecision than cut to the heart of the matter and both frame flexibility as a virtue and point out that that considering dissent as treason is in itself the real treason to the American People.

I still don't see it that way...not that it really matters. At least in the presidential race, no one knew beforehand who the winner would be. It was fairly neck in neck to the end. I can't remember, but it seemed fairly obvious at the time that Dukakis didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Dukakis had the same exact problems and lost for the same reasons. He was absolutely slaughtered in a rhetorical fashion, from his self inflicted "tank commando" deal to his inability to cope with the simple but effective Bush schtick.

A scene from the SNL parody of the debate pretty much sums up the last 20 years of political frustration for all democrats not named Bill Clinton. Bush (Carvey) gives a statememt filled with simple blase phrases about his "staying the course" and "no new taxes" and so on. Dukakis (Lovitz) then looks at the camera, shruggs, and says "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

That is it in a nushell. They can't figure out that seeing through the message doesn't really help combat the message. It isn't that the Dem's position needs changed, rather repackaged to better appeal to middle of the road people that really are simply not interested in nuance. Call 'em stupid, ignorant, or just call them the loyal hardworking backbone of America. Whatever.

Dukakis's poor campaign turned what could have been a close victory into a big loss. Kerry's turned what could have been a landslide into a close loss. Same kind of effect of rhetoric.

The heartening thing for a Democrat is that they got as much support as they did with such a rhetorical disadvantage. To me, this is evidence that they really have the issues on their side at this point in history, just that they are doing a very poor job getting the
(pick one, and the Dems better start looking at the second if they know what is good for them)

a) ignorant masses
b) hardworking decent simple people that make this country great

to see this.


I don't think the Democratic campaign ever had the official stance that the American electorate are a bunch of morons.

But I sure do. That's just me.
Which makes you part of the problem. It isn't that the Dems think people are stupid, it is that they blame the audience for rejecting the message. Since many Dems accept the message they assume that the audience is too stupid to get it. Nuance does not equal smart. Simple is not stupid. It takes a lot of hard work and "strategery" to come across as simple. Dems have lost that battle and blame Americans for being Americans, (i.e. simple hardworking people who made this country great).


Two reasons.

(1) Voting for moral reasons. The conservatives here keep downplaying this crucial aspect of this election, but the polls show this was a major, if not the deciding, factor. As an atheist, I find this intellectually bankrupt to begin with.



Don't take this the wrong way, but this point of yours represents exactly what is wrong about today's Democratic Party and the left in general. The plain english meaning of your words is that you find morality intellectually bankrupt. Being openminded, I understand you are referring to a specific formulation of morality. Those with less of a pointy head than mine may not.

The battle is not whether voters should vote for moral reasons. They will. Deal with it. The battle should be over what "morality" means in a free society. It is like the whole of the left has been under the spell of a jedi mind trick and are allowing the defintion of "moral" as "religious" to go unchecked.

There is nothing more "moral" in using government to enforce "Christian" values then there is in protecting "seperation of chuch and state." The latter is also a moral issue, as it legislation against rape, bringing down the abortion numbers through economic and educational reform, or helping more children escape institutional upbringings by making gay marriage legal.

(2) They don't seem to understand their own religion.

Think about this. Is it that they don't get their own religion or that you don't get theirs and wish they would believe otherwise?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Suddenly
That is just the point I am trying to make. I don't think this black/white thing has so much to do with the difference in political viewpoints as it does with how good a job the Dems are doing in getting out the message.I'm going to use this as a launching point off the whole "nuanced vs. simple" debate.

Just because a decision ultimately boils down to a simple yes/no doesn't mean the issue itself is simple. Think back to the old Mercury/Gemini/Apollo space programs and the Houston mission control room. That room was full of guys sitting before their monitors, each watching the one area he was responsible for. Just before launch, you'd hear the guy in charge querying each of the monitor guys (I apologize for the lack of proper terms, but you know what I mean) about his area. It went along the lines of:

Guy In Charge: "Main fuel line."
Monitor Guy 1: "Go."

Guy In Charge: "Navigation."
Monitor Guy 2: "Go."

Guy In Charge: "Electrical."
Monitor Guy 3: "Go."

Guy In Charge: "Main engines."
Monitor Guy 4: "Go."

And so on. If everyone said "Go", the launch was on. If just one guy said "No go," everything was put on hold until the problem was fixed, and then they'd go through the whole process again, and they wouldn't launch until everyone said "go."

And you can be sure that each of those individual "goes" was made up of dozens, or even hundreds of smaller decisions, and a "no go" on any of those smaller decisions would result in a "no go" for the larger decision, which would result in a "no go" for the entire mission.

The final decision was a simple one - go or no go. But the process of arriving at that decision was complex - hundreds or even thousands of smaller decisions. And once that final decision was made, it was made.

Okay, now let's talk about Iraq and September 11 and terrorism. I think the vast majority of Americans understand that Saddam was not himself involved in the planning of September 11. But they ask themselves a bunch of small questions: Is Saddam a nasty SOB? Go. Has he financed terrorists around the world? Go. Did he harbor Abu Nidal (before having him murdered)? Go. Has he used WMDs against Iran and the Kurds? Go. Did he murder his own son-in-law? Go. Did he try to murder a former President of the United States? Go.

They hear all those "goes", and conclude that yes, he is intolerably dangerous, and will become even more so.

Of course, they also have to answer "no go" to some questions: Is there any evidence he and Osama were good buddies? Do we have proof he actually still has WMDs? And so on.

Unlike a space launch, this question - should we invade this guy? - is a nuanced once - no single "no go" will stop things. But the answer is digital, binary - yes or no? And most people, after wading through all the goes and no goes, came down on the "go" side, and supported Bush. That doesn't mean they were stupid, or that they couldn't understand the issue, or they didn't consider the facts. They considered all the facts they had available to them and decided that the "goes" outweighed the "no goes."

Bush was able to present the issue as go/no go because he hadn't been all over the map on it. Kerry had been all over the map - as a more-or-less pro-war candidate before the primaries, as an anti-war one when he wanted to grab Howard Dean's turf, then back to pro-war, anti-bad execution after winning the nomination. Bush certainly got a lot of conflicting advice on the war - a lot of goes and a lot of no goes - but obviously decided the goes outweighed the no-goes. His route to his decision had to consider all sides of the issue, but ultimately came down to a yes or a no.

Kerry's route to his decision had to consider all sides of the issue, also, but ultimately came down to yes and no. And that simply doesn't work. So Kerry's people presented him as a deep thinker, a nuanced guy, who understood the complexities of problems.

But Kerry wasn't talking about weighing the pros and cons of the Iraq issue. He was trying to explain how holding two conflicting opinions at the same time wasn't self-contradictory. And the voters weren't buying.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by BPSCG


(I'm not discounting the rest of the post, as I agree with the general point, just that you put one in my wheelhouse)

Kerry's route to his decision had to consider all sides of the issue, also, but ultimately came down to yes and no. And that simply doesn't work.

His decsion just can be made to sound like yes and no. He made this worse by emphesizing different aspects of the positon at different phases of his campaign.

The Bush campaign framed it as a "for or against," "yes or no" issue and implied that every vote and comment be seen in that light. Thus his vote to authorize was in opposition to his criticism of the use of that power. He was thus a flip-flopper. That was a Bush rhetorical victory, nicely played.

Politics, like sabre fencing, is not a game of defense. The fortune goes to the attacker, and when Kerry engaged on this formulation he took a position of great disadvantage.

Remember "Wag The Dog?"

"The war is over. I saw it on television"

So they went to plan B with the "Shoe" bit. They didn't try to claim the war was still on. When successfully attacked by a opponent rather than struggle from weakness they gave the point and counterattacked from the new angle.

Kerry stood his ground and fought the losing fight. Never conceeded that he changed his mind, because he knew that in his mind he hadn't. As a matter of political reality he did change his mind. It said so on television.

Smarter would have been to give away the "he changed his mind" point and counterattacked Bush as being unable to change, unable to adapt to changing condtions in a fast moving world. Use this to segue the debate away from the war.

(If you remember '92, "change" was a big buzzword, and the same people that go around talking about "flip flop" w/r/t Kerry were saying Bush supporters were "afraid of change.")

When people mistake objective truth for political fact they get into a whole heap of trouble. I think it was the good Dr. Hunter S. Thompson who is generally credited for pointing out that in politics the appearance of reality is more important than reality itself. Maybe the Doc's political works should be required reading for anyone who wants to actually understand the nature of the sick twisted contest that is politics...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If the Democrats accept the mantle of being a party of nuanced ideas with the Republicans being the party of simple ideas, the Democrats are in big trouble. I'm not so sure it is that "easy." More likely it only seems easy since the Dems seem unable to try to engage in the kinds of rhetoric and tactics that would allow them to have the simple answers to difficult questions.

I understand your point, and partially agree...but it isn't simply a matter of keeping it simple or nuanced. Although both parties can be guilty of such, the Republicans in this campaign weren't exactly being honest when they were keeping it simple. Saying Kerry is soft on home security is an honest opinion, but claiming he voted against every initiative to strengthen defense is downright dishonest. Saying Kerry shouldn't have protested against the war or thrown away his medals is again an honest opinion, but to make fun of the severity of his wounds or claim he didn't deserve said medals is again disgusting and dishonest. So one has to either ignore such attacks outright, or address them...because it seems with this administration that if they keep repeating dishonest statement A enough, people actually start parroting it as a truth.

Now, if you're going to tell me that every campaign is guilty of smear tactics, I'll agree...but if you try to tell me that every campaign is guilty of the level of viciousness and dishonesty that this administration displayed in this past election, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The Democrats need a new strategy, to be sure...but in no way would I support this "win by any means necessary, regardless of how deplorable" strategy.


The Democrats handled that badly. They would rather debate details and be indignant about petty imprecision than cut to the heart of the matter and both frame flexibility as a virtue and point out that that considering dissent as treason is in itself the real treason to the American People.

Agree completely. Well said.


Don't take this the wrong way, but this point of yours represents exactly what is wrong about today's Democratic Party and the left in general. The plain english meaning of your words is that you find morality intellectually bankrupt. Being openminded, I understand you are referring to a specific formulation of morality. Those with less of a pointy head than mine may not.

I understand that some will vote based on the scrawlings of desert nomads from two millennia ago, but I don't have to like it. Now, of course, the strategy is to not be condescending enough that they actually catch on, while in the meantime presenting the religious with an alternate choice that doesn't seem to conflict with their values.


The battle is not whether voters should vote for moral reasons. They will. Deal with it. The battle should be over what "morality" means in a free society. It is like the whole of the left has been under the spell of a jedi mind trick and are allowing the defintion of "moral" as "religious" to go unchecked.

That's what I've been saying. Furthermore, their own Bible can be used against them. I just wish they would read the damn thing.


There is nothing more "moral" in using government to enforce "Christian" values then there is in protecting "seperation of chuch and state." The latter is also a moral issue, as it legislation against rape, bringing down the abortion numbers through economic and educational reform, or helping more children escape institutional upbringings by making gay marriage legal.

Yeah, I agree. Good luck presenting this to the religious masses. Your first problem is: Its just too rational. Sure, children could escape institutional upbringings if gay marriage were legal. You might get some swing votes there, but a large part of the religious vote would still be with the Republicans because God says that homosexuality is a sin, and gay parents could make gay kids. Now, am I being too cynical and critical of the hard-working backbone of America, or just realistic?


Think about this. Is it that they don't get their own religion or that you don't get theirs and wish they would believe otherwise? [/B]

Oh, I get theirs, I just don't agree with it. Now, the Bible is definitely a book open to more than a few interpretations, but I would be willing to state a few objective truths for religious Republicans:

(1) If you think Jesus would agree morally with a pre-emptive strike on another country, you don't get Christianity.

(2) If you think Jesus would endorse a philosophy that abhors socialism and cuts programs for the poor, you definitely don't get Christianity.

These aren't vague issues in the Bible, they are repeated ad nauseum. The New Testament is a book of charity, love and non-violence. Not that the two points above should convince Christians to necessarily vote Democrat, but in no way do the Republicans hold the moral high ground in this country, especially where Christian morality is concerned.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, now let's talk about Iraq and September 11 and terrorism. I think the vast majority of Americans understand that Saddam was not himself involved in the planning of September 11. But they ask themselves a bunch of small questions: Is Saddam a nasty SOB? Go. Has he financed terrorists around the world? Go. Did he harbor Abu Nidal (before having him murdered)? Go. Has he used WMDs against Iran and the Kurds? Go. Did he murder his own son-in-law? Go. Did he try to murder a former President of the United States? Go. [/B] I enjoy the way you framed this. However, I take huge issue with the the part I underlined, per the well known public opinion polls.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I understand your point, and partially agree...but it isn't simply a matter of keeping it simple or nuanced. Although both parties can be guilty of such, the Republicans in this campaign weren't exactly being honest when they were keeping it simple. Saying Kerry is soft on home security is an honest opinion, but claiming he voted against every initiative to strengthen defense is downright dishonest. Saying Kerry shouldn't have protested against the war or thrown away his medals is again an honest opinion, but to make fun of the severity of his wounds or claim he didn't deserve said medals is again disgusting and dishonest. So one has to either ignore such attacks outright, or address them...because it seems with this administration that if they keep repeating dishonest statement A enough, people actually start parroting it as a truth.

Now, if you're going to tell me that every campaign is guilty of smear tactics, I'll agree...but if you try to tell me that every campaign is guilty of the level of viciousness and dishonesty that this administration displayed in this past election, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The Democrats need a new strategy, to be sure...but in no way would I support this "win by any means necessary, regardless of how deplorable" strategy.

I'm not talking about smear tactics beyond saying that people who confuse objective truth with political reality usualy are in trouble come election day.



I understand that some will vote based on the scrawlings of desert nomads from two millennia ago, but I don't have to like it. Now, of course, the strategy is to not be condescending enough that they actually catch on, while in the meantime presenting the religious with an alternate choice that doesn't seem to conflict with their values. You make it sound like you are being sneaky. Not necessary. Just focusing on compassion will do.

Remember, it is the moderates you are swinging. The Dems are never going to get the hardcore fundies. Leave them to the GOP...

Yeah, I agree. Good luck presenting this to the religious masses. Your first problem is: Its just too rational. Sure, children could escape institutional upbringings if gay marriage were legal. You might get some swing votes there, but a large part of the religious vote would still be with the Republicans because God says that homosexuality is a sin, and gay parents could make gay kids. Now, am I being too cynical and critical of the hard-working backbone of America, or just realistic?

Too cynical. Not all of these people are religious bots. Most are reasonable and will respond to simple and straightforward points. Framing gay marriage as pro-children is a lot better than whining about fairness and calling people bigots.



Oh, I get theirs, I just don't agree with it. Now, the Bible is definitely a book open to more than a few interpretations, but I would be willing to state a few objective truths for religious Republicans:

(1) If you think Jesus would agree morally with a pre-emptive strike on another country, you don't get Christianity.

(buzzer) Jesus would be straight down with freeing the locals from an evil tyrant who tortures and murders people, and protecting other innocents from his WMD, His hatred of freedom is the biggest WMD of all. See how this framing thing works?

(2) If you think Jesus would endorse a philosophy that abhors socialism and cuts programs for the poor, you definitely don't get Christianity. (buzzer) Thou shall not steal. Social programs are the state Stealing money from people. These churches do tend to be heavy on the local charity and have been known to support out of work members. They are not anti poor as much as anti government theft.

These aren't vague issues in the Bible, they are repeated ad nauseum. The New Testament is a book of charity, love and non-violence. Not that the two points above should convince Christians to necessarily vote Democrat, but in no way do the Republicans hold the moral high ground in this country, especially where Christian morality is concerned.

As per the last sentence, consider the difference between objective truth and political reality.

[Thurkon]

(buzzer) Jesus would be straight down with freeing the locals from an evil tyrant who tortures and murders people, and protecting other innocents from his WMD, His hatred of freedom is the biggest WMD of all. See how this framing thing works?


Yeah, but when you are framing something you have to make it somewhat believable. Christ didn't even advocate self-defense, much less the malarkey you posted above. I agree, anyone can say anything, in any context they wish, to gain political points. My point is that when your own religious text contradicts your philosophy, and you can't justify it (the above example is too funny to even be an attempt)...then a political party can and should be exposed for their hypocrisy. Sure, the political game's a dirty one, but that doesn't mean "political truth" shouldn't have any truth whatsoever.


(buzzer) Thou shall not steal. Social programs are the state Stealing money from people. These churches do tend to be heavy on the local charity and have been known to support out of work members. They are not anti poor as much as anti government theft.

I didn't say the churches are anti-poor...the Republican party is. Arguably, the whole philosophy of capitalism doesn't mesh with Christianity, in which greed is a sin and the pursuit of material wealth is a fruitless task. Socialism is more akin to Christianity than capitalism, and no Christian can honestly argue against social medicine. Sure, he could argue against it, but unlike me...his moral code is written in a book and absolute. He would be dishonest to rationalize it away.

And you can rationalize it any way you want, but that's not very Christian either. Christianity is about honesty, as well...and not wanting to aid the poor because you want to save a few bucks isn't very Christian. You could argue that the programs don't work...still, the Christian thing to do would be to fix the programs, because the need would still exist.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Ah. You are prognositicating a major collapse of the American economy because of Bush. I see now.We are decades overdue for a major cyclical shift in our economy. The last time it happened at the tail-end of a major period of technological innovation, which also coincided with a heavily business-friendly environment, devoid of pesky market controls, and prone to corruption. Those same elements are coming into play once again. I thought we were going into it in 2001, but the actual recession was shallow. The period of lousy wage growth and loss of jobs that followed it was frightening, and didn't seem to have an end in sight. It still doesn't.

Other pressures are continuing to mount. Medical costs are skyrocketing. Energy supply problems are here, more are around the corner, and spiraling increases predicted for the usage of same. Most of the economic drivers of our last cycle have been moved out of the country, or are getting ready to, meaning we are largely running on fumes from the previous expansion. On top of it all, most of the wealth from the previous expansion has migrated to the upper 1% of the population, and the lower 95% are in more debt than ever before.

In addition, we have both current account and trade deficits piling up that have no end in sight. An economy is a machine. Stuff goes in, and stuff comes out. The stuff that's going in isn't real anymore. All I'm waiting for is for people to start borrowing money to invest in stocks, and then I watch Grover Norquist on TV last night talking about how we're going to cure poverty for a woman making $13,000 a year by making it easier for her to invest in the stock market! The lunatics are surely in charge of the asylum now.The Democratic version of wishful thinking, ladies and gentleman. Pessimistic, as always. If you can convince me that anyone in the Bush administration has a firm grip on reality you are welcome to attempt to change my mind. These are people who have been shockingly, unequivocally wrong about almost every important detail of the last 4 years. How am I to expect that they will recognize a true crisis when it's here, and deal with it realistically?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Suddenly
(buzzer) Jesus would be straight down with freeing the locals from an evil tyrant who tortures and murders people, and protecting other innocents from his WMD, His hatred of freedom is the biggest WMD of all. See how this framing thing works?
(...snip...)

(buzzer) Thou shall not steal. Social programs are the state Stealing money from people. These churches do tend to be heavy on the local charity and have been known to support out of work members. They are not anti poor as much as anti government theft. Every Christmas eve for at least the last thirty years, the Wall Street Journal has been publishing the same editorial, titled In Hoc Anno Domini. It describes the world of imperial Rome, where there was only the law of Tiberius Caesar, where order was maintained byCaesar's centurions. And those who opposed Caesar were suppressed, "for what was one man, more or less, in a crowded world? And what was a man for, after all, but to serve Caesar?"

The editorial then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus was a fighter for personal freedom - an excellent example of "framing the argument"; you don't have to be religious to accept Jesus's teachings.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I didn't say the churches are anti-poor...the Republican party is. You're right. Republicans want to kill the poor and eat them.

I submit to you that Republicans are idealists. They believe that being poor is not necessarily a permanent condition, that almost anyone can lift themselves out of poverty, given the propoer incentives to do so. And I submit to you that Democrats disagree; they believe that most poor people are inextricably trapped in their poverty, and it's the government's job to mitigate their poverty - not to help them end it.

So, yes, the Republicans are anti-poor. They want to see poor people become wealthy. The Democrats are pro-poor. They want to see the poor remain so, so they can play Robin Hood and take money from the rich to give to the permanent poor, and receive the poors' blubbering thanks, as well as their votes.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You're right. Republicans want to kill the poor and eat them.

I submit to you that Republicans are idealists. They believe that being poor is not necessarily a permanent condition, that almost anyone can lift themselves out of poverty, given the propoer incentives to do so. And I submit to you that Democrats disagree; they believe that most poor people are inextricably trapped in their poverty, and it's the government's job to mitigate their poverty - not to help them end it.

So, yes, the Republicans are anti-poor. They want to see poor people become wealthy. The Democrats are pro-poor. They want to see the poor remain so, so they can play Robin Hood and take money from the rich to give to the permanent poor, and receive the poors' blubbering thanks, as well as their votes.

Ergo the vulnerability of the black and hispanic voting blocks as they begin to realize that what they got is what the Democrats are offering them.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You're right. Republicans want to kill the poor and eat them.

I submit to you that Republicans are idealists. They believe that being poor is not necessarily a permanent condition, that almost anyone can lift themselves out of poverty, given the propoer incentives to do so. And I submit to you that Democrats disagree; they believe that most poor people are inextricably trapped in their poverty, and it's the government's job to mitigate their poverty - not to help them end it.

So, yes, the Republicans are anti-poor. They want to see poor people become wealthy. The Democrats are pro-poor. They want to see the poor remain so, so they can play Robin Hood and take money from the rich to give to the permanent poor, and receive the poors' blubbering thanks, as well as their votes.

That is one way of looking at it. The other way is to say they neither the Republican "pull youself up by your own bootstraps" plan or the Democratic "Free Money For Lazy People" program in the end do much at all except give the right and left something to scream at each other about. One tries to solve a problem thus making it worse. The other leaves it alone but profits off of it, making it difficult to defend inaction even if inaction is the best policy...

As long as there are poor bitter parents in the world they will instill anti-intellectual anti-success values in their kids, and those kids will grow up to do the same. Plain and simple. This is called the "cycle of poverty," and there is no easy answer to it.

Heck, even Hitler figured out the above. His solution was to kill the Jews. We see how that worked out, so we can at least agree that welfare isn't the worst solution to this problem ever concieved.



Those of us fortunate enough to have parents that actually wanted us to succeed rather than fail to validate their place in the world may have a hard time getting this whole concept down. It isn't like there is 100% certainty that this happens, some parents are decent, some kids are extraordinary, some just lucky, but most children are just doomed. Parents hostile to education, bad nutrition, radical anti-elitism, racism, and so on... It isn't that these people are stupid, they just are a product of their upbringing and live on to do the same to their own children and think of it as normal.

It is just that there is no graceful way to do anything about parental attitiudes without either making things worse or violating basic concepts of personal liberty.

What can be done? Who knows.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Every Christmas eve for at least the last thirty years, the Wall Street Journal has been publishing the same editorial, titled In Hoc Anno Domini. It describes the world of imperial Rome, where there was only the law of Tiberius Caesar, where order was maintained byCaesar's centurions. And those who opposed Caesar were suppressed, "for what was one man, more or less, in a crowded world? And what was a man for, after all, but to serve Caesar?"

The editorial then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus was a fighter for personal freedom - an excellent example of "framing the argument"; you don't have to be religious to accept Jesus's teachings.

Yeah. I've become to realize that for Jesus is nothing but a symbol in this society for what people believe is right and good. Nothing but an empty mallable authority figure. People see in Jesus what they want to see, be it compassion that they think supports massive mandaory wealth transfers or be it a heritige that supports strong foreign policy towards Israel or bringing baseball back to Washington D.C..

Depending on perspective one could use Jesus to condemn or support virtually anything.

[Luke T.]

Suddenly, you make very good arguments. I'll give you a few nuances and simplicities as I see them.

The Democratic party has not been getting the message. So Bush won by "only" 4 percent. But it doesn't end there. I posted the election results for presidential elections for the last 40-odd years, and no one but Reagan, Nixon and Johnson got big popular vote differences over their opposition. But if you look at Congress, there is a huge mandate looking the Dems in the face. The House of Reps is where local politics speaks, and the message is unmistakable. But the Dems are refusing to listen or accept it.

This spinning about their message being too nuanced, or the Republicans defining the issues, is BS.

Here is what I think the Dems are missing.

First, Americans are very compassionate people. And most compassionate aid comes from religious people. Americans like, nay want, to help the less fortunate. But we hate being told someone is less fortunate through some fault of our own and we must help them because it is our fault. That is pure BS, and Americans aren't buying into the rich guilt some liberals buy into and are trying to sell.

Americans are well aware some people are unfortunate through no fault of their own. But we also know that there aren't as many as some would have us believe. And most of us have been unfortunate at some point ourselves and we busted our asses under our own power to get back up. So we know what it takes, and it ain't the government.

Second, Americans are more tolerant than the Dems give them credit for. We will live and let live. But to tell us that the gay lifestyle is "natural" while denying that being uncomfortable in the face of it is not, or is "wrong," is also BS. It is completely natural not to want to see two men displaying their affection for one another in public. Hell, most of us don't even like to see a man and woman groping each other in public.

When homosexuals put on a public display of their gayness for the sole purpose of militancy, then they shouldn't cry foul at the backlash. As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what they are aiming for to justify their feelings of persecution and self-righteousness.

Some things take time and can't be rushed. Call it unfair, but that is life. No way around it.

Third, Americans work hard for their money. When we feel someone else's hand digging in our pocket for our money, our natural reaction is to get angry. I don't have much money to give and so I spend my time helping others. And a lot of it. When the left tells me I have to give cash, and lots of it, that pisses me off big time.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
The editorial then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus was a fighter for personal freedom - an excellent example of "framing the argument"; you don't have to be religious to accept Jesus's teachings. [/B]

Fighter for personal freedom? In what sense?

Jesus, at least the guy portrayed in the Bible, could care less about worldly "freedom" or being subservient to Caesar, as a Jewish non-citizen. He was concerned with all things Godly: the the "other" world, the afterlife and the eternal souls of his followers. Jesus spoke against rebelling violently against the Romans, and could care less about worldly "authority" and government. God was the only authority in his mind.

How any of this could possibly justify the Iraq situation is beyond me. Sure, you can frame it any way you want, but when you frame something with bullsh!t, it still smells like bullsh!t.

[rikzilla]

Fantastic posts, all of you...really.

This thread has evolved into the most entertaining and informative one I've ever started. For that I thank you ALL.

There is merit to examine the nuance of the Dems vs the black and white of Reps. There is really something useful and valid to learn in both positions. However I (and most of America BTW) disagree that war is a time to painstakingly parse a nuanced candidate. We don't want a war leader who seems lost in a gray fog of self-examination...there are no valiant statues to such war leaders, simply because such conflicted figures rarely prevail.

We want to follow a man of vision, confidence, and strength. Such virtues do not well describe John Kerry...he may have them, but they are not readily observable. A great statue of Winston Churchill stands near the Houses of Parliment in London...where is the statue of Neville Chamberlain?

The real problem for the Dems is simply the WOT itself. They don't seem (via the film of Michael Moore, or the liberalism of Hollywood in general) to think it is worth fighting at all. Even Kerry (he of the foot-in-mouth disease) said something like "terrorism should be seen as a nuisance"....I doubt he earned many votes outside the OC with that. :rolleyes:

Take away the WOT and then Dems have a chance to win with a slim majority as they almost managed in 2000. A Clintonesque candidate, and an America at peace would see IMHO a narrow Democratic win. Hell, I KNOW I'd likely have voted for Kerry sans WOT...and a pledge not to raise my taxes. But sorry, nuance is not going to play well in time of war....and despite some of your opinions to the contrary...this is a WAR! It's also a war that may continue well past 2008. The Dems need to take that into consideration and not make the mistake of running another faux pacifist in 2008.

The Dems need some black-and-white clarity of their own...a good soul-search is called for. The needs/wants of the American people in a time of war are not the problem....the problem is how the Dem party can retool enough to be the party that delivers these needs/wants by 2008.

Thanks again to you all...especially you Suds...sorry for the OTT gloating, but fun is what I live for....and man was that ever fun! ;)
-z

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You're right. Republicans want to kill the poor and eat them.

I submit to you that Republicans are idealists. They believe that being poor is not necessarily a permanent condition, that almost anyone can lift themselves out of poverty, given the propoer incentives to do so. And I submit to you that Democrats disagree; they believe that most poor people are inextricably trapped in their poverty, and it's the government's job to mitigate their poverty - not to help them end it.

I hope you have a good appetite. There's a lot of those suckers.

I don't know about most Democrats, but I and those I know don't believe the poor are inextricably doomed to be poor forever. At least those that aren't mentally ill, and a good deal of homeless are...if you haven't noticed.

But some do need help, and there are a few ways we can do it...including social programs. I mean, years of institutionalized slavery and discrimination didn't help the matter. We can give a little back for that...not reparations, but a little assistance to a poor class that we created to begin with.

One of the problems with the Republican platform is that they don't seem to care. They want to make abortion illegal, preach against birth control, and trust that telling people to be abstinent will keep the poor from making more babies they can't feed...and when they have children, well...that's their problem.

I partly agree with your assessment that people, if able, should be held accountable for themselves and their actions, if they are able...that's where I am somewhat a moderate. My original point is that this stance against social programs isn't a very Christian one. Giving to the poor and helping the unfortunate is one of Christ's BIG messages.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BPSCG


So, yes, the Republicans are anti-poor. They want to see poor people become wealthy. The Democrats are pro-poor. They want to see the poor remain so, so they can play Robin Hood and take money from the rich to give to the permanent poor, and receive the poors' blubbering thanks, as well as their votes.

I think the Demos are more of "poor happens". And they try to help out. The results may not work out allways but i think the intentions are good. With republicans, its "too bad your poor. Its your fault".

I dont buy the Republicans want to see the poor become wealthy. What do they do to encourage the poor to become wealthy?? Find me one program or initiative that would back up your statement. If there is one that helps the poor not be poor you can bet that it really helps rich be richer. The Poor part might just be a side affect.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The real problem for the Dems is simply the WOT itself. They don't seem (via the film of Michael Moore, or the liberalism of Hollywood in general) to think it is worth fighting at all. Even Kerry (he of the foot-in-mouth disease) said something like "terrorism should be seen as a nuisance"....I doubt he earned many votes outside the OC with that. :rolleyes:

I think you're confusing the War on Terrorism with the War in Iraq. I would venture to say that, after 9-11, a staggering majority of Americans probably believe the War On Terrorism is worth fighting. As for the War in Iraq, well...the shifting rationales for the war itself, coupled with our current problem with insurgents, has left a good many of us Dems reeling and confused.

There are two things to consider in justifying any war: (1) Is there a valid reason to fight it? and (2) Do we have a good strategy?

I think the answer for number 1 for the WOT is clear: Yes, we have to protect our country. For number 2? Well, that's a mixed bag. We've made some strides, like buffing up our Federal Air Marshals and destroying a good bit of al Queda's infrastructure in Afghanistan, but on the other hand bin Laden is loose...and we still have some issues here at home. For one, Homeland Security has serious budget issues. The enforcement division of Homeland Security, which includes the Air Marshals, was horribly underfunded by the current administration. In fact, they are currently in a hiring and spending freeze, which is causing serious issues. How do I know this? I work there, lucky me.

So, I don't think the president is as good for Homeland Security as he would like others to believe. Simply put, I think he's too focused on Iraq to devote time and resources to his own country's security.

Which brings us to Iraq. Was it justified? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he never actively supported terrorism that targeted us. The guy who did is still on the loose. Shouldn't we focus on him? If this is now shifting from the War on Terrorism to the War on Cruel Dictators, we've got a good deal of them left in the world for us to be occupied for the next few decades, at least. By the time we unilaterally get rid of them all, we should be completely bankrupt.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think the Demos are more of "poor happens". No, it doesn't "just happen." Nothing just happens, unless you believe in effect without a cause, in which case, there's no point even talking to you.

Some years ago, the Washington Post did a five-day story about homelessness in the DC area. It profiled several people who were supposed to show what life was like for the homeless.

There was the "recovering" drug addict who'd gotten out of prison and had been flopping with some relatives until they threw him out because he was selling drugs from their place. The 20-year old woman with three kids and zero husbands. The high school dropout.

After the series was finished, the Post published an editorial about it. They blamed the homeless "crisis" on the District's overburdened public housing system.

I was stunned, and wrote them a letter they never published (probably too many curse words...). Here the Post has profiled a bunch of people who have made disasterous career choices, but it's not their fault they're homeless - it's the city's.

A few months later, a I saw a city bus with a huge advertisement on the side. Showed the face of a down-and-outer, with the message, "Homelessness Happens."

No, it doesn't just "happen." It has causes.
And they try to help out. The results may not work out allways but i think the intentions are good.The road to hell is paved with good intentions and bought with my tax dollars.

I dont buy the Republicans want to see the poor become wealthy. What do they do to encourage the poor to become wealthy?? Find me one program or initiative that would back up your statement. If there is one that helps the poor not be poor you can bet that it really helps rich be richer. The Poor part might just be a side affect. You might start with welfare reform. The Republicans dragged Bill Clinton kicking and screaming and held his feet to the fire until he signed it into law. The predictions were that there was going to be mass starvation in America. Didn't happen. A lot of people got into job training programs and transformed themselves from leeches into productive members of society.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Suddenly, you make very good arguments. I'll give you a few nuances and simplicities as I see them.

The Democratic party has not been getting the message. So Bush won by "only" 4 percent. But it doesn't end there. I posted the election results for presidential elections for the last 40-odd years, and no one but Reagan, Nixon and Johnson got big popular vote differences over their opposition. But if you look at Congress, there is a huge mandate looking the Dems in the face. The House of Reps is where local politics speaks, and the message is unmistakable. But the Dems are refusing to listen or accept it.

You call it a mandate of support as to the Republican stance on the issues. I call it evidence that the Republicans are just better at politics as viewed as a game. There are a number of perspectives being used on this board. I am suggesting that in one respect, the nuts and bolts of politics, Democrats are way behind.

Think about the stance on the issues being the players with the political mechanics as the coach. Outside of the Bill Clinton years the Republicans have had the better coach by far. Not even close. This election was no different, as mechanically speaking the Republican Party ran circles around the Democrats.

The quesition becomes how much we weigh this advantage...



This spinning about their message being too nuanced, or the Republicans defining the issues, is BS.

I think you have a false dichotomy going, maybe not. The above are as close to objective fact as there can be in politics. The Dems are too nuanced and they fail to take the intitiative.

However, I will allow that, going from my previous analogy, that if you are saying the Republicans have better players and the better coaching didn't matter, I can see that as a matter of opinion.


Here is what I think the Dems are missing.

First, Americans are very compassionate people. And most compassionate aid comes from religious people. Americans like, nay want, to help the less fortunate. But we hate being told someone is less fortunate through some fault of our own and we must help them because it is our fault. That is pure BS, and Americans aren't buying into the rich guilt some liberals buy into and are trying to sell.

I think the idea of forced compassion is BS myself. However, I do not see keeping the crime rate down as BS, nor do I see general public investment for the betterment of the communty as BS. I support the idea of these kinds of programs if they show some long term positive effect for the community, be it lower crime rates, a better workforce, less chance of violent revolution or whatever.

Yes, there are some towards the left (as an above postreflects) that seem to think that this is a moral question, that forcing others to give their money to help the poor is compassion and is somehow the sign of a good soul or some such nonsense.

However, this is not a the only reason to do so. That the right has successfully framed this in those terms is exactly the kind of issue framing I am talking about.


Americans are well aware some people are unfortunate through no fault of their own. But we also know that there aren't as many as some would have us believe. And most of us have been unfortunate at some point ourselves and we busted our asses under our own power to get back up. So we know what it takes, and it ain't the government.



Yes, the government will make nobody a success or take anyone out of poverty. You have destroyed that strawman and given yet another example of Republican rhetorical mastery of the issues.

Note how you seem to state it as an "either or" question. That either a person's individual strength gets them back OR the government help. The whole issue is crafted to avoid the idea that perhaps both are generally responsible. If you don't want to get up, no government program will help you. However, if you do want to escape poverty, these programs can help.


Second, Americans are more tolerant than the Dems give them credit for. We will live and let live. But to tell us that the gay lifestyle is "natural" while denying that being uncomfortable in the face of it is not, or is "wrong," is also BS. It is completely natural not to want to see two men displaying their affection for one another in public. Hell, most of us don't even like to see a man and woman groping each other in public.

Good grief.

1) Who are these "Americans" the Dems are saying bad things about? Looks like a manifestation of the attitude held by many conservatives that they are "the real Americans" ...

2) Be uncomfortable, but as you point out that justification gives no moral basis for acting against homosexuals. If you really think that there is more widespread homosexual public affection than heterosexual in this society as a whole you have a whopping case of conformation bias.

3) It is also completely natural for me not to want to see a lot of things. Despite my pretty clear and active support of gay marriage and other issues regarding equal treatment of homosexuals, I am also somewhat put off by male-male displays of affection. This is also my problem alone. Free country and all that.



When homosexuals put on a public display of their gayness for the sole purpose of militancy, then they shouldn't cry foul at the backlash. As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what they are aiming for to justify their feelings of persecution and self-righteousness.

So all gays are rightfully condemned for the actions of a few and should just accept this? This is a justification for what?

As to the last sentence, whatever makes you feel better. I'm sure all oppressed people secretly enjoy it and are looking to feel more repressed when acting out....





Some things take time and can't be rushed. Call it unfair, but that is life. No way around it.
If you are speaking as to a political reality, I can agree. If you are justifying an anti-gay stance, then sorry, you have failed miserably and are likewise confusing political reality with actual reality, only in the reverse of how liberals tend to do it.

Yes, the population will move slowly, but no, that is not a justification of belief.

Third, Americans work hard for their money. When we feel someone else's hand digging in our pocket for our money, our natural reaction is to get angry. I don't have much money to give and so I spend my time helping others. And a lot of it. When the left tells me I have to give cash, and lots of it, that pisses me off big time.

Another framing issue. Total tax load really doesn't change based on who is in office. The difference is in where the money goes.

Are you pissed when the right digs its hand in there to subsidize business? No? Job creation you say? Hmmmm.... So I guess when the poor get money it just disappears into the ether? No? They spend it? Where? .......


And so on. You only see the left as being in your pocket. There is a tendancy to only view the long term effect of the right's form of welfare (job creation) while seeing the left version as a dead end...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he never actively supported terrorism that targeted us. As long as you don't include a former president of the United States in your definition of "us."

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You call it a mandate of support as to the Republican stance on the issues. I call it evidence that the Republicans are just better at politics as viewed as a game. There are a number of perspectives being used on this board. I am suggesting that in one respect, the nuts and bolts of politics, Democrats are way behind. [/B]What you're suggesting comes perilously close to saying "You can fool all the people all the time. Or at least a majority."

I don't like quoting myself, but:

Have a look at some numbers. First is year, second is number of Democratic senators in January of that year, third is number of Democratic representatives:

1991 - 56, 267
1993 - 57, 258
1995 - 48, 204
1997 - 45, 206
1999 - 45, 211
2001 - 50, 212
2003 - 48, 204
2005 - 45, 202

Right now, the Republicans control the executive branch. You can claim Bush didn't win by a huge percentage, but you can't argue with the fact that he's the first president since 1988 to win over 50% of the popular vote.

The Republicans control both houses of congress by the widest margins since Herbert Hoover was president.

Do you see a disturbing trend here? You claim "we are half the frickin' country, and we aren't going anywhere." The evidence would suggest otherwise. It appears, little by little, you're becoming Republicans. Now you can maybe explain this away by saying the GOP has some grand strategy that the Dems haven't figured out. But the Dems are not stupid; they had James Carville and Dick Morris running things for Clinton and got the debate framed to his advantage. But where were the Democratic Great Minds the rest of the time? The answer, I'm convinced, is, they're still there. But they're trying to sell an empty sack; as a national party, they have nothing to offer except opposition to Bush and the Republicans. Why don't they try to steal one of Bush's ideas - say Social Security reform -and make it one of their own?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla
However I (and most of America BTW) disagree that war is a time to painstakingly parse a nuanced candidate. We don't want a war leader who seems lost in a gray fog of self-examination...there are no valiant statues to such war leaders, simply because such conflicted figures rarely prevail.

Nice spin. Having complicated positions is not the same thing as being indecisive. Having a complicated position does make it easier for someone else present your words in such a way that they see you as confused. This is what often happens in politics.

Or is it that you really think these are the same things?


Even Kerry (he of the foot-in-mouth disease) said something like "terrorism should be seen as a nuisance"....I doubt he earned many votes outside the OC with that. :rolleyes:

He said he would like to get to a point where it is a mere nusiance. I guess you would like to keep it as a crisis point.
Do you hope that people are being killed in terrorist attacks rather than there being less of a threat, or am I unfairly parsing your words?

Why do you want the terrorists to be a more than a nuisance? How do you justify wishing for a stronger enemy?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Why don't they try to steal one of Bush's ideas - say Social Security reform -and make it one of their own?

Social Security reform is poisonous. There's no way to fix it without somebody getting angry--either the oldsters don't get all their benefits, or everyone else gets a tax increase, or it all goes to the debt pile for future worry. If the Dems want an issue, that's not the safest choice.

I'm very interested in seeing how exactly Bush plans to reform Social Security without raising taxes or cutting benefits, while at the same time cutting the debt. It'll be a neat trick.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by BPSCG
What you're suggesting comes perilously close to saying "You can fool all the people all the time. Or at least a majority."

Nope. You are confusing the two items. At some points in time the Republicans have the players and the coach. Sometimes just the coach. In the 94 elections they had both.

I don't like quoting myself, but: (data snipped)

Now you can maybe explain this away by saying the GOP has some grand strategy that the Dems haven't figured out. But the Dems are not stupid; they had James Carville and Dick Morris running things for Clinton and got the debate framed to his advantage. But where were the Democratic Great Minds the rest of the time? The answer, I'm convinced, is, they're still there. But they're trying to sell an empty sack; as a national party, they have nothing to offer except opposition to Bush and the Republicans. Why don't they try to steal one of Bush's ideas - say Social Security reform -and make it one of their own?

My point is that the political talent in this generation is weighed to the GOP, especially in presidential elections. Clinton was an exception in that the Bush re-election bid was a sorry showing, mainly because the GOP were fooled by Bush's massive numbers after the war and they didn't really put forth much of an effort until they were hopelessly on the defensive. Clinton in '96 was a sitting president in an economic upswing. Other than that, crapola like the '88 debacle.


That they need to quit reacting and go on the attack with their own issues as to decide the battleground is pretty much the remedy I have been suggesting. You aren't saying anything about the party that I'm not, besides that I maintain that on the whole that they are stupid in that they don't seem to grasp political reality and when they do there is a trend towards depression rather than action.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I think you're confusing the War on Terrorism with the War in Iraq. I would venture to say that, after 9-11, a staggering majority of Americans probably believe the War On Terrorism is worth fighting. As for the War in Iraq, well...the shifting rationales for the war itself, coupled with our current problem with insurgents, has left a good many of us Dems reeling and confused.

There are two things to consider in justifying any war: (1) Is there a valid reason to fight it? and (2) Do we have a good strategy?

I think the answer for number 1 for the WOT is clear: Yes, we have to protect our country. For number 2? Well, that's a mixed bag. We've made some strides, like buffing up our Federal Air Marshals and destroying a good bit of al Queda's infrastructure in Afghanistan, but on the other hand bin Laden is loose...and we still have some issues here at home. For one, Homeland Security has serious budget issues. The enforcement division of Homeland Security, which includes the Air Marshals, was horribly underfunded by the current administration. In fact, they are currently in a hiring and spending freeze, which is causing serious issues. How do I know this? I work there, lucky me.

So, I don't think the president is as good for Homeland Security as he would like others to believe. Simply put, I think he's too focused on Iraq to devote time and resources to his own country's security.

Which brings us to Iraq. Was it justified? Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he never actively supported terrorism that targeted us. The guy who did is still on the loose. Shouldn't we focus on him? If this is now shifting from the War on Terrorism to the War on Cruel Dictators, we've got a good deal of them left in the world for us to be occupied for the next few decades, at least. By the time we unilaterally get rid of them all, we should be completely bankrupt.

This post of yours is a wonderful example of why the Dems lost this election. The disconnect from reality is amazing. I marvel at it! Please, please keep saying and believing that the WOT has nothing to do with Iraq!! Hopefully you'll have Howard Dean take over as DNC chairman and he will propound on these themes repeatedly over the next 4 years.

If so we (Republicans) can expect an even greater majority of the PV then!

YEE-AWWW!
-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BPSCG

You might start with welfare reform. The Republicans dragged Bill Clinton kicking and screaming and held his feet to the fire until he signed it into law. The predictions were that there was going to be mass starvation in America. Didn't happen. A lot of people got into job training programs and transformed themselves from leeches into productive members of society.

"Dragged kicking n screaming"??? Thats a tad bias dont you think. Welfare reform (which I approved of) wasnt shoved down he dems throats by the repubs. Ifthe repubs were in that much control they probably wouldve all but eliminated the system.

As for your homless story. It does kinda just happen to lots of people. Homless doesnt just mean out on the street. People can be in shelters or living staying on a friends couch. Im not all that concerned abour the chronic homless guy whos self destrutive, but out there youll find shelter mom and her kids who left their home because of on going physical abuse.

We could start a homeless/housing thread if you like.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
"Dragged kicking n screaming"??? Thats a tad bias dont you think. Welfare reform (which I approved of) wasnt shoved down he dems throats by the repubs. Yes it was. Dire predictions of millions of newly homeless people. Children starving. None of it happened.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by rikzilla
This post of yours is a wonderful example of why the Dems lost this election. The disconnect from reality is amazing. I marvel at it! Please, please keep saying and believing that the WOT has nothing to do with Iraq!! Hopefully you'll have Howard Dean take over as DNC chairman and he will propound on these themes repeatedly over the next 4 years.

If so we (Republicans) can expect an even greater majority of the PV then!

YEE-AWWW!
-z

Maybe you also want to repeat that old lie that Saddam was cooperating with Al-Quaeda? Just to make sure you didn´t miss any opportunity at spouting BS?

Disconnect from reality, my ass... takes one to know one, I guess.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by BPSCG
As long as you don't include a former president of the United States in your definition of "us."

Are you saying that Saddam wanting Bush dead is equal to terrorism???

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I think the idea of forced compassion is BS myself. However, I do not see keeping the crime rate down as BS, nor do I see general public investment for the betterment of the communty as BS. I support the idea of these kinds of programs if they show some long term positive effect for the community, be it lower crime rates, a better workforce, less chance of violent revolution or whatever.

Are the poor better off than 30 years ago? Are blacks? I don't think so. The left talks about the growing gap between rich and poor, and the disproportionate number of blacks in prison, so they apparently don't think so, either.

So much for our money going to the government for the betterment of the community.

2) Be uncomfortable, but as you point out that justification gives no moral basis for acting against homosexuals. If you really think that there is more widespread homosexual public affection than heterosexual in this society as a whole you have a whopping case of conformation bias.

At the end of my statement, I stated that most Americans don't like to see public displays of affection between a man and woman, either.

3) It is also completely natural for me not to want to see a lot of things. Despite my pretty clear and active support of gay marriage and other issues regarding equal treatment of homosexuals, I am also somewhat put off by male-male displays of affection. This is also my problem alone. Free country and all that.

And the fact I don't like it is the gays' problem, not mine.


So all gays are rightfully condemned for the actions of a few and should just accept this? This is a justification for what?

Which is easier to combat: the wrath of an entire nation, or the idiocy of a few in your own ranks?

As to the last sentence, whatever makes you feel better. I'm sure all oppressed people secretly enjoy it and are looking to feel more repressed when acting out....

I am sure that some oppressed people do secretly enjoy it and are looking to feel more repressed.

Yes, the population will move slowly, but no, that is not a justification of belief.

But we are talking about Dems winning the hearts and minds of Americans. If they try to rush it, they will lose. Changing beliefs and getting people to accept new things is very, very difficult. And the more you try to force it, the more resistance you will meet.

Another framing issue. Total tax load really doesn't change based on who is in office. The difference is in where the money goes.

Tax load doesn't change!?!? Excuse me?

Are you pissed when the right digs its hand in there to subsidize business? No? Job creation you say? Hmmmm.... So I guess when the poor get money it just disappears into the ether? No? They spend it? Where? .......

And so on. You only see the left as being in your pocket. There is a tendancy to only view the long term effect of the right's form of welfare (job creation) while seeing the left version as a dead end... [/B][/QUOTE]

It's the old "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for life" kind of deal. So, yes, give money to the poor and it does vanish into the ether.

[Luke T.]

I don't buy your coaching/game/mechanics theory, Suddenly, but I can tell you one blunt play the Dems need to lose. They should drop the "richest one percent" long pass. It is class warfare and reeks of socialism/communism. It also counts on the American people being misled into believing that the "richest one percent" don't already pay more than their share of taxes.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't buy your coaching/game/mechanics theory, Suddenly, but I can tell you one blunt play the Dems need to lose. They should drop the "richest one percent" long pass. It is class warfare and reeks of socialism/communism. It also counts on the American people being misled into believing that the "richest one percent" don't already pay more than their share of taxes.

Luke, you really need to look at the marginal cost of taxes for poor vs. wealthy people. You really, really do.

It's not even, strictly speaking, in my own interest to say that, but I point it out none the less.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
There is merit to examine the nuance of the Dems vs the black and white of Reps. There is really something useful and valid to learn in both positions. However I (and most of America BTW) disagree that war is a time to painstakingly parse a nuanced candidate. We don't want a war leader who seems lost in a gray fog of self-examination...there are no valiant statues to such war leaders, simply because such conflicted figures rarely prevail.

We want to follow a man of vision, confidence, and strength. Such virtues do not well describe John Kerry...he may have them, but they are not readily observable. A great statue of Winston Churchill stands near the Houses of Parliment in London...where is the statue of Neville Chamberlain?

The real problem for the Dems is simply the WOT itself. They don't seem (via the film of Michael Moore, or the liberalism of Hollywood in general) to think it is worth fighting at all. Even Kerry (he of the foot-in-mouth disease) said something like "terrorism should be seen as a nuisance"....I doubt he earned many votes outside the OC with that. :rolleyes:

Take away the WOT and then Dems have a chance to win with a slim majority as they almost managed in 2000. A Clintonesque candidate, and an America at peace would see IMHO a narrow Democratic win. Hell, I KNOW I'd likely have voted for Kerry sans WOT...and a pledge not to raise my taxes. But sorry, nuance is not going to play well in time of war....and despite some of your opinions to the contrary...this is a WAR! It's also a war that may continue well past 2008. The Dems need to take that into consideration and not make the mistake of running another faux pacifist in 2008.

The Dems need some black-and-white clarity of their own...a good soul-search is called for. The needs/wants of the American people in a time of war are not the problem....the problem is how the Dem party can retool enough to be the party that delivers these needs/wants by 2008.Wow. And not in a good way.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj
Luke, you really need to look at the marginal cost of taxes for poor vs. wealthy people. You really, really do.


I don't understand what you mean, and it doesn't sound like you are addressing the class warfare smell to the Democratic tactic.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by BPSCG
"Homelessness Happens."

No, it doesn't just "happen." It has causes.Of course it has causes. Everything has causes, but that's not what it means.

It means:
Could the homeless person reasonably have forseen what his choices would lead to? Also consider any impairments of judgement.
Could the homeless person have made a different choice in the situation where s/he was, that would have prevented homelessness? Also consider any impairments in self-control.
Could there have been reasons someone became homeless that were completely outside his/her own control?
Could a homeless person get out of the mess s/he got into without aid from others?
What 'homeless happens' is not that homelessness is not caused by anything, but is ultimately caused by the fact that both individual people and society as a whole are not perfect. Some people might fall through the cracks through no fault of their own and can't lift themselves out of it. It is then unfair to demand that they do solve their own problems.

If many people become homeless by the same causes, it is not just a problem of these individual people. Many more people might become homeless because of it, so it becomes a societal problem. And needs to be solved at a societal level, which often involves the government or other large organisations.Originally posted by rikzilla
The disconnect from reality is amazing. I marvel at it! Please, please keep saying and believing that the WOT has nothing to do with Iraq!!You are so right! Those liberals simply refuse to understand what the War On Terror has to do with Iraq. And it is so simple, I understand it perfectly. It is like...

No, wait... I think you would be much better at explaining to them what the heck the War On Terror has to do with the War On Iraq...

:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't understand what you mean, and it doesn't sound like you are addressing the class warfare smell to the Democratic tactic.

It has nothing to do with the class warfare smell of Democratic burbling.

It has to do with the real class warfare built into the present tax structure.

I hardly know where to start.

Try this: What is the ratio of your tax bite to your disposable income?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj
It has nothing to do with the class warfare smell of Democratic burbling.

It has to do with the real class warfare built into the present tax structure.

I hardly know where to start.

Try this: What is the ratio of your tax bite to your disposable income?

My disposable income is dependent on the size of my family.

Right now, my disposable income is at a point that going to Burger King for dinner is a major financial decision. :D

What matters is gross income. If I am in a tax bracket in which I pay, say, 25 percent tax, while someone who makes more money than me pays 33 percent, then the rich guy is paying more than his share compared to me. If we both get 3 percent back, then of course he will get back more than I do, but he will still have paid more than his share when compared to me, even if his 3 percent back is enough to buy a Rolls Royce. If he gets back enough to buy a Rolls, it just means he paid in enough to buy a small country.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tmy
Are you saying that Saddam wanting Bush dead is equal to terrorism??? No. Saddam actually trying to make Bush dead is terrorism.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Social Security reform is poisonous. There's no way to fix it without somebody getting angry--either the oldsters don't get all their benefits, or everyone else gets a tax increase, or it all goes to the debt pile for future worry. If the Dems want an issue, that's not the safest choice.

I'm very interested in seeing how exactly Bush plans to reform Social Security without raising taxes or cutting benefits, while at the same time cutting the debt. It'll be a neat trick. I think the silver lining is, it will be his albatross. To cook, and eat.

*edited to fix formatting.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't buy your coaching/game/mechanics theory, Suddenly, but I can tell you one blunt play the Dems need to lose. They should drop the "richest one percent" long pass. It is class warfare and reeks of socialism/communism. It also counts on the American people being misled into believing that the "richest one percent" don't already pay more than their share of taxes.
Basically, Luke, I agree with you. A "soak the rich" approach to tax policy is self-defeating. That said, I think a case can be made that the richest don't pay more than their share of taxes. Of course, "their share" is wide open to various interpretations so neither of us has much of a leg to stand on until we start to define our terms.

Here are two pieces of anecdotal evidence that the rich don't pay their share. First, both Dick Cheney and T. H. Kerry paid a marginal tax rate of about 12%, well below that of the average middle classs slob. I think these specific cases are relevant because if Cheney and Kerry can figure out how to hide millions (literally) of dollars of income, so can other rich folk.

Second, based on the IRS's own data, the middle class and below have a 18 times greater chance of being audited than the upper 1%. Given a low audit rate and the money to buy clever CPAs, I think it is reasonable to assume that the rich are bending the system as far as they can.

Again, we probably ought to have a whole different thread on "fair share" but for the moment, I am not prepared to think the rich don't have a pretty good deal until evidence is adduced to the contrary.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
I think the silver lining is, it will be his albatross. To cook, and eat.

*edited to fix formatting.
I wish. I think the presidency of Bush I is instructive here. During the campaign, he made his famous "read my lips" pledge. Then he won the presidency, found out that Reagan had run up a HORRIBLE deficit and he had little choice but to deal with the fiscal realities by increasing taxes.

Look ahead to 2009. I assume, on good evidence, that Bush II will continue to run up huge deficits. Then, if the Dems win, they will have to deal with his albatross. Fiscal realities will set in and once again the piper will have to be paid. Only this time, the Dems will pay the political price.

I have a VERY pessimistic view of the future of my country over the span of my kid's lifetime, much less of my own. It is very sad.