Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

Abdul Alhazred · 2nd April 2004, 11:42 PM

OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead.

What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.

"Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough.

I want to *like* a Democrat candidate for president.

Tony · 2nd April 2004, 11:52 PM

It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too.

Abdul Alhazred · 3rd April 2004, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too.

Admitted. But my heritage is being a Democrat. I never yet so far voted for a Republican, except for the judge who presided over my acquittal.

But he was running as a Democrat as well as a Republican. Such it is with allegedly elected judges.

epepke · 3rd April 2004, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

They're all wusses and weedeaters.

It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in. Nowadays, they seem only to be able to take a weekend off to go light up at the G7 protest.

Shane Costello · 3rd April 2004, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke:
It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in.

Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

I've a lot of sympathy with ingrained political heritage, suffering from the same congenital malady myself. Likewise I find myself increasingly out of symapthy with the political party in question.

Some Friggin Guy · 3rd April 2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead.

What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.

"Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough.

I want to *like* a Democrat candidate for president.

I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican.

However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again.

You know, I'll be of legal age to run in '08. Maybe I should do it.

Abdul Alhazred · 3rd April 2004, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

Not since 1968. Hey, nobody's perfect!

edited to add: The police were there to preserve disorder.

rockoon · 3rd April 2004, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
OK this is a USA-centric thread.

Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?

If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives."

I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Wally · 3rd April 2004, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican.

However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again.

You just described my experience, just 22 years earlier.

Clancie · 3rd April 2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Posted by Abdul Alhazred

I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey...What the Hell is with the Democrats these days?

They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for.

Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while.

The only "liberal" Dem President since FDR, imo, was Johnson and he would never have won a national election if it wasn't for the sentiment attached to Kennedy's assassination.

No liberal Dems in the "Wallace-Stevenson-Humphrey" tradition will win in this electoral college system, in a 50% Republican country (with probably about 80% of the electorate supporting more conservative candidates, including Dems, than what you or I would ideally choose).

Clinton was the only elected 2 term Democratic president since Roosevelt--the only one we've had in over 50 years. (On the other hand, GWB would be the fourth two-term Republican President elected in that time period--God forbid). It's not just that 34 years since 1952 have been Republican presidencies--it's that their having so many 8 year terms makes such an enormous impact on the country.

Dems realize the need to be pragmatic and win. If they can do it this time with Kerry, he's probably as close to a Humphrey as we're likely to ever get.

TillEulenspiegel · 3rd April 2004, 12:33 PM

You mean the FDR Democrats? The yellow dog Dems? Social security and all that?

There on vacation somewhere with the old fashioned Republicans, you know the Eisenhower Repubs? Fiscal responsibility, minimum government guys? The people who championed 1st amendment rights, who now embrace the patriot acts and looking into woman's wombs? Like the Dems who have become the party of the Al Sharptons and philosophical inclusion Ad Nausium?

Lost in time. We have met the enemy, and it is Us.

Abdul Alhazred · 3rd April 2004, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rockoon

If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives."

I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Yeah OK. All the old racial segregationists of yesteryear were Democrats. Franklin Roosevelt started to change that. Lyndon Johnson completed the change.

Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration.

I was born in 1956 in New York. Draw your own conclusions.

What has that to do with the current situation?

I am now a Republican, but a very reluctant one.

Yes, I hero-worshipped Mario Cuomo. But no more.

Abdul Alhazred · 3rd April 2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while...

The last time the Dems won the presidency (of course they win all the time in various local constituencies and congressional districts) was 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.

I'm no big fan of Clinton, but I voted for him twice and still think he was better than his Republican opponents.

But I had to choke voting for him the second time.

Abdul Alhazred · 3rd April 2004, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while.

Ya think? The only way Kerry will win is if W messes up big time. Probably with the economy.

Kerry's no winner, he's just the non-W who hopes W will mess up. Yeah, I'll probably vote for him, but no promises.

Crossbow · 3rd April 2004, 03:15 PM

Democrats want to get elected, so on a national level they often talk in grand terms about their ideas and ideals, but as soon as it is pratical to do so, they will quickly shunt these topics in order to maintain that broad appeal which is so important to winning elections.

epepke · 3rd April 2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

Yeah. What's your point?

Shane Costello · 4th April 2004, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke:
Yeah. What's your point?

That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing? I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut?

epepke · 5th April 2004, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing?

Which has what exactly with who gets clubbed where?

Quote:

I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut?

You mean the massive cuts that brought the top tax bracket all the way down to 77% by 1964?

zultr · 5th April 2004, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rockoon
I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Between 1948 and 1964.

Nova Land · 19th April 2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration.

It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential.

Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about.

Abdul Alhazred · 19th April 2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nova Land
It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential.

Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about.

Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954

My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

RandFan · 19th April 2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

Shhhhh..... keep it quiet. No one is supposed to know.

Nova Land · 19th April 2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954

My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

Thank you for the link, but the information in it is simply a summary of Brown v Board of Education, which is not something I was questioning. What I was specifically questioning was whether Martin Luther King endorsed Dwight David Eisenhower for president in 1956. This is something I am unfamiliar with, and something that arouses my curiosity. (I'm posting from a public library at the moment, but can go into greater detail about why I find this curious later this evening.)

I am puzzled by your comment about "Kansas, not Arkansas" -- it was Arkansas that Ike sent the troops to in 1957, and I am not aware of Ike sending any significant federal presence in to enforce desegregation earlier. (That's one of the reasons I find King's alleged endorsement of Ike in 1956 curious -- Ike, as I recall, had something of a reputation as a foot-dragger on civil rights at the time of the election.)

Here is a link to a desegregation timeline, which contains both the Brown decision and the Arkansas action, but fails to mention any troops sent to Kansas, and fails to mention King endorsing Ike.

Again, I ask if you are sure that King endorsed Ike? Is this based on personal memory, or are there sources you can refer me to for more information about this?

One thought that occurs to me is that possibly you have mixed up Martin Luther King with Adam Clayton Powell in your memory. (You would have been fairly young at the time -- less than a year old, I gather from your post -- so you likely were not paying as close attention to politics as you do today.) Powell, like King, led a boycott against bus segregation (although a couple decades earlier), and Powell did indeed endorse Ike in 1956 (creating a bit of a stir).

Michael Redman · 20th April 2004, 10:37 AM

Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors.

Where are any party politicians who will stick their necks out for ideal? Who will advocate what is right, but unpopular?

Where are the politicians who will say that our freedom is more valuable than our security? We used to have lots of them, on both sides.

Where are the republicans who say states can allow medicinal marajuana if they choose, and set whatever drinking age and speed limits they feel is best for their people? Where are the republicans who say that perscriprion drugs are properly set at the market price, and if anyone wants to help the elderly, it should be the states? That education is fundamentally a local issue in which the Feds have no business? Where are the Dems saying that religion has no place in government? That the 4th Amendment was meant to actually protect people? That maybe the death penalty isn't such a good idea? That we should raise taxes to pay for what we're spending, rather than borrowing, since we don't have any desire to lower expenditures?

c0rbin · 20th April 2004, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Where...

Where...

Where...

On the back of a train, slowly pulling out of the station.

Vorticity · 20th April 2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zultr

Quote:

Originally posted by rockoon
I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...

Between 1948 and 1964.

No, it was much earlier. The last "liberal" republican was Theodore Roosevelt. His hand-picked succesor, William Howard Taft, became the first "conservative" republican. TR was pissed, so he ran against Taft in '08 on the "Bull-Moose" ticket. However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat. Thereafter (roughly), the Dems were more "liberal", and the Republicans were more "conservative". [All of the preceding ignores the anomalous "Dixiecrats". If you include them, then the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy goes out the window.]

Tony · 20th April 2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorticity

However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat.

Woodrow Wilson liberal???

He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness?

gnome · 20th April 2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony

Woodrow Wilson liberal???

He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness?

One big issue comes to mind:

He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again.

He was ignored after WWI, of course, and this IMO led directly to World War II. I believe his ideas could have prevented the war.

Tony · 20th April 2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome

He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again.

By this rationale, GW would be liberal. Is this the only way in which Wilson's liberalness is gauged (i'm not really arguing, i'm just trying to understand how wilson could be considered liberal)?

gnome · 21st April 2004, 08:56 AM

Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign.

Quote:

Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means:
Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

He more or less has found himself pushed into it... I believe it is because it truly is the only sensible option... and I admire Wilson for being one to realize it early.

He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution.

Here's some more:

http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/referen...n_woodrow.html

Certainly, he may have had the flaws that you mentioned--and his decisions far from perfect... But he left some good works behind. Most of our admired leaders in history were a mixed bag... but we can revere their contributions without condoning their weaknesses.

Tony · 21st April 2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign.

I was already aware of that, but thanks for reminding me.

Quote:

He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution.

Which is what exactly?

Tony · 21st April 2004, 09:24 AM

Upon further reading of this, it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo.

Shane Costello · 21st April 2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Redman:
Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors.

Where did I suggest otherwise? The point is that the leftists seemed to have felt strong enough about Democratic policies at the time to turn up at their convention and protest. I posed a question, I didn't state a fact, so my knowledge of the matter is a little hazy.

Michael Redman · 21st April 2004, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Where did I suggest otherwise?

Quote:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions?

(Yes, your point is a good one.)

Shane Costello · 22nd April 2004, 12:23 AM

[Nitpick]Well, I don't see how I necessarily implied that the delegates were the ones doing the clubbing and dragging[/Nitpick]

Michael Redman · 22nd April 2004, 06:23 AM

I don't think you did. I just think your words could be (intentionally) misconstrued that way.

(Hence the

.)

c0rbin · 22nd April 2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Upon further reading of this, it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo.

This is the definition of the word "liberal." Not some "mere" facet of usage. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" these days are used in place of party names by shock jocks.

Tony · 22nd April 2004, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin

This is the definition of the word "liberal."

It's a definition, not the definition. And it's not a very good definition either. A person advocating death to adulterers in America would be considered liberal under this definition simple because they challenge the status quo.

c0rbin · 22nd April 2004, 06:56 AM

Quote:

A person advocating death to adulterers in America would be considered liberal under this definition simple because they challenge the status quo.

An excellent context sentence. A+!

Tony · 22nd April 2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin

An excellent context sentence. A+!

So you agree?

2nd April 2004, 11:42 PM	#1
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? OK this is a USA-centric thread. Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead. What the Hell is with the Democrats these days? They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for. "Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough. I want to like a Democrat candidate for president.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

2nd April 2004, 11:52 PM	#2
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,756	It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

3rd April 2004, 12:10 AM	#3
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Quote: Originally posted by Tony It's not just the dems. the repubs. are a bunch of losers too. Admitted. But my heritage is being a Democrat. I never yet so far voted for a Republican, except for the judge who presided over my acquittal. But he was running as a Democrat as well as a Republican. Such it is with allegedly elected judges.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

3rd April 2004, 12:26 AM	#4
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred OK this is a USA-centric thread. Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? They're all wusses and weedeaters. It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in. Nowadays, they seem only to be able to take a weekend off to go light up at the G7 protest.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

3rd April 2004, 04:49 AM	#6
Some Friggin Guy Muse Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 860	Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred OK this is a USA-centric thread. Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey. But those guys are dead. What the Hell is with the Democrats these days? They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for. "Yeah, but he's sorta better than W." isn't good enough. I want to like a Democrat candidate for president. I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican. However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again. You know, I'll be of legal age to run in '08. Maybe I should do it.
Some Friggin Guy Muse Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 860	__________________ You think, therefore I am. "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la! " - c4ts "What is the meaning of life? Monkey!" - c4ts

3rd April 2004, 04:30 AM	#5
Shane Costello Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,235	Quote: Originally posted by epepke: It's depressed me, not just about Democrats, but the left in general. Thirty years ago they were willing to get clubbed and dragged to jail for what they believe in. Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions? I've a lot of sympathy with ingrained political heritage, suffering from the same congenital malady myself. Likewise I find myself increasingly out of symapthy with the political party in question.

3rd April 2004, 06:24 AM	#7
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions? Not since 1968. Hey, nobody's perfect! edited to add: The police were there to preserve disorder.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

3rd April 2004, 07:19 AM	#8
rockoon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,106	Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred OK this is a USA-centric thread. Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives." I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today...
rockoon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,106	__________________ Quality never goes begging.

3rd April 2004, 07:50 AM	#9
Wally Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South Carolina Posts: 229	Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, the only experience I have with the Dems are i this election, since until 2002, I was a hard-core Republican. However, after the guy currently running the show, I will never be again. You just described my experience, just 22 years earlier.
	__________________ "Liberals are trusting and optimistic because they believe people are pretty much like themselves. Conservatives are fearful and hostile for much the same reason." Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so. --Robert Ingersoll

3rd April 2004, 10:16 AM	#10
Clancie Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,040	Quote: Posted by Abdul Alhazred I would enthusiascally vote for Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, or Hubert Humphrey...What the Hell is with the Democrats these days? They will do anything to get elected, other than come up with someone you'd really want to vote for. Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while. The only "liberal" Dem President since FDR, imo, was Johnson and he would never have won a national election if it wasn't for the sentiment attached to Kennedy's assassination. No liberal Dems in the "Wallace-Stevenson-Humphrey" tradition will win in this electoral college system, in a 50% Republican country (with probably about 80% of the electorate supporting more conservative candidates, including Dems, than what you or I would ideally choose). Clinton was the only elected 2 term Democratic president since Roosevelt--the only one we've had in over 50 years. (On the other hand, GWB would be the fourth two-term Republican President elected in that time period--God forbid). It's not just that 34 years since 1952 have been Republican presidencies--it's that their having so many 8 year terms makes such an enormous impact on the country. Dems realize the need to be pragmatic and win. If they can do it this time with Kerry, he's probably as close to a Humphrey as we're likely to ever get.
Clancie Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,040	__________________ From CFLarsen: "Better include my name (in your sig line), just to drive your point home." Per your above advice to include your name in my sig line, Claus, here it is. You're now back on my "Ignore" list (of one).

3rd April 2004, 12:33 PM	#11
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	You mean the FDR Democrats? The yellow dog Dems? Social security and all that? There on vacation somewhere with the old fashioned Republicans, you know the Eisenhower Repubs? Fiscal responsibility, minimum government guys? The people who championed 1st amendment rights, who now embrace the patriot acts and looking into woman's wombs? Like the Dems who have become the party of the Al Sharptons and philosophical inclusion Ad Nausium? Lost in time. We have met the enemy, and it is Us.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

3rd April 2004, 03:00 PM	#12
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by rockoon If you really want to go back in time.. it used to be the republicans were the "progressives." I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today... Yeah OK. All the old racial segregationists of yesteryear were Democrats. Franklin Roosevelt started to change that. Lyndon Johnson completed the change. Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration. I was born in 1956 in New York. Draw your own conclusions. What has that to do with the current situation? I am now a Republican, but a very reluctant one. Yes, I hero-worshipped Mario Cuomo. But no more.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

3rd April 2004, 03:07 PM	#13
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Quote: Originally posted by Clancie Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while... The last time the Dems won the presidency (of course they win all the time in various local constituencies and congressional districts) was 1996 when Clinton was re-elected. I'm no big fan of Clinton, but I voted for him twice and still think he was better than his Republican opponents. But I had to choke voting for him the second time.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

3rd April 2004, 03:15 PM	#14
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Quote: Originally posted by Clancie Well, I'd vote for the ones you mentioned, too, but the majority of Dems appear to be smarter than we are. They've decided it is better to win once in a while. Ya think? The only way Kerry will win is if W messes up big time. Probably with the economy. Kerry's no winner, he's just the non-W who hopes W will mess up. Yeah, I'll probably vote for him, but no promises.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

3rd April 2004, 03:15 PM	#15
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,293	Democrats want to get elected, so on a national level they often talk in grand terms about their ideas and ideals, but as soon as it is pratical to do so, they will quickly shunt these topics in order to maintain that broad appeal which is so important to winning elections.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

3rd April 2004, 07:07 PM	#16
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions? Yeah. What's your point?
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

4th April 2004, 07:39 AM	#17
Shane Costello Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,235	Quote: Originally posted by epepke: Yeah. What's your point? That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing? I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut?

5th April 2004, 04:07 AM	#18
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello That the Democrats of yesteryear weren't left wing? Which has what exactly with who gets clubbed where? Quote: I mean, didn't JFK bring in a massive upper-class tax cut? You mean the massive cuts that brought the top tax bracket all the way down to 77% by 1964?
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950

5th April 2004, 11:37 AM	#19
zultr Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 149	Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by rockoon I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today... Between 1948 and 1964.
zultr Thinker Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 149

19th April 2004, 02:34 PM	#20
Nova Land / Tagger Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whitleyville, TN Posts: 5,157	Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Heck, Martin Luther King endorsed Eisenhower in 1956 due to his having sent troops to Arkansas to enforce integration. It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential. Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about.

19th April 2004, 02:48 PM	#21
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,476	Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Nova Land It's too bad MLK is dead now, and thus not able to apply for Randi's million dollars. Endorsing Eisenhower in 1956 for something he would do in 1957 indicates good psychic potential. Are you sure King endorsed Ike? I don't recall that, and can't find any record of it having happened. If you have more information about this, could you summarize it and/or provide some sources I could look up? If true, this is something I would enjoy knowing more about. Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954 My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas. http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

19th April 2004, 02:53 PM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,194	Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions? Shhhhh..... keep it quiet. No one is supposed to know.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

19th April 2004, 04:43 PM	#23
Nova Land / Tagger Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whitleyville, TN Posts: 5,157	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Brown versus Board of Education -- 1954 My error, it was Kansas not Arkansas. http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html Thank you for the link, but the information in it is simply a summary of Brown v Board of Education, which is not something I was questioning. What I was specifically questioning was whether Martin Luther King endorsed Dwight David Eisenhower for president in 1956. This is something I am unfamiliar with, and something that arouses my curiosity. (I'm posting from a public library at the moment, but can go into greater detail about why I find this curious later this evening.) I am puzzled by your comment about "Kansas, not Arkansas" -- it was Arkansas that Ike sent the troops to in 1957, and I am not aware of Ike sending any significant federal presence in to enforce desegregation earlier. (That's one of the reasons I find King's alleged endorsement of Ike in 1956 curious -- Ike, as I recall, had something of a reputation as a foot-dragger on civil rights at the time of the election.) Here is a link to a desegregation timeline, which contains both the Brown decision and the Arkansas action, but fails to mention any troops sent to Kansas, and fails to mention King endorsing Ike. Again, I ask if you are sure that King endorsed Ike? Is this based on personal memory, or are there sources you can refer me to for more information about this? One thought that occurs to me is that possibly you have mixed up Martin Luther King with Adam Clayton Powell in your memory. (You would have been fairly young at the time -- less than a year old, I gather from your post -- so you likely were not paying as close attention to politics as you do today.) Powell, like King, led a boycott against bus segregation (although a couple decades earlier), and Powell did indeed endorse Ike in 1956 (creating a bit of a stir).

20th April 2004, 10:37 AM	#24
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors. Where are any party politicians who will stick their necks out for ideal? Who will advocate what is right, but unpopular? Where are the politicians who will say that our freedom is more valuable than our security? We used to have lots of them, on both sides. Where are the republicans who say states can allow medicinal marajuana if they choose, and set whatever drinking age and speed limits they feel is best for their people? Where are the republicans who say that perscriprion drugs are properly set at the market price, and if anyone wants to help the elderly, it should be the states? That education is fundamentally a local issue in which the Feds have no business? Where are the Dems saying that religion has no place in government? That the 4th Amendment was meant to actually protect people? That maybe the death penalty isn't such a good idea? That we should raise taxes to pay for what we're spending, rather than borrowing, since we don't have any desire to lower expenditures?
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

20th April 2004, 11:13 AM	#25
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Quote: Where... Where... Where... On the back of a train, slowly pulling out of the station.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

20th April 2004, 11:16 AM	#26
Vorticity Fluid Mechanic Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Alamos, NM Posts: 2,650	Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by zultr Quote: Originally posted by rockoon I wonder when exactly the republicans changed from being of the Lincoln Ilk (freeing the slaves, national unity, and so forth) to being the Racist Warmonger Pigs that they are made out to be today... Between 1948 and 1964. No, it was much earlier. The last "liberal" republican was Theodore Roosevelt. His hand-picked succesor, William Howard Taft, became the first "conservative" republican. TR was pissed, so he ran against Taft in '08 on the "Bull-Moose" ticket. However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat. Thereafter (roughly), the Dems were more "liberal", and the Republicans were more "conservative". [All of the preceding ignores the anomalous "Dixiecrats". If you include them, then the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy goes out the window.]

20th April 2004, 11:24 AM	#27
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,756	Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Vorticity However, both TR and Taft were handily defeated by Woodrow Wilson, the first "liberal" Democrat. Woodrow Wilson liberal??? He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

20th April 2004, 12:37 PM	#28
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by Tony Woodrow Wilson liberal??? He was a racist bigot, a typical southern democrat, the ideological home of the KKK. What measure are you using to gauge his liberalness? One big issue comes to mind: He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again. He was ignored after WWI, of course, and this IMO led directly to World War II. I believe his ideas could have prevented the war.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

20th April 2004, 12:53 PM	#29
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,756	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where are the Democrats of yesteryear? Quote: Originally posted by gnome He was a strong proponent of the idea of "Nation-building" in the aftermath of a war. That is, instead of picking the bones of the defeated nation for spoils of war, to help them rebuild and become reasonable members of the international community again. By this rationale, GW would be liberal. Is this the only way in which Wilson's liberalness is gauged (i'm not really arguing, i'm just trying to understand how wilson could be considered liberal)?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

21st April 2004, 08:56 AM	#30
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign. Quote: Q: How would you decide when it was in the national interest to use US force? BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interests. And that means: Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000 He more or less has found himself pushed into it... I believe it is because it truly is the only sensible option... and I admire Wilson for being one to realize it early. He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution. Here's some more: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/referen...n_woodrow.html Certainly, he may have had the flaws that you mentioned--and his decisions far from perfect... But he left some good works behind. Most of our admired leaders in history were a mixed bag... but we can revere their contributions without condoning their weaknesses.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

21st April 2004, 09:06 AM	#31
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,756	Quote: Originally posted by gnome Conservatives, IMO, have often been reluctant to engage in Nation-building... in fact GWB himself spoke out against it during his campaign. I was already aware of that, but thanks for reminding me. Quote: He also promoted the evolutionary interpretation of the Constitution. Which is what exactly?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

21st April 2004, 09:24 AM	#32
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,756	Upon further reading of this, it's apparent that Wilson was "liberal" only in the mere sense of challenging the status quo.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

21st April 2004, 09:58 AM	#33
Shane Costello Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,235	Quote: Originally posted by Michael Redman: Mr. Costello, I don't know what you've heard, but it wasn't the convention delegates in 1968 that were clubbing the protestors. Where did I suggest otherwise? The point is that the leftists seemed to have felt strong enough about Democratic policies at the time to turn up at their convention and protest. I posed a question, I didn't state a fact, so my knowledge of the matter is a little hazy.

21st April 2004, 11:25 AM	#34
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello Where did I suggest otherwise? Quote: Originally posted by Shane Costello Didn't a lot of clubbing and dragging of leftists take place at Democratic conventions? (Yes, your point is a good one.)
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

22nd April 2004, 12:23 AM	#35
Shane Costello Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,235	[Nitpick]Well, I don't see how I necessarily implied that the delegates were the ones doing the clubbing and dragging[/Nitpick]