Democrats New Campaign Video: Shows Dead Soldiers, Blames Weather on GOP

[Divinus Arma]

http://www.dccc.org/multimedia/archives/new_directions/

The video is very telling because it shpows for the first the national political strategy of the Democratic Party in foucs. Primarily, we are treated to visions of sad troops, dead troops, big factories, and satellite imagery of hurricanes along side pictures of Cheney, Bush, and Rove. As an alternative, the Democrats show their party leaders with stock footage of a helicopter pilot giving the thumbs up to take off (Implying that he is giving the thumbs up to the Dems), photos of wind generators, and the Dem party God: William J. Clinton.

So here is exactly what the Dems are trying to tell us: (1) Hurricanes and natural disasters are Bush's fault. (2) Troops are dying in Iraq and they would, for some reason, prefer Democrats to Republicans.

And that is about it.


I really appreciate the Democrats choice to involve a photo of soldier's coffins. Perhaps the Republicans should involve photos of thousands of dead civilians since that is what will happen if we do not stand up to terrorism.

I also really like how the weather is the fault of Bush.

If Americans buy into this garbage at face value in 2006, then my prophecy of a socialist America as inevitable will begin to come true.

[rory_20_uk]

The troops are dying thanks to the invasion / occupation. Perhaps the republicans can redo some piccies of deaths under Saddam.

Good to see already that the campaign is bieng fought down and dirty.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

The troops are dying thanks to the invasion / occupation. Perhaps the republicans can redo some piccies of deaths under Saddam.

Good to see already that the campaign is bieng fought down and dirty.

~:smoking:

Should be nice and bloody. :shame:

[scooter_the_shooter]

Ya' know....didn't the majority of democrats in congress vote for the war:wall:

[Lemur]

If Americans buy into this garbage at face value in 2006, then my prophecy of a socialist America as inevitable will begin to come true.
It's fine and well to take a dump on the Democrats, and I would expect no less from you, but answer me this: Are you really so pleased with how this administration and this congress have conducted themselves? Are you really keen to return them to power? What would the lesson be for our corrupt, venial, free-spending Republican overlords? Don't you have any desire at all to shake things up?

[Spino]

It's fine and well to take a dump on the Democrats, and I would expect no less from you, but answer me this: Are you really so pleased with how this administration and this congress have conducted themselves? Are you really keen to return them to power? What would the lesson be for our corrupt, venial, free-spending Republican overlords? Don't you have any desire at all to shake things up?

Regardless of how conservatives feel about the current administration keep in mind it was fear of relenquishing control to the opposition that compelled 'traditional' Republicans to vote to keep Bush and the Neo-Cons in office. Your average Republican might not think Bush is his/her cup of tea but the alternatives are unthinkable. This same fear is what prevents the more moderate (and traditional) elements of both parties from splintering off and going it alone so as to 'shake things up'. Pretty sad but it is a fact of life.

[Divinus Arma]

Spino nailed it. I disagree with the administration onmany things, but the alternaitve is indeed unthinkable. We already have the consolidation of power away from states, but this will occur more rapidly with the Dmocrats. Benefits to illegal immigrants will be unimaginable and Democrats only stand to gain by welcoming the haordes and showering them with free crap. The United States will retreat into a hole and hide its head in the stand, giving concessions to terrorist elements by providing them with reign throughout the Eur-Asian theatre. Domestically, and internationally, the Democrats are the worst thing that can possibly happen to this country. I acknowledge the probelms within the Republican party, but the answer is not to abandon the Republicans; the asnwer is to have the courage to work within the Republican to fix what is broken and return the party to its prinicples. There are many that seek to do this, one such element being the Republican Liberty Caucas- a group of libertarians who work with the Republican power structure to lobby for change within the party. Although libertarians are weak, if they band together and get the messgae to the party, then real change can happen. If you share the values of the Republican mission statement of states rights, limited government, and economic freedom, then one should be active politically, especially where primary elections are concerned.

I am none to thrilled over this administration, but I will not run and cower. I would rather have the courage and tenacity to make the repairs necessary and get politically involved with my local chapter when issues are especially important to me. The problem with "moderates" is that they either refuse to speak up, refuse to educate themselves, or refuse to care one way or the other. Each of us, as citizens has a duty and privlege to actively enage in the political and governance process. To do otherwise is to cede your power to the few rabid ideologues of either side.

[Aenlic]

I disagree with the administration onmany things, but the alternaitve is indeed unthinkable. We already have the consolidation of power away from states, but this will occur more rapidly with the Dmocrats.

Right. It can't possibly occur more rapidly. Bush has essentially negated the entire Congress. You remember, Congress, right? They're the part of the government which represents the states? So what does your boy Bush do? He acts as if he's a monarch. He completely ignores the oversight function of Congress. He tries to consolidate more and more power in the unitary executive. So much for the states. And the Republican controlled congress goes along with it! They willingly participate in the destruction of their own power as representatives of the states! How can you possibly square that with your claim that it's the Democrats who consolidate power in the executive? Have you just not been paying attention for the last 6 years?


Benefits to illegal immigrants will be unimaginable and Democrats only stand to gain by welcoming the haordes and showering them with free crap.

The Senate immigration plan which has the support of the Bush administration doesn't seem to quite match your claims here. Can you say "earned legalization?" I knew you could. That is the corner stone of the Bush immigration policy, and the Senate Republicans. Yep! The Democrats are actually closer to Bush on this idea.


The United States will retreat into a hole and hide its head in the stand, giving concessions to terrorist elements by providing them with reign throughout the Eur-Asian theatre.

Are you referring to the mujahadin that the Reagan administration funded and trained, some of whom then became the Taliban and bin Laden's al Qaeda? Hmmm. Those darn Democrats. Or maybe you're referring to the majority of 9-11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is about as close to the Bush family as it's possible to get and not violate incest laws? Hmmm. Or maybe it was Reagan and Daddy Bush's support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Remember that pic of a smiling Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in the mid-1980's?

Or maybe you're referring to Bush pulling all but a fraction of our forces out of Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden in order to invade Iraq, which at the time had only one terrorist training camp in the entire country - and it was under our own no-fly zone and in the control of our good buddies the Kurds? Yep.


Domestically, and internationally, the Democrats are the worst thing that can possibly happen to this country.

Right. Well, except for being the last party to have a balanced budget and a surplus and friendly relations with our allies, all of which Bush squandered in his lust for attacking Iraq. He even managed to squander the goodwill and support we had after 9-11, so he could invade Iraq. The worst thing that could happen to this country already happened - the election of George W. Bush and the defeat of the constitution.


I acknowledge the probelms within the Republican party, but the answer is not to abandon the Republicans; the asnwer is to have the courage to work within the Republican to fix what is broken and return the party to its prinicples.

Right. The Republicans who willingly gave up the power of the states, as written in the constitution, be allowing Bush to completely ignore the oversight function of the Congress. The party which is going to rubber stamp Bush's "earned legalization" immigration policy just as happily as the Democrats. The party that has run up the largest deficit spending ever? They're suddenly going to change spots over night? I don't think so.


There are many that seek to do this, one such element being the Republican Liberty Caucas- a group of libertarians who work with the Republican power structure to lobby for change within the party. Although libertarians are weak, if they band together and get the messgae to the party, then real change can happen. If you share the values of the Republican mission statement of states rights, limited government, and economic freedom, then one should be active politically, especially where primary elections are concerned.

One should be judged on one's actions not on words and promises.

Where do the Republican's actions show them on these issues?

State's rights. Complete abandonment of the oversight and advise and consent function of Congress, of the declaration of war function and more does not equal state's rights. It equals the opposite.

Limited government. Right. Repeat after me. Department of Homeland Security. That's "shrinking the government" in action for you! When did limited government become warrantless wiretapping? When did limited government become a complete disregard for the ideals of the constitution?

Economic freedom. Freedom from what? Certainly not economic freedom from our dependence on foreign oil. Not with nearly every member of the Bush administration tied to big oil. Freedom from foreign economic influence? You mean like selling off our ports and our airlines and our infrastructure to foreign companies and countries? That kind of economic freedom?


I am none to thrilled over this administration, but I will not run and cower. I would rather have the courage and tenacity to make the repairs necessary and get politically involved with my local chapter when issues are especially important to me. The problem with "moderates" is that they either refuse to speak up, refuse to educate themselves, or refuse to care one way or the other. Each of us, as citizens has a duty and privlege to actively enage in the political and governance process. To do otherwise is to cede your power to the few rabid ideologues of either side.

If you replace the word moderates in the above with the word Republicans, then the paragraph actually makes a little sense. As long as you continue to pretend that what you claim to value is what the Republican party has demonstrated to actually be their values, then you can't change anything at all. The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Once you're out of denial, try holding your Republican officials up to what you claim are your Republican standards and see if they match. :grin:

[Keba]

So here is exactly what the Dems are trying to tell us: (1) Hurricanes and natural disasters are Bush's fault. (2) Troops are dying in Iraq and they would, for some reason, prefer Democrats to Republicans.

Just a short reply:

(1) Not hurricanes, but the response was dreadfully inadequate and slow ... and that's terrible.

(2) I doubt it about the troops liking the Dems better than the Republicans, but rather ... they would not, like, be there in an internationally condemned war for no more than mist and lies, paying in blood because one man mislead everyone and probably handed America's enemies the most recruits he could have.


If Americans buy into this garbage at face value in 2006, then my prophecy of a socialist America as inevitable will begin to come true.

Good ... at last. Once America falls, all of the world will follow, and all will know the glory of socialism. What is so scary about socialism? It works, you know.

[Lemur]

I acknowledge the probelms within the Republican party, but the answer is not to abandon the Republicans; the asnwer is to have the courage to work within the Republican to fix what is broken and return the party to its prinicples.
I commend your dedication to your party, but I worry about the implications. It's bad enough in this country with a two-party system; you seem very close to advocating a single-party system. All Republican, all the time, and we'll work from within to de-corrupt it. The only modern equivalent that springs to mind is Japan.

I want divided government. I always have. Democrats on their own become power-drunk and venal. Republicans on their own become -- you guessed it -- power-drunk and venal. Demonising the Democrats and declaring that the American way of life will end if they take back some power seems ... counter-productive. Another six years of the all-Republican show will have serious negative consequences.

[Divinus Arma]

I commend your dedication to your party, but I worry about the implications. It's bad enough in this country with a two-party system; you seem very close to advocating a single-party system. All Republican, all the time, and we'll work from within to de-corrupt it.
Oh not at all. There are those in America that truly believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party: Expanded federal benefits and public ownership of certain major industries, subsidies to unskilled labor, promotion of ethnic divisions in society, and the emasculation of men. I disagree with these philosophies, but I do not argue for the elimination of the right of the people to self-determine in this direction. In my ideal world, the Democratic party would be erradicated and we would have two Republican parties: A libertarian party and a socially conservative party. The debate on capitalism is over, and the Republicans have won. It is the other elements of our American society and the policy that shapes it which have been divisive within the GOP.


I want divided government. I always have. Democrats on their own become power-drunk and venal. Republicans on their own become -- you guessed it -- power-drunk and venal. Demonising the Democrats and declaring that the American way of life will end if they take back some power seems ... counter-productive. Another six years of the all-Republican show will have serious negative consequences.

See previous paragraph.

[rotorgun]

While all these debates on the political policies and doctrines of the Republican and Democratic parties is very interesting, I think we are missing a key point. The mid-term elections are coming up, and there is a serious issue which will shape the new congress and senate. That is to say immigration reform. How voters percieve our august leaders have voted and where they stand on this issue will be the deciding factor. Just as the War took on a great importance during the last Presidential election, immigration and what to do about the illegal immigrants will do so in the mid-term, and quite possibly, future Presidential runs.

There is a growing wave of anger in this country over this issue. It is the one issue in which many Democrats and Republicans agree on; something simply must be done to stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering the United States. I suspect that many local and state politicians will be going back home after November. I am personally going to vote for those in favor of very tough policies on this issue, as are many people I know from both sides of the isle. Amnesty is not the way, and I would not want to be in the shoes of those in ofice who subscribe to it.

If I were a democrat running for office, I would concentrate on listening to my constituants, instead of throwing dirt on my opponents.

PS: I am a Democrat, both moderate and active! I want no free give-a-ways, tax and spend policies, or giving in to radical groups trying to change the "fabric of our nation" as some claim. I am definately not in favor of the raping of our constitutional rights, so that a few oil barons can have it all their way. America does best when we are in gridlock, fighting tooth and nail for what we think is right.

PPS:
The debate on capitalism is over, and the Republicans have won. It is the other elements of our American society and the policy that shapes it which have been divisive within the GOP.
Eclectic, just what debate was that? I don't remember such a debate any time soon. Are you talking about the monopoly on American politics by the Oil/Military defense spending/Outsourcing/drive the national debt through the roof idea of capitalism that our great leaders have?

[Divinus Arma]

Right. It can't possibly occur more rapidly. Bush has essentially negated the entire Congress. You remember, Congress, right? They're the part of the government which represents the states? So what does your boy Bush do? He acts as if he's a monarch. He completely ignores the oversight function of Congress. He tries to consolidate more and more power in the unitary executive. So much for the states. And the Republican controlled congress goes along with it! They willingly participate in the destruction of their own power as representatives of the states! How can you possibly square that with your claim that it's the Democrats who consolidate power in the executive? Have you just not been paying attention for the last 6 years?

I too have a problem with. However, when I say states' rights, I mean specifically the expansion of the FEderal government outside of the enumerated powers under the commerce clause. If it weren't for Souter, we might see a little difference here.

I think its scary that we see this:
Democrats destroy the power of state governments, and consolidate power into the federal government.
The Republi-crats then consolidate power into the hands of the executive.

I have news for you. This just isn't Bush. The Executive branch has been expanding its powers for years. Don't you remember FDR's attempt to court-pack in order to ram his policies through? It's both sides. At least right now we have 4 over 5 supreme court justices that still give a crap about the enumerated powers. I've ranting about this for over a year and a half on this board (which is actually really sad).



The Senate immigration plan which has the support of the Bush administration doesn't seem to quite match your claims here. Can you say "earned legalization?" I knew you could. That is the corner stone of the Bush immigration policy, and the Senate Republicans. Yep! The Democrats are actually closer to Bush on this idea.

You must have no clue where I stand on this. This is another thing I have been bitching about too.


Are you referring to the mujahadin that the Reagan administration funded and trained, some of whom then became the Taliban and bin Laden's al Qaeda?
Sad. But the containment of the evil empire was seen as a bigger issue then.



Or maybe you're referring to the majority of 9-11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is about as close to the Bush family as it's possible to get and not violate incest laws?
I agree with you on every level here. America should not be in bed with the enemy. Its the Demo-blicans again.


Or maybe it was Reagan and Daddy Bush's support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's? Remember that pic of a smiling Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in the mid-1980's?
Another situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend. When do we not choose the lesser of two evils?


Or maybe you're referring to Bush pulling all but a fraction of our forces out of Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden in order to invade Iraq,
...While multinational forces took over our responsibilites...


...which at the time had only one terrorist training camp in the entire country - and it was under our own no-fly zone and in the control of our good buddies the Kurds?
Bad intel. I am not going to go around the Iraq merry-go-round in this thread.


Well, except for being the last party to have a balanced budget and a surplus...
I conducted an in-depth study of the economy throughout the 90's as part of my undergrad studies. The booming economy was fueled entirely by the information and communication technology revolution. We have never seen gains in productivity in our history like that, and Clinton had nothing to do with it. Furthemore, you cannot equate 9/11, the techno-bust, numerous huge natural disasters, and the GWOT as a comparable basis for the economy because these are anomolies, one-time events, that effect the economy- they are not permanent components of the economy as a whole. If you want to be bi-partisan and moderate then make a comparison of the budget and deficit against Clinton after you remove these factors. If anything, the strength of the economy now despite these fcators is only demonstrable evidence of how utterly powerful the economic engine really is. But then, I suppose you wouldn't want to give Bush the credit for his tax cut's now would you?


and friendly relations with our allies, all of which Bush squandered in his lust for attacking Iraq.
It was very interesting to see all of the illegal activities that were exposed between our allies and Iraq.


He even managed to squander the goodwill and support we had after 9-11, so he could invade Iraq.
Imagine if we did find WMD as intel suggested? Bush's approval rating would be through the roof, and France and Germany would look like idiots. But that isn't the case, so we have what we have. 50% of America has no intestinal fortitude, and so we have dissent and conspiracy theorists. It goes with free speech.


The Republicans who willingly gave up the power of the states, as written in the constitution, be allowing Bush to completely ignore the oversight function of the Congress.
If your idea of states rights is consolidation of power into the hands of the federal legislature and out of the hands of state legislatures, then we disagree on a very very fundamental basis here. And furthermore, of course the Republican Party is going to go along with most of the Republican President's policies! However, this is not always the case. The House isn't rolling over for illegal immigration amnesty, nor is the Senate rolling over (at least not completely) for a stupid marriage amendment.


The party which is going to rubber stamp Bush's "earned legalization" immigration policy just as happily as the Democrats.
I just addressed this.


The party that has run up the largest deficit spending ever?
Again, we have faced numerous challenges to this economy. The federal deficit is a result of once-in-a-lifetime events, and is completely unrepresentative of a baseline measurement.




State's rights. Complete abandonment of the oversight and advise and consent function of Congress, of the declaration of war function and more does not equal state's rights. It equals the opposite.

I already addressed this.


Limited government. Right. Repeat after me. Department of Homeland Security. That's "shrinking the government" in action for you!
I agree. I would instead favor expanded state law enforcement agencies operating under an umbrella of national standards in order to coordinate ease of communication, information sharing, and operational intergration when such a need arises.


When did limited government become warrantless wiretapping?

I don't agree with the BUsh administrations whining about getting a warrant as being too difficult. We actually agree on this one. I think the spirit of the program was honest, but the implementation was not.



Economic freedom. Freedom from what? Certainly not economic freedom from our dependence on foreign oil.
I agree. Lets gets off the crack. We need to develop domestic alternatives.


Not with nearly every member of the Bush administration tied to big oil.
Have fun with your conspiracy theories. I'll worry about "big catsup" in the meantime.


Freedom from foreign economic influence? You mean like selling off our ports and our airlines and our infrastructure to foreign companies and countries?
Wait a second. You just said that congress was ceding limitless dictatorial powers to the President. They told Bush to shove it. I guess your concept of expanding executive power away from congress only applies when it comes to issues that you disagree with. Or do you have the honor to recognize that I have a point here?


Aenlic, I understand that you are passionate. So am I. But let's try to refrain from sarcastic smugness and debate the issues. Lets raise the level of the debate back here. I'm usually guilty of being a firebrand partisan rhetorician just as much as anyone here on the left, but I'll try to embrace my Eclectic side a tad more. Fair enough?

[rotorgun]

Imagine if we did find WMD as intel suggested? Bush's approval rating would be through the roof, and France and Germany would look like idiots. But that isn't the case, so we have what we have. 50% of America has no intestinal fortitude, and so we have dissent and conspiracy theorists. It goes with free speech.

My dear Eclectic, Americans have plenty of "intestinal fortitude" when they cleary see a worthy cause. Not a single fellow American I know had any reservations about the invasion of Afghanistan to rid the world of Al Queda. Fortunately, they also have pretty good noses and can smell a pile of manure when it is offered up as truth. The fact that there are insignificant finds of WMDs and such little evidence of Iraqi involvement with the 9/11 attacks has exposed the truth IMHO. I know it's a bit off topic, but I could not sit idly by and let you speak for me and thousands of others.

[Kralizec]

Imagine if we did find WMD as intel suggested? Bush's approval rating would be through the roof, and France and Germany would look like idiots. But that isn't the case, so we have what we have. 50% of America has no intestinal fortitude, and so we have dissent and conspiracy theorists. It goes with free speech.

As intel suggested? :inquisitive:

Suppose if there were WMD found tomorrow. The invasion would still not be justified, because of the simple reason that it can't be justified retroactively. Invasions or things of similar magnitude require a little more basis then just a hunch, and even if a hunch turns out to be correct the government has still acted inappropriately. Bush' claims that Iraq had usable WMD at the time and that they were involved in 9/11 were without sufficient foundation.
(Conversely, if there was overwhelming evidence of something wich later turned out to be wrong, it's excusable)

[GeneralHankerchief]

Say what you want; it's a pretty effective campaign strategy.

In the eyes of the public, Bush's two biggest failures are the current bog-down in Iraq and the terrible response to Katrina.


So here is exactly what the Dems are trying to tell us: (1) Hurricanes and natural disasters are Bush's fault. (2) Troops are dying in Iraq and they would, for some reason, prefer Democrats to Republicans.

1. Partly. The intensity and frequency of them is somewhat his fault for not ratifying Kyoto and thus contributing to global warming. The Dems are also calling to attention the fact that "Hey! It's Bush's crowd that made N.O. this screwed up! Kick 'em out!"

2. Well, we haven't seen the Dems' plan in action yet. A pullout would in the short-run (remember, there is no such thing as long run in politics) reduce troop casualties due to the fact that they're not there. They're banking on voters to be fed up with the GOP's current strategy (which a lot are) enough to vote them out and take a new course.

[Divinus Arma]

Democrats can not win on a ticket of "We're not Republicans". They cannot win on the economy because the economy is kicking butt right now. They cannot win on National Security because they look weak in this area, and America has not forgotten that we must remain vigilant to prevent mass catastrophe.

The Democrats will lose because they cannot offer a viable altrenative vision that Americans will swallow. All they can do is stir up hate against the Republicans, and that will make them lose.

I have listed the dems talking points, and we have quite a go around here. But all you Bush haters are similar in one thing- your party offers nothing alternative but tax increases.


Let's please not turn this into another Iraq merry-go-round please? I think the sides are pretty entrenched here.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Partly. The intensity and frequency of them is somewhat his fault for not ratifying Kyoto and thus contributing to global warming.

Not in the slightest. Even had he, and all other countries signed and kept to Kyoto (*cough*europe*cough*), it would make less than a degree of difference in the next century.

Also, it is most certainly not at all proven that global warming affects hurricanes at all.


A pullout would in the short-run (remember, there is no such thing as long run in politics) reduce troop casualties due to the fact that they're not there.

Short run, it would be a gigantic victory for the terrorists-just keep fighting until dems get in power!, and greatly prestige enhancing for them. Iraq would probably turn into a terrorist state, similar to Iran.

Right now, the national platform of dems on international problems seems to be 'stick head in sand'.

Crazed Rabbit

[solypsist]

maybe before you start in on the Dem party you should first get your own party in order. i agree with you on all counts written below, but hey, if voting Republican means getting a new boss who works for the same old interest groups and neo-cons that Bush is working for; forget it. show me a Republican that is not in the pocket of the oil&gas lobby, the israeli lobby, the anti-union lobby, the religious-right lobby etc. and i'll vote for him with you.


Democrats can not win on a ticket of "We're not Republicans". They cannot win on the economy because the economy is kicking butt right now. They cannot win on National Security because they look weak in this area, and America has not forgotten that we must remain vigilant to prevent mass catastrophe.

The Democrats will lose because they cannot offer a viable altrenative vision that Americans will swallow. All they can do is stir up hate against the Republicans, and that will make them lose.

I have listed the dems talking points, and we have quite a go around here. But all you Bush haters are similar in one thing- your party offers nothing alternative but tax increases.


Let's please not turn this into another Iraq merry-go-round please? I think the sides are pretty entrenched here.

[whyidie]

Say what you want; it's a pretty effective campaign strategy.

In the eyes of the public, Bush's two biggest failures are the current bog-down in Iraq and the terrible response to Katrina.



1. Partly. The intensity and frequency of them is somewhat his fault for not ratifying Kyoto and thus contributing to global warming. The Dems are also calling to attention the fact that "Hey! It's Bush's crowd that made N.O. this screwed up! Kick 'em out!"

2. Well, we haven't seen the Dems' plan in action yet. A pullout would in the short-run (remember, there is no such thing as long run in politics) reduce troop casualties due to the fact that they're not there. They're banking on voters to be fed up with the GOP's current strategy (which a lot are) enough to vote them out and take a new course.


I disagree that its effective. Isn't this effectively the same platform that Kerry ran on ? I think its a strategy that ignores some real problems (opportunities) with the Democratic parties position in relation to relevant domestic issues.

Response to Katrina was bad. So what ? Honest to goodness so what. Oddly enough I think the rest of America can more easily imagine a terrorist attack in their area than they can a natural disaster that is not reacted to timely enough.

If the Democrats are interested in winning an election they'll check in with their southern constituents, have a conversation with the Catholics, and swing by the Colorado legistalture to check in on how to win a state that voted for Bush in '04.

The country shifted and the party didn't. The Republicans manouvered themselves properly and capitalized politically. Oddly enough I think they're a little unfamiliar with what its like to not be the opposition party.

[PanzerJaeger]

maybe before you start in on the Dem party you should first get your own party in order. i agree with you on all counts written below, but hey, if voting Republican means getting a new boss who works for the same old interest groups and neo-cons that Bush is working for; forget it. show me a Republican that is not in the pocket of the oil&gas lobby, the israeli lobby, the anti-union lobby, the religious-right lobby etc. and i'll vote for him with you.

So you would vote for a conservative candidate simply because (s)he wasnt influenced by lobbyists? I doubt that. ~:rolleyes:

[solypsist]

i voted for Mike Bloomberg [for mayor of nyc] and i've voted republican more than democrat in local elections.

so yeah.


So you would vote for a conservative candidate simply because (s)he wasnt influenced by lobbyists? I doubt that. ~:rolleyes:

[PanzerJaeger]

Consider me corrected. :creep:

[GeneralHankerchief]

Short run, it would be a gigantic victory for the terrorists-just keep fighting until dems get in power!, and greatly prestige enhancing for them. Iraq would probably turn into a terrorist state, similar to Iran.

Strictly in terms of casualties (which IMHO is the reason why Americans are turned off by Iraq):

Long run- probable terrorist attack/giant diplomatic mess with country.

Short run- Soldier casualty rate drops.

You can guess which everyone will take. "Less troop deaths? We're for it!!!1 We'll worry about the terrorists later." The Democrats are aware of this and are thus adopting it as their platform.


The Democrats will lose because they cannot offer a viable altrenative vision that Americans will swallow. All they can do is stir up hate against the Republicans, and that will make them lose.

Speculation. We really can't argue about this until November when it turns into "The Democrats lost becuase all they did is stir up hate."


Also, it is most certainly not at all proven that global warming affects hurricanes at all.

Point taken. But the Dems are pouncing on the fact that Bush refuses to recognize warming.


Also, it is most certainly not at all proven that global warming affects hurricanes at all.

Not proof, but studies are out there.

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0622-ucar.html


I disagree that its effective. Isn't this effectively the same platform that Kerry ran on ?

No. They're angrier now. Kerry was careful to stay positive.

[Aenlic]

Aenlic, I understand that you are passionate. So am I. But let's try to refrain from sarcastic smugness and debate the issues. Lets raise the level of the debate back here. I'm usually guilty of being a firebrand partisan rhetorician just as much as anyone here on the left, but I'll try to embrace my Eclectic side a tad more. Fair enough?

Absolutely, of course, that becomes difficult when one side in the debate openly accuses the other side of believing in conspiracy theories. Let me know when you're done worrying about "big catsup" and we'll have an adult debate. :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

If you want to know what successful Democrats of the future will look like, look at Barrack Obama (D-Illinois). Rather than verbally abuse people of faith as somehow mentally deficient and delusional, he has reached out to them to show them how the programs and policies he advocates are, in reality, more in touch with their Judeo-Christian principles then the Republicans are.

Want a winning strategy in November, Democrats? I'll give you a peek what it would take for me, a disgruntled moderate Republican to give you my vote...

-Recognize that the USA is a sovereign state and that it's constitution is the highest authority.... we do not need to seek France, Germany, China, Russia and Venezuela's permission to go to the bathroom. I didn't agree with the Iraq invasion, but I will tell you "because France said no" didn't even show up on my top 1000 reasons against it... Also, foreign laws in other countries have absolutely no bearing on our legal system. Tell Ginsburg and Kennedy to quit citing them as somehow superior to our own.

-I am not a racist because I want to control the flow of immigration. An open border policy is rapidly proving disastrous to us and it's been a small miracle that large numbers of Hezbollah guerillas haven't crossed into our country, by way of Venezuela then Mexico. Of course, as one of the world's most prosperous countries, and being built by immigrants, it is our moral duty to absorb as many needy folks around the globe as we can. But we decide what we can, not the president of Mexico.

-Stop trying to outlaw the practice of Christianity.

-Now, mind you, I'm pro-choice (at least in the first trimester...) The 'all-or-none' extreme feminist position on abortion that the Democratic party has adopted is a rock around your neck. As long as Republicans can paint you as the party of partial-birth-abortion, even pro-choicers such as myself will find no small amount of distaste in listening to you. Calling me a misogynistic enslaver of women because I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions isn't helping you with your cause either.

That's it. Go ahead and talk about raising taxes to balance the budget. Believe it or not, at this point, I'm open to it... You can't screw up the federal spending picture worse then the drunken sailors running the show now. I'll listen to a dialogue on why pro-labor policies might be beneficial, but don't scream at me when I say I don't agree or that I don't get it. Try a little moderation... you'll be amazed what it will get you.

[Divinus Arma]

As this debate demonstartes, with respects to many who have posted here, is what we all already know: The U.S. electorate has a spectrum of voters all of whom feel frustrated with the status quo. Sadly, we don't have an answer for this situation, but I would like to point out a few highlights. It was not long ago that many moderates complained of "not having a choice since Democrats and Republicans are alike". While this may be true in style, it is certainly not true in substance, and I am grateful that the U.S. politicans have taken a stand on tough issues, even against their own party. I commend those on the right who stood up to Bush on the ports deal and stand up for immigration control now. I can also commend those on the right who have crticized the Bush administration and the handling of the war on terror. On the left we can look to leaders like Lieberman to break ranks and call for integrity in discussion, rather than super-charged rhetoric.

Regardless of what happens in 2006, we now have a clear choice ahead of us. I would like nothing more than the parties to more clearly define what that choice is. The point of opening this thread was not to bash the Democrats for failing to provide an alternative, it was for failing to communicate an alternative.

I would honestly prefer a vibrant, unified, and healthy Democratic party because ultimately the competition would force my Republican party to return to the philosophy that won them congress in the 90s. I still hold the GOP to their contract with America, and now more than ever, the people of the United States desperately need them to continue in carrying out there part of the deal.

[whyidie]

Rather than verbally abuse people of faith as somehow mentally deficient and delusional, he has reached out to them to show them how the programs and policies he advocates are, in reality, more in touch with their Judeo-Christian principles then the Republicans are.


Absolutely. I don't know that I've seen the abuse, but they could definately work on exactly what you say. Democratic principles are not far removed from Judeo-Christian principles on some points. Beautifully said.



-Recognize that the USA is a sovereign state and that it's constitution is the highest authority.... we do not need to seek France, Germany, China, Russia and Venezuela's permission to go to the bathroom. I didn't agree with the Iraq invasion, but I will tell you "because France said no" didn't even show up on my top 1000 reasons against it...

Word on the "because France said no" bit. I think there is something to be said about attempting to gain international agreement, but in the end we do what we think is right, not what other countries think we should do. There is nothing wrong with that point of view.




-I am not a racist because I want to control the flow of immigration. An open border policy is rapidly proving disastrous to us and it's been a small miracle that large numbers of Hezbollah guerillas haven't crossed into our country, by way of Venezuela then Mexico. Of course, as one of the world's most prosperous countries, and being built by immigrants, it is our moral duty to absorb as many needy folks around the globe as we can. But we decide what we can, not the president of Mexico.

I think its quite allright to enforce our immigration laws.


-Stop trying to outlaw the practice of Christianity.

I don't get the impression that they do, but as you pointed out earlier they could certaintly focus on similar principles.


-Now, mind you, I'm pro-choice (at least in the first trimester...) The 'all-or-none' extreme feminist position on abortion that the Democratic party has adopted is a rock around your neck. As long as Republicans can paint you as the party of partial-birth-abortion, even pro-choicers such as myself will find no small amount of distaste in listening to you. Calling me a misogynistic enslaver of women because I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions isn't helping you with your cause either.

Something needs to be done about this as well. Limit third trimester abortions on the one hand, increase funding for preventing unwanted pregnancies on the other.



That's it. Go ahead and talk about raising taxes to balance the budget. Believe it or not, at this point, I'm open to it... You can't screw up the federal spending picture worse then the drunken sailors running the show now. I'll listen to a dialogue on why pro-labor policies might be beneficial, but don't scream at me when I say I don't agree or that I don't get it. Try a little moderation... you'll be amazed what it will get you.

Again, great points. I also think your view of the Democratic party is influenced more by the far left than it is by the majority of the party. I suspect you're not alone in this conception and its quite telling as to why the party has struggled in the past elections.

In a way I think they needed to lose badly. With Gore winning the popular election in 2000 I think they felt they had the right platform but the wrong guy. Kerrys loss was still narrow enough that I don't think it caused the necessary soul searching that would have made the party re-evaluate its stance on some of the road block issues. I don't think they need major reversals, just some fine adjustments.

The states have some examples of Democrats who are properly tuned for national elections, but I think it will still take awhile for their effect to be felt at a national level.

[Fragony]

Showing dead soldiers huh, oportunistism at it's ugliest. What a bunch of hypocrites, very nice towards the families.

lovely :dizzy2:

[Ironside]

A few notes:


Imagine if we did find WMD as intel suggested? Bush's approval rating would be through the roof, and France and Germany would look like idiots. But that isn't the case, so we have what we have. 50% of America has no intestinal fortitude, and so we have dissent and conspiracy theorists. It goes with free speech.

The only scenario that would made the opposition to admit that they were wrong would have been if several US and British cities were (almost) attacked by WMD. Then the attack itself would be questioned (in case the attacks succeded) The issue over Iraq wasn't WMD, it was the very obvious fact that Bush wanted war with Iraq.


Again, we have faced numerous challenges to this economy. The federal deficit is a result of once-in-a-lifetime events, and is completely unrepresentative of a baseline measurement.

That once-in-a-lifetime event would be the election of Bush. Neither 9/11, the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, Katrina etc taken together explains his spendings fully and thus the debt. (But that isn't a true Republican style, is the policies that the Demo-blican Bush has, no matter that the Democrats hate him)

Eclectic, your eclectic viewpoint do seem a bit limited in a way.
Every viewpoint you agree with belongs to your utopian Republican party, while everything you disagree with stems from the wile Democrats/liberals and not the True Republicans even if they're Republicans yourself. By limiting yourself into an idea you'll prevent yourself from reaching the goal of your idea.
Saying that something is the liberals/democrats/femi-nazis fault is preventing yourself from understanding why things really happened and without understanding, you cannot find the solution to the problems that occurs. Same thing with dreaming yourself back to the "golden age". Usually it wasn't golden and on the things it was golden, time has changed the conditions. Thus the solution isn't going back but going forward in a new direction (can be inspired by the past, but clinging on to past will make the loss of come much harder and often quicker).

As for politics, US would really need a decent moderate currently, or possibly a gridlock (isn't it weird? The US politics seems to work best when it doesn't work).

[Don Corleone]

WhyDie... if by the Extreme left you mean your leadership (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy) you're absolutely correct. Democrats seem caught between Scylla and Charibdes...on the one hand, ratcheting up the rhetoric and throwing out more red meat appeals to your base and brings in additional funding (Murtha's comments calling Bush a war criminal and suggesting sending him to the Hague) while trying to simultaneously reach out for possible swing voters (my comments above about Barrack, also see recent positions taken by Evan Bayah (D-IN) and, *gulp* Hillary). What you fail to recognize is that you are heard with one voice. For every "we need to make room for pro-life Democrats", there is a corresponding "If you don't agree that a 3rd trimester abortion should be fully federally funded, you hate women". Unfortunately, YOU are the ones that are allowing yourselves to be portrayed in such stark terms. I agree that it probably doesn't represent a majority view of Democrats (any more than the complete abolition of abortion, even for life-saving circumstances represents the viewpoint of most Republicans. The difference is Republican candidates take the chance and articulate that they are not in lock-step with some of the more extreme positions. From what I have seen, Democrats try to have their cake and eat it too... they wink at the extreme left and hope for more cash while at the same time wink to the center to try to draw more in. As a result, nobody knows where the true stance is.

Ironside: I find it interesting that you lump the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns together, as the only correlations they have is 1) both in Asia and 2) the Bush administration's War on Terror. I believe you're talking about two entirely different events. Right up until October, 2002 when we struck back, the Taliban were continuing to train Al Queda on how and what their next strike against the US would be. I would imagine even a more left of center fellow such as yourself would accede the US the right to dismantle a regime that for all practical purposes, had declared war on the US. Iraq is a horse of a completely different color. I think the focus on WMD misses the other 4 reasons given at the time, but quite frankly, all the other 4 reasons do is reiterate either 1) how dishonest or 2) how completely inept the Bush administration was in late 2002, early 2003 at reading the intelligence coming out of Iraq.

As for your statements about the US defecits and accumulated debt, you're 100% correct. When you do the math, there's large gaps in the budget that just cannot be accounted for. Clearly, that money wasn't going to the troops on the ground, who had to field strip broken vehicles for armour (a downright shame). Medicare Part D, for example, is an interesting place to start looking.

Personally, I can cast a disparaging eye on the current Republican party, and what I see sickens me. The problem that I face is the dilmena Jonah Goldberg spelled out in a column this Spring in National Review. The only alternative looks even worse at the moment. Nothing would make me happier than to see a viable, reasonable Democrat strong on defense and security step to the plate (ala Joe Lieberman). But look at what the Democratic party is doing to him!?!? John Kerry has come out and worked to get him unseated IN THE PRIMARY, and Lieberman was the Democrat's VP candidate! There's no room for common sense in the Democratic party these days, I'm afraid.

[Ironside]

Ironside: I find it interesting that you lump the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns together, as the only correlations they have is 1) both in Asia and 2) the Bush administration's War on Terror.

The lumping is statement 2) :bow:
Or in fact even simpler:
Both are wars, wars cost money for the goverment, thus affecting the budget. It was a 100% focus on the budget issue.

Edit: 4 reasons?

Saddam = evil and broke the old cease-fire on standard basis (de-facto reason for being able to start the war legaly)
His people suffers under him (came in focus later, after the WMD issues started to smell fishy)
What was the others?

[Don Corleone]

The lumping is statement 2) :bow:
Or in fact even simpler:
Both are wars, wars cost money for the goverment, thus affecting the budget. It was a 100% focus on the budget issue.

Edit: 4 reasons?

Saddam = evil and broke the old cease-fire on standard basis (de-facto reason for being able to start the war legaly)
His people suffers under him (came in focus later, after the WMD issues started to smell fishy)
What was the others?

Reason 1: Existing WMD poised to strike London, et. al. (biological, chemical)
Reason 2: Saddam collaborating with Al Queda
Reason 3: Actively working towards developing nuclear weapons (supposedly, they were imminent).
Reason 4: Abysmal treatment of his people including gassing the Kurds. (We'll have to give the administration this one, though I'd hate to view #4 by itself as a moral imperative... we have a LOT of invading left to do).
Reason 5: Instill the seed of Democracy and watch it flower around the Middle East.

Actually, Colin Powell was pretty repetitious about all 5. As for the cost of the Afghanistan war... if preventing the next 9/11 costs us, so be it. I don't think we want to make the decision that defending ourselves isn't financially practiceable.

[Ronin]

Reason 1: Existing WMD poised to strike London, et. al. (biological, chemical)
Reason 2: Saddam collaborating with Al Queda
Reason 3: Actively working towards developing nuclear weapons (supposedly, they were imminent).
Reason 4: Abysmal treatment of his people including gassing the Kurds. (We'll have to give the administration this one, though I'd hate to view #4 by itself as a moral imperative... we have a LOT of invading left to do).
Reason 5: Instill the seed of Democracy and watch it flower around the Middle East.

Actually, Colin Powell was pretty repetitious about all 5. As for the cost of the Afghanistan war... if preventing the next 9/11 costs us, so be it. I don't think we want to make the decision that defending ourselves isn't financially practiceable.


1- Everyone pretty much suspected that this was BS before the invasion.......the invasion confirmed this view.
2- Never proven....also nobody ever gave a good reason why a non-religious dictator should be colaborating with fundamentalist terrorists......but why worry about logic?...we have a war to run here!!
3- Supposedly I´m the Queen of England too.
4- Correct me if I´m wrong....but wasn´t the gassing episode imediatly after the gulf war?....10 years seems kinda late for a reaction out of "moral indignation".....but that´s just me......as for torture.....there´s lot´s of that to go around and I don´t see other nations being invaded....hell....after the suspitions raised against the CIA and guantanamo this point is just a joke.
5- :wall: I´ll try to explain this one slowly so that everybody understands......You can´t force a country to be democratic......the successfull democracies around the world evolved into that state all by themselfs.....sure good examples from abroad might have been followed.....but it was the will of the people that led them there....you can´t just invade, start a civil war and expect that the mess is gonna turn into a nice western friendly (because that´s what we´re REALLY talking about isn´t it?) democracy.......It just doesn´t work like that!

[Don Corleone]

Go back and read what I wrote. Nowhere in my first post could even remotely construe that I'm defending the 5 reasons as valid. I simply listed them as somebody suggested that there weren't really 5.

Edit: But this is exactly what I'm talking about. This thread is about winning/losing campaign strategies of the Democrats. I weighed in with what I thought would help them win more, and it almost immediately devolved into "Bush lied and millions died..." Leave that poor horse alone... It's dead!
:whip:

[Spino]

How anyone can say something positive about Barack Obama without gagging or wretching is beyond me. He shares a great deal in common with Clinton in that he's a consumate bulls----er. Sure, he 'reaches out' to moderate voters because Democrats are beyond desperate to get them on their side for the upcoming elections. As with Clinton he'll swing back to the ultra liberal agenda after the elections are over.

Anyway, speaking of 3rd party elections this little bit of relative linkage just hit the net. Take it for what it's worth...

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/07/13/the-walls-third-parties-face-at-every-turn/

Why Third Parties Don’t Win Elections
We hear it again and again in the news: voters are unhappy with Democrats and Republicans, approval of both major parties is in the dumps and there’s a general dislike for the status quo. So this year, more than any other, I want to give voters the low-down on why the status quo is going to stay the same. Sadly, whether you like it or not. It’s a problem that we’ve only recently become aware of with some regularity thanks to the decrentralization of the Internet: the system is rigged this way.

You see, the truth is that even as more and more independent candidates are being fielded for office each year, the number of them actually being elected has remained relatively flat (that’s not to say it never happens, but that it’s just so rare that it’s relatively unnoticeable). I’ve decided it’s in everyone’s political best interests to identify and break down these walls that have been erected by both incumbents and an apathetic media for third parties in this country. Here’s my rough take on what these are (in order of apparent priority):

Restrictive ballot access laws
If a major party candidate can keep rivals off the ballot, they can then ignore those voter’s concerns without fear of losing (especially if their major party rival does the same). Ignoring contrarian viewpoints has traditionally been a cornerstone of repressive government. Fair and equal ballot access reform should be a priority for all third parties and anyone interested in true political reform. Third parties largely need to move on from this issue if their only contention is that they aren’t recognized as a party, but their candidates have the same signature requirements as major parties.

Lackluster media coverage
Traditionally, third party candidates have to sell their ideas much harder than their major party rivals because media organizations typically don’t find anything newsworthy about them (unless they are beating the voter disaffection drum and pretending to care). Sadly, this directly translates into lost votes since an uninformed voter will not vote for a candidate they have heard little or nothing about. Whether this is intentional slighting on the part of some media outlets or just laziness in covering politics is debatable. The most-covered independent campaigns are typically ones that field either a star/celebrity candidate (Kinky Friedman anyone?) or use novel approaches (read: publicity stunts) to force their way into the public eye.

Fundraising and volunteers
This deserves to go after the media coverage, because while a campaign is usually small when it’s starting, the coverage of the campaign is what drives informed voters to begin financially supporting and volunteering for a campaign. Once the media coverage is triggered, a campaign can typically sustain it’s momentum through increased news generation, campaign events and fundraisers.
Inclusive polling
Many pollsters will often lump all third parties into “other” categories or not include them at all. Unfortunately, without the aforementioned media coverage, when they are included they often fall into the 2% margins which can harm campaigns even more than not being included. One way that third parties can attack this issue is by openly criticizing the pollsters who are not inclusive and paying for their own push polls to publicize themselves further. Another method is to sue state-funded university pollsters and take the case to a federal level.

Debating major candidates
The bar has been set excruciatingly high for third parties, with organizations like the League of Women’s voters demanding 10-15% polling. This will never happen until the conditions above are met. Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (L) and David Cobb (G) were arrested while trying to serve papers to cease the debates in 2004, but in reality it was little more than a variation of the publicity stunt angle, which paid off poorly for them to actually be in the debate, though it did help their publicity substantially (at least on the Internet).

Election day (voting methods)
This is the last hurdle for third parties, and is often the most difficult. While many argue for a reform to Condorcet or IRV (Instant Runoff Voting), the reality is that those are both methods that are meant to short-circuit all the problems above. While logically we should be able to vote for candidates in order of ranked preference, it shouldn’t matter unless the race is a three-way extremely tight one. Personally, I would like to see this stay the last priority for third parties, since it’s not bound to change the outcome if their candidates remain unknown because of the walls stated before.

I won’t bore you with a lot of speculation on how these can all be miraculously fixed overnight, because the truth is we’re probably looking at a tough decade of electoral reform in fifty different wars for us to even have just a slim super-minority of candidates in federal office. I don’t look at our battles from an ideological presentation standpoint, because I truly don’t think that what’s been holding third parties back (Libertarian especially) is bad reception of the platform, or the pledge, or whatever.

I’m sure some people are always going to look at third parties and sniff their noses at one or two issues, leaving reformers and purists to duke it out amongst each other because they think that’s why they keep losing races. But in reality, it’s not.

Update: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News sez:

The article is unfair to the League of Women Voters. In about half the states, the League has sponsored televised debates for Governor and US Senator and invited everyone on the November ballot. The 15% rule is from the Commission on Presidential Debates, not the League of Women Voters.

I have to disagree on factual grounds here. I’m not sure which states Winger has info on where the LWV invites every valid candidate, but back in 2004 in California they told U.S. Senate candidate Jim Gray to talk to the hand even after sponsoring his own poll through Rasmussen that got him 8% (the 3% MOE put him over their 10% entry barrier). Recently here in Ohio, gubernatorial candidate Bill Peirce recently got dissed because he needs to poll… drumroll please… 15%.

Update: Richard Winger writes back:

I only know about statewide offices. In 1994, Leagues invited at least some of the third party candidates for Governor and US Senator into their debates, in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota (those were gubernatorial debates); Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Wyoming (those were US Senate debates), and US House-at-large, Montana and Vermont. When a state had two offices, I didn’t list the state twice.

It seems LWV requirements vary state by state. Plainly speaking, they should just invite everyone who’s on the ballot, otherwise it’s another uneccessary hurdle. They’ve actually raised their requirements in the past when pressured by Ds & Rs, so don’t act surprised if a third party sues them over their non-profit status requiring them to be non-partisan one day soon… and wins.

[whyidie]

WhyDie... if by the Extreme left you mean your leadership (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy) you're absolutely correct. Democrats seem caught between Scylla and Charibdes...on the one hand, ratcheting up the rhetoric and throwing out more red meat appeals to your base and brings in additional funding (Murtha's comments calling Bush a war criminal and suggesting sending him to the Hague) while trying to simultaneously reach out for possible swing voters (my comments above about Barrack, also see recent positions taken by Evan Bayah (D-IN) and, *gulp* Hillary).

Are you holding the democratic party to a higher standard ? I'll concede though, because I agree. Murthas a loon. Kennedy is a clogged artery and Pelosi is Skeletor. One of your following paragraph shows me that you see these problems on both sides. Hooray. At the moment I don't lump Bayah in with Hillary because I don't think he is pandering...as much. I suspect he is somewhat more genuine. Hillary is on a mission, has been for 12 years.




What you fail to recognize is that you are heard with one voice. For every "we need to make room for pro-life Democrats", there is a corresponding "If you don't agree that a 3rd trimester abortion should be fully federally funded, you hate women". Unfortunately, YOU are the ones that are allowing yourselves to be portrayed in such stark terms.


What I fail to recognize...as I said " I suspect you're not alone in this conception and its quite telling as to why the party has struggled in the past elections." I think I went further down the path and said the party needed to do a little soul searching. Current leadership isn't leading.



I agree that it probably doesn't represent a majority view of Democrats (any more than the complete abolition of abortion, even for life-saving circumstances represents the viewpoint of most Republicans. The difference is Republican candidates take the chance and articulate that they are not in lock-step with some of the more extreme positions. From what I have seen, Democrats try to have their cake and eat it too... they wink at the extreme left and hope for more cash while at the same time wink to the center to try to draw more in. As a result, nobody knows where the true stance is.


I see that on both sides. Can't say its exclusive to the left.

[rotorgun]

Showing dead soldiers huh, oportunistism at it's ugliest. What a bunch of hypocrites, very nice towards the families.

lovely :dizzy2:
This quote by Fragony sums up my feelings toward my fellow Democrats. It is a crass and low mechanism for a party to adopt as a platform. Where is the leadership? What true course doeas this party offer? I am ashamed at such a travesty of political hack. It almost persuades me to become a Republican, but hypocricy is not limited to my party alone. The Republicans have spent billions on advancing the cause of the oil interests, all in the name of "liberation" of the Iraqis and ridding the world of WMDs. This while North Korea, which has no oil wells to protect, produces missles and nuclear warheads. It's like beating up on a cripple while the madman in the back of the room prepares to stab you in the back. Ah, but the cripple is in possession of what I want!

"Tax cuts" they say, claiming to have reinvented the wheel. Yes there have been cuts alright, cuts in education, cuts in social programs that help lift people out of poverty so they can get off the dole, cuts in jobs, while American work is outsourced all over the world in the name of the God "profit". Let us send billions to build a pipeline in Afghanistan so that their grandchildren's grandchildren can maintain their position at the top through future profit margins. Let us ask the middle class to fight our war for us, after all, they won't have any other job offer soon enough, while we insure our retirement and stock options are secure.

Oh yes, there is hypocricy indeed.

"To whom much is given, much shall be required." (Bible)

[Don Corleone]

I see that on both sides. Can't say its exclusive to the left.

Yes, but as per the past few elections, Republicans don't need moderate Democrats. What's more, Republicans are going to get them anyway, simply because the Democratic party leadership has decided to eject them. What's that you say Mr. Lieberman? You voted against Bush on 90% of your votes, but you won't support a definite timeframe for withdrawal? Out you go!!!

[Ironside]

Reason 1: Existing WMD poised to strike London, et. al. (biological, chemical)
Reason 2: Saddam collaborating with Al Queda
Reason 3: Actively working towards developing nuclear weapons (supposedly, they were imminent).
Reason 4: Abysmal treatment of his people including gassing the Kurds. (We'll have to give the administration this one, though I'd hate to view #4 by itself as a moral imperative... we have a LOT of invading left to do).
Reason 5: Instill the seed of Democracy and watch it flower around the Middle East.

Actually, Colin Powell was pretty repetitious about all 5.

Yes, seeing that list makes me remember it. Foolish by me to forget the claimed AQ-links. :shame:
Agreed on the comments (#4 is even worse, it came out a lot like: "And uhm, oh Saddam is a very bad guy", due to its late use as a major argument and the hypocracy warning you mentioned.)
#5 has it charm, but contained about 50 million tons of wish-thinking, although that's a resource this administration has plenty of.


As for the cost of the Afghanistan war... if preventing the next 9/11 costs us, so be it. I don't think we want to make the decision that defending ourselves isn't financially practiceable.

Sure, I never said anything about the usefulness of the extra cost. What Eclectic claimed was that Bush's economical record cannot be judged by the current economy because of many unique occurences. I responded that it doesn't even come close to cover all of that 2,5 trillion dollars.
I'm not saying that FDR was economically stupid because WWII happened. And would Bush show us something like a functional fusion power plant or some fantastic crime solver thingy (that also makes terrorism count as a crime ~;) ), that also keeps the citizens privacy, as something funded by those money, in a press-conference tomorrow, I've wouldn't complain about poor spending either (although I'm not sure if I could survive the shock).

[Lemur]

I'd like to thank Spino for the single most depressing post I've read in the Org for the last year. The inability to accomodate third-party candidates is the most broken thing in our American system.

And for those Republicans who will vote for an all-Republican-all-the-time government, I can't put it any more eloquently than this (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/email_of_the_da_5.html):


Something that drove me crazy in the last election cycle and looks like it will continue to drive me crazy in this cycle are fiscal and small government conservatives voting for Republicans for no other reason than they are not Democrats. The Republicans they vote for have shown that they have completely abandoned the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government, yet they still get their votes.

Try having a discussion with this crowd and they start making comments about how a 'tax and spend democrat' will never get their vote. Then, they'll go on and rant about how the Republicans are no better. By continuing to vote for Republicans for no other reason than they are not Democrats, fiscal and small government conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. The Republican party will never respond to the concerns of fiscal and small government conservatives because they don’t have to. No matter what they do or how they betray their values, Republicans have the votes of the majority of this group.

The only thing worse than a tax and spend liberal is a borrow and spend Republican. At least the democrat is being upfront and honest in his intentions.

[Divinus Arma]

I'd like to thank Spino for the single most depressing post I've read in the Org for the last year. The inability to accomodate third-party candidates is the most broken thing in our American system.

And for those Republicans who will vote for an all-Republican-all-the-time government, I can't put it any more eloquently than this (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/email_of_the_da_5.html):


Something that drove me crazy in the last election cycle and looks like it will continue to drive me crazy in this cycle are fiscal and small government conservatives voting for Republicans for no other reason than they are not Democrats. The Republicans they vote for have shown that they have completely abandoned the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government, yet they still get their votes.

Try having a discussion with this crowd and they start making comments about how a 'tax and spend democrat' will never get their vote. Then, they'll go on and rant about how the Republicans are no better. By continuing to vote for Republicans for no other reason than they are not Democrats, fiscal and small government conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. The Republican party will never respond to the concerns of fiscal and small government conservatives because they don’t have to. No matter what they do or how they betray their values, Republicans have the votes of the majority of this group.

The only thing worse than a tax and spend liberal is a borrow and spend Republican. At least the democrat is being upfront and honest in his intentions.

Perhaps. However, not every Republican agrees with "borrow and spend", while every Democrat agrees with "Tax and Spend". The amount of Republicans who advocate restraint in government is far greater than that of Democrats.

It is sad, but many like you will view the Republicans as hypocrits because they Media shows one Republican advocating smaller government and than shows a different Republican bringin home pet projects to his state. The fact that our president is a big spender and that many Republican spenders get air time on the media is an act that undermines the majority of Republicans who seek fiscal discipline. The drive by media has been quite successful with this, but no one is talking about it. :no: