DescentBB

Well, lets face it. The democratic party has borked it self (not to be confused with voters who vote democratic). Lost even more senate seat and are on the verge of being irrelevant in that august group.
So lets play at trying to rearrange and see what we here on the board can come up with. I'll give a few of my thoughts:

1) Stop aligning and associating with such people as M.Moore and George Soros. What and how they promote the democratic party turns off not only republicans but also democrats. They do not promote any sort of legitimate set of values, only a means to line their own pockets by catering to the gullible. As evidence the voting for Bush saw an increase by both black and hispanic voters since the 2000 election.

2) Stop the percieved effort to legislate from the bench. This method of trying to enact or usurp laws is a slap in the face for voters who ELECT their legislature to do this job or voters who vote on bills that reflect values they deem important.

3) Disavow democratic officials who ignore duly enacted laws (as in the marrying of gay couples) and try to force unacceptable morality onto the public.

So I would be curious how the democratic aficionado's
here might few correcting their party as well as the conservatives (O.K. Vander you can come out of retirement now)

I'm an optimist so, what if the non whacko Dem's left the party and formed a new party and the non whacko repub's saw the wisdom and joined them leaving the country with one strong party and two other weak parties of sniveling, back biting, whining, paranoid, xenophobic losers?

Will for President.

Sounds good to me!

Yeah, the dems are kinda screwed. Neither party is worth a hill of beans if you ask me. But then again, if Bush had lost, we might be discussing the Republican Implosion that would have started too.

I was thinking of starting a thread along this line. "What dems have to change." Because if you are a democrate and don't think something has to change then you must have been knocked out from the beating we took last tuesday. It's not just that Kerry lost, our minority leader lost! We lost seats in the senate, we lost seats in the house. So,

1. Abortion: There are just simply too many religous people who wont vote democrat because of this reason alone. It's time to give in on this one, the country does not want abortion. A small really loud percentage does. If we gave this one up I think the dems could, if not become, take away a large portion of the religous right.

2. Hate: this is a tougher one. If we are in a war that you believe is unjust, you will make this known loudly. But the "he betrayed us." Bush is a murdurer, etc, just has to stop. Even if you beleive it is true, the country doesn't want to believe it.

3. Janet's Boob: For whatever reason democrats get slapped with huge lack of morals. I actually blame this one on the republican spin machine, however the democrates need to take front and center on criticizing things like 3.

Let's get national health care, let's get a person who lost his job back on his feet, let's fight to balance the racial divide, Let's end the death penalty, and let's drop the dead wait.

If democrat vs republican turns into, non-religous vs religous: We are destened to lose even more.

That was a good post Goob, and I agree with you. I would be more willing to vote for the Dem if they weren't such extreme or supported abortion (which is very wrong no matter how you blanket or soften the blow. But that is subject for another thread.)

Maybe it's just me WC, but the only reason I would align myself with the democratic party is BECAUSE of things like 2 and 3. Giving in to the religious right is immoral in my mind.

Tetrad,
if what the "religious right" wanted what's best for the country and you knew that, would they get your vote?

Tetrad wrote:Maybe it's just me WC, but the only reason I would align myself with the democratic party is BECAUSE of things like 2 and 3. Giving in to the religious right is immoral in my mind.

Care to elaborate on why you think 2 & 3 are acceptable?

re: #2 & #3

#2 Hate. It's an obvious exageration to say Bush kills people for oil. If you don't support your hyperbole with substance and instead just teach your followers to repeat outrageous accusations you end up sounding insincere and dishonest and many of those who chant your mantra, although it's fun to vent, feel the dishonesty and lack of substance in your side of the argument.
Basically your hate leaves you weak where on the other side the opponent and his followers harvest strength in making their argument because it's presented in a package of faith and morality.

#3 Janets boob.
No, although it riles some to have you push that envelope by constantly getting more and more naked in public that is not the thing that does it. It's more like demanding our daughters are allowed to be guided to an abortion clinic by their teachers without even notifying the parents that crosses the line. Those are the kind of morality issues that have put your party on the fringe.

WC: 2 is pretty obvious to me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know of any bench ruling that makes new laws, only removes old ones and prevents things from being made illegal. So in my mind it's alright to say outright "the government shouldn't legislate this".

3, well, civil disobediance. In as far as I'm concerned as long as said laws being ignored aren't hurting anybody else, why are they there to begin with.


FP: Even if I agreed with the values of the religious right (and I don't) I don't think it's right to legislate said values. I also think it's hurting the country to have this air of moral superiority over certain minority groups. Which is causing more problems, the acts that they're trying to prohibit, or the hoopla over the politics surrounding it? It certainly isn't helping matters given how polarized people seem now.

You didn't answer my question.

Your question is flawed.

I suppose that means it doesn't deserve an answer.
If you'd rather not answer then simply say so. However, side stepping the question with a question is desperate.

Fine, how about this: no. Why? Because it violates civil libertarian standpoints.

Thanks for the answer, and, Wow!

The democrats need to:

1)Pick a southern or mid-west candidate. This will help the "one of us" factor in the big red state belt. People just couldn't relate to Kerry in the red states. He just helped in the north/east coast, but the dems didn't need that.

2) Pick a candidate that doesn't have a record you can easily slander, like Kerry who was a known anti war personality in the 70s.

3)Pick a VP that can actually help pick up a state. Edwards ended up being useless. They needed to at least pick a highly popular democrat who could help pick at least a small state up.


You can say the democratic party needs to improve on its message, but really I think the candidate choice is the main thing that needs improvement. That lies with the registered democrats who voted--I think the democrats themselves need to strategically vote. Gephardt who looked boring, now starts to look really attractive.

Kerry was besieged by the president's calls of him being inconsistant, and his character was called into question with the SBV hoopla. Kerry, already not appealing to the average person compared to GWB, made things worse by failing to convey a perception of having a clear positions or plans.

Clinton was a warm, likable southern democrat. Kerry is the exact opposite - uptight, pedantic, northern accent, etc. all put people off.

In the end, I think if you rerun the race with a different candidate, I think the dems had a chance. If there was someone to be excited about, perhaps the democratic base would have been more energized and picked up some swing voters. Not too long ago Clinton carried a lot of Bush territory. Although I liked Kerry's policies better, Bush managed to come across as the "safer bet" for Americans by waging a much better campaign that not only pushed the president well, but managed to in the eyes of many voters to discredit Kerry.

You can say the democratic party needs to improve on its message, but really I think the candidate choice is the main thing that needs improvement.

Better choice for senators too? Do we need better choices for the house? Should we have picked a better choice for the minority leader? In addition to a better choice for the president?

Heh, no, it's not "better choices" for all of these. There is definitely something that the American public just isn't buying from the democratic ideology.

Tetrad wrote:WC: 2 is pretty obvious to me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know of any bench ruling that makes new laws, only removes old ones and prevents things from being made illegal. So in my mind it's alright to say outright "the government shouldn't legislate this".

Whether a judge attempts to make new law or rectify old laws, is clearly not their job. A judges job is to pass judgement based on law enacted by the legeslature.

Tetrad wrote:3, well, civil disobediance. In as far as I'm concerned as long as said laws being ignored aren't hurting anybody else, why are they there to begin with.

So anyone who views a law as not harming anyone has the right to ignore it? I think NAMBLA has this same perspective

woodchip wrote:Whether a judge attempts to make new law or rectify old laws, is clearly not their job. A judges job is to pass judgement based on law enacted by the legeslature.

So anyone who views a law as not harming anyone has the right to ignore it? I think NAMBLA has this same perspective

1) It's not a "law" if the bench says prohibiting X is unconstitutional. It's them saying that the legislature can't do such-and-such, and I view that as a good thing.

2) Now really, sexually abusing little boys isn't exactly "not harming anyone".

if anyone didnt know, NAMBLA is the north american man boy love association

Edwards was far from useless. During the primary, he was the only one who stuck to positive messages and put forward a clear vision. The Dems just weren't ready to back him on the whole, but he sure did surprise a lot of folks by coming in second.

Meanwhile, Dean and Gephardt went down in flames in Iowa because they both went negative. Kerry won by default, in effect, because he was "the best of the bunch". He sort of kept his head low and stayed out of trouble in Iowa, while his rivals shot themselves in the foot. And then it was all over.

Edwards brought his positive message to the ticket at first, but the VP gets the dirty work when the ticket goes negative. Edwards was awkward in that role. The ticket would have done better had it been reversed, with Edwards leading and Kerry playing attack dog. But that isn't how the primary voters chose it, so... the Democratic party got what it asked for.

Dean would only have gone down in flames even worse, and Edwards was too unknown and inexperienced to win on this go-round.

Lieberman might have won in the general election -- he was certainly the only Democratic candidate running who could pass the smell test in the red states on national security and foreign policy -- but of course that's the very reason why he never stood a chance in the primaries: he was pro-Iraq and pro-military, and he refused to chase Dean's Bush-bashing frenzy (the way Kerry ended up doing).


The Democratic Party is a house divided. It's that simple.

Birds, I respect your analysis and I think it bears some truth, but I also think there are a few elements of wishful thinking in there.


- Sirian

The Dems need to amputate these people like a gangrenous wart.

I think what bother's me most about the Democratic Party is that it seems to contain a credible element that truly hopes bad things will happen to the U.S. so as to validate their cynical point of view and vilifications. During the past four years I think more than a few have come to betray some of their purported ideals. Maybe it's just me, but I really see an intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and defeatism growing in the Democrats' midst. And I don't really hear many complaining about it ... too drunk on the Bush hatred and conspiracy theories.

Lieberman could have run on a platform of agreeing with the war effort but offering to fix all the domestic issues at the same time. He could have used Kerry's line of 'fighting a better war' and been credible in saying it, unlike Kerry who we all knew would have turned it over to the U.N.
It would have taken away Bush's one strong point, the war, and left him in a long campaign to defend his domestic policy.

The problem is the democrat party is a collection of factions who, when gathered under one roof, are as dysfunctional a family as it gets. Kerry was the perfect guy to two-face his way through the nomination process but fortunately america is not as screwed up as the democrat party collective so we rejected Kerry's nuanced comb over of who he really represents.

Goob, you may be right but I really don't know if issues are really the end all factor here. If you think back to the conventions, the republicans had many more big names and faces. There is nobody to really be excited about in the democratic party. There are these bozos who act like they're the people's candidate but it ends up coming off as a weak charade. Where is the strong figure that makes you want to vote for him?

I dunno, I feel like people frequently vote for the guy more than the issues. The president made a lot of mistakes but the challenger was unable to capitalize because nobody got excited about him and bush successfully discredited him with SBV and liberal charges with enough of the country.

Sirian,

You focused a lot on the primaries, but most of America is asleep for that. Most of America tunes in the last month for a few debate clips and makes their decision largely based on what their friends and they perceive from the candidate. My comments were more in relation to how the race turned out once it was set. People have to vote with that in their mindset. What ticket are they creating?

I'm not surew what I said was wishful thinking, but it would be interesting to debate.

Birds wrote:You focused a lot on the primaries, but most of America is asleep for that.

Irrelevant. Those who vote have their voices counted. Those who do not vote do not get counted. It's as simple as that.

The primaries are a crucial part of that process. That is where a party's candidate is selected. That is where candidates have to get out there in Iowa and New Hampshire and shake hands, look people in the eye, talk to town hall meetings, explain themselves in some detail, and so on. Not perfect, but I'll repeat my mantra of "show me something that you think will work better and I'll consider it." Meanwhile, we have to cope with what we have.

The states that vote early (yours and mine are not among them, so I'm sure there's as little excitement there as there is here, although LOCAL races often get heavy attention here in the primaries...) The states that vote early see high primary turnout. Iowa is actually probably the BEST place right now to hold the first vote. It was THE closest state, and it's been close for a long time now. Where is a better place to start? New Hampshire is also a great place to hold an early primary. It's small enough that the candidates can get a really good look. Plus it is middle of the road. NH was the only red state to flip blue this time, and by a hair's margin either way. You can't beat that as a sampling of the nation on the whole. Maybe they should drop South Carolina as the third place to go, and move that to New Mexico. You just can't beat these battleground states when it comes to trying to get the best possible result out of the primaries.


Whatever portion of America that is sleeping through the primaries doesn't count. You have to vote to be counted in this political process. Those who don't get involved early have no right to complain.

If you vote, you had your say. If things didn't go your way, live with it. If they did, live with it as magnanimously as you can, because gloating will come back to haunt you somewhere else. And if you didn't vote, STFU and go away. You don't count.

(Not saying that last bit directly to you, Birds.)


- Sirian

I concur that the primaries are where the people have a real choice as to whom they want to run the country. Once the primaries are over, each party is stuck with the winner...for good or ill.

Eh, I tend to think the primaries are irrelevant. Apples and Oranges. In once race you pit Dem vs. Dem, in another you pit Dem vs. Repub, and the outcome of dem vs. dem may not be the best candidate for maximum output in dem vs. repub

In 2000 for example McCain had wider bi-partisan appeal and IMO if he had been the republican candidate, prevented the florida fiasco by carrying a clear win.

Birdseye wrote:
In 2000 for example McCain had wider bi-partisan appeal and IMO if he had been the republican candidate, prevented the florida fiasco by carrying a clear win.

So Bird, you are saying it would have made no difference if McCain became president?

Sorry, perhaps the semantics are getting confusing.

The primary rankings of the candidate are irrelevant compared to how a candidate would do in full political filed. For example, Hillary might win the democratic nomination, but she may be a much worse candidate than many other democratic challengers when independant or midwest/southern vote.

So you are implying that it is more important to the party for a candidate to win the presidency and not their qualifications?

Part of the problem here is that full fledged conservatives CAN win the White House. Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, all conservatives.

The last left-wing liberal to win was President Carter, and the country went into such a tailspin during his leadership, both domestically and in foreign policy, that the electorate's faith in liberals completely tanked. Liberals in congress have done nothing but to reinforce this perception, voting down every national security initiative that comes their way, spending out of control, etc. John Kerry was part of that process.


The Democratic Party used to be strong on national defense. John F. Kennedy CUT TAXES. He took a position on the Soviet Union that was TO THE RIGHT of Richard Nixon's position in 1960. Kennedy would not recognize what his party has become. It was a sorry day for America when he got shot.

The Democrats abandoned the Scoop Jackson wing of their party. The southern Democrats, the religious Democrats, the gun-toting Democrats, the Democrats who believe in strong defense... Those people were won over by Reagan, and the Democrat Party as a whole seemed happy to be rid of them. Now they are either Republicans, under a wider GOP tent that made the decision to embrace moderates, or they are independents who vote Democrat locally but vote GOP for President and US Senator.

Pennsylvania a blue state? Not really. We've been electing Republicans to the US Senate nonstop for the last several decades. We're a swing state. We flip back and forth between Democratic and Republican governors. If Philadelphia were to secede from Pennsylvania and merge with New Jersey, we'd become a red state, much like Virginia or Ohio.


Of course the primaries require voters to "think national". That's true on both sides. Except, the base of the GOP is closer to the center than appears to be the base of the Democrats. Thus the GOP does not choose to nominate persons like Pat Robertson. We don't pick right-wingers.

Bush is solidly conservative, but he's not right wing. He's not actively anti-Roe. His "compassionate conservatism" supports safety nets like home heating assistance for low incomes. Bush's tax cuts moved a lot of poor people OFF the income tax roles entirely. There are now more folks than before who don't pay any income tax at all. McCain is as conservative as Bush. It's Giuliani and Scwartzeneggar and Colin Powell that are moderate conservatives, and any of them would get serious consideration by GOP primary voters.

Meanwhile, the left falls in love with Howard Dean and the like, and watches their primary process lean more and more to the left. Joe Lieberman did not even come in in the top five. That shows how far left the core of the party has drifted. Democrats have only themselves to blame for that.


Clinton was a left-leaning Democrat, too, but he's moderate on economic policy, and even so, when he started talking "national health care" in '93, the electorate stripped away control of the Congress before he could socialize our country. He wisened up and bowed to the will of the voters and behaved more moderately for the rest of his Presidency. Oh, and he had Dick Morris to help him get reelected. When the Dems stopped listening to Morris and went with the current crop of advisors, they went back to losing in the national elections.


Candidates who CAN win nationally still manage to appeal to the GOP base. The Democrat base falls in love with left-wingers. Thems the facts.


- Sirian