The Democratic Leadership is still in Denial

[SDW2001]

This is NOT intended to start a flame war. I'll just say that now. I also can't find the first thread.

Well, it finally happened. I am actually in shock over this party's total lack of leadership. It's not even the party per se...it is the "leadership". Terry McCauliffe, Tom Daschle et al are really screwing things up terribly.

There is no question that whatever the reason, the 2000 and 2002 presidential and congressional elections (respectively) went badly for the party. They lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House (this thread will not be allowed to degenerate into an election 200 discussion or I will personally ask for it to be locked :) ). The Republicans now control both houses and the Presidency. The President is very popular despite the lackluster economy (again, the reasons for the popularity are not the issue in this thread).

And yet, almost unbelieveably, the Democrats are STILL in disaray. Speciffically, the party leadership has set out no clear legislatve agenda. They are constantly on the defensive.

This is apparent in the most recent Democratic "tax cut" plan. It is nothing more than a response to the Bush plan. No one here can tell me that they would have proposed it if Bush hadn't. In fact, it isn't a tax cut at all. It offers one time credits!!! That's not cutting taxes. They should simply say they don't believe a tax cut will do it and leave it at that. But they can't do that. Why? Because 1) They don't want to miss the political boat if a tax cut passes. 2) They KNOW that high, short term deficits caused by real rate reductions WILL help the economy. That's right...they know it. Think it through.....if they really thought it would a disaster, wouldn't they support it? If it made the economy tank, the cut would then be GOOD for the democrats in 2004, not bad. And that's just it: They KNOW it will work, and that would be very bad. The only solution is to offer a half-assed poltically motivated "cut" to make it seem as if they are trying.

This defensive posture gets worse and worse. The leadership and high profile democrats like Daschle, Byrd, Pelosi, Clinton (Hillary), and McCauliffe are now acting like cornered animals. The only thing they have left is to rip Bush on the economy. It's the only real issue left for them (and a an increasingly weak issue...it's improving)

They are certainly trying for more. Byrd's recent "how dare the desk-bound President land on a carrier" speech is an example of desperate, sad politics. OF COURSE Bush is going to use that. Yes, it was political, but PURELY politcal? No. McCauliffe's recent venomous attacks on Bush are tired, rhetorical nonsense ("This guy has been a disaster on domestic policy".....please, "disaster"? Really now). How about referring to the POTUS as "this guy"? That's REALLY inappropriate. Even Gephardt, who I find to be a little more tolerable, refers to the tax cut plan disrespectfully as the "Bush Tax Cut"....not the "President's plan". Can we at least treat the OFFICE with some respect?

The Democratic big wigs are scared.....scared that the economy is going to rebound and that Bush will remain popular as a result. If this occurs, he will be unbeatable. Some internal projections (Democratic ones) show them possibly losing MORE seats. Not a lot is going their way right now.

Here's the point: So they lost two major elections.... It's time for the party to come out with a real agenda. The personal attacks on the President and pathetic reponses to Republican initiatives are simply not working. The Republican party came back after a devastating loss of the Presidency in 1992 to take Congress in 1994. This has not happened for the Dems. Shockingly, there is still no real agenda and total lack of coherency on national security. Yet, the infighting and devisive rhetoric continue, and people like Daschle and McCauliffe keep their jobs? If I was a rank and file Democrat, I'd be asking: Why? What amazes me is that just haven't learned: The venom doesn't work. It failed last time and it will fail again. They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.

Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
One big knee-jerking yes.

Fair enough, Shawn. I accept that. But why? Seriously, this isn't about our political differences. Are you, as a democrat, not concerned?

[Scott]

Terry McCauliffe should have resigned after the last election but ... here we are.

[trumptman]

The reading I have done say that the Democrats will not recapture the house and will likely lose another 4 Senate seats, mostly in the South.

Nick

[midwinter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the democrats piss me off worse than the conservatives at this point. I'm convinced that this is all part of some long-term strategy aimed at giving the right whatever the hell it wants.

[Fellowship]

I am a moderate conservative and agree with less pork and less government entitlements. That is beside the point however with the political grab for power no matter the party. The real issue of why democrats seem to have lame arguments and frankly no real agenda is because they too want to pander to business. The democrats like all others know where their money comes from in the end to support their bids to run as candidates. Democrats in power like to give the impression they are for the small guy and against business but they know as we all should know that such a stance will not win them the much needed cash they need to try to win elections.

Fellowship

[alcimedes]

edit: drinking and posting is always a bad idea.

:D sorry, comment was just a tad off topic

[Luca]

As a democrat, I'm disappointed with my party's lack of leadership... really. Republicans seem to have a very strong agenda. I disagree with it (to avoid a flame war I'll just stay out of why) but I have to say that the Republicans are doing a much better job of pushing their agenda and getting people to agree with them. I really wish the Democratic party had as much intensity.

[JC]

Originally posted by SDW2001
They lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House ... ...They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.

The Democratic party always seems to be complaining and playing the victim game. They do not seem to understand the concept of responsibility. They defend everything Clinton did and can explain reasons why things were not there fault in any and every situation. Including "lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House". and yet they jump at the chance to attack any republican such as mr. Bennet. They attack Mr. Bennet even though he did not do anything illeagle. He did not lie or make up an excuse, he admitted it and said he was going to stop gambling, He maintained his integrity completely.

They are going crazy now because things are going well for Bush. Bush has done everything he has said he would do and it is confronting to their beliefs.

If the left wants to have a chance at getting a president in office they have to stop acting like children. They need quit trying to make obvious attempts to villify Bush in every way they can. Bush went to the aircraft carrier because it was an amazing way to thank and honor the military. He flew the plane because he is a pilot and pilots love to fly. I never met a pilot that passed up an opportunity to fly a military plane.

Comments like "Desk bound President" are foolish. I mean what does that mean, deskbound compared to what? They are always saying stuff with mo bassis. At the end of the speech he says "a president must be honest and say the truth" what did Bush Lie about? and if telling the truth is important why not complain about clinton. I do not think that this predident can easily be cought in a lie, The left do not base things on facts everything is feeling based. they just invent whatever they want and expect us to brlieve it. The general public see through this and they are digging their own grave.

And before you comment on how the aircraft carrier thing was good for his campaign. I know that it was. But what is wrong with that. A presidents term in office is his resume (it always has been). Opponets are supossed to discuss a presidents faults and the president is supossed to bring up his strengths and the war was a sucess. The left has been proven wrong about almost everthing. There was no disaster for them to point at, No big thing to complain about they are desperately trying to stop him from looking good in anyway no matter what at all cost. I actually think that if thousands of americans had died in the war the left would have been relieved.

I hope they keep complainning about the BUSH PHOTO OP so that they keep replaying it on TV. we see through the petty attempts to make a good president look bad and to distract from the fact that they have very week plans for running the country. With the way Democrats are going on Bush does not really have to campaign much.:)

[JC]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
As a democrat, I'm disappointed with my party's lack of leadership... really. Republicans seem to have a very strong agenda. I disagree with it (to avoid a flame war I'll just stay out of why) but I have to say that the Republicans are doing a much better job of pushing their agenda and getting people to agree with them. I really wish the Democratic party had as much intensity.

This is a good point. I used to be a Democrat in my youth. The party has been lost since Clinton in my opinion. The debating that Democrats have with republicans is only slightly more intense as the debates that they have with each other. Snd though they bring up many good points that I agree with they never seem to have a plan of action that seems worked out to the degree to have a chance of working.

and untill things change I am a republican. Democrats are actually chasing people away from their party on droves and they are blaming Bush.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by JC
Democrats are actually chasing people away from their party on droves and they are blaming Bush.

That is exactly the case..

Fellowship

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

things can change very quickly. i remember the summer before the last presidential election, when it looked like then governor bush was headed down the hall of long knives.

but welcome back my friends, to the war that will never end.
it will be the administration's goal to have the american electorate believe that any change in leadership would be dangerous.
the democrats keep nudging at the foreign policy door but no one is willing to go through it. right now they just hope the economy will be the catalyst for a strong democratic run at the presidency and i'm thinking that's not a bad plan of attack at this moment, i think it would be dangerous to go at the president on foreign policy at this time.

remember, two months after churchill announced V-E day he was unseated, the british public thinking what was good in wartime might not be what is needed in peacetime.
the bush administration's agenda should be to make the american people think that the war is still on and not rest on the laurels of the victories they want everyone to believe we've had in 2003, but doing so would play into the democrats hands.

if america feels safe and the economy is still in disarray, the democrats have a chance, if not, well.......

[trumptman]

While neither part is perfect in this regard, I would say one of the most serious problems with the Democratic party is that they demonize instead of debate.

Clinton was/is a master peddler of ideas for debate. He will spit our a 12 point plan for just about anything. I would argue that his best showing was in 1996 after the Republicans lost house seats because they shut down the government. I actually believe the impeachment hurt Republican gains and they would be further along now if they hadn't done it.

Clinton was a master of taking agenda items away from Republicans one, because he was constantly proposing policy and two because while he disagreed strongly, he seldom demonized them. Thus while literally being forced to sign welfare reform he benefitted because he could say he came to an agreement, not made a deal with the devil.

The Democrats could and should benefit from the war with Iraq. Many of them voted for it as well. However elements of the party cannot give up demonizing Bush. How can you take credit or even compromise with something when the other party is considered evil? It makes it impossible.

Clinton grabbed welfare away from Republicans. He vetoed partial birth abortion and got away with it because he cited policy concerns. Of course the policy concerns happened to strip the bill of all effectiveness but at least he wasn't screaming that all men, want to bomb women back to the dark ages and other such hysterics.

The Santorum things is another issue. Most laypeople who don't follow politics could have been led to believe this was just a debate about privacy rights. Most people believe in a strong right to privacy. It could have been a very mainstream issue, even a campaign issue. Instead it became a gay rights issue and Santorum became a hateful bigot.

There can't be any debate now because any concessions or discussions would be seeking agreement with hate speech and bigotry. Before they could have challenged Santorum to strengthen privacy laws. Of course in subcommittee they add a right to privacy regarding sodomy.

Affirmative Action is a perfect example of an issue the Democrats should own but instead of had taken from them. All Republicans did was say it should be by economic need instead of color and they now own the middle ground on this issue.

Democrats use to be very good about this type of thing, much better than Republicans. However it is hard to find middle ground when all the grounds you have to work with are "evil."

Nick

[JC]

Originally posted by trumptman
Democrats use to be very good about this type of thing, much better than Republicans. However it is hard to find middle ground when all the grounds you have to work with are "evil."

Nick

I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.

I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.

and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.

they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.

[SDW2001]

Some really good points here! Thank you all for not turinging this into a flame fest.

an example from the Wash Post:

"The Democrats issued a news release headed 'shameless' in large red type that cited the 'nerve required to delaoÃ×Àe rezrn of 4,000 sailors to their families after 10 months at sea in order to stage (a) photo-op.'"

I mean, really. Give it up. The public loved the appearance. Even if they were right, which they aren't, they have lost the PR battle on this point above. In other words, even if I agreed that what Bush did was wrong and purely politcal (and I don't as you know), it WOULDN'T MATTER. They are fighting a losing battle on trying to villify Bush. People won't hear it right now, and it will be yesterday's news in another fifteen seconds anyway.

I hear some of the same rhetoric I heard from the Republicans during Clinton's impeachement....but they (the dems) STILL haven't figured it out: Integrity is NOT Bush's weakness!!! Now don't get me wrong, he has weaknesses. This is not his, though. Go after him on the economy, health care, whatever....but not integrity. It's simply a battle their going to lose, and have already lost.

What they should have done before the election is put together a paltform that agreed with the President 100% on national security. Then, they should have RESPECTFULLY disagreed with him on "their" issues, like the economy. They should have said "Look, we respect the President a great deal and think he has done a tremendous job with the war on terror. That being said, we do disagree with his POSITIONS on other issues. Here is our plan for [the economy], [health care], [social security], etc. They failed to realize that Americans are smart. We are going to elect the people we think have the best answers (example: I, and many other registered republicans voted for Ed Rendell in PA. He had a better plan...period). Instead, they half-heartedly supported Bush on the WOT (and some not at all), then went absolutely "scorched earth" on nearly every other position he holds...not to mention their use of venom on his brother and other republicans by McCaullfie and Daschle. Their personal disrespect for the President and his allies really cost them in the form of a backlash.

One more point: This isn't 1992. The economy is on the back end of a recession, not the middle-front as it was for election 1992. This makes a big difference. The only way they will have a prayer is if 1) They find someone who can possibly beat Bush....I am talking about the PERSON, not the issues. Lieberman is the ONLY hope they have here. 2) Identify and exploit Bush's weaknesses. Focusing on integrity ain't going to cut it. Bush will kill them on that front. He will also kill them on trust, the military voters, national security and 9/11. The ONLY things they have left are the economy social security and healthcare . There are NO other issues for them right now. And as I've mentioned, they need ALL of those issues to win. If the economy goes well...they are absolutely ****ed. No joke....they are. No one is going to care about social security and health care if we have 4-5% growth. Yet, they continue to focus on bullshit like this carrier landing. It's pathetic.

[SDW2001]

I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.

I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.

and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.

they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.

Exactly. I agree.

[jimmac]

" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had. "

:lol: :lol: :lol:

PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.

[Existence]

Originally posted by jimmac

PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.

But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed.

[Not Unlike Myself]

Originally posted by Existence
But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed. :lol: :rolleyes: Here we go again.... (this is gonna die reaaaallly hard one day in the not to distant future....) [ala next election]

[midwinter]

but they (the dems) STILL haven't figured it out: Integrity is NOT Bush's weakness!!! Now don't get me wrong, he has weaknesses. This is not his, though. Go after him on the economy, health care, whatever....but not integrity. It's simply a battle their going to lose, and have already lost.

Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.

But I agree with you. It's a fight they're simply not going to win. He's too "well-liked" (which is bizarre to me) by most everyone, and the Reps have possibly the most brilliant and ruthless political strategists on the planet (Karl Rove) calling the shots. You can't campaign against a war on terror. You can't campaign against tax cuts. And you can't call into question a sitting president's ethics/integrity/character when HE DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE ATTACKS.

Add to this the simple fact that the Dems are fielding the most soporific group of people ever assembled in one room (with the possible exception of Howard Dean), and we're looking at four more years of this nonsense.

[mrmister]

"Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached."

This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.

If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.

Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Existence
But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed. Ah, But I didn't say " elect " I said we would have a republican next.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[midwinter]

This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.

Well, I was talking about whether or not his integrity is attackable. It is. The problem is that it just won't do any good. I would argue that it's not "superiority and knowingness" that's causing the Dems to lose political ground. That's what I hear all the time on Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bortz (sp?), and one would think that there were some talking points that came down from the RNC at some point about this. I think they've lost ground because they've moved more and more to the center (just look at Clinton) and have alienated the lefty base, which has run to Nader. And by moving to the center, that's put them in the same field as the moderate republicans, whose votes they're simply not going to steal.

If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.

The problem with this is that a) Lieberman is unelectable, both because he always sounds like he's about to nod off and because he's got the albatross of 2000 around his neck and b) running a hawkish/centrist dem will alienate even more of the dems who aren't already going to vote for some third-party candidate.

I'm not sure that "anti-terror" is going to be the way to go, either. I mean, what's the other option? pro-terror? Jumping onto that train gets them nowhere, and it allows Bush to further establish national security as a domestic issue. If they're going to engage Bush in terms of the war on terror, it *has* to be in terms of continually raising the question of when it will end. The problem with this line, though, is that it allows Bush to say "When goodness and justice have prevailed over hatred and fear" or some such. But this argument allows them to raise questions about whether we're off nation-building and war-mongering. It also raises questions about whether or not Bush's "anti-terror" agenda is actually working. Is it making the world safer? But I'd like to see them avoid the issue of terrorism as much as possible. Anything they do makes Bush look good.

I'd like to see either Kerry or Dean get the nomination. Kerry's war record makes him good opposition to Bush, and Dean's a powerful speaker. And if either of them can hammer on the economy--lost jobs, tanked market, lack of economic agenda beyond "tax cuts," the squandering of the surplus, record deficits, expensive wars "while school closings are leaving many children behind" (man. That'd be a great play on one of Bush's campaign slogans), corporate scandals, rising gas prices, school closings, school closings, and school closings.

And school closings.

Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.

Yup. There's going to be some blood shed in the next year. And every drop makes Bush's re-election more likely. Ugh.

Cheers
Scott

[jimmac]

Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.;)

OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.

midwinter:

h but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.

[midwinter]

I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.

Have fun:

The actual documents:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

More documents:
http://www.awolbush.com/ (scroll down a bit for the photos of documents)

The original Boston Globe story from 2000.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

A Wash. Post story on how no one can find any record of Bush showing up in Alabama for service.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59151-2000Jun25&notFound=true

A nice timeline from Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/02/ma_217_01.html

The information is all out there. And it's hardly BS. The man was supposed to show up for duty. He didn't. For over a YEAR. He went AWOL, which after 30 days becomes desertion.

Cheers
Scott

[SDW2001]

Please. "awolbush"? Yes, very credible. I read many of those documents, and many are weak and from sites dedicated to destroying Bush and Cheney. They don't incriminate him at all. I read through every link and they are just SOOOOO weak.

Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.

This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.

Keep going though, by all means. I like it. :)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please. "awolbush"? Yes, very credible. I read many of those documents, and many are weak and from sites dedicated to destroying Bush and Cheney. They don't incriminate him at all. I read through every link and they are just SOOOOO weak.

Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.

This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.

Keep going though, by all means. I like it. :)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. There were tornadoes.

Onward, though.

Whatever. Sorry you don't like the source. You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence--PICTURES even--that there are a missing 18 months in Bush's military record. I gave you TWO stories from reputable newspapers on the subject.

He was supposed to show up somewhere and didn't. That's AWOL. It lasted more than 30 days. That's desertion.

Note this: you say "Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later."

Nice little turn of phrase there. He didn't miss "some weekends"; he missed EVERY WEEKEND for over a year. But then, given your response you don't seem to have a problem with people in the military (or guard or reserves or whatever) just completely shirking their duties for over a year? And then with those same people using their military record as part of a campaign for the presidency? And then hanging around on aircraft carriers? And sending folks off into battle? Hell, the right had a hissy-fit every time that "draft-dodger" Clinton did anything with the military but THIS GUY gets a pass? Come on.

Regardless. You can put away the brush you're trying to paint me with. If you've read my earlier posts closely, you'll see that my raising this issue was simply a matter of pointing out that Bush's "integrity" isn't as unassailable as people seem to think. I even said that this was not a story that has gotten or will get any traction. And as I also pointed out above, the Bush team learned a crucial lesson from the Clinton team's greatest weakness with the media: if you don't comment on the story, the press moves on. It's brilliant, really. People bitch and moan for a day or two, and then they move on.

[Argento]

Originally posted by SDW2001
him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.

This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.


He's dead right.

[sammi jo]

Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?

Well, I don't so much disagree with you...I don't think you put it quite strongly enough. The dems don't have a "leadership" and they don't have a direction. If someone wants to vote for a right-wing party they will vote Republican. There isn't enough political space for "republican lite". The dems have one decent potential candidate...Dennis Kucinich. But honestly folks, can you hear "President Kucinich"? I can't.

[alcimedes]

actually, i'd say the biggest problem for Dems. is that in this thread alone there have been a few people who say "well, we have a lot of canidate, but the only viable canidate is X"

but there's been three or four "canidate X's" now. go back a few years. Reps. had McCain and Bush. we got ****ed over and ended up with Bush, but there were only two real canidates in the running.

if you have 6, that just divides things up to many different ways. i guess it's early and it will pan out to be just a few by the end, but i really want some good democratic leadership. nothing is worse than when one party runs through whatever crap they want without a real hard fight from the other side.

people get sloppy that way.

[JC]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Then, they should have RESPECTFULLY disagreed with him on "their" issues, like the economy. They should have said "Look, we respect the President a great deal and think he has done a tremendous job with the war on terror. That being said, we do disagree with his POSITIONS on other issues. Here is our plan for...

The left does not use logic when dealing with issues. for them it is a religion. they are activist. The fact that right wing policy is working occurs to them as if sombody has disproved a chapter in the bible. They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil and must be beat down at all cost.

Your advise assumes the ability to think rationally on their part. They ignore all facts against their policy and feal no reason to back up policy with facts and they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally. If I were on the left the I would add a few colorful words to the above and finish with a statement that is powerful and has complete agreement from everybody even though it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Such as "a desk bound president or wraped in an american flag" and i would finish with "A presidency should consist of truth and honesty." But since I am not a democrat I will attempt the much more difficult task of backing up my statements with facts.

They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil :
They can not pick and choose between right and wrong. For them it is about pleasing everybody all of the time. Their rules are against an individual accountability. Everything is based on feelings. they would have us be a sensetive nation where we do not ever hurt anybodys feelings. Kids in school play sports where the winning team and the loosing team all get trophys. they did not want us to go to war so as to avoid hurting fealings or Gasp, have people disagree with us. Who cares if it is right or wrong we must not offend china, france or germany.
For example-14 people illeagle aliens died of starvation trying to cross into the deseart from mexico into the US. Its not their fault, its not the smugglers that they paid 1400 each to's fault. Its not the fault of the people who owned the land that they died on. No it is the United States fault for not putting water stations in the the middle of the desert. In other words because the US did not help Illeagle Aliens sneak into our country we are being sued for 42 million dollars.
I can give many examples but this is new news that i just heard tonight.

they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally.:
The actors agains SUVs. like more than half of them have SUVs at home.
Sean Penn who is anti death penalty, anti war and anti Guns has a licence to carry a concealed weapon and carries guns in his glove container and trunk.
Rich people whold never use public health care are so sure that we all need FREEEEEE public health care like in france. I forget who but a star just moved out of france because he had to pay 65% of his income in taxes.
not to mention that FREEEE health care will suck. I have had to use gov health care and trust me you do not want it. Are any of you aware of how many people in FRance and every country with gov health care fly to the US for opperations every year. French people who can afford it do not go to doctors in france. and if we had public health care rich people in this country would use private doctors because it will be superior. It will break us and it is not free.

Them Democrats of today are not the democrats of 20 years ago. They will break our country and we need to protect our country from their distructive beliefs.

[JC]

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.

Thanks for making my point again. another accusation which is created from twisting words and is not based on facts at all. This claim has been disproved several times. But that matters not just like I still hear the Left argue that Bush actually lost the election even though each and every group (including there own) who counted came up with a Bush win. WE dont need Facts says the left we have feelings:(

[JC]

Originally posted by jimmac
" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had. "

:lol: :lol: :lol:

PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.

so this is another typical leftest responce. and the funny thing is that he/she actually thinks that they made a point to the post which was

" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.

its just common sense

[JC]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his integrity is attackable. It is.

So, attack it then. I doubt you can.

[JC]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.;)

Ohh I dont know about that. I know democrats who are going to vote for Bush because he is the only one that they feal will deal with terrorizm and keep them safe. I mean even they do not like his domestic policy.

[JC]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger!

Yes, but it is not making Bush Stronger it is making the left weak. People are getting sick of this crap and not only are they going to vote for Bush they are going to vote against every single dem on the card. They act like children they should be treated like children.

the days of accusations having credibility because things are said on TV are comming to an end.

Vote them out I say. All of them. we need to purify the pack. The next generation of Dems that come up may be worth voting for if we do this now

[BR]

Originally posted by JC
I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.

I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.

and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.

they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.
Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense.

[JC]

Originally posted by BR
Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense.

except that critisisms agains clinton are factually based.
Clinton has been a proven Liar, cheater, etc. etc

[bunge]

Originally posted by JC
The left does not use logic when dealing with issues....

Originally posted by SDW2001
This is NOT intended to start a flame war.

[SDW2001]

BR:

"Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense."

Well, I can agree with that. Really, I can. Though JC is also correct. Like him or hate him, Clinton really was a corrupt man. Most people would agree with this, even if they supported his policies and ideas. Someone like me though, who feels Clinton was morally bankrupt, and also disagrees with his politics almost completely.....we have trouble with him to say the least.

I can understand when someone disagrees with Bush's policies. It's just that class warfare, disaster on the economy, "I need to give blood to g've the money to my kid's school because of Bush" rhetoric I can't take. That's really the point of the thread.

Once again, all I would need to withdraw my criticisms is an honest agenda. But they're too scared to do that. Many liberals actually want increased taxation and nationlized healthcare but are afraid to stand up for it. Poor Dems....they're cute in a pathetic kind of way. The Republicans have pretty much outlined what they want. Even people who might disagree on things like abortion and education and what not may vote that way (i.e Reagan Democrats) because at least the other party has a clear, strong message.

[JC]

Originally posted by JC
The left does not use logic when dealing with issue

quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is NOT intended to start a flame war


I do not want to start a flame war.
I do not make them wrong or think less of them for it.
its just that it is very difficult to win over a person who is to the left with logic. you need to deal with the topics from an emotional point of view. I base this on my experience as I used to be one of them and still have many close leftest friends.

It just is that most liberals come from an emotional place. Things that anger them are the things that they are passioned about. They look for facts to support their debates after they are inflamed. and as such are not nearly as impartial or do not examine the source of the facts as well. and when a fact that supports their point is disproved it does not change their mind at all as the facts that they are supporting thir point of view with have very little to do with the origin of their point.

the democratic party understands this all too well. if they want to drum up more support they speek to people emotionally. for example, they show a picture of a decapitated baby and say look what our american soldiers have done. And they are so wrapped up in the horror of it that they do not question the source. no one even needs to show evidence that it was an american did the deed. Even if it was not they will say it must be happening.

then they walk around showing their conservative friends pictures of the decapitated baby and look at us in shock wandering why we are so heartless that we do not care about all the babies that are dead and dieing.
the democratic party plays all of the emotions from love, family values, etc. and I think that they perpetuate a distrust of the government.


then again its just a theory:\:\

[JC]

uote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his (Bush) integrity is attackable. It is

So, attack it then. I doubt you can.8)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by JC
uote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his (Bush) integrity is attackable. It is

So, attack it then. I doubt you can.8)

I did. There's a whole thread here, you know.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.

midwinter:



I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.

The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.

Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.

The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republicans in the past? I'm betting no. I think they've seen enough and are smarter than that.

[JC]

Originally posted by jimmac
I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.


Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?

Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)

Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them

I could go on but i think two are enough

[jimmac]

Originally posted by JC
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?

Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)

Saddam had no documentation for distroying any WOMD and just expected us to believe that he got rid of them

I could go on but i think two are enough

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Anders the White]

Originally posted by JC
Do you guys out there realy believe that Saddam does not have WOMD? I mean seriously! I understand that it is a great tool for making bush look bad but come on Tell the truth do you seriously believe that ?

Facts:
republican guard had thousands of chemical weapon suits and antidotes (they had these because of what?)

You can´t name me one army that doesn´t have biocem suits. Do all countries then have biocem weapons?

-------------

There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.

"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons:mad:"</voice of people who haven´t got a clue>

I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.

[rok]

Originally posted by sammi jo
There isn't enough political space for "republican lite".

i was waiting for someone to give me an opening, and i'll take it. he isn't a democrat, but i've grown to like him just the same... John McCain. Problem is, the Republicans don't like him enought to support him, and going into a third party (even Reform... ugh) is just saying "Well, I don't have a shot in hell..."

Another candidate, simply for "electibility" (is that a word?) is the recently entered Bob Graham, formerly of Florida. I was there when he was in the State Senate, and I swear the guy COULD NOT LOSE. everyone voted for him... democrats, republicans, fence-sitters. I have no idea what his stance on issues are (i was a teen when he was governor -- or was it senator? -- and i had NO interest in politics back then), but he certainly has that something about him that people took to.

anyway, just thought i should jump in here. jumping back out now...

[alcimedes]

lol, hopefully if things are bad enough, McCain will beat Bush in the Rep. primary. *sigh* one can always dream. :)

[JC]

Originally posted by Anders the White

There was, like, a war going on. And in wars, unlike in soccer, there is no referee so you have to expect the worst from your enemy. EVEN WHEN ITS THE US ARMY.---I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.

Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?

[Anders the White]

Originally posted by JC
Saddams guard had their chemical suits with them but were not wearing them when we attacked because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that. If we wanted to do mass distruction we would have dropped a small atomic device, war over with no american deaths. their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD especially with all of the anti war talks in this country, not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention. it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?

So preemptive posting doesn´t work either.

Lo and behold what I wrote just below the part you quoted:

Originally posted by... me:
"There that leftist eurocommie liberal Anders go again. How dare you accuse US of wanting to use biocem weapons"</voice of people who haven´t got a clue>

I don´t. And I don´t even think the Iraqis thought we would. But rule number 1 in war: Expect the unexpected and prepare for the worst.

Let me try again: Every army in the world have biochem weapons suits. It would be plain stupid if they didn´t have them just in case. So it proves nothing.

And the thing about the iraqis not wearing them under the attacks: The "coalition" didn´t wear them all the time either. So they must have been saving them for when we attacked the iraqis with biochem weapons, right?:no:

So the behaviour of the "coalition" forces and the Iraqis were the same. Now why does that prove they have biochem weapons and at the same time proves we didn´t?

One more time: The presents of biochem suits proves nothing. Not that they had them. Not that they didn´t have them. It only proves that someone in the iraqi military had a few braincells when they bought military equipment.

The obvious next question: Do they have biochem weapons? Before the war I was 90% sure they did. Not because of the proven fabricated evidence Powell put forward at the SC but because it seemed logical. Now I am down to 40-60% since nothing have been found yet.

[Anders the White]

If the biochem suits were to be used for when the Iraqis would attack with biochem weapons why is it so damn hard to those weapons? I mean it took us less than a couple of hours to find the suits but after a couple of weeks they haven´t found the weapons. If they were to be used together I would assume that they kept the weapons in close distance to the suits.

So the non-presense of weapons within a radium of a couple of miles of the suits actually "proves" that they didn´t have any biochem weapons according to your line of thinking

[rok]

Originally posted by Anders the White
If the biochem suits were to be used for when the Iraqis would attack with biochem weapons why is it so damn hard to those weapons?

well, because they moved 'em to syria, silly. or the palestinians have 'em. or maybe russia. or something... god bless the "whack-a-mole" approach to modern strategic warfare. ;)

[Anders the White]

Originally posted by JC
because they knew that we were not going to use them. everybody new that.[...] their is no line of thinking which gives credibility that we would use WOMD [...] not to mention that WOMD is against the geneva convention.

You have not been in the military or had any education on international relations have you? PREPARE FOR EVERYTHING. DON`T TRUST YOUR ENEMY. DON`T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT CAN COST YOU YOUR LIFE. "Everybody knew that" just doesn´t cut it in a war

Geneva convention? Well thats something you can argue around. Don´t think it protects illegal competants. So that would just be a question on bringing in a couple of lawyers to declare all those in front of you that and then you can do whatever you want.

Originally posted by JC
it is not a theory that Saddam had WOMD unless you want to dispute that as well. so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?

Ah. You want to make a fellowship: Since you believe that they have WoMD everything can be used to prove excatly that.

You: "The biochem suits proves they had WoMD"

Me: "We had biochem weapons as well. So according to your logic we had WoMD also?"

You: "No because we didn´t and they did"

Me: "Eh?"

[JC]

Originally posted by Anders the White


You: "No because we didn´t and they did"

Me: "Eh?"

so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Anders the White

Ah. You want to make a fellowship: Since you believe that they have WoMD everything can be used to prove excatly that.


Excuse me? :no:

Fellows

[Anders the White]

Originally posted by JC
so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?

About what? That the biochem suits proved they had WoMDs? Of course not.

PS: Sorry for the cheap shot Fellowship:embarrass . It was late. I was tired. I wasn´t thinking and she said she was over eigh.... I mean sorry.

[JC]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anders the White
[B]About what? That the biochem suits proved they had WoMDs? Of course not.

sigh, The bio chem suit thing was never my main point.

Though i guess that When they find Womd you will say they planted it or something.:\

[JC]

Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
;)

EDITED: unnecessary swipes at an ena=jc possibility...

Thanks...I think??:???: :)

[SDW2001]

jimmac:

"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.

Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.

The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"



Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:

If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.

Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.

I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.

Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.

[trumptman]

Here is a great article from Time (that conservative mouthpiece of the RNC) this week. Seems they are tired of the Democratic Party inability to win campaigns as well and they try to provide a little analysis.

Build a better Democrat (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030519/story.html)

:)
Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Here is a great article from Time (that conservative mouthpiece of the RNC) this week. Seems they are tired of the Democratic Party inability to win campaigns as well and they try to provide a little analysis.

Build a better Democrat (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030519/story.html)

:)
Nick

Wow. Joe Klein, even (I thought he only wrote for the New Yorker). Thanks for the link!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Essentially, the dumbing down of <insert anything>.

It's sickening.

Well it is easy to boil down beliefs more easily than just criticism. Strong defense is easy to boil down because it is clear that Republicans stand for it. The two words simply remind everyone that when it comes to spending for military and safety, Republicans will do what it takes. Contrast that to the Democratic position that tries to convince people to balance safety with concerns of the world community, politics, veto's, envy, etc. That is much harder to communicate. Especially when many Democrats use doublespeak and attempt to stand for the troops, but not their mission, strong military, but cut funding, and things of that nature.

Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..

No more than 10 minutes into it, two of those Democrats, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Howard Dean of Vermont, had entangled themselves in a ridiculous scuffle over the issue of gay rights. Not that they disagreed. Both are staunch advocates of equal rights and "civil unions." But Kerry believed that Dean had accused him of a lack of courage on this topic.

It isn't about a plan, because they both have the same plan. So it comes down to, who can I show secretly doesn't support gays or hates them in subtle, bigoted ways.

Another quote...

And the Democrats enter the fray with all the shape and substance of fog. "People have no idea what we stand for," says Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. "They have a vague sense that we were against the war in Iraq and a vaguer sense that things were somehow better economically when we were in power. Beyond that, nothing."

Again this is what criticism, and no policy gets you...

The article makes some very clear recommendations...

They will have to convince the public that they are as committed to national defense, and to the judicious use of military force, as the Republicans are. They will have to shed their congenital pessimism. They can't just rant against the Administration and hope for bad news to confirm their prejudices. They will have to propose firm, reasonable policy alternatives that are easy to understand and defend. If they oppose the Bush tax cuts, they will have to lay out, in some detail, what they would do instead.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman

Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..

You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.

How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.

When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.

How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.

How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.

When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.

How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?

Because it shows the tactics that they are trying to take and how it is going to get them no where. Please understand that I said the Republicans also damaged themselves when they focused on trying to prove personal flaws over policy as well.

You have a Democratic pollster and consultant complaining that the party has no message, not that they have too many messages.

The two of them weren't debating policy, one was calling the other over a personal attack that tried to say they weren't really supporting homosexuals.

The real point is that if they can't find a message and seek to hide that fact by using personal attacks in a insignificant inner-party debate how will they ever manage it when the election is on the line?

This is a point made repeatedly throughout the article and by others here. The Democrats believe that criticism, plus the other guy/gal being labeled intolerant in some regard = policy. The quote I posted only illustrated that point.

Clinton always, always, had lots of policy. He was such a policy wonk that he could go on for hours about it. He had a 5 point plan for everything and was the master of targeted tax cuts, targeted spending (or so it was claimed in both regards at least) and taking a personal tale and connecting it to policy. His state of the union messages were like laundry lists of priorities, most of which were soon ignored and never passed, but hey at least there was something to discuss. At least there was a message to stay on.

Consider the difference now. Obviously the Democrats don't like Bushes tax cuts. You follow them fairly closely, but can you tell me what their alternatives are to the tax cuts? Can you tell me what they propose instead? What have they done besides labeled it bad?

Clinton would not have done that. He infuriated Republicans in this regard. He would always have a laundry list of cuts. They might not go into effect unless there was this amount of growth, or no deficits, or until he was out of office 5 years, but he left the poor Republicans trying to explain to a largely apathetic public as to why their cuts sucked less.

It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.

Bush did this to the Democrats in 2000. He took away education as a federal issue. He obviously has defense well covered. He has a policy for prescription drugs. (Again letting the Democrats argue over whether it is good or bad is exactly what he would want because they are discussing his policy, not creating their own alternative) He can claim attemtps at jump starting the economy and further attempts to do so since 9/11, etc.

That quote shows the weakness of the Democratic position. Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?

What is their plan? There isn't one. They could propose massive infrastructure spending and justify it using 9/11. (Sure we have dams but are they secure and modern?) They could propose a massive citizenship drive and amnesty program for current immigrants with problematic status. (illegal) The best way to fight terrorism? Insure that the foreign nationals among us want to be Americans!

They might even get really bold and stop bashing on men and stop ceding their votes to Repubilcans. They could propose national standards for fairness regarding abuse claims made on men, especially when these claims only seem to come up during alimony, custody and divorce hearings.

Each has risk but at least they would be bold. Don't cut taxes, invest in our national security instead.

Make sure those among us love and pledge their allegance to America.

Make sure that women are treated fairly with regard to violence and abuse claims, but also insure men are not guilty without a trial at a time when they are most vunerable.

Nick

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by trumptman
good points



I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country. For example they could advance a message about alternative energy and changes to the auto industry etc. They could present arguments for social security to once again try to install fear in the minds of seniors. They could push for a nationalized health benefits program. They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.

I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.

This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.

Fellowship

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman

Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?

No. I just think comparing a discussion between two Democrats with the platform between the two parties is silly. It's just a poor example of what the party will or will not be able to do.

If you're trying to show that, based on the fact that two politicians got in an argument, Democrats can't put together a cohesive argument or that Democrats can only call names then you're just being dumb.

Bill had plenty of policy and Al had plenty of policy too. It worked for the most part in the presidential elections and once the party is unified behind a candidate that candidate is just as likely as Bill or Al to have a direction.

[bunge]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country.... They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.

I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.

This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.

Wow. I think I agree with just about everything you said here. A first!

The Dems have to wait. If they show their cards now it will give Bush a headstart on how to counter the Democratic plan. It's better to wait.

Does the Democratic leadership have a plan? I don't know. But it's better that way considering the attention spans of the average US'er.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
Wow. I think I agree with just about everything you said here. A first!

The Dems have to wait. If they show their cards now it will give Bush a headstart on how to counter the Democratic plan. It's better to wait.

Does the Democratic leadership have a plan? I don't know. But it's better that way considering the attention spans of the average US'er.

that's a rosy view.
but i'm afraid there is only one democrat who knows how to beat president bush, and
a) no one dare mention his name & b) he can't run & c) they've shunted him off to mount elba

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
that's a rosy view.

Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.

[SDW2001]

bunge and Fellowship:

I'll join you here in part. But, it isn't just about the Democratic debate. In fact, I don't know that I was even thinking of it when I started the thread.

The "flimsy" perception goes back to Gore in 2000. He may not have changed his policy stance every day, but he did change HIMSELF and his image. Do you guys remember the thread "Who is Al Gore!?!" Gore also engaged in a mean-spirited style in the first and third Presidential debates.

I'm not saying he caused what is going on right now. But, there are similarities. He did a lot of attacking. The Democrats have no clear public agenda. The debate WAS telling in a way, because they had trouble differentiating themselves and attacked Bush at will. That's exactly what is happneing with the likes of Daschle and Byrd. There is something about these men that sickens me. This includes Gephardt. They seem to be....well, slimy. It's not even what they say that bothers me (well, sometimes it is). It's HOW they say it and the fact that they are attacking Bush on stupid, useless points like the aircraft carrier landing. Not only do I think it's absurd (since many Presidents have done things like this as well as DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN in recent months), it just doesn't work. In other words, even if I supported the premise of the attacks....THEY DON'T WORK.

To this day, no one in the party seems to have figured out that to have any chance of winning in 2004, they will have to:

1) Ensure the economy tanks for their own political gain. Without this, they WILL lose. I'll offer a 100% guarantee on that one.

2) Be as strong on national security as the Republicans.

3) Offer a clear domestic agenda that people wil percieve as helping them. The class warfare "people vs. the powerful" thing, while perhaps a good idea, has failed in two elections. It even failed after Enron and WorldCom. It's dead.

So then, what is that agenda? Most aren't going to propose any real tax reform. Most aren't going to call for an real change in SS funding. Most aren't going to talk about military reform, etc.

But here is the problem: It's a question of current Democratic beliefs. The Democratic party stands for greater "social" spending (i.e. education, healthcare, social assistance, federal funds for child care and maternity leave, social security funding increases without changing the WAY the system is funded, etc.).
The fact is, no Democrat has the balls to call for a tax increase to fund these things like they'd like to fund them. It's really a difference of philosophy. I believe that many Democrats have their hears in the right place. They legitimately want to fix these problems. But they're smart enough to know that when Democrats call for tax INCREASES, they lose. Dukakis proved this very recently. His poll numbers plumetted when people really found out what he was about.

So then, we have a dilemma. The country, as a whole, identifies more with Republican positons. These positions are strong national security policies, homeland security, tax cuts, etc. The Republicans are even talking about the medicare benefit issue away. Today's Republicans have taken away the Dems issues from them (and I have mixed feelings about that). They are left with attacking Bush and pointing out the economy's weakness. As I said, though, if the economy improves, there is really nothing left for them. Is there?

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.

yeah i know, (there is no sardonic smiley face) it's sad when only person on the stage that is saying anything above the blah blah blah is al sharpton.
i mean really, dick gephardt? and don't even get me started on carol mosely-braun. she really really disappointed me, and she couldn't even carry illinois, the only state in the union where democrats seem to thrive.
so it looks like lieberman, and an administration licking it's lips at that prospect. but then that's what i thought about a certain governor from texas.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The fact is, no Democrat has the balls to call for a tax increase to fund these things like they'd like to fund them.

I thought this wasn't supposed to be a flame war? :err:

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
I thought this wasn't supposed to be a flame war? :err:

it's always a flame war.
start a thread about dental floss (dental floss=montana's salvation?) and you'll get a flame war.
"i hear my flame a comin'"

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

and don't even get me started on carol mosely-braun.

I would probably vote for Bush before I voted for Carol Mosely-Braun.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
I would probably vote for Bush before I voted for Carol Mosely-Braun.

i said that about dukakis, but it was a different bush.
i don't know if i could make that leap in the next presidential.

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

i don't know if i could make that leap in the next presidential.

But...but...she's so...dumb.

[superkarate monkeydeathcar]

Originally posted by bunge
But...but...she's so...dumb.

no doubt, what in the world got in her craw to run for..........PRESIDENT?!?!?
her stunning record as an ambassador, probably.

she may be dumb (and i probably shouldn't say this, because, well, "THEY'LL" come) but bush is dangerous and scares me.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:

"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.

Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.

The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"



Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:

If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.

Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.

I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.

Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.

It's good to know you're as delusional as ever. I haven't read any polls that say if the economy improves even slightly Bush will be elected by a landslide. Where do you get your info? By the way interest rates are low also. A forty year low. That not a good sign. Also to assume that I want things to remain in the red just so Bush can lose is childish at best!

I don't know what chicken bones you're throwing to view the future of the economy but some of mine don't look good : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/12/markets/dollar.reut/index.htm

Also about how Bush is handling things : http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/09/news/economy/bush_jobcuts/index.htm

Also I think the economy will have to improve alot to fool the voters this time. They're too smart ( or tired ) to want serial recession again.

[bunge]

Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
no doubt, what in the world got in her craw to run for..........PRESIDENT?!?!?

I don't know but it wasn't brains. I'd probably have to vote third party or abstain if the choices were Bush or Braun. She is dumb, but he is more dangerous.

[SDW2001]

bunge:

Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.

jimmac:

Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!

Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?

Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.

None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:

Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!

It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day (;) ), you have no real solution. If things are so bad, why don't you tell us how you'd do things differently?

[JC]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much.\

I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.

I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by JC
I live in california and all i can say is that for us californians tax cuts will make a huge differance. The job market has dried up quite a bit and many many businesses have closed and left town.

I am a registered democrat but am againt big goverment because i have seen it in action. with our tax money they have cut down on the number of police and have raised money to send underprivalaged low income families to national parks. not so long ago california was the number one place that people wanted to be. Now i tremble at yhe thought of the whole country being exposed to this distructive governing under democratic rule.

Well, what I mean is we need more tax relief than the package offered. But, I'll take it. Eliminating the evidends tax is a great idea, really. Again...I'll take it!

You are quite a situation in CA. This is what happens when the Dems go an a tax and spend binge when things are good. It's the same thing in Washington, really...it's just that they can borrow more.

How's the recall of Davis going? That would be something.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge:

Keep in mind I was talking about political candidates, not folks here or Democrats in general.

jimmac:

Oh, gloom and doom! A weak dollar! Gasp!

Why would you even post links like that? Do you think I don't know that there is opposition to the plan? I mean, really. OF COURSE there will be opposition. Then, you spout off about "how Bush is handling things". What does that even mean?

Typical jimmac: Point to a set of outcomes and then attach them automatically to the desired hero or in this case, scapegoat. For me to take you seriously, you have to tell me SPECIFFICALLY what you think Bush has mismanaged. Are you blaming the weak dollar on Bush? Are you blaming the tech collapse on Bush, even though it started in March of 2000? Are you blaming 9/11 and its effects on him? What exactly has he done that you disagree with? He lowered taxes across the board....and yes, for the rich too. And caused a recession? Hmmm.

None of this matters, jimmac. Let me tell you what will happen:

Bush will get his tax cut to the tune of around $500 billion. The economy will improve--mostly due to he natural business cycle and low rates (not to mention low energy prices), and Bush will get credit for it in the next election. The tax cut will have some effect on growth, but not all that much. Really now jimmac: I'm not naive enough to think that $50 billion a year in cuts is really going to do that much. But, it is still tax relief that I'll see (as I saw it the last time)....and I'll take it!

It's the same thing in every thread and with every post. You have no specific criticisms. And, when you actully DO manage one on the off chance you're feeling lucid that day (;) ), you have no real solution. If things are so bad, why don't you tell us how you'd do things differently?



I'm sorry but there's no other way to look at this poor fool. Think WOMD!:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, that's rich! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[midwinter]

Think WOMD!

*cough (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html)*

[kraig911]

Even if there wasn't any WOMD the war was a great success... Its a win win win situation... low energy prices... israel and palentsine are working together because of the overbearing pressure... syria and iran are listening... and the people of iraq can have the spoils of their resources they deserved all along, with us offering them our investment. Sure sacrifices had to be made, but I see it as a stroke of brilliance. If bush can keep his huge popularity going, the democrats are screwed. They have absolutely no leadership, all the candidates are yes sayers not workers, in speaking of history along those terms it used to be the opposite, the democrats used to be the decision makers and hard-liners, very idealistic and got the job done (roosevelt, JFK, etc), things are very wierd right now for us in america politically.

[jimmac]

" Sure sacrifices had to be made, but I see it as a stroke of brilliance. "

For George Bush that is................:no:

[SDW2001]

First, jimmac, I'm not even sure what that first post was supposed to mean. You still have not levied any real, specific criticism against Bush that isn't pure "gotcha politics" rhetoric.

The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.

To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.

As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?

[midwinter]

As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?

You are, I think, pretty much right here. I'd quibble with you over the rhetoric, but I'm with you: the D party needs to realize that these aren't the same Republicans they've been campaigning against for the past 40 years. I'm betting that the Republicans and Libertarians are going to notice/have noticed this, as well. I'm also betting that there will be some pretty serious fractures in the right as a result.

But that's down the road. At the moment, the Democrats seem to have no bloody clue what they're doing. Those mid-terms were a friggin' DISASTER. Crap campaigns across the board. And that, as I've said again and again, is why the Democrats piss me off worse than the Republicans these days.

Cheers
Scott

[kraig911]

I really think the only way the dem's are going to get any say anywhere in this country is finding some potential screw-up by a big republican, and market the hell outta it. Its sad but i mean a demonic goatman is more likely get lucky with a stacked plantinum angel in heaven than a dem president is getting into the oval office.
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... there's going to be a lot of flinging...

*good god I can't spell*

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
First, jimmac, I'm not even sure what that first post was supposed to mean. You still have not levied any real, specific criticism against Bush that isn't pure "gotcha politics" rhetoric.

The WOMD things has NOTHING to do with this thread. Though, anyone that doesn't think they are there or WERE there right up until the invasion is absolutely kidding himself.

To get back to the point, Kraig911 is right. The Democrats are now almost the total opposite of what they used to be. JFK cut taxes. FDR ended the depression and saw the country through most of WWII. They have become nothing but plastic political whores. At least we know what the Republicans stand for in general. The Democrats have lost their identity.

As I said though, what really troubles me (or actually entertains me) is that they keep sticking to the same failed tactics. The mor eit gets talked about the worse it gets. Before the last election and immediately after it, the talk was of a lacking conherhent agenda. Why, then, are they STILL without one?

Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.

I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.

Yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. But I do love your really wild metaphorical examples " The criminal liberal media......Plastic, political, whores " Pretty colorful.

Don't believe me? Just keep watching.

Oh! Still in check.;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by kraig911
I really think the only way the dem's are going to get any say anywhere in this country is finding some potential screw-up by a big republican, and market the hell outta it. Its sad but i mean a demonic goatman is more likely get lucky with a stacked plantinum angel in heaven than a dem president is getting into the oval office.
*parden my obscure beer induced analogy*
Wear your raincoat, this next campaign season... theirs going to be a lot of flinging...

This is just wishful thinking at best.:no:

[kraig911]

yeah the demonic goatman getting it on, I'd pay to see that... too bad that wouldn't happen either...8)

This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh

[jimmac]

Originally posted by kraig911
yeah the demonic goatman getting it on, I'd pay to see that... too bad that wouldn't happen either...8)

This isn't about WOMD's dude, who cares if they had them or not, Its all now one less variable less out of the equation, less stuff to muck things up. You're just the type that hates to be wrong... heh

It's my feeling that armchair generals like yourself should have been on the front line. Variables? You're talking about lives! On both sides!

About the demonic goatman.......you obviously have too much time on your hands and need to get a life. But I do recognize flamebait when I see it. Go have another beer.:rolleyes:

[kraig911]

oh oh... what a valid response to an argument ;) flamebait... thats why AO is so much fun... yes lives are at stakes.. and no i'm not an armchair general... but you have to think of the entire world here, and not be so small minded. If the life of one child saved millions of people thereafter is it worth it? and if they gave their life as a sacrifice would we truly know, if so how many sacrifices have been given to us up till now?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by kraig911
oh oh... what a valid response to an argument ;) flamebait... thats why AO is so much fun... yes lives are at stakes.. and no i'm not an armchair general... but you have to think of the entire world here, and not be so small minded. If the life of one child saved millions of people thereafter is it worth it? and if they gave their life as a sacrifice would we truly know, if so how many sacrifices have been given to us up till now?

Yeah, but I'm still waiting to hear proof that this war was worth it. So this war saved the " entire world "?:lol:

[bunge]

Bubba (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20030515/ap_on_el_pr/democrats)

[SDW2001]

jimmac:

Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feelÉØ´and ngrsonal posturing than logic or fact.

Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.



I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.

Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.

Once again, I quote:

Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.

I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.

Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"

That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).

Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.

[SDW2001]

jimmac:

Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.

Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.



I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.

Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.

Once again, I quote:

Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.

I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.

Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"

That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).

Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:



Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.





Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.

Once again, I quote:



I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.

Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"

That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).

Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.




You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in triplicate already.

He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ). He started a war without real provacation. The fact that they seem to be having such a hard time finding WOMD proves that the supposed threat was way over blown at best. And SDW this means he lied about their " proof ' that Saddam had WOMD. If they had proof where are they? They should have been easy to find. Most Bush supporters realize that now so they say " it doesn't matter. It was just good enough to get rid of Saddam. Forget our original reasons. "

I could go on but what's the point? I don't even like his quasi religious good ol' boy approach!

You could present your list but who would believe you? After all your crazy ramblings only desperate Bush supporters.

Come on! Tell us about the criminal liberal media again!

By the way you're still in check over that one.:rolleyes:

[JC]

Originally posted by trumptman
It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.


*The government was never shut down and the president was never removed from ovice

*it was not personal, it was illeagle and he was breaking the law. If he was not president he would have gone to court or/and been fired.

*if Bush has sexual relations with an inturn i would impeach him. this country has moral values (at least some of us)

your statement that, "they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy." means that you condone this activity. to you there was no reason to complain about his affair unless it is an attempt to attack his policy. Which is what the left does all the time. Us right wingers tend to use policy to debate policy.

[JC]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co....
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.

Fellowship

This is wishfull thinking:D
If the dems had something to say they would say it. instead of making thimselves look foolish by debating such important and newsworthy issues such as weather or not bush was AWOL or if he had a sock in his flightsuit to increase his manhood. The whole strategy is to attack bush attack attack. and bush is not attacking a n y b o d y!

if they are waiting to spring a last minute brilliant strategy they are sure acting dumb in the mean time. I am sorry to tell you that you have fools running for office. Clinton would not have done this. He would be debating a number of five point things by now.

[SDW2001]

jimmac:

You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in C؃ÎlicaŠ¡ already.



You are correct that just because I state something, that doesn't make it "true". I do feel confident in my positions, though.

Now, for the second part: You HAVEN'T been over it in triplicate. Not at all.

To begin, we have this statement:

He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ).

This is exactly the kind of statement I'm taking about. Clueless? That doesn't mean anything. You sound like friggin' Terry McCauliffe. Are you saying he just doesn't KNOW we have an economic slowdown right now? If you are NOT saying that, then what should he do? What would you do? Wha