What does this mean for Democrats?

[rageous]

Assuming Bush wins, which is a reasonable assumption at this point, what is the Democratic party going to do?

Republicans will have the House, Senate, Presidency and with that Presidency will come the Conservative Supreme Court Justices.

That last spot is the one place Democrats can make a stand, but with the blacks eyes these last couple of electins have given them as far as losing representation, is blocking justice nominations a path they want to walk down?

I would like to have an open and honest discussion about where there are to go from here. So if you're hard core right wing and the best thing you can come up with is "they're screwed", please get lost.

[Scott]

The talking heads on TeeVee say that some of the exit polling indicates that "values" was high on the minds of people exiting the polls. I guess that doesn't favor Kerry. I'll let others figure out why or why not?

[Gene Clean]

If I were in the Democratic Party, I'd just step down and watch what they did. Believe me, NOT saying anything while they temporarily screw up the country and kill more than 1,100 men and women by sending them to harms ways, would be more effective then 2 years of campaigning on behalf of Democrats.

Some people vote for Bush just because they think that they should give a second chance to a guy that is being accused by the other party of this and that. That is a significant amount of votes that could go to the Democrats if they just, simply, let them f...k things up.

[Scott]

And here is why Democrats just don't get it and will lose time and again to a lack luster republican candidate.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Some people vote for Bush just because they think that they should give a second chance to a guy that is being accused by the other party of this and that. That is a significant amount of votes that could go to the Democrats if they just, simply, let them f...k things up.

Perhaps. But there is also a large number of people currently voting Kerry not because they favor him or Democratic Politics, rather they just want Bush out. Democrats can just as easily lose those votes as they could gain the ones you speak of.

[Neø]

The Democrats....

...they'll regroup and come up with another attack strategy, but at least they won't be going by their 40-year old playbook...

[Scott]

After Clinton they went right back to the 40 year play book. Democrats have no new ideas and refuse to change.

[Gene Clean]

And the new ideas you speak of would be, "God hates Gays", and "We'll smoke 'em out"?

dang...

[Neø]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
And the new ideas you speak of would be, "God hates Gays", and "We'll smoke 'em out"?

dang...

that wasn't new...
...i mean it was in the Bible

good try though:D

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
And the new ideas you speak of would be, "God hates Gays", and "We'll smoke 'em out"?

dang...

I can't tell you what the new ideas are because the democrats don't have any. Other than tax more and pay for more social welfare programs. Maybe they should call it the "New Deal". Yea that's catchy!

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
I can't tell you what the new ideas are because the democrats don't have any. Other than tax more and pay for more social welfare programs. Maybe they should call it the "New Deal". Yea that's catchy!


You claim to have new ideas. I'm asking about your new ideas, of course, apart from "God hates gays", "We'll smoke 'em out", and the best of all "they hate our freedom...." (ooh, i remember the best of the best...), "we went to war, to catch this guy, after all, he once tried to kill my father..." (Bush claiming that Saddam tried to kill GHB.)

hmmmmmm... re-read the Bible Neo; I think you read it with the medieval mind.

[Scott]

No I said the democrats don't have new ideas. Unless you know if some I haven't heard about.

[Gene Clean]

And I'm saying what your (Republican) new ideas.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
And I'm saying what your (Republican) new ideas.

This thread is about democrats.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
This thread is about democrats.


Sure it is, but you claim they don't have new ideas, which means you do. I don't believe you do, so I want to be sure you do.

Anyway, don't answer. I already got my answer.

[Neø]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Sure it is, but you claim they don't have new ideas, which means you do. I don't believe you do, so I want to be sure you do.

Anyway, don't answer. I already got my answer.

Don't tell me you got it from Dan Rather...

[rageous]

So much for intelligent discussion.

Another bicker thread. God knows we don't have enough of those. Scott, I asked for ideas for their future, not analysis of the present...

[Northgate]

Round up the fags.

Bomb another Godless country.

Order up another round of tax cuts.

[bunge]

Can't do much about voter fraud.

[Jubelum]

What does it mean? Hmmmm:

1. The People do not agree with your vision for America.

2. 51% of people are Bush voters... 3 million more than Kerry.

3. Of those with the opportunity to speak on the issue, 75% or so do not want gay marriage.

4: Dem's LOST seats in both houses of the US Congress.

5: The BS didn't work. Michael Moore included.

6: You have FOUR more years of Bush and two more years of Republican congressional control.

Shall I go on?
:lol: 8)

[groverat]

Hopefully they realize that doing things like stabbing people like Howard Dean in the back is a bad idea.

The Democratic Party can go straight to hell for all I care (and for all I've cared since before the 2000 election).

Idiots.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by groverat
Hopefully they realize that doing things like stabbing people like Howard Dean in the back is a bad idea.

The Democratic Party can go straight to hell for all I care (and for all I've cared since before the 2000 election).

Idiots.

Howard Dean could have won. Maybe. A hell of a lot closer than John F'n Kerry. So what if a guy gets orgasmic at a rally and screams?


:lol:

[groverat]

And Howard Dean wouldn't have forgotten Poland.

[macenzo]

this means the first woman president in 2008

[groverat]

Hillary is unelectable. Do you honestly believe that middle America will vote for a woman? That's even more delusional than people who thought Kerry had a shot at winning. :lol: :lol:

We will have a black male president before we have a female president, you can bet the house on that. Anyone who has paid even the tiniest bit of attention to America's history with regard to race and gender relations would know that.

The best shot the Dems have is someone like Dean. They need a fire-breather. No lifer from Congress.

[macenzo]

middle america who cares? take ohio and fight for florida and it is done. and there are women in middle america believe me.

[DanMacMan]

Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President." And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

Rudy Giuliani
30 August 2004
RNC Convention Speech
What is to happen to the democrats? A downward spiral for some time. As the mayor said, thank God President Bush and the Republicans are in office, for the foreseeable future, so we dont have to worry about what will become of the democrats. You have four plus years of self-loathing to figure it out.

[Stoo]

So you don't care if (that?) there is no opposition to keep the Republicans in check?

[midwinter]

The democratic party in America is dead. It's either going to limp along like it currently is (waiting for another Clinton) or it's going to get smart and remake itself as a truly centrist party.

It's going to take a long time, though. At least 20 years.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Scott
And here is why Democrats just don't get it and will lose time and again to a lack luster republican candidate. Like the lack luster republican candidate you voted for yesterday? Gotta admit I agree with this part of your post.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by groverat
Hillary is unelectable. Do you honestly believe that middle America will vote for a woman? That's even more delusional than people who thought Kerry had a shot at winning. :lol: :lol:

We will have a black male president before we have a female president, you can bet the house on that. Anyone who has paid even the tiniest bit of attention to America's history with regard to race and gender relations would know that.

The best shot the Dems have is someone like Dean. They need a fire-breather. No lifer from Congress.

I think that this is absolutely correct.

To address the thread. I really do hope that this doesn't mean the collapse of America's only opposition party. It should be obvious why.

Democrats, and 'liberals', aren't 'the enemy'. It's shameful that 'liberal' has become a perjorative term. Disagreeing with liberalism is one thing but this attempt to build a consensus that can only alienate half the country at the expense of the civilised exchange of ideas is terribly dangerous and makes the country poorer.

Liberal American values and politicians make just as valid a part of the nation's political history as conservative. The Democratic Party's more conservative than it's ever been, as far as I can make out from their Presidential candidate.

They do certainly need a fire-breathing Howard Dean to grab back the middle ground and pound on about social justice, diplomacy, corruption, the government's social contract, civil rights and whatnot.

That's not going to be this Democratic Party then, and that's worrying for the rest of us and bad for America.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I think that this is absolutely correct.

To address the thread. I really do hope that this doesn't mean the collapse of America's only opposition party. It should be obvious why.

Democrats, and 'liberals', aren't 'the enemy'. It's shameful that 'liberal' has become a perjorative term. Disagreeing with liberalism is one thing but this attempt to build a consensus that can only alienate half the country at the expense of the civilised exchange of ideas is terribly dangerous and makes the country poorer.


...

Why do you knee jerk and blame this on the right? Do you think Moore's special brand of patriotism brought people together or maybe helped to polarize them? Do you think Dean's admonishment to the south to stop voting on "god, gays and guns" brought people together or maybe helped to polarize them? Maybe the ACLU should keep supporting terrorists' rights while at the same time relentlessly attacking the boy scouts?

Nope! It's all the Right's fault.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Scott
Why do you knee jerk and blame this on the right? Do you think Moore's special brand of patriotism brought people together or maybe helped to polarize them? Do you think Dean's admonishment to the south to stop voting on "god, gays and guns" brought people together or maybe helped to polarize them? Maybe the ACLU should keep supporting terrorists' rights while at the same time relentlessly attacking the boy scouts?

Nope! It's all the Right's fault.
But that's just the point: he can't say the things he does without someone like you questioning his patriotism.
Thanks for making my point for me so rapidly and succinctly. While I'm at it, ask yourself why 'conservative' isn't a pejorative term when 'liberal' is.

Oh, and if you'd seen his last film you'd know that Moore's a patriot.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But that's just the point: he can't say the things he does without someone like you questioning his patriotism.

I didn't question his patriotism. I just called it a special brand. Do you think Moore helped or hurt Kerry's election? Do you think he brought people together or pushed them apart?


Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Thanks for making my point for me so rapidly and succinctly. While I'm at it, ask yourself why 'conservative' isn't a pejorative term when 'liberal' is.

Oh, and if you'd seen his last film you'd know that Moore's a patriot.


Thanks for showing me the tunnel vision of the left is intact.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
I didn't question his patriotism. I just called it a special brand.

It's almost impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who can say something like that with a straight face.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Harald
It's almost impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who can say something like that with a straight face.


Aw! Come on Harald didn't you know there are different brands of patriotism to fit any occasion. Just like cigars or liquor.

Not!:no:

Scott's just not grasping the concept of right and wrong.

[Scott]

I'll ignore stupid comments and say that I think Moore starts off from a position of being a patriot. It's his sloppy execution that results in lies and distortions about his own country and its leadership that make is so special.


So anyone want to pull their head out of the sand and answer the question? Did Moore help to bring people together or "polarize them"?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
I'll ignore stupid comments and say that I think Moore starts off from a position of being a patriot. It's his sloppy execution that results in lies and distortions about his own country and its leadership that make is so special.


So anyone want to pull their head out of the sand and answer the question? Did Moore help to bring people together or "polarize them"?


Bush holding the hand of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a lie? G. H. Bush's video of visiting King Abdullah and talkign to him about oil is a lie?

Osama's family leaving the US after 9/11 as laid down by Prince Bandard (the favorite ambassador of Bush) is a lie?

Hamid Karzhai being an advisor of Unocal is a lie? Unocal's CEO being one of the biggest donators to Bush's campaign is a lie? Halliburton getting 7 billion dollar no-bid contracts is a lie? Cheney still getting salaries from Halliburton is a lie?

Moore is a filmmaker, not a politican. His job is not to bring people together, but to make films. He made a film, and the guy that was in charge of bringing people together, made the country even more polarized and divided. Or is this one of Moore's lies too?

[Scott]

Here (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore) and here (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm).


Moore may not be trying to bring people together but don't try to tell me the blame for the "polarization" rest with republicans.

Here's an image that helps bring people together. Nothing "polarizing" about it.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott


Moore may not be trying to bring people together but don't try to tell me the blame for the "polarization" rest with republicans.

Moore does not make policy. He reacts to it.

Damn, Moore is the new Bill Clinton, isn't he?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Scott
After Clinton they went right back to the 40 year play book. Democrats have no new ideas and refuse to change.
You mean Republicans? Those are two Republican traits, er, values.

[Fran441]

Howard Dean cannot be President. Didn't we *just* learn that a "New England Liberal" can't win? I'd like to see Dean take over as the head of the DNC though. I think he would be a positive force in shaping the party's message and he is well spoken enough that he could get the message out on news shows.

What we need is someone who the Republicans can't smear for military service. Someone who is from the midwest/south who is a person of faith and can speak to the people. We had a very good candidate who was overlooked this time around in Wesley Clark. I wish that Kerry had picked Clark as his Vice Presidential candidate since he offered so much more than John Edwards ever did. Edwards couldn't even deliver his home state!

We must learn from this election so we will be ready next time.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Placebo
You mean Republicans? Those are two Republican traits, er, values.

No the republicans have lots of new ideas. They want to make a lot of changes. But that's for another thread.

Democrats? Tax and spend. Need health care? Tax and spend. Schools bad? Tax and spend. Government ran out of money? Tax and spend? Social security failing? Tax and spend. wash rinse repeat.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
No the republicans have lots of new ideas.

Such as? Cuttaxescuttaxescuttaxescuttaxes? Liberalsareevilliberalareevilliberalsareevil? Godisonoursidegodisonourside? Liberalswanttotakeyourgunsaway. LIberalswanttotakeyourgodaway. Liberalswanttomakeyoumarrygaypeopleandhaveabortion s?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Here (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore) and here (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm).


Moore may not be trying to bring people together but don't try to tell me the blame for the "polarization" rest with republicans.

Here's an image that helps bring people together. Nothing "polarizing" about it.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG

Your image is well know to be a Republican dirty trick. These flyers were dropped off at a demo campaign office. where they were immediately thrown away. A while later a guy just "happened by", asking after these very flyers. When he was told they had been thrown away, he got one out of the trash and called the press.

Great example of "democratic divisiveness".

The thread is predicated on the idea that the dems are somehow obliterated from this election. A few thousand votes in Ohio and we could be talking about what's to become of the Republican party.

Look at this way: if bush had lost, how would you react to the idea that the Republicans "needed" to do some soul searching and stop being so dismissive of "liberals", stop trading in their broadly contemptuous characterizations of people who live in cities, the people who make up the backbone of this great land?

Would you be willing to accept, as a starting point, that rural elites need to get over themselves and stop behaving as if they are the only people who have a moral compass and care about the country? That the politics of hatred dooms the Republican party to marginal role in American society until and unless the party starts crafting a message that resonates with urban dwelling sophisticates?

You wouldn't, and you wouldn't even if the last few elections had gone badly for you. That's because you believe that conservative values are "real" values and therefor nonnegotiable.

Within these discussions there is always the implicit assumption that conservative politics that play well in rural areas are somehow more "authentic" then liberal politics, that liberal politics don't arise out of any particular deeply held beliefs, and that the answer to the "problem" of the democrats is in jettisoning the "liberal" part of "liberalism" and coming up with something that plays well God fearing, gay hating, gun loving Americans.

At which point there is no reason to be doing it.


Again, what would you think of a conservative who lost an election and thought, "hmmm...... better embrace abortion, gay rights, social justice, and the welfare state, lest I become irrelevant?"

(By the way, for those of you that keep mentioning America's opposition to gay marriage, as if support for same were a plank of the Democratic platform, could please STFU already? You know fucking well Kerry didn't back gay marriage, he just opposed a constitutional amendment, which any real conservative should have been happy about. Again, as per many other posts, bush supporters=stupid.)

We didn't lose this election because the "country" has shunned "liberal' values.

We lost this election because Bush and co, decided, four years ago, to tear the country in two with the intent of getting the slightly larger half, which has come to pass.

They get the slightly larger half not by having an overwhelmingly more compelling message, but by being absolutely ruthless when it comes to politicizing every aspect of public life, savaging their opponents, and using every possible political dirty trick to effect the election process.

After all of that, after damaging the American political system with reckless disregard for the long term, they can barely get more than half the vote for an incumbent, war time president-- a historically low margin for a sitting president.

Should the dems "get brutal'? I can't see how turning over the party to the left equivalent of Karl Rove helps, for the simple reason that being fucking assholes doesn't really resonate with our base. I'll leave it for Scott to explain the asshole vote.

We do, however, have to get a lot sharper with our message, shrug off the demonization and framing of liberalism that the right has saddled us with.

I want a candidate that says: "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And you should be too, if you're like most people in this country. You've been handed a lie, and I'm here to tell you what a liberal really is."

I want a liberal electorate that descends on the right wing media like locusts when they fail to tell the truth about policy. We can't craft a message if we can't get heard unfiltered.

I want a liberal infrastructure that attacks the whole idea of the "liberal media" and exposes it for the lie that it is. A cadre of quick response mouthpieces that are telegenic, well spoken, and who don't take any shit off the screaming heads. That hammer home the message with tireless discipline. That make the failures of the echo chamber the subject of debate. "Why did you lie? Why did you let the president lie? Here are the facts. They are indisputable. No, what you just said was another lie." And make sure when they throw that guy off, the next liberal spokesperson does exactly the same thing, so that unless the cable news shows want to just stop having anybody from the left on entirely, they are going to half to deal with this level of confrontation.

We don't have to be assholes, but we don't have to be polite, and we don't have to ever again underestimate the level of venality we are up against.

[Scott]

Originally posted by addabox
Your image is well know to be a Republican dirty trick. These flyers were dropped off at a demo campaign office. where they were immediately thrown away. A while later a guy just "happened by", asking after these very flyers. When he was told they had been thrown away, he got one out of the trash and called the press.

Great example of "democratic divisiveness".


Yea that's the spin on it. You're presenting spin as fact. Fact is they don't know who dropped them off.

Originally posted by addabox
The thread is predicated on the idea that the dems are somehow obliterated from this election. A few thousand votes in Ohio and we could be talking about what's to become of the Republican party.

You mean a few hundred thousand. If that were the case how would you feel about one candidate, Bush, winning the popular vote and other, Kerry, winning the EC? Riots in the streets.


Originally posted by addabox
Look at this way: if bush had lost, how would you react to the idea that the Republicans "needed" to do some soul searching and stop being so dismissive of "liberals", stop trading in their broadly contemptuous characterizations of people who live in cities, the people who make up the backbone of this great land?

The republicans could cool their jets on some issues. If Bush lost though it would have been his loss and not the party's. If you want to talk about contempt though it's the other way around. Just read about the contempt (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html) New Yorkers have for the red states.

Originally posted by addabox
Would you be willing to accept, as a starting point, that rural elites need to get over themselves and stop behaving as if they are the only people who have a moral compass and care about the country? That the politics of hatred dooms the Republican party to marginal role in American society until and unless the party starts crafting a message that resonates with urban dwelling sophisticates?

You wouldn't, and you wouldn't even if the last few elections had gone badly for you. That's because you believe that conservative values are "real" values and therefor nonnegotiable.

Within these discussions there is always the implicit assumption that conservative politics that play well in rural areas are somehow more "authentic" then liberal politics, that liberal politics don't arise out of any particular deeply held beliefs, and that the answer to the "problem" of the democrats is in jettisoning the "liberal" part of "liberalism" and coming up with something that plays well God fearing, gay hating, gun loving Americans.

At which point there is no reason to be doing it.

I believe everything you stated above is false. It's some sort of caricature that has been developed. It must make liberals feel better to vilify those that don't agree with them.


Originally posted by addabox
Again, what would you think of a conservative who lost an election and thought, "hmmm...... better embrace abortion, gay rights, social justice, and the welfare state, lest I become irrelevant?"

It's admirable to stand on principle but if your party wants to win you have to give some ground. Democrats did eject the "welfare state" and it helped Clinton a lot.

Originally posted by addabox
(By the way, for those of you that keep mentioning America's opposition to gay marriage, as if support for same were a plank of the Democratic platform, could please STFU already? You know fucking well Kerry didn't back gay marriage, he just opposed a constitutional amendment, which any real conservative should have been happy about. Again, as per many other posts, bush supporters=stupid.)

No one really bought Kerry's rejection of gay marriage.

Originally posted by addabox
We didn't lose this election because the "country" has shunned "liberal' values.

We lost this election because Bush and co, decided, four years ago, to tear the country in two with the intent of getting the slightly larger half, which has come to pass.

You don't really think that a single politician or a single campaign can have this effect do you? This trend goes back to reagan. Unfortunately for you Clinton was an aberration that happened because he move toward the center. And to go back to an earlier point his war record was bad. Republicans tried to slam him on it and it didn't work because no one really cares about that shit anymore.

Originally posted by addabox
They get the slightly larger half not by having an overwhelmingly more compelling message, but by being absolutely ruthless when it comes to politicizing every aspect of public life, savaging their opponents, and using every possible political dirty trick to effect the election process.

After all of that, after damaging the American political system with reckless disregard for the long term, they can barely get more than half the vote for an incumbent, war time president-- a historically low margin for a sitting president.

Please? This is so over the top it's not worth commenting on. I'll just say that you should see some of this in the democrats as well. Dan Rather's forged memos. MoveOn.org's Bush is a nazi commercial. ...

Originally posted by addabox
Should the dems "get brutal'? I can't see how turning over the party to the left equivalent of Karl Rove helps, for the simple reason that being fucking assholes doesn't really resonate with our base. I'll leave it for Scott to explain the asshole vote.

They voted for Kerry;)

Originally posted by addabox
We do, however, have to get a lot sharper with our message, shrug off the demonization and framing of liberalism that the right has saddled us with.

But the left is eclectic and untamable. How are you going to get the ACLU to stop dragging the Boy Scouts down while defending terrorists and pedophiles? How are you going to get Michael Moore to STFU?

Of course you don't have to. You just have to distance yourself from them.

Originally posted by addabox
I want a candidate that says: "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And you should be too, if you're like most people in this country. You've been handed a lie, and I'm here to tell you what a liberal really is."

I think the better massage is, "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And you should be too. I'm here to tell you what a liberal really is why it's better and how we can do it. " Can you tell the difference? BTW Robert Risch is your man for doing this but you'll have a hard time with a tax and spend liberal.

Originally posted by addabox
I want a liberal electorate that descends on the right wing media like locusts when they fail to tell the truth about policy. We can't craft a message if we can't get heard unfiltered.

I want a liberal infrastructure that attacks the whole idea of the "liberal media" and exposes it for the lie that it is. A cadre of quick response mouthpieces that are telegenic, well spoken, and who don't take any shit off the screaming heads. That hammer home the message with tireless discipline. That make the failures of the echo chamber the subject of debate. "Why did you lie? Why did you let the president lie? Here are the facts. They are indisputable. No, what you just said was another lie." And make sure when they throw that guy off, the next liberal spokesperson does exactly the same thing, so that unless the cable news shows want to just stop having anybody from the left on entirely, they are going to half to deal with this level of confrontation.

We don't have to be assholes, but we don't have to be polite, and we don't have to ever again underestimate the level of venality we are up against.

Good luck with all that. While you're tearing apart the other side you are not building yourself up. If you think that's they way to go then you need a two pronged approach where one is sacrificed for the other.

Don't cry when you don't win.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Yea that's the spin on it. You're presenting spin as fact. Fact is they don't know who dropped them off.



You mean a few hundred thousand. If that were the case how would you feel about one candidate, Bush, winning the popular vote and other, Kerry, winning the EC? Riots in the streets.




The republicans could cool their jets on some issues. If Bush lost though it would have been his loss and not the party's. If you want to talk about contempt though it's the other way around. Just read about the contempt (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html) New Yorkers have for the red states.



I believe everything you stated above is false. It's some sort of caricature that has been developed. It must make liberals feel better to vilify those that don't agree with them.




It's admirable to stand on principle but if your party wants to win you have to give some ground. Democrats did eject the "welfare state" and it helped Clinton a lot.



No one really bought Kerry's rejection of gay marriage.



You don't really think that a single politician or a single campaign can have this effect do you? This trend goes back to reagan. Unfortunately for you Clinton was an aberration that happened because he move toward the center. And to go back to an earlier point his war record was bad. Republicans tried to slam him on it and it didn't work because no one really cares about that shit anymore.



Please? This is so over the top it's not worth commenting on. I'll just say that you should see some of this in the democrats as well. Dan Rather's forged memos. MoveOn.org's Bush is a nazi commercial. ...



They voted for Kerry;)



But the left is eclectic and untamable. How are you going to get the ACLU to stop dragging the Boy Scouts down while defending terrorists and pedophiles? How are you going to get Michael Moore to STFU?

Of course you don't have to. You just have to distance yourself from them.



I think the better massage is, "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And you should be too. I'm here to tell you what a liberal really is why it's better and how we can do it. " Can you tell the difference? BTW Robert Risch is your man for doing this but you'll have a hard time with a tax and spend liberal.



Good luck with all that. While you're tearing apart the other side you are not building yourself up. If you think that's they way to go then you need a two pronged approach where one is sacrificed for the other.

Don't cry when you don't win.



" Don't cry when you don't win. "


Why not? We know you'd be bitch'in about this with no end if Bush had lost. That may be your fate in 4 years or less if Bush gets really stupid.;)

[bunge]

Scott, why no acknowledgment of the "republican dirty trick" with the retard picture? Admit you were wrong or you lied, or prove the claim of the "republican dirty trick" wrong.

Or just continue to be a liar. Take your pick.

[Scott]

Can you prove it?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Can you prove it?

At least I got you to acknowledge it. That's a step in the right direction for you.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
I think the better massage is, "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And you should be too. I'm here to tell you what a liberal really is why it's better and how we can do it. " Can you tell the difference? BTW Robert Risch is your man for doing this but you'll have a hard time with a tax and spend liberal.

Yes, although I'd prefer "Fuck yeah, I'm a liberal. And so was Jesus."

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
No the republicans have lots of new ideas. They want to make a lot of changes. But that's for another thread.

Democrats? Tax and spend. Need health care? Tax and spend. Schools bad? Tax and spend. Government ran out of money? Tax and spend? Social security failing? Tax and spend. wash rinse repeat.

This is such a lie, repeated over and over and over and over and over.

Democrats spend within their means.

Republicans are borrow and spend.

UNDENIABLE FACT: Republicans spend way more than Democrats. You can't spin that one.

I'm so pissed at people like Scott spreading these heinous lies, that I really, really really want to scream "fuck you". But I don't want to get banned, so I won't.

Scott, please get educated about economic truths. Not Republican talking points. Anyone who thinks Democrats are "tax and spend" and denies that republicans are "borrow and spend" is truly living in an alternate reality.

[bunge]

Originally posted by tonton
Scott, please get educated about economic truths.

You can't educate a troll.

[addabox]

Originally posted by bunge
You can't educate a troll.

Particularly a troll that hasn't figured out that he's a troll and thinks that "under the bridge" is the Hilton.