Dean for D Chair

[Existence]

Terry McAuliffe must go. Kerry's loss is proof that running as a Republican and pretending to be a Democrat doesn't work.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/111118/941

The Democrats need a new direction towards liberalism and building their base--they have abandoned workers and have become utterly corporate. There needs be a bloodbath in the leadership of the party. Terry Mcafliffe's politics of supporting conservative positions and appeasing 'moderates' is a 3-time consecutive failure. The Democrats lost senate, house and local races to the facists under his misguided leadership. Republicans running as Democrats can't expect to win against the facists. Just look at what happen to Dashle.

Howward Dean for DNC chair!

[BRussell]

It may be true that trying to appeal to conservatives and moderates hasn't worked. Unfortunately, it's pretty apparent to me that the reason the Dems lost isn't that they were too conservative, it's that they weren't conservative enough for the electorate.

[Existence]

No, the Democrats were wishy washy and had no clear platform. The Anybody But Bush is not a good plan to win an election which is essential what Terry McAullife hoped. Kerry had few strong positions on many issues and was essentially alike Bush on most social issues. It didn't work.

The reason Bush did so well is that he has a a very large solid base. The Democratic party is does not have a solid base. Just look at the electoral map -- those Bush states went by large majorities. Most of the Kerry states were squeekers and by much smaller margins.

You need a decent base before you can even think about stealing votes from the other side. Voters need to be galvanized by a candidate with charisma and positions on issues that they aree with, noy a candidate that is very similar to the enemy. Kerry was pathetic. Dashle was pathetic. They lost.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
It may be true that trying to appeal to conservatives and moderates hasn't worked. Unfortunately, it's pretty apparent to me that the reason the Dems lost isn't that they were too conservative, it's that they weren't conservative enough for the electorate.

That is exactly right. I couldn't agree more. The Dems need a totally new agenda and new leadership.

[Scott]

Dean cost Kerry the election by forcing Kerry to the left.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Scott
Dean cost Kerry the election by forcing Kerry to the left.

I think that could be true. Though, Kerry was pretty "left" to begin with.

[Scott]

Mostly WRT to the Iraq war. Kerry should have looked past Iraq and gone hard on Pakistan. Played on the publics admiration and confidence of the military by promising to force Pakistan to open up the country to US troops to get bin Laden.

[groverat]

They need to move left, not right. They have no courage of conviction or ideals, though, so they won't. They are idiots, they are playing not to lose and end up never giving themselves a chance to win.

They could've made waves with Dean, instead they went with Captain Pointless with a record of 20 years of stagnant Senate work and a personality to match. What did they expect from Kerry? What do they expect from a party platform that is almost indistinguishable from their opponent's?

I hope another 4 years of Bush will make the Democrats realize that they need to be unapologetic about liberal values.

[BuonRotto]

Yes, it's a great idea. We need our political candidates to abandon the moderate viewpoint, go to more extremes and further divide the people amongst one another. That will balance out the conservative viewpoint. The last thing we need is a candidate that will bring these sides together.

[tonton]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Yes, it's a great idea. We need our political candidates to abandon the moderate viewpoint, go to more extremes and further divide the people amongst one another. That will balance out the conservative viewpoint. The last thing we need is a candidate that will bring these sides together.

Excpet that there are only two high profile moderate Republicans in the country, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The rest are ULTRA-conservative. So with Kerry v. Bush we had a choice between an ULTRA-conservative and a moderate liberal. Which should we have chosen to "unite" the country?

It's not the Democrats that are the dividers. Example: Kerry says "I don't support abortion personally, but I will humbly give each state, and each citizen the right to make their own choices". That's a UNITING point of view, not a dividing one.

[Scott]

I don't think moving to the left is a good idea.


Maybe they could take the current platform and rethink the solutions.

[Gene Clean]

What a lot of people don't see is that the Republican states are dying. The Republican Party is a white man's party, and the white man is dying as a race in some of traditionally democratic states. Look at Arizona, look at New Mexico... they're hispanicizing at a very fast rate.

And who are they gonna vote for in 4-8 years? I don't think its gonna be the Reps.

[Scott]

The great brown hope. Immigrants are some of the hardest working industrious people in the country. Fantastic qualities for a Republican.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
The great brown hope. Immigrants are some of the hardest working industrious people in the country. Fantastic qualities for a Republican.


They also want education, health care, and decent jobs (talking about the legal ones). None of which is offered by Republicans.

What Reps offer are wars, isolation, and polarization. Why do you think they came to US? Let me tell you: to get the puck away from the same things.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
What a lot of people don't see is that the Republican states are dying. The Republican Party is a white man's party, and the white man is dying as a race in some of traditionally democratic states. Look at Arizona, look at New Mexico... they're hispanicizing at a very fast rate.

And who are they gonna vote for in 4-8 years? I don't think its gonna be the Reps.

Hispanics largely vote Republican, actually. It's mostly related to their tendency to be Catholics and the "values" associated with their Catholicism, i.e. anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.

[Scott]

They get education, they get jobs (why do you think they came here?). Bush supports guest workers and NAFTA. He's working on a central america trade agreement.

Democrats? In the union pocket. Have a protectionist attitude.


Time for the DNC to think outside the box.

[Towel]

Originally posted by tonton
Hispanics largely vote Republican, actually. It's mostly related to their tendency to be Catholics and the "values" associated with their Catholicism, i.e. anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc. CNN claims that latinos went 53-44 for Kerry. I agree, though, that they're largely Catholic, and tend to be more conservative than Irish/Italian Catholics, so they'll probably trend more Rep in the future.

For the Democrats, going "Republican lite" is suicide. Why the hell would anyone vote for a wishy-washy sorta-conservative when they can get the real thing? Meanwhile, your base stays home because they despise you. Kerry failed to excite moderates because he, and the Democrats, failed the "vision thing" test. Some of my wavering friends demanded to know "What will he do different? What does he actually stand for?" Democrats need an ideology, a vision. The Republican vision is easy: lower taxes, unapologetic war, and conservative Christian "values", in that order. I think "Liberty and Justice" would be a nice start for the Democrats.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
Excpet that there are only two high profile moderate Republicans in the country, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The rest are ULTRA-conservative. So with Kerry v. Bush we had a choice between an ULTRA-conservative and a moderate liberal. Which should we have chosen to "unite" the country?

It's not the Democrats that are the dividers. Example: Kerry says "I don't support abortion personally, but I will humbly give each state, and each citizen the right to make their own choices". That's a UNITING point of view, not a dividing one.

That's absurd. There are plenty of moderate Republicans.
As far as "dividers" go, you have to be kidding. The majority is supposed to rule in this country. That's why our system is the way it is. The Democrats were unfair and merciless in their open slander of President Bush. THEY created the divide, and they got their asses kicked at the polls because of it. What's amazing is that by listening to them talk, they STILL do not know why they lost so badly acorss the nation. They're openly blaming and mocking the red states. They have become the party of the liberal Northeast and Leftcoast. They've been totally marginalized. It didn't happen by accident or because Republicans are evil.

[groverat]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Yes, it's a great idea. We need our political candidates to abandon the moderate viewpoint, go to more extremes and further divide the people amongst one another. That will balance out the conservative viewpoint. The last thing we need is a candidate that will bring these sides together.

The "moderate" viewpoint in American right now is right-wing.

You cannot blame this divided nation on liberals. It makes no sense.

[BuonRotto]

If this is a solution to "win" the Presidency, then this country has no future.

[Common Man]

How clueless can the Dems be? You lost becasue you are so far out of touch with America. Going further left puts you further out of touch. Dean? Come on. Do you want to win any states next time?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Common Man
How clueless can the Dems be? You lost becasue you are so far out of touch with America. Going further left puts you further out of touch. Dean? Come on. Do you want to win any states next time?


The reason the Democratic Party has no life is because it went too moderate. It isn't differentiable from the Republicans. The left is where the Democratic Party should place its sights...

[Common Man]

Ok. Go further left.

[BuonRotto]

useful link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109133/

Noah thinks that going left, going right and staying put are all bad ways of looking at this. Of course, he has no answer himself, but at least it has some decent points to make against any of these schemes. Maybe a real debate will sprout. :)

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
What a lot of people don't see is that the Republican states are dying. The Republican Party is a white man's party, and the white man is dying as a race in some of traditionally democratic states. Look at Arizona, look at New Mexico... they're hispanicizing at a very fast rate.

And who are they gonna vote for in 4-8 years? I don't think its gonna be the Reps.

Do your homework before you throw this shit out, with a stereotype to boot. Hispanics in NM went more Republican than ever. It cost Kerry the state that Gore won. D'OH!

The Dems are in panic mode over the sliding of the Hispanic vote away from the Democratic party. In San Antonio, TX (68%+ Hispanic) Bush won by 11 percentage points. Look at the CNN.com county maps.

A white man's party? I'm in the party, the son of a bus driver and janitor, and last time I checked- black. So lose your Moore-esque BS about the "white man's party." Seems to me the only KKK member in the US Congress is a DEMOCRAT.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by Common Man
Ok. Go further left.

I second that. :smokey:

[hardeeharhar]

I do not think that most people understand what is meant by left.

Jesus was a liberal; and I will leave it at that.

[dmz]

I'm having a hard time picturing Christ with a 'pro-gay/blind-eye-towards-partial-birth-abortion' agenda.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
I'm having a hard time picturing Christ with a 'pro-gay/blind-eye-towards-partial-birth-abortion' agenda.

So you see him with a 'NeoCon test war on a sovereign nation/giving the spoils to the wealthy' agenda?

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar

Jesus was a liberal; and I will leave it at that.

Yep... he came down consistently for abortion. He agreed with forced charity. He thought there were no moral absolutes or eternal consequences for actions. And he did not want religion practiced as part of public society.

Sure. Whatever. :smokey:

[THT]

My cynicism is telling me that it doesn't matter if the Democrats move right or left, the only thing that matters is the message-making. Democrats have to retake the Churches, the local offices, and media spin game.

The Republicans won on the basis of religious bigotry and failures on both economics and foreign policy. The Democrats couldn't pound that message through, so therefore, their message making has totally collapsed, not to mention their polling either.

Dean has the right ideas about rebuilding from the local offices on up, so he would be the right person for the DNC chair.

Harry Reid, who seems to have Senate Minority Leader sewn up, is just going to be another Tom Daschle. Someone who will be handicapped and can't stay true to his beliefs because he is in a elephant state, albiet an unusual one.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Yep... he came down consistently for abortion. He agreed with forced charity. He thought there were no moral absolutes or eternal consequences for actions. And he did not want religion practiced as part of public society.

Sure. Whatever. :smokey:


Whoa. Abortion didn't exist. And there are a large number of liberals, like myself, who do not believe that abortion is a valid form of birth control. I would like the right on the books where there exist extenuating circumstances, as in the case of rape or life threatening conditions for the mother etc. Who is forcing you to give charity? All liberals I know base their beliefs very much in moral absolutes. Post-modern thought produces people who are not politically active (sorry but this tired line). As far as eternal consequences, heaven/hell duality aside, clearly, a long drawn out war in a foreign land will produce eternal consequences. The heaven/hell duality has never been a part of any party's political views... You are free to practice your religion, any religion, where ever you choose. The state is not free to tell you not to or to practice a religion.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Do your homework before you throw this shit out, with a stereotype to boot. Hispanics in NM went more Republican than ever. It cost Kerry the state that Gore won. D'OH!

The Dems are in panic mode over the sliding of the Hispanic vote away from the Democratic party. In San Antonio, TX (68%+ Hispanic) Bush won by 11 percentage points. Look at the CNN.com county maps.

A white man's party? I'm in the party, the son of a bus driver and janitor, and last time I checked- black. So lose your Moore-esque BS about the "white man's party." Seems to me the only KKK member in the US Congress is a DEMOCRAT.


Last time I checked NM wasn't called yet. And I was talking about 4-8 years from now, so hold your fcuking horses.

So what if you're in the party? So is Colin Powell, but that doesn't change the grand total of the White Man's Party. It is very much a white man's party; rich white folks with champaigne bubbles in their jacuzzis.

Seems to me as well, that where KKK was born and still lives, is where Bush won by a maority. That also includes San Antonio, TX. So drop your Cheney-esque BS and accept the fact that demographics are working for the Dems.

[ast3r3x]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Yep... he came down consistently for abortion. He agreed with forced charity. He thought there were no moral absolutes or eternal consequences for actions. And he did not want religion practiced as part of public society.

Sure. Whatever. :smokey:

:lol:

He didn't force his beliefs on others, he didn't support fighting, and he believed everyone should have a choice on earth.

[Jubelum]

Kerry's team was lilly fscking white, pal. Al Sharpton as the "chocolate ship in the vanilla shake" LOL I hereby expect that no white democrat EVER run against a minority republican. It's that important, right?

Condi, Powell, Elaine. Look! Non-white people as leaders in a Bush administration. Oi Vey! Of my 10 colleagues, four are black, and three of those voted Republican, and not for the first time. Keep droning about rich Republican white man racism. It's not playing. It's losing. Bad.

Racism accusations are so old and tired. The leftists need a new one, beyond racism and class warfare. It's not working, guys. Three elections in a row.... <thud>



:D

[ast3r3x]

When is Obama 35? :D

[Jubelum]

And for the record, the people blasting water cannons and using police dogs on my relatives were... Democrats. And the only black on the Supreme Court? Appointed by a Republican. And the Bush tax cut went to all of us, not just white folk.

[BuonRotto]

Yeah, I think we're at a very good point in our history in this sense: blacks can't be seens as a homogenous group of voters, and you can't just place the black population into one column. Well, it's one good thing about this country right now, anyway. :D

[Common Man]

The Dems biggest fear: A black conservative Republican.

[Existence]

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=742

THT: I agree, Harry Reid is a terrible pick. The Democrats have learned nothing.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Jubelum
And for the record, the people blasting water cannons and using police dogs on my relatives were... Democrats. And the only black on the Supreme Court? Appointed by a Republican. And the Bush tax cut went to all of us, not just white folk.

Parties change. The sons of those men blasting water cannons and using police dogs are Republicans.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
They also want education, health care, and decent jobs (talking about the legal ones).

Decent jobs?!?! From where exactly??? Oh, do you mean from those evil corporations the Dems are so hell bent on destroying or from the mom-n-pop shops that would be forced out of existence with some of the wonderful ideas the Dems have to regulate those businesses?

Can't have it both ways boys and girls... You can only pick one:

- low cost consumer goods and your dollar goes further
- high priced consumer goods and everyone has 'good jobs' and healthcare

Now Choose!

I for one don't wanna pay $10 for a bag of Apples and $6 for a gallon of Milk do you? (Hey at least I'm being honest)

Education **IS** the only answer - You want a good job?!?! Work your ass off like I did to learn something that will bring you a higher paying job with benefits. It didn't come easy for me, I had to work days and school at night and bum rides when my POS car died and couldn't afford to fix it but I managed and came out a better person for it. I expect nothing less from anyone else. 99% of the working-able could be doing the same thing - If they choose not to... thats their choice and they SHOULD live with it!

Giving handouts only encourages and rewards people taking the easy way out.

Dave

[THT]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Decent jobs?!?! From where exactly??? Oh, do you mean from those evil corporations the Dems are so hell bent on destroying or from the mom-n-pop shops that would be forced out of existence with some of the wonderful ideas the Dems have to regulate those businesses?

I believe the Democrats are for both evil corporations and small business.

Kerry's policy would have been not to have rewarded companies that outsourced, ie, creating a tax incentive for them to stay, not to go, otherwise he had much the same position as Bush for business. Everyone is pro-business in America. Every politician is pro-business in America.

I for one don't wanna pay $10 for a bag of Apples and $6 for a gallon of Milk do you? (Hey at least I'm being honest)

Heh. At 4% inflation, milk will be $6 per gallon in less than 20 years. So, you won't have a choice. ;)

Education **IS** the only answer - You want a good job?!?! Work your ass off like I did to learn something that will bring you a higher paying job with benefits. ...

Giving handouts only encourages and rewards people taking the easy way out.

I violently agree with here. However, I don't think Bush has done anything to support it. He doesn't really support research and technology. For clarification, I think "education" means for people 14 and up. The K-8 stuff is, I don't know, too early to be stressing the kids. I think education is much more valuable post-puberty.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Can't have it both ways boys and girls... You can only pick one:

- low cost consumer goods and your dollar goes further
- high priced consumer goods and everyone has 'good jobs' and healthcare

Explain my phone bill (and my phone bill with 2 previous companies) in a deregulated and so-called competitive field then.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Decent jobs?!?! From where exactly??? Oh, do you mean from those evil corporations the Dems are so hell bent on destroying or from the mom-n-pop shops that would be forced out of existence with some of the wonderful ideas the Dems have to regulate those businesses?


I don't think Halliburton, United Defence, Unocal fit the mon-n-pop shop description you're giving.



Can't have it both ways boys and girls... You can only pick one:

- low cost consumer goods and your dollar goes further
- high priced consumer goods and everyone has 'good jobs' and healthcare

Now Choose!


How 'bout we let the market choose, and don't give no-bid 7 billion dollar contracs and see what happens? I choose to not give 7 billion no-bid contracts. What do you choose?


I for one don't wanna pay $10 for a bag of Apples and $6 for a gallon of Milk do you? (Hey at least I'm being honest)

So the way to do it is give Halliburton 7 billion dollars no-bid contracs? To make Unocal advisor Hamid Karzhai President of Afghanistan and Unocal adviser Iyad Allawi Prime Minister or Iraq?

Explain why would you pay $10 for a bag of Apples and $6 for a gallon of milk. You weren't born yesterday were you? Because as far as I know, milk was a lot cheaper in times of Clinton, and Apples were cheap as well. Lets not talk about gasoline, that's a no-brainer for those that are not living with a Dogma.


Education **IS** the only answer - You want a good job?!?! Work your ass off like I did to learn something that will bring you a higher paying job with benefits. It didn't come easy for me, I had to work days and school at night and bum rides when my POS car died and couldn't afford to fix it but I managed and came out a better person for it. I expect nothing less from anyone else. 99% of the working-able could be doing the same thing - If they choose not to... thats their choice and they SHOULD live with it!


I ain't a latino, neither am I a minority. I'm currently in college, working my ass off as well, so why in the world are you telling ME what to do? I'm talking about the role of government in education, health care and regulating the market as to produce more jobs. Or do you think giving tax cuts to the schools is gonna do the trick?




Giving handouts only encourages and rewards people taking the easy way out.

Dave


agreed, but kicking their ass and telling them to fuck off when they ask for services in return for their taxes, isn't gonna make good people either.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by THT
I violently agree with here. However, I don't think Bush has done anything to support it. He doesn't really support research and technology. For clarification, I think "education" means for people 14 and up. The K-8 stuff is, I don't know, too early to be stressing the kids. I think education is much more valuable post-puberty.

Well thank you! :)

I'd like to see Bush do more here as well... Hell, if we can teach kids that Billy has two mommies and Jane has two dads and then how to properly install a "Trojan Ribbed 'for her protection' Reservoir Tipped" prophylactic on a banana then why the hell don't we have them learning how to earn and handle money and how to properly prepare for the rest of their work and financial life. It's beyond me... Oh, and I'm not talking about a 'short course' at the end of their senior year as far as I'm concerned thats too late... I'm talking progressive classes that would start as soon as they hit high school.

Show them how money can grow...
Show them the difference in ones lifetime of low paying job and a 'good' paying job.
Show them how using credit cards can destroy you before you even get started

This stuff should be pounded into the brains of every kid long before they enter college!

My father was a smart man and decided to start teaching me about this stuff very early in my life (right around 14 I think) and over the years that I was in high school slowly expanded the teaching to include the stock market, bonds, real estate and the power of putting money away for the future. At the same time he also taught me how to RESPONSIBLY enjoy the money I had (all work and no play)... I got more out of his teachings then most everything I was taught in school.

I own a few homes now and have a substantial nest egg put away for me and my wife to retire on when we hit 55. All without one thin dime being given to me.

I just wish others knew the simple things I know...

Dave

[hardeeharhar]

Education isn't simply how to make a living. We have a goal that at the end of our lives we have significantly contributed to humanity (in whatever way we see fit), in addition to improving ourselves. While life skills certainly are important, we also need to take a hard look at why school is so ineffective for most people.

[Towel]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Parties change. The sons of those men blasting water cannons and using police dogs are Republicans. Not their sons - this isn't some distant geneological relationship. Those men themselves are all Republicans now. When Democrats refused to accomodate their "values" in the 60s, they switched parties and formed the Southern core of the re-born, "values-oriented" Republican party. If Republicans today can accept that, deal with it, and feel their party has really evolved beyond that, great. But they can't pretend it's not reality.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The Dems biggest fear: A black conservative Republican.Alan Keyes does make many a Democrat shudder, but not in fear.

[Jubelum]

The Dems biggest fear: A black conservative Republican. [/B]

How does "Chief Justice Clarence Thomas" sound?

(gnashing of teeth and wailing from the left...)

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Education isn't simply how to make a living.

The problem is... With the current curriculum in our schools the kids aren't taught enough (or at all) on 'how to make a living' and 'how money works' (how the world works). Sure they're given the raw materials 'how to read', 'how to write', 'history', 'science', 'art' throw in a little 'Health & PE' - but RARELY are they shown successful recipes as to how best to utilize those raw materials in the real world (preferably while they are still taking those other classes) . Might be unpopular but extend the school day by 45 minutes once or twice a week and add one more class to the roster. Why NOT teach kids WHY it's important to lear instead of just telling them 'because it is'.

Also wouldn't it be nice to see more targeted public high schools that have a strong bent on a specific field - the sciences - law - technology - art and music - etc. These might only be realistic in populated urban areas but still something worth looking.

Dave

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Also wouldn't it be nice to see more targeted public high schools that have a strong bent on a specific field - the sciences - law - technology - art and music - etc. These might only be realistic in populated urban areas but still something worth looking.

Dave

We do have those... I went to a science magnet High School. (And an arts/science magnet elementary). I learned the value of the dollar myself (realistically)...

[Existence]

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/deanfordnc

Spread it around like a flu in an elevator!

[Scott]

Maybe you all should resurrect McGovern and see if he'll lead the DNC?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Yep... he came down consistently for abortion.

Don't lie. It's choice that Democrats want. Freedom of choice.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Common Man
The Dems biggest fear: A black conservative Republican.

That's the dumbest thing I've read on these pages in the past two days. A black conservative Republican is just as stupid as a while conservative Republican. I don't fear either.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Jubelum
How does "Chief Justice Clarence Thomas" sound?

Like I said: dumb. That poor guy can barely articulate a thought. Scalia, as much as I disagree with him, at least has some active thought processes. CT follows Scalia's lead and that's it. Kinda sad really.

[Existence]

He's got it!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/dean.dnc/index.html

[groverat]

Excellent move.

[Scott]

Somewhere between total disaster and damaging blunder.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Somewhere between total disaster and damaging blunder.

You hope.

[e1618978]

I think that you guys are making too much of the left/right thing. I am a libertarian - I almost voted for Bush, I would never vote for Kerry, but I would have voted for Dean if he had been nominated. I was really excited about him, because he has presence. Kerry is a boring and wishy-washy.

Dean has exciting ideas, Kerry does not.

Also, regarding the minority vote - the Republicans are getting more of that vote - Christian values (ug), anti-Union (the unions are old-boys clubs where you have to know somebody to get in, which means mostly black or white - not latin american), Immegration reform, heavy minority representation in cabinet.

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You hope.


No I don't. Dean is a blunder. If he gives into the far left like he did when he campaigned it will drive even more people away from the Democrats.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Explain my phone bill (and my phone bill with 2 previous companies) in a deregulated and so-called competitive field then.

The phone bill you are complaining about is your local bill, from a monopoly. In the deregulated long distance market, calls have dropped from $1.00 to $0.05 since deregulation.

[Scott]

Remember his ham hands on the south? If you want to attract voters you don't do it by calling them racist gay bashing religious bigots.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Remember his ham hands on the south? If you want to attract voters you don't do it by calling them racist gay bashing religious bigots.

Do you want racist gay bashing religious bigots in your party?

[e1618978]

Hay - how about this. Move further right than the Republicans. Gun rights, small government, pro-gay rights, isolationist military policy, free trade ("friends of everyone, allies of no one"), rational immegraion policy, legalise drugs, pay off the national debt, once the debt is paid off then lower taxes, drop the unions + teachers as the democratic base, promote school vouchers.

The Republicans will move left as a result. What we need is a liberal/anti-abortion/christian Republican party (the party that sucks), and a conservative/seperation of ch+state/pro-choice/gay rights/small government Democratic party.

Here is my logic: The only people you will lose are the current liberal christians, and you will gain a whole bunch of people from the Republican party that don't like the fundies very much.

[a_greer]

We are going to California, and deleware, and ill. ... and then we are going to Washington to take back the DNC HQ ... YEAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Lib melt down continues...
Dean+his control of the DNC purse+moveon+Micheal Moore v Clintons+old school Dem establishment...

the next few years should be fun...someone call Michael Buffer Lets get ready to rumble!!!

As for the republicans, we are in the cat birds seat, all we need to do is live and let die...

[Northgate]

Does anyone here actually believe Ed Gillespie is a moderate? Honestly.

What I find even more humorous is when the conservatives on this board think they know what's best for the Democratic party. Like they have the party's best interest at heart. Ha.

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Do you want racist gay bashing religious bigots in your party?

In just that one post you've revealed the complete blunder. You're assuming that white people from the south are that way. Your stereotype is insulting to the people there. Plus in one swipe he links and insults a wide range of voters. Brilliant?

What if Bush were to go to Berkley and say, "You people need to stop voting on Trees, Granola, and Pot."

Don't be pissed when Dean sinks it. You'll be lucky if he's out after the midterms.

[e1618978]

What I find even more humorous is when the conservatives on this board think they know what's best for the Democratic party. Like they have the party's best interest at heart. Ha.

I do have your best interests at heart - I want you to win, but first I want the democrats to change into a party that I can believe in. You are going to have to change to win, because there is no way that the Republicans are going to lose the next election against the current democratic party.

If you change, you have to decide what your "core values" are, and keep them the same. I think that the core values of the democratic party are social: pro-choice, gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious freedom (which nessessarily includes seperation of church and state).

Now, if you keep those the same, and swing the rest of the platform over further right than the republicans, then I think that you will win. End the war on drugs, pull all the troops home (from everywhere), revise copyright law, school vouchers, dramatically reduce the size of government, etc.

[Aurora]

Looking at the Growing Southeast the Democrats have some big problems. If you look at those favorite issues of theirs like gay rights,gun control,removing any influence of god,etc and then look at things they dont seem to be interested in like keeping jobs in this country, the mexican border:wow: the growing govt. Its just not grass roots redneck nascar driving,beer drinking pie loving flag waving American.Its commie crap to those folks.
George could have been hit hard on so many things but because these guys are in the same big business pockets all they can do is run on those things I describe in the above paragraph. And that wont elect anyone for president.

It was their election to loose and that they did. Perhaps if Democrats ran on Jobs,Marriage,God,Border control,and smaller Govt they would do better. Middle America has more in common with the republicans then democrats even if they are being taken to the cleaners by Bush unkowningly.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Your stereotype is insulting to the people there. Plus in one swipe he links and insults a wide range of voters. Brilliant?

As someone born and raised in Mississippi, I would argue that Dean's comment was only offensive to the people who actually do vote for gays, guns, and God. The anger comes from what I call "redneck logic," which means that sometimes a redneck will be mad about something they've done that was stupid. Say they sawed their arms off. Then the redneck comes to you for sympathy, but you respond with an honest answer: that was pretty dumb of you to saw your arms off. Then the redneck gets pissed as hell at you.

What Dean *should* have said is that you folks in the South ought not let the Republicans treat you like you're so stupid that this is all you care about.

Does Dean understand the South? No. Does anyone? No.

If the Dems want to take back the South, which I firmly believe they can and should (they're going to lose California soon, and that there's the ballgame), they need to point out the ways that the right has defined the South into what amounts to little more than a caricature of itself. NASCAR! BEER! REG-LUR GUY! The South is, if anything, fiercely anti-authoritarian, and the right has tapped into this in ways that the left, well, has utterly screwed up. If the South is going to go Dem again, it's going to be because the Dems successfully paint the right as big gummit, big business, outsiders coming in here and telling us what to do. If the Dems want to win the South again, it'll be because they focus on local issues.

Anyway.

Don't be pissed when Dean sinks it. You'll be lucky if he's out after the midterms. [/B]

If he sinks it, he sinks it, and that's fine. I want a massive schism in both parties. The Dems could move a little to the left and become true centrists. They could kick out all the fringe folks and fringe issues. Then a hard left minority party could emerge for them. The centrist dems could siphon off more than a few moderate Republicans (McCain, etc.).

Cheers

[Aurora]

Cheers! heres to the regular guy party!

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by groverat
They need to move left, not right. They have no courage of conviction or ideals, though, so they won't. They are idiots, they are playing not to lose and end up never giving themselves a chance to win.

They could've made waves with Dean, instead they went with Captain Pointless with a record of 20 years of stagnant Senate work and a personality to match. What did they expect from Kerry? What do they expect from a party platform that is almost indistinguishable from their opponent's?

I hope another 4 years of Bush will make the Democrats realize that they need to be unapologetic about liberal values.

No, that's wrong. They must move center or face total extinction.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
In just that one post you've revealed the complete blunder. You're assuming that white people from the south are that way. Your stereotype is insulting to the people there. Plus in one swipe he links and insults a wide range of voters. Brilliant?

What if Bush were to go to Berkley and say, "You people need to stop voting on Trees, Granola, and Pot."

Don't be pissed when Dean sinks it. You'll be lucky if he's out after the midterms.

I am a white person from the south. And there are those people there, and in the north east etc etc. What the hell? If we can't admit that people like this exist, and they vote a certain way, then we really aren't better off than if they ran the country...

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Can't have it both ways boys and girls... You can only pick one:

- low cost consumer goods and your dollar goes further
- high priced consumer goods and everyone has 'good jobs' and healthcare


I think this a bit of a false dilemma. Though I would say that if it wasn't it would seem rather immoral to allow other people to suffer so I can buy stuff cheaper.

Originally posted by DaveGee
I for one don't wanna pay $10 for a bag of Apples and $6 for a gallon of Milk do you? (Hey at least I'm being honest)

This is a popular scare tactic used as an excuse to oppress people using low wages, poverty living conditions, poor or no healthcare. But it is also an assertion that is not really supportable by facts.

Both of your assertions appear to have the underlying presupposition that "wealth" is a "zero-sum" game in which if person A "wins" (gains) something then person B must "lose" something. This isn't necessarily so (though it certainly appears this way in the short-term).

Wealth is decidedly not a zero-sum game. In other words aggregate wealth can (and does) increase.

What we ought to be looking at are the "levers" that affect wealth creation, as well as the inhibitors of wealth creation.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by bunge
Don't lie. It's choice that Democrats want. Freedom of choice.

That's a joke. The Dems want freedom of choice as long as women are only presented with one option: abortion. When was the last time Democrats broached the subject of funding crisis pregnancy centres that allow pregnant women the means to keep their child?

Appointing a Planned Parenthood doctor as Chair of the party is literally handing the Religious Right a club to beat them over the head with.

And it's going to be fun to watch. The Democrats have truly learned nothing.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SDW2001
No, that's wrong. They must move center or face total extinction.

Do you believe that Republicans run their campaigns from the center? Is anti-gay marriage a centrist issue? Is convincing American that voting for Kerry was an insurance policy for another terrorist attack a centrist position?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Frank777
That's a joke. The Dems want freedom of choice as long as women are only presented with one option: abortion. When was the last time Democrats broached the subject of funding crisis preganancy centres that allow pregnant women the means to keep their child?

Appointing a Planned Parenthood doctor as Chair of the party is literally handing the Religious Right a club to beat them over the head with.

And it's going to be fun to watch. The Democrats have truly learned nothing.

The democrats support both choices - abortion and keeping the child. It is astounding to me that you think othewise, nobody wants to force an abortion on somebody. Your argument made me choke milk through my nose.

If anyone would want "Crisis pregnancy centers", it would be the big-gub'ment Democrats. Oh wait - I forgot, the Republicans are even less financially responsible than the Democrats now - maybe you are right.

And to hell with the Religious Right - they are about 10% of the population, roughly the same percentage as gay people. The Democrats should (as I proposed above), form the party of "everyone but the Religious Right and communists".

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Frank777
That's a joke. The Dems want freedom of choice as long as women are only presented with one option: abortion. When was the last time Democrats broached the subject of funding crisis pregnancy centres that allow pregnant women the means to keep their child?

Appointing a Planned Parenthood doctor as Chair of the party is literally handing the Religious Right a club to beat them over the head with.

And it's going to be fun to watch. The Democrats have truly learned nothing.

This logic is so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Your HUGE sweeping statements about Democratic positions on Planned Parenthood it isn't even funny. It's offensive!

Do so research before you spout off with such nonsense. Find me ONE Democrat who doesn't support adoption. Find me ONE Democrat who doesn't support sex education to minors, minorities, underpriveledged and the uneducated. Find me ONE Democrat who wants abortion is the ONLY option.

I can point out at least one prominant republican doctor who occupies a senate seat who DOES NOT support sex-education in public schools, who DOES NOT support the distribution of condoms in high-schools. But I certainly wouldn't point to him and say that he represents ALL Republicans.

:devil:

[e1618978]

[I can point out at least one prominant republican doctor who occupies a senate seat who DOES NOT support sex-education in public schools, who DOES NOT support the distribution of condoms in high-schools. But I certainly wouldn't point to him and say that he represents ALL Republicans.

Anyone who has the following combination of opinions

- No sex ed in schools
- No distribution of condoms
- No welfare for unwed mothers

(in otherwards, about half of the republican party) Is evil.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
Anyone who has the following combination of opinions

- No sex ed in schools
- No distribution of condoms
- No welfare for unwed mothers

(in otherwards, about half of the republican party) Is evil.

So much for the opportunity to have rational discussion in which people hold different viewpoints and opinions.

[groverat]

I think it is amusing that zealots pretend to know what is best for their opponent's side. Why pay attention to this kind of talk in the first place?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah. So much for that! Good riddance, right? :) Chris, I think a better question would be to ask e-numbers-person what he or she means by "evil." That would move the conversation along without the kiss-off to rational discussion.

Fair enough.

( Who's Chris? )

[e1618978]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
So much for the opportunity to have rational discussion in which people hold different viewpoints and opinions.

The reason that I think people with this collection of viewpoints is evil, is because you are causing great harm. Take a schoolgirl who, through no fault of her own, does not get information about sex from her parents.

1. You prevent anyone from warning her that she could get pregnant.
2. You prevent her from having access to contraceptives.

and

3. Once she gets pregnant, you kick her out on the street with no welfare.

People that would do that are going to burn in the firey pit of hell.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by e1618978
And to hell with the Religious Right - they are about 10% of the population, roughly the same percentage as gay people. The Democrats should (as I proposed above), form the party of "everyone but the Religious Right and communists".

And that's the reason Bush and Co. keep pounding the Democrats into the ground. Writing off such a huge segment of the population from the start guarantees you will pay for it later.

And as I've pointed out before, when your people are the chief proponents of abortion, gay rights and euthanasia, the population numbers game is always with the other side.


Originally posted by Northgate
This logic is so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Your HUGE sweeping statements about Democratic positions on Planned Parenthood it isn't even funny. It's offensive!

Do so research before you spout off with such nonsense. Find me ONE Democrat who doesn't support adoption. Find me ONE Democrat who doesn't support sex education to minors, minorities, underpriveledged and the uneducated. Find me ONE Democrat who wants abortion is the ONLY option.[/B]

Well blame the people, blame the media, blame anyone except the Democrats. All I ever hear from the Democrats is how pro-choice they are by fighting for abortion and "reproductive rights." If they have any other ideas on the subject, it might help to discuss them once in a while.

And if you think lecturing "minors, minorities, underpriveledged (sic) and the uneducated" constitutes a plan for dealing with abortions in North America, well, all I can say is that you've obviously never dealt with the situation at close range.



And I stand by the point of my original post, which is that rightly or wrongly, elevating a Planned Parenthood doctor to the head of the party will only serve to further alienate the Red states from the Democrats.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by groverat
I think it is amusing that zealots pretend to know what is best for their opponent's side. Why pay attention to this kind of talk in the first place?

Everyone's a zelot in their own special way, and you have to pay attention to somebody...

[e1618978]

Here are the "12 tribes of America", our voting blocks.
First you need to pick which blocks you want the Democratic party to apeal to, and that will determine your platform.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15355.html

[e1618978]

And as I've pointed out before, when your people are the chief proponents of abortion, gay rights and euthanasia, the population numbers game is always with the other side.

But there is a certain point where you cannot go, even if it means that you will lose the election. The democratic party cannot be pro-life or anti-gay, and neither can I.

I don't think that your numbers are all that convincing, BTW - the republican victory was a group of interests working together - its not like the religious right is a big percentage of the population, they are just vocal. I don't think that the Democrats need to comprimise social issues in order to win.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by e1618978
1. You prevent anyone from warning her that she could get pregnant.

Shouldn't she learn this (primarily) from her parents?

Originally posted by e1618978
2. You prevent her from having access to contraceptives.

Is abstinence an option at all?

Originally posted by e1618978
3. Once she gets pregnant, you kick her out on the street with no welfare.

Well, here I agree (though not necessarily about the (government) welfare part). Kicking someone out for this reason is wrong.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Shouldn't she learn this (primarily) from her parents?

They're doing a bang-up job of it these days, aren't they?

Is abstinence an option at all?

Yes, but it is also a pipe-dream to think that kids will, on the whole, be abstinent. They're going to have sex. The least we can do is acknowledge that fact and try to equip them not to kill one another with their genitals.

cheers

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
They're going to have sex. The least we can do is acknowledge that fact and try to equip them not to kill one another with their genitals.

This has always struck me as an amazingly weak argument.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
This has always struck me as an amazingly weak argument.

If my point were not true, you would be correct.

[Ra]

Originally posted by midwinter
They're going to have sex. The least we can do is acknowledge that fact and try to equip them not to kill one another with their genitals
Abstinence is great until you're ready to have sex and then what? Abstinence programs don't work (http://www.louschuler.com/archives/sex/index.html#a000453):So, if [they] promote abstinence in high school sex-ed classes, what do you think happens?

I gave it away in the headline: Kids have more sex.

From Reuters:


Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Ra
Abstinence is great until you're ready to have sex and then what? Abstinence programs don't work (http://www.louschuler.com/archives/sex/index.html#a000453):

Yup.

[e1618978]

Shouldn't she learn this (primarily) from her parents?

You missed the part where I say that the hypothetical girl does not, through no fault of her own, get any information.

You are punishing someone for their parents inaction.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Frank777
And as I've pointed out before, when your people are the chief proponents of abortion, gay rights and euthanasia, the population numbers game is always with the other side.

Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. It's an easy concept to understand of which I'm sure you'll refuse to. Gays and lesbians are our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. I don't remember any recent Democrat running on euthanasia rights.

And if you think lecturing "minors, minorities, underpriveledged (sic) and the uneducated" constitutes a plan for dealing with abortions in North America, well, all I can say is that you've obviously never dealt with the situation at close range.

Since when did "education" and "options" becoming lecturing?

My wife and I had an unplanned pregnancy about ten years ago. It was at a "planned parenthood" center that we were presented with our "options". We chose adoption. So, please, do us all a favor and get off your high-horse and stop "lecturing" people on what they know and don't know. Because if you had your way you'd close all the planned parenthood centers which could have had a consequential outcome.

And I stand by the point of my original post, which is that rightly or wrongly, elevating a Planned Parenthood doctor to the head of the party will only serve to further alienate the Red states from the Democrats.

Your ignornance about Planned Parenthood is astounding. You either choose to only believe the right-wing propaganda or choose to stick your fingers in your ears about "reality". Both are literally horrifying.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Northgate
Your ignornance about Planned Parenthood is astounding. You either choose to only believe the right-wing propaganda or choose to stick your fingers in your ears about "reality". Both are literally horrifying.

Apparently, you either continue to miss my point, or are intentionally ignoring it. What Planned Parenthood does or does not do, is irrelevant.

There is an impression of the group that is already formed by most of the "Red Staters" that the Democrats are trying to win back. Elevating someone so closely affiliated with PP will have consequences in those regions.

My point is about tactics, not abortion itself.

Even Hillary has seen the light and has moved to moderate the way she talks about abortion. While I'm sure we differ on a huge number of points, there's no denying she's a smart woman.

If she can pick up on that, why can't the rest of the party? You can rail about my "ignorance" all you want. When the right wing uses the PP connection, (and we all know they will) the Democrats will find themselves on the defensive in an election yet again.

Those who fail to learn from history, deserve to fail anyway.

[BRussell]

My understanding is that Dean worked as an OB/GYN at a Planned Parenthood clinic and never performed abortions. Maybe that fact will highlight what Planned Parenthood is (an organization that attempts to help moms-to-be) and what it is not (just an abortion clinic).

[Northgate]

Originally posted by BRussell
My understanding is that Dean worked as an OB/GYN at a Planned Parenthood clinic and never performed abortions. Maybe that fact will highlight what Planned Parenthood is (an organization that attempts to help moms-to-be) and what it is not (just an abortion clinic).

That is exactly my point, too. I guess in an ideal world we could run campaigns on the facts and not on the disinformation that the GOP has so successfully brainwashed the populace with.

Frank's arguing that the populace has bought into the disinformation about Planned Parenthood, therefore Democrats should abandon it. I couldn't disagree more. If sticking by one's principles is a death nell, then so be it I guess. At least I know what's true and what's bullshit.

At some point I expect Republicans to start advizing Democrats that their continued insistence that there is an unprecedented revision of history within this administration (supported wholesale by the Republican controlled congress) wrt the war in Iraq that it wouldn't be prudent to continue running a campaign that points out such lies.

Smells of fascism in its infancy to me.

[Northgate]

According to Gallup. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14890):

If Howard Dean were elected chair of the Democratic National Committee, what kind of job do you think he would do - excellent, good, only fair, or terrible?

Excellent 63
Good 27
Only Fair 5
Poor 1
Terrible 1

Now, I have to agree with Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/) on this one. Corporate Media and the Right Wing Noise Machine will soon begin its anti-Dean barrage. It's definitely coming.

I think Frank777 (sorry bro, I gotta call you out on this) is proof positive that dis-information is the rule of the land and his commentaries in this thread will be the way the GOP and its band of rabid wolves will try to paint Dr. Dean - as a baby killer.

On one hand Frank repeats the negative information as if it's true, but then admits later that elections are won and lost on the maligning "perceptions" the GOP shoves down our throats through its unbridled manipulation of the mainstream media (not in so many words, but implied).

[Scott]

So when Dean falls on this face you'll have a pregenerated excuse that deflects blame. Great.

[midwinter]

You know, Scott, what Bush needs to do to heal the divide in this country is move more to the left.

[Scott]

I thought we were talking about Dean?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Scott
I thought we were talking about Dean?

Can somebody please remind me what Howard Dean and "Democracy for America" stands for? I looked on his web page, and couldn't figure it out.

I remember wanting to vote for him, but I can't remember what he said that made me feel that way. It couldn't have been "tax the rich", because I hate that part.

[Existence]

Originally posted by e1618978
Can somebody please remind me what Howard Dean and "Democracy for America" stands for? I looked on his web page, and couldn't figure it out.

I remember wanting to vote for him, but I can't remember what he said that made me feel that way. It couldn't have been "tax the rich", because I hate that part.

Try this video from two years ago, before the start of the Iraq war: http://dotpeople.com/av/15.Mar.03/dean

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
I thought we were talking about Dean?

Oh, we are. I just think it's hilarious that conservatives are so concerned over the fate of the Democratic party that they're offering all kinds of well-intentioned advice, most of which boils down to "You are clearly going to have to become Republicans in order to save the Democratic party."

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, we are. I just think it's hilarious that conservatives are so concerned over the fate of the Democratic party that they're offering all kinds of well-intentioned advice, most of which boils down to "You are clearly going to have to become Republicans in order to save the Democratic party."

Why does the Democratic party have to be liberal in all areas? Financially conservative and socially liberal sounds pretty good to me (and not like the Republicans at all, in fact it is the antithesis of the Republican party, which is socially conservative and spends money like there is no tomorrow).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Why does the Democratic party have to be liberal in all areas?

The Democratic party is liberal? There are liberals in the democratic party? Where? You certainly could've fooled me, considering in this last election Kerry bent over backwards to avoid being called a liberal.

Financially conservative and socially liberal sounds pretty good to me (and not like the Republicans at all, in fact it is the antithesis of the Republican party, which is socially conservative and spends money like there is no tomorrow). [/B]

You are describing another Bill Clinton, a man whose politics, many of us good liberals believe, gave a bad name to liberalism. At any rate, it would not surprise me one bit if the Democrats' first volley with Dean as chair is that they're the party of fiscal responsibility.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Why does the Democratic party have to be liberal in all areas? Financially conservative and socially liberal sounds pretty good to me (and not like the Republicans at all, in fact it is the antithesis of the Republican party, which is socially conservative and spends money like there is no tomorrow). You've just defined the existing difference between Democrats and Republicans, and Howard Dean embodies that difference.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal? You're a Democrat.
Fiscally liberal and socially conservative? You're a Republican.

That was one of my previous sigs. The problem with it is that it's all about domestic policy, and foreign policy is critically important. That's where Dean (as a presidential candidate moreso than as a party chair) falls short, and that's where we really needed someone like Wes Clark in 2004. Unfortunately, he just wasn't ready for prime time.

[e1618978]

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal? You're a Democrat.

If I felt that was true - I would love to be a democrat, but I just don't see it.

If the democrats were financially conservative, they would want to reduce government spending, balance the budget, and after the budget was balanced lower taxes.

What I see is no talk about reducing spending, just talk about reversing the tax cuts so that the government can continue to spend and spend.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
.

If the democrats were financially conservative, they would want to reduce government spending, balance the budget, and after the budget was balanced lower taxes.



Oh like, not going to useless wars? You know, funding for wars is government spending too.

And as far as I remember, you are one of those war-mongerers in the North Korea topic.

So you want to go to war every chance you get, and blame the Democrats for not being financially conservative.

Great.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
If I felt that was true - I would love to be a democrat, but I just don't see it.

If the democrats were financially conservative, they would want to reduce government spending, balance the budget, and after the budget was balanced lower taxes.

What I see is no talk about reducing spending, just talk about reversing the tax cuts so that the government can continue to spend and spend. You can look at rhetoric, but you can also look at reality. On a comparison between the reality of Republican and Democratic governance, there's a clear history, and a clear difference. Republicans spend more than Democrats, and they also take the politically popular actions of cutting taxes, which of course leads to deficits which increases future gov't spending even further. Look at the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush pattern. It's crystal clear.

[e1618978]

Wars are ususual non-recurring line items in the budget, domestic spending is ramping up forever.

Its true, that it would be wonderful if the world was
peaceful and everything, but sometimes you have to go to war regardless if you are a democrat or republican.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by e1618978
Wars are ususual non-recurring line items in the budget, domestic spending is ramping up forever.

Wars are recurring; we've had two wars in less then 3 years and they are still on-going. That's 200 billion dollars of spending right there. And from the looks of it, we are gonna have more wars. That's another 200 billion. Tell me which domestic program spent 200 billion dollars in 3 years.


Its true, that it would be wonderful if the world was
peaceful and everything, but sometimes you have to go to war regardless if you are a democrat or republican.

You have to go to war only if you're attacked. Attacked as in war is declared against you. You don't have to go to war to find WMD's that never existed.

See the difference?

[e1618978]

You have to go to war only if you're attacked. Attacked as in war is declared against you. You don't have to go to war to find WMD's that never existed.

See the difference? [/B]

Wars can't go on forever, we are too good at killing. If we kept up the current pace of wars for the next 20 years, everyone would be dead.

Therefore, even if it takes 5 or 10 years, the current "war fad" will be over, and domestic spending will have more effect on the budget than war.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Wars can't go on forever, we are too good at killing. If we kept up the current pace of wars for the next 20 years, everyone would be dead.

Therefore, even if it takes 5 or 10 years, the current "war fad" will be over, and domestic spending will have more effect on the budget than war.

Did you mean to imply that killing half of everyone is an acceptable target?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
Did you mean to imply that killing half of everyone is an acceptable target?

Not at all, I was just taking the killing to an extreme to demonstrate that war does not have as big effect on the national debt as domestic spending.

Military spending during peacetime is 19% of the total budget of the Federal government. During wartime this jumps, but you can't have "forever war", there just isn't enough people to fight.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Not at all, I was just taking the killing to an extreme to demonstrate that war does not have as big effect on the national debt as domestic spending.

Military spending during peacetime is 19% of the total budget of the Federal government. During wartime this jumps, but you can't have "forever war", there just isn't enough people to fight.

I can't put my finger on it (not quite awake yet), but something in me makes me disagree with you.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Wars can't go on forever, we are too good at killing. If we kept up the current pace of wars for the next 20 years, everyone would be dead.

Therefore, even if it takes 5 or 10 years, the current "war fad" will be over, and domestic spending will have more effect on the budget than war. :lol:

That's the best reasoning for military spending I've ever seen. It pays for itself! If we kill everyone, there'll be no one left, so we won't ever have to fight wars again! It's supply-side economics, but for wars!

Hey! I've got an idea as to how we could keep having wars. We keep overthrowing governments and pissing off the populations of the countries we overthrow. Then, in another decade or two we could again go to war against the gov't that we had previously installed! It's what we did in the 20th century, so why stop in the 21st!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
:lol:

That's the best reasoning for military spending I've ever seen. It pays for itself! If we kill everyone, there'll be no one left, so we won't ever have to fight wars again! It's supply-side economics, but for wars!

Hey! I've got an idea as to how we could keep having wars. We keep overthrowing governments and pissing off the populations of the countries we overthrow. Then, in another decade or two we could again go to war against the gov't that we had previously installed! It's what we did in the 20th century, so why stop in the 21st!

Most people that oppose "hot war" point to "cold war" as the model. Most of the wars you are talking about in the 20th centrury were part of the cold war - so you opposed that as well? What should we have done, just let Russia take over the world?

BTW - here is an interesting thing I found:

Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00


World War II cost $2 Trillion dollars.

Thats a lot.

There is a lot to be said about isolationism. If we had not intervened in WW I, it would have been fought to a stalemate, and WW II would not have happened. It looks like all of our current national debt would not exist if we had stayed out of the two world wars.

Maybe we should withdraw from the world military theater - bring all the troops home, let Japan, Europe and Israel pay for their own national defence for once, and form Japan, SK and Taiwon into a self-defence league against China and NK, and grant Guam its independence.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Most people that oppose "hot war" point to "cold war" as the model. Most of the wars you are talking about in the 20th centrury were part of the cold war - so you opposed that as well? What should we have done, just let Russia take over the world? I wasn't thinking of the cold war per se, but the wars or coups that we've been involved in that blew back in our faces. Our support, military and otherwise, for previous regimes in Iraq and Iran, for example, and our involvement in the war between those two countries.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by BRussell
I wasn't thinking of the cold war per se, but the wars or coups that we've been involved in that blew back in our faces. Our support, military and otherwise, for previous regimes in Iraq and Iran, for example, and our involvement in the war between those two countries.

That was all part of the cold war. Everything that we did between 1945 and 1980 was part of the cold war, you can't seperate out the middle east and say that was seperate.

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, we are. I just think it's hilarious that conservatives are so concerned over the fate of the Democratic party that they're offering all kinds of well-intentioned advice, most of which boils down to "You are clearly going to have to become Republicans in order to save the Democratic party."

That's laughable. I think my message has been, "You don't have to insult the people of the US in order to rebuild your party. You don't have to assure a defeat of the US in Iraq in order to save the party. You don't have to take up the cause of terrorists in order to save the party. You don't have to be for Bush but you must be for the US."

[midwinter]

I wasn't talking about you specifically, Scott, but we can if you'd like. So here's your message:


You don't have to insult the people of the US in order to rebuild your party. You don't have to assure a defeat of the US in Iraq in order to save the party. You don't have to take up the cause of terrorists in order to save the party. You don't have to be for Bush but you must be for the US."


Underpinning all of this, I'm assuming, is your firm belief that the Democrats are either doing these things or are in danger of doing them as they rebuild the party. Just to show you how absurd this is, consider this:

Dear Republicans of 1964:

You don't have to insult the American people to rebuild your party. You don't have to assure the defeat of the US in the cold war against the Commies in order to save your party. You don't have to take up the cause of the Commies in order to save the party.. You don't have to be for Johnson, but you must be for the US."

[Scott]

Look at the party. You have Dean declaring his pure hate for the other party. You have Kennedy declaring defeat in Iraq and advocating a course of action that will demoralize the troop, send Iraq into chaos and hand the terrorists a win. Make you wonder which side Kennedy is on? The "progressives" are the reactionaries by refusing to consider reforming any of the failing social welfare programs. The party is more worried about the rights of terrorist than the people killed by them. It's just a shame that the extreme elements of the party overshadow the common sense side.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Look at the party.

Oh, I have. Believe me.

You have Dean declaring his pure hate for the other party.

I suppose you're referring to this quote: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," which Dean apparently said a few days ago. I can't find that quote in any mainstream news source other than the NY Daily News, which is sort of like only being able to find it the Limbaugh Letter. It looks as if the NYDN picked that up and ran with it, and then NewsMax picked it up, then the freepers.

Like I said, trouble it, no one else seems to have reported it. At all. Google shows the lineage I just described. Google News (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22I+hate+republicans%22&btnG=Search+News) is similar.

You have Kennedy declaring defeat in Iraq and advocating a course of action that will demoralize the troop, send Iraq into chaos and hand the terrorists a win.

So Kennedy, um, disagrees with Bush? And that's a problem for the party? Disagreeing with Bush? You beginning to get my point here?

Make you wonder which side Kennedy is on?

If you are suggesting that Kennedy is siding with the terrorists, it is your duty as an American citizen to report him to the FBI. I expect that since you're willing to float such ideas, you're either going to do that or have done it already.

If you haven't, it's just cheap rhetoric that deliberately makes light of all this, and, if this is the case, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The "progressives" are the reactionaries by refusing to consider reforming any of the failing social welfare programs.

Really? When you say "reform," I assume you mean "dismantle entirely." Imagine that the democrats not wanting the social programs to be dismantled. Again: the problem is that they disagree with Bush.

The party is more worried about the rights of terrorist than the people killed by them.

This is absurd. Please prove to me that the Democrats have institutionally said somewhere that they are no longer as interested in the rights of Americans as they are in the rights of terrorists.

And frankly, I'm proud of the democrats for asking questions about terrorists' rights. Our country has set up internment camps where people are being imprisoned without charges or access to a lawyer. Our gov't will not tell us how many people is has done this to. Our gov't will not tell us who these people are.

This ought to worry you, but apparently it doesn't, since you're fulminating about Ted Kennedy.

It's just a shame that the extreme elements of the party overshadow the common sense side.

Common sense about what? Disagreeing with Bush?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Scott
It's just a shame that the extreme elements of the party overshadow the common sense side. :D The irony is just too f-ing much. :D

That "with us or against us" mentality is like a stench that won't go away.

Good job Scott. I guess you'll have to double the anti-Dean propaganda from now on. I can't wait for the Rep character assassination campaign to intensify aided by the echo chamber of Kool-Aid drinking tools who "feed" off of Drudge, the NY Daily News and Fox.

Should be fun. ;)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Dear Scott. Please send me your measurements. I would actually like to get you a proper uniform made. I'm thinking midnight blue / black, with big epaulettes, a little Republican elephant in white stitching, maybe with a bolt of lightning through it, on each collar and on the peaked hat.

[Scott]

Okay look at it this way. Your New England liberal that should have cake walked into the white house lost. So what do you do? Put a New England liberal that couldn't even win the primaries in charge of the entire party.

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
Oh, I have. Believe me.



I suppose you're referring to this quote: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," which Dean apparently said a few days ago. I can't find that quote in any mainstream news source other than the NY Daily News, which is sort of like only being able to find it the Limbaugh Letter. It looks as if the NYDN picked that up and ran with it, and then NewsMax picked it up, then the freepers.

Like I said, trouble it, no one else seems to have reported it. At all. Google shows the lineage I just described. Google News (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22I+hate+republicans%22&btnG=Search+News) is similar.

...


That's pure fantasy on your part. I saw the video clip on TeeVee, Maybe this Google search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Howard+dean+i+hate+the+republicans&btnG=Search+News) will convince you that it's not a conspiracy on your own making but in fact what the head of the DNC said.

Gosh I wonder why the "mainstream news" wouldn't report on it? Hummm?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
[B]That's pure fantasy on your part. I saw the video clip on TeeVee, Maybe this Google search (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Howard+dean+i+hate+the+republicans&btnG=Search+News) will convince you that it's not a conspiracy on your own making but in fact what the head of the DNC said.

That's the same google news search to which I linked. Why is that supposed to change my mind that this is a non-story?

Gosh I wonder why the "mainstream news" wouldn't report on it? Hummm?

If you're attempting to imply that the mainstream news isn't reporting on this because it is "liberal," you really need to take another a look at that list of agencies covering this. Not even FOX news touched this one.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Scott
Okay look at it this way. Your New England liberal that should have cake walked into the white house lost. So what do you do? Put a New England liberal that couldn't even win the primaries in charge of the entire party.

This is commentary from the same guy who cries when "liberals" stereotype, malign and make fun of people from the South.

Funny how an entire region of the United States is inferior to the rest. Goose. Gander. Hypocrisy?

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
That's the same google news search to which I linked. Why is that supposed to change my mind that this is a non-story?


...

No it's not. You used "I hate republicans" (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22I+hate+republicans%22&btnG=Search+News) where as I used Howard dean i hate the republicans (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Howard+dean+i+hate+the+republicans&btnG=Search+News)

When you use the quoted string and leave the "the" out you don't get the right links.

Anyway Dean did say that so ... good luck with all those voters.:\

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
When you use the quoted string and leave the "the" out you don't get the right links.

Well, it looks like the biggies are grabbing the quote now (e.g. the WSJ). Let the Republicans re-commence their attack on Dean! I'm all for it.

Anyway Dean did say that so ... good luck with all those voters.:\ [/B]

I never said Dean didn't say that. I said it was curious that no one but the fringe rags had picked it up. And thanks for the well-wishes. We'll see what happens in '06.

[addabox]

So, as always, it's perfectly fine (and has no bearing on the future of the Republican party) for conservatives to endlessly bash "liberals" as terrorist sympathizers, America haters, crypto-homosexual elites, weak, feckless, and generally a festering sore on the body of the Republic.

Oddly, this does not constitute the Republican party alienating a large group of Americans, as "liberals" are understood to not be actual Americans at all, but somehow outside of the normative life of the true citizenry (they being the sturdy denizens of mystical heartland who carry what it really means to be an American in the proper genes of authenticity).

Of course, identifying "liberal elites" as an alien stain on the spotless expanse of the true partiotic fabric is facist thinking at its most overt; perhaps Scott could next argue "real Americans" can "no longer allow" the sinister erosion of "the people" by foreign influences and rootless cosmopolitanism and that the time has come to "do something".

After all, treason is a crime and that word has been repeatedly applied to "liberals", so why would a true citizen hesitate to take matters to their logical end and seek to have this cancer dealt with?

Particularly given the grotesque affront of one of "them" actually having the stones to criticize the very people who have been so very forebearing (so far) in allowing this vermon to carry on.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by addabox
So, as always, it's perfectly fine (and has no bearing on the future of the Republican party) for conservatives to endlessly bash "liberals" as terrorist sympathizers, America haters, crypto-homosexual elites, weak, feckless, and generally a festering sore on the body of the Republic.

Perhaps I don't see the full spectrum of American opinions you're referring to, but I do think there's a difference here.

The Repubs use third parties, bloggers, AM Radio, fake journalists etc. to slander their opponents. The Democrats use Hollywood and a lot of other creative outlets.

But both parties are usually wary about throwing mud through official channels.
Having the Chair of the Party pronounce his "hatred" for the other side is not only bizarre, but extremely bad tactics.

I think the "Dean is a loose cannon" train will be a regular, and the Repubs will ride it for all it's worth.

I say this not to bash the Democrats, but because I like competitive elections.
Take it from a Canadian, One Party Rule is disastrous for a country.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Frank777
The Repubs use third parties, bloggers, AM Radio, fake journalists etc. to slander their opponents. Did you purposely leave out Televangelists, TV, the Fox editorial channel and paying off journalists to "promote" White House programs and policies?

I'm glad I'm not a Republican anymore. After the "furor" over the Clinton/Lewinsky blowjob and how we had to bring integrity back to the White House....I'd be ashamed to call myself one.
The Democrats use Hollywood and a lot of other creative outlets. There's just no comparison. You're comparing pros to little leaguers. Do you have any idea how many millions AM radio reaches every day(pretty effective when you repeat the same BS time and time and time again)? Televangelist fools conned to deliver voters?

And what are those other "creative outlets" you talk about? Find me anything on the Democratic side that remotely compares to the effectiveness(or reach) of repetitive AM radio delivered "messages" or Televangelists. Anything.
Having the Chair of the Party pronounce his "hatred" for the other side is not only bizarre, but extremely bad tactics. He wasn't the chair when he said that now was he? Oops. No he wasn't.

I'm not sure about Dean. He could be a disaster or he could very well be the catalyst that fires up the base of the Democratic party. The party needs change and "modernization". Not talking about technology either.

[Scott]

Maybe Dean was advised to "stop the crazy talk" when he became chairman? "Riiiiiight NOW!" The timing was perfect.:rolleyes:

[Northgate]

It cracks me to hear the most intollerant party faithfuls bitch about Dean's intollerance.

Simply hilarious.

Really. Keep it up guys.

These are the same party faithfuls who felt it perfectly justified to drag the Purple Heart through the mud, but support the military forcefully removing the medal from recent recipients in order to "protect the honor and dignity of the medal." The same party faithfuls who thought it was a hoot to wear Purple Heart bandaids at the Republican National Convention.

And these folks think they're the arbiters of good taste? Ha.

Is it any wonder why many of us on the left "hate" what you guys stand for?

[Scott]

Those people aren't heading up the RNC.

[Common Man]

http://www.lonestartimes.com/images/happy_howie_dean.jpg

[Scott]

Do we have any pictures of Dean and monkeys together?

[progmac]

wow. i've never seen so many people convinced they were right. i forgot how crazy political opinions are. nice name, e1618978

[Scott]

Maybe government controlled health care can cure Dean of his foot in mouth disease. (http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0502/14/politics-87450.htm)

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?," Dean asked to laughter. "Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
Do we have any pictures of Dean and monkeys together?

You mean, something like this?

http://www.juhus.de/albums/alles/bush_monkey.sized.jpg

[Scott]

Yea but for Dean.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Scott
Maybe Dean was advised to "stop the crazy talk" when he became chairman? "Riiiiiight NOW!" The timing was perfect. Someone said the DNC chairman made certain specific comments. I corrected him...and you come up with that? Pretty weak Scott.

Gene: that pic is hilarious. Aaaahh...the internets.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I'm not sure about Dean. He could be a disaster or he could very well be the catalyst that fires up the base of the Democratic party. The party needs change and "modernization". Not talking about technology either.

No, it needs it in technology, too. I swear, I think I heard a mic pick up McAuliffe after the "internets" debate comment saying "Internets? What's his internets thing?"

Email. Blogs. Direct mail. Centralized distribution of talking points. Concentrated use of screaming heads who can flood the talk shows with talking points. A willingness to say the same things over and over again until they're covered. An understanding of the ways the republicans have taken advantage of the laziness of the mainstream media and used it to their advantage.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by midwinter
No, it needs it in technology, too. I swear, I think I heard a mic pick up McAuliffe after the "internets" debate comment saying "Internets? What's his internets thing?"

Email. Blogs. Direct mail. Centralized distribution of talking points. Concentrated use of screaming heads who can flood the talk shows with talking points. A willingness to say the same things over and over again until they're covered. An understanding of the ways the republicans have taken advantage of the laziness of the mainstream media and used it to their advantage. Well put. I completely agree. I didn't mean that the tech "modernization" wasn't necessary. Au contraire. With Dean in charge it's a given. When I said "modernization" I was thinking of the exact same things you so nicely described in your second paragraph.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Well put. I completely agree. I didn't mean that the tech "modernization" wasn't necessary. Au contraire. With Dean in charge it's a given. When I said "modernization" I was thinking of the exact same things you so nicely described in your second paragraph.

Sure. We can only hope that he'll bring Matt Gross with him to lead some team. Gross hasn't said anything about it on his blog, but I suspect that he will be involved.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Someone said the DNC chairman made certain specific comments. I corrected him...and you come up with that? Pretty weak Scott.

Gene: that pic is hilarious. Aaaahh...the internets.

Howard Dean and the DNC Chairman are the same person.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Scott
Howard Dean and the DNC Chairman are the same person.

But he said those things before he was DNC chairman.
You could just have easily said "The DNC Chairman shit in his diapers and wet his bed"

[midwinter]

I just keep wondering how much Dean must scare the Right for them to be going after the DNC chairman like this....

[Scott]

Originally posted by e1618978
But he said those things before he was DNC chairman.
You could just have easily said "The DNC Chairman shit in his diapers and wet his bed"

How soon before? When he was a baby?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Scott
Howard Dean and the DNC Chairman are the same person. Funny how you appear to be the only one who doesn't get it. I'd love to try and explain it to you ONE more time but .....:lol:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Scott
How soon before? When he was a baby?

Yes.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Funny how you appear to be the only one who doesn't get it. I'd love to try and explain it to you ONE more time but .....:lol:

Give it the old grade school try.

[atomic_angel]

So...whoever is D chairman...the real question is: Who will the D's put up to win back the White House in '08? Hillary seems to be positioning herself...but could she possibly win? Edwards? Kerry?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
So...whoever is D chairman...the real question is: Who will the D's put up to win back the White House in '08? Hillary seems to be positioning herself...but could she possibly win? Edwards? Kerry?

Old guard, Clintonian DLC new-democrat logic suggests someone like Mark Warner.

But the nomination of Dean (a left-centrist who was opposed by the right-centrists like Clinton, et al) suggests that the grassroots might be able to change things. The nomination of Dean suggests that the party is going to move back to the left (since its slide to the right since Nixon has worked OHSOWELL [one incumbent re-elected since NIXON]), which could bring interesting things.

Hillary and Boxer will almost certainly run. Edwards most likely. Kerry probably will, but it'd be stupid.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
Old guard, Clintonian DLC new-democrat logic suggests someone like Mark Warner.

But the nomination of Dean (a left-centrist who was opposed by the right-centrists like Clinton, et al) suggests that the grassroots might be able to change things. The nomination of Dean suggests that the party is going to move back to the left (since its slide to the right since Nixon has worked OHSOWELL [one incumbent re-elected since NIXON]), which could bring interesting things.

Hillary and Boxer will almost certainly run. Edwards most likely. Kerry probably will, but it'd be stupid.

Don't know much about Warner.

I don't think Kerry has a real chance. Edwards? Maybe if he was still in office...but even then I'm not sure. Clinton has two things going against he...She's Hillary and she's a Senator (the jump from Senator to President appears to be much harder than Govenor or President in the past 30 or so years).

Grass roots seems like a risky strategy. These tend to be fueled by a passionate few...and flame out too soon.

A fiscal conservative Dem would be a good start I think.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Don't know much about Warner.

Gov. of VA.

I don't think Kerry has a real chance. Edwards? Maybe if he was still in office...but even then I'm not sure.

Edwards is appealing to lots of people, but he's simply too young and too inexperienced to get the nod.

Clinton has two things going against he...She's Hillary and she's a Senator (the jump from Senator to President appears to be much harder than Govenor or President in the past 30 or so years).

Yes. It's pretty clear that we want governors.

Grass roots seems like a risky strategy. These tend to be fueled by a passionate few...and flame out too soon.

Tell that to the Republican party.

A fiscal conservative Dem would be a good start I think. [/B]

Perhaps. A fiscal conservative anything at this point would be nice.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh great. Republican-lite-ism is now considered a "good start." [...snip...] This isn't a rant against you either, atomic_[...nope...], just a general lamenting of the direction this country seems headed.

I would just like to see a balance budget like we had under Clinton. I'd like to see this from either party.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
Gov. of VA.

Knew that...but not much more (about his politics I mean).

Originally posted by midwinter
Edwards is appealing to lots of people, but he's simply too young and too inexperienced to get the nod.

Agreed.

Originally posted by midwinter
Yes. It's pretty clear that we want governors.


As long as we don't get the "Governator"! ;)

Originally posted by midwinter
Tell that to the Republican party.

Fair enuff.

Originally posted by midwinter
A fiscal conservative anything at this point would be nice.

True.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
I would just like to see a balance budget like we had under Clinton. I'd like to see this from either party.

I don't know about a balanced budget. But a budget that is not utterly, utterly out of control would be nice.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Knew that...but not much more (about his politics I mean).

My sense of the guy is that he's basically a centrist Clintonian type Dem governor of a red southern state.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know about a balanced budget. But a budget that is not utterly, utterly out of control would be nice.

You saying it wasn't balanced? Am I missing something?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
You saying it wasn't balanced? Am I missing something?

No, I'm saying that a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing. Sounds great in principle, and it's something we all like to say, but in the end, everyone carries some degree of debt...cars, houses, credit cards, etc. We don't need to balance the budget; we need to have our spending under control.

Does that make sense? The Clinton balanced-budget thing was yet another example of his being right-of-center....

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by midwinter
No, I'm saying that a balanced budget is not necessarily a good thing. Sounds great in principle, and it's something we all like to say, but in the end, everyone carries some degree of debt...cars, houses, credit cards, etc. We don't need to balance the budget;

I would agree if we agreed to split the budget into two categories...operational spending and capital spending. Most businesses do this (and I understand many state budgest as well)...where capital spending is okay to incur debt but not operating expenses.

The only debt I have is a mortgage. I don't use debt to buy cars...computers...groceries...clothing. So I'm not sure I agree that we must have debt.

[Existence]

If Boxer runs for 2008, she has my vote. She recieved the third most votes in the 2004 election, after Bush and Kerry and is very popular in California (winning by 20 points).

[Scott]

If Boxer runs in 2008 the republicans will only have to drag one of the Gipper's dirty old sox out of the laundry basket to run against her and win.

[midwinter]

How dare you disparage the memory of Ronald Reagan, patriot™ abd True American™ by deputizing him into your sorry excuse for an argument. Shame on you.

The real question for me is who the hell the Republicans will run. Jeb? Santorum?