Regrouping after the election....

[segovius]

People are understandably talking about what the Dems do now and the way forward, imo this is a false problem.

It's not about the Dems or Repubs - it's about a world view as opposed to a US isolationist view. The Repubs have the US-centric stance and this is why they won. There simply are not enough people in the US with a wider world view.

The Dems will undoubtedly move nearer to the Repub position and hope to win that way next time. They may even do it - this is what happened with Blair in the UK when Labour won because they abandoned their founding principles and became a carbon-copy (a more extreme version in may ways) of the conservatives.

But this is not the way.

Really, it's not about Bush or the Neocons at all. It's about hate. All Bush has done is legitimise hate that already exists - that's why he won. He gave people a voice who had no previous voice for their extremism. He makes the unacceptable acceptable.

Look around you, even here. Since 911 and especially since the election we can now hear things that we would not have heard before stated so explicitly:

Being gay is being a pervert.

Liberalism = communism and must be eradicated.

Wishing ill world leaders would die.

Extreme Islamophobic nonsense.

And on and on.

People have always held these views but they were regarded by all reasonable people as objectionable and the holders themselves were even ashamed to voice them except with others of their kind. Now they are shouting in the streets.

And why ? Because no-one can stand up and say 'this is wrong'. Since Bush's reign the word 'Christian' has been twisted into its polar opposite.

He campaigns on 'ethics' but in practice his ethics are Abu Ghraib, pre-emptive war based on lies and the removal of established rights - all along with the legitimization of bigotry and prejudice. He gets away with it because no one challenges the fact that he is a 'Christian'.

You see there used to be this thing called 'truth' - and yes, it was an absolute. Now, despite all the right-wing hand-wringing about 'absolutes' truth is just a term to be pressed into service to mean whatever is advantageous to them at the time.

We need to claim it back. Forget politics. The Christians who voted for Bush need to see the truth. If Americans knew the truth they would start to think (some of them - there are quite a few lost causes but they are extremist bigots and they are always with us).

So what is the truth ? I'll give you an example. My father is a preacher of the fundie variety and a Bush supporter. He had a church in San Francisco once and my mother used to organise free meals and coffee-times for the gay community/homeless people/HIV infected people etc in the church - ok, so perhaps it wasn't entirely altruistic but the point is the congregation complained and a stand-off developed. They didn't want gays in the church. Eventually an ultimatum was delivered and my father resigned because of it. Now there is someone else there who is 'more Christian' and the people who need real help find the door of the church shut in their face.

These are the 'ethics' we are talking about. These are the 'family values'.

They need to hear the truth about their behaviour. Not from me or from some pastor but from the scriptures they claim to follow.

If this is what stands for such values now then so be it. But an opposition
cannot be part of it - we need to constantly point out that this is objectionable not just let it go unchallenged when these buzz-words are wheeled out.

It's a cancer and it's contagious. We all need to relearn how to think for ourselves instead of follow blindly.

[tonton]

Well said.

[bborofka]

Segovius seems to be rehashing how bad Bush and the Republican campaign is from a Democratic point of view, but I think we really need to stop doing that and look at why we failed. We can stay in denial and blame everyone else about why Democrats lost so badly this election, but that's not going to get us anywhere.

So I'm going to pose a few introspective ideas as to why we lost the election and what we might be able to do next time. In 2000 I had figured that the Democrats basically won the election but just lost to rediculous voting issues in FL. I thought they'd come back in 2004 with a vengence to not let something like that happen again. Instead, I saw more of the same.

Do Democrats need better candidates? I mean, yeah, Kerry had a lot of support, but I think it was mostly people that "hated Bush" than "loved Kerry." Bush supporters, on the other hand truly do love him with a devout passion. Instead of analyzing why this is (with regards to Republicans), why don't we ask ourselves, what would it take to get a candidate on the left side that has a following like that of the right side? Basically, what is it going to take to get more voters? There's really only 3 options:

1) Awaken the "sleeping giants" that don't vote. Have a candidate that truly, for the first time, reaches out to the young and minority voters out there, without alienating the existing Democratic base. It might even take a minority candidate or running mate. If you watch the documentaries on MTV (a definite liberal media outlet) and the like, leading up to the election, you see everyone on there --the hip hop artists and celebs -- saying how important it is to vote and that every vote counts. BUT, what you don't see is any enthusiasm for any candidate, particularly John Kerry. You see P. Diddy interviewing a bunch of Democrats and Republicans but he feels as if no one is really speaking to him and his constituents. Yet he runs an aggressive Vote or Die campaign. You see minorities on the streets talking to each other, and how they feel the system works against them and no one speaks to them, and you see no endorsement for Kerry. These mixed signals and lack of appraisal for a enthusiasm for a candidate is what kept the percentage of young voters the same as 2000.

2) Run a "liberal with a cause" type of candidate. Some would say Howard Dean was like this, and while I liked him too, he didn't win. So it's time to start fresh. Pick a strong, determined candidate who is solidly in support of liberal and progressive policies, and someone who could never ever be labelled as a flip-flopper. If there's one thing I see in Bush followers that I don't see as much in Kerry followers, is that they see him as a very strong individual who is clear on what he stands on. I think it's important the Democrats get a candidate like this next election.

3) Run a moderate, personable candidate who can penetrate the south. I guess you could say Clinton was like this, but the fact is, the South is a damn powerful group of voters. I don't know what else to say other than, this strategy might work, but it wouldn't be my favorite.

These are some strategies I think the Democrats could work on. What they don't need in 2008 is another candidate who is just like Kerry. While I liked Kerry and wanted him to win, I never really did see him as strong as he could have been on some issues (dare I say a lot of issues) and there's no doubt his voting record is questionable. He comes across as not really having a cause, something you can't really say about Bush, whether you like his cause or not.

Also, who is the Karl Rove equivalent for the Democrats? Why don't we have someone like him on our side? He's run a successful campaign for the Repubs and some tout him as a genius. He certainly did good this election.

After suffering losses in ever facet of gov't this election, I think the it's important for all Democrats as a whole to reunite under a renewed platform and message. Whether it be a liberal or moderate platform, I don't know, but I think they need to phase out the word liberal, now that it has such a negative connotation. Progressive should be the new liberal. It should stand for policies that are for scientific growth, faith-agnostic, fiscal responsibility, and improving our strength and acceptance with the rest of the world. Those are my examples, whatever they maybe, Democrats just need to pick something and hammer home their message via all their politicians in office. Strength, conviction, and purpose is what the Democrats need to project. They need to talk the talk and walk the walk. We need to get people excited about about being Democrats, not just being anti-Republicans. I feel as if they need to have a 3rd-party, cult-like platform, to get lukewarm Democrats to actually say, "hey, I actually like this guy."

I also think the Democrats need to take the high road during the campaign trail, and leave the Republicans to the smear campaign, false ads and blatant lies. If the Democrats stick to truth and facts, while still staying on the offensive, undecideds will notice and take into account. Fighting fire with fire really isn't good; I certainly don't like it. And I mentioned they need to stay on the offensive, which I think is true. Take for example, the whole Kerry using Cheney's gay daughter debacle. The Republicans came out and lashed at him for using her to support his idea. While I think he could have done without it, what no one --and I mean no one-- mentioned was the fact that Bush said "I don't know" to the question whether gays choose to be gay or not. Umm, hello? This should have been bait for the Democrats, but all they did was ust say that the Republicans were over-reacting and that Kerry's comment wasn't a big deal. What a good way to stay soft on an important issue that your opponent is clearly on the far-right of.

Alright, so, I'm no campaign strategist, but these are just my thoughts on the election and what the Democrats need to do better. To sum it up, pick some central, progressive policies, unite all Democrats, and hammer home those policies with strength and confidence. It worked for Republicans, I think it can work for us too.

And then there's the idea that no matter what we could have done, Bush would still win this election. The Christian right is perhaps the most powerful block of voters, and when 11 states are having Gay marriage propositions, you know damn well that they are going to come out, vote on that, and support their Hero. What can you say to that? I guess you can say that the Democrats have nothing to lose now, and should try some new ideas. Not more of the same.

[THT]

The far our view is that progressive politics essentially won and got everything they wanted from FDR to LBJ. Since then, it's been nothing but maintaining the status quo. Since RMN, it's been a very conservative country.

Democrats, the opposition party, have to essentially start over with a new vision, new people, new platforms, new strategies. The country needs its infrastructure rebuilt, from energy to education to environmentalism. The culture war was lost and the fundamentalists won, so Democrats have to work from the Church level to convince the populace that bigotry is wrong. Democrats have to work at their message-making at all levels, from the Church to the radio to the TV, Democrat representatives are uniformly terrible at it.

My platform would be:

1. Infrastructure
1a. Education reform involving ciriculum reform, diverse teaching methods, and cheaper college education
1b. Energy reform involving energy efficiency and alternative energy
1c. Environmentalism in the form of staving off the impending crisis in fish and wildlife populations through planned conservation
1d. R&D institutes need to be funded to support the above
2. Culture wars
2a. Infiltrate the Churches and reinterpret the Bible for the religious folk and bore into their head that bigotry is wrong
2b. Instead of all-out pro-abortion, compromise halfway and provide support for pregnancy issues.
3. Fiscal accountability
3a. Balance the budget
4. Soft power foreign policy
5. Space is our future! (pet project)

I'm sure there is more, but there is lot the Democrats could do, but have refused to reinvent themselves with.

[segovius]

Good points but really it all boils down to the fact that Bush lied about many things and was never called on them Never. It's almost like they have an agreement where the Dems just 'play' the opposition for the sake of the game.

If they'd have called Bush on his lies then they still would have lost but maybe it would build something.

I cannot believe that the majority of Americans who voted for Bush are uncompassionate, selfish people - it must surely be instead that they really just don't know what's going on.

We need to show them. Not tell. Show.

[groverat]

New blood, definitely.

I have no problem with the north east, but a lot of the country does. And I do not like the perception that liberal = northeast. It's too "Camelot".

Someone like Obama is in a great position to make waves. Bright, young, passionate and progressive. That's what we need.

You don't need to change your ideas to woo middle America, you just need to change your tone.

Also, the progressive stance on abortion needs to be far more tempered than it is now. As a pro-choice liberal I share the pro-life's disgust at the way a lot of people talk about abortion and try to hide how horrible it is. You do not fight delusion with more delusion.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by THT
The far our view is that progressive politics essentially won and got everything they wanted from FDR to LBJ. Since then, it's been nothing but maintaining the status quo. Since RMN, it's been a very conservative country.

Democrats, the opposition party, have to essentially start over with a new vision, new people, new platforms, new strategies. The country needs its infrastructure rebuilt, from energy to education to environmentalism. The culture war was lost and the fundamentalists won, so Democrats have to work from the Church level to convince the populace that bigotry is wrong. Democrats have to work at their message-making at all levels, from the Church to the radio to the TV, Democrat representatives are uniformly terrible at it.

My platform would be:

1. Infrastructure
1a. Education reform involving ciriculum reform, diverse teaching methods, and cheaper college education
1b. Energy reform involving energy efficiency and alternative energy
1c. Environmentalism in the form of staving off the impending crisis in fish and wildlife populations through planned conservation
1d. R&D institutes need to be funded to support the above
2. Culture wars
2a. Infiltrate the Churches and reinterpret the Bible for the religious folk and bore into their head that bigotry is wrong
2b. Instead of all-out pro-abortion, compromise halfway and provide support for pregnancy issues.
3. Fiscal accountability
3a. Balance the budget
4. Soft power foreign policy
5. Space is our future! (pet project)

I'm sure there is more, but there is lot the Democrats could do, but have refused to reinvent themselves with.

This post scares me to death. It really does. Infiltrate the churches? I thought you guys were for Separation of Church and State? MORE government involvment in education? Curriculum reform at the federal level? I don't know about that. Soft power? We tried that, and look what it got us.

The problem is that you are STILL blaming the right for your problems. Nowhere is it more telling than in the statements you just made about religion. In your view, it's the people that should be brought to the thinking of the liberal leaders. This is completely the opposite of the spririt of Democracy. It also carries with it the false pretense that conservative Christians are racists and bigots. The fact is that very few of them are.

The Democratic party no longer stands for the masses as it used to. It no longer represents mainstream America. But according to you and MANY others, that's not the problem of the Democratic party, it's a problem with America itself. I can't even express how incredibly misguided and twisted that line of thought is.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by groverat
New blood, definitely.

I have no problem with the north east, but a lot of the country does. And I do not like the perception that liberal = northeast. It's too "Camelot".

Someone like Obama is in a great position to make waves. Bright, young, passionate and progressive. That's what we need.

You don't need to change your ideas to woo middle America, you just need to change your tone.

Also, the progressive stance on abortion needs to be far more tempered than it is now. As a pro-choice liberal I share the pro-life's disgust at the way a lot of people talk about abortion and try to hide how horrible it is. You do not fight delusion with more delusion.

Basically I agree. Though I do think many of the positions of the Dems must change for them to ever regain power.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Basically I agree. Though I do think many of the positions of the Dems must change for them to ever regain power.

Of course you think that - you mean to change to a closer approximation of the Republican position.

As things stand now, that is true - that is how they could gain power, the people would vote for them then as they would be in line with popular views.

I was suggesting coming at it another way - changing the public views as opposed to changing the policies.

The Repubs do this all the time - it's why they are where they are now and after all, it would be an improvement. It's not like the views of the public right now are TRUE.

The public needs educating I'm afraid to say and Kerry never even tried.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

made a crap post and deleted it because it was all crap

[rok]

here's a sobering thought for democrats...

turns out LIEBERMANN was the most "electable" after all. ;)

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by rok
here's a sobering thought for democrats...

turns out LIEBERMANN was the most "electable" after all. ;)

Yes indeed. Speaking as an evangelical Christian who happens to lean Republican, Lieberman (being Jewish) is one of the Democratic senators who I happen to admire. I might actually vote for him because he has his head on straight regarding some very important issues (e.g. security).

For those who are stunned about why liberalism isn't working in America, please read Tom Wolfe's insightful pre-election editorial article about why the liberal elite don't have a clue. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html) I'd strongly reccommend reading this article because the Democratic leaders seem to have a fundamental inability to figure out what is wrong with their current cultural strategy.

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It also carries with it the false pretense that conservative Christians are racists and bigots. The fact is that very few of them are.

you are right, BUT those who are are incredibly concentrated in some places. i mean, hell, i am surrounded by white Christians in Louisiana who only talk to someone of another color if they have to, and are visibly horrified if you tell them someone they live near is gay. can i speak for them all? no. but it gets VERY difficult to see any positives when you are surrounded by that hate every day, and it's the haters that are the loudest and most organized.

as much as i would love to run for public office to make a difference, i wouldn't stand a chance in hell here, unless i totally sold out or lied through my teeth. plus, on a personal level, i am sure someone would run a smear campaign that would not only cause me to lose, but basically destroy my entire life and reputation.

in that respect, i am impressed by both bush and kerry that they would and could put themselves through it all.

[THT]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This post scares me to death. It really does. Infiltrate the churches? I thought you guys were for Separation of Church and State?

You have a problem with this? You don't a have problem with what Bush, Rove, Bennet, Buaer, Falwell, et al did and is doing? No problem with Faith-based funding? No problem with scores of religious groups powering the Republican machine?

My comment isn't about the government infiltrating Churches, it was about Democrats infiltrating Churches. They have to take back their share of the pulpit and provide a more liberal interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be religious.

I want zero government money flowing between Churches and government.

MORE government involvment in education? Curriculum reform at the federal level? I don't know about that.

Like [NCLB] federalizing testing wasn't federal involvement in education? Not only that, it does squat for education. It sounds like you are against education, for crony capitalism and gov't waste if you supported that. The education system is broke, it's curicula needs fixing. It's institutions need revitalising.

What I would like to see is the destruction of the rigidize and moribund education system. I would like a more dynamic and less structured public school system allowing different types of schools, allowing different sorts of teaching. But the one thing coming with public money is a standard set of curicula more benificial to students like personel finances, ethics, et al.

Soft power? We tried that, and look what it got us.

Soft power means economic power. The only place we've tried it is China. The means to moderation is the empowerment of the people through increasing their personal wealth. All we've done is support cartels, especially in the oil-rich countries.

The problem is that you are STILL blaming the right for your problems. Nowhere is it more telling than in the statements you just made about religion. In your view, it's the people that should be brought to the thinking of the liberal leaders. This is completely the opposite of the spririt of Democracy.

Heh. I'm merely suggesting the Democrats do what the Republicans do. What's wrong with the religious folk having a more liberal leaning point of view? They are still doing God's work. They are still faithful. They are still going to Church. They still support each other. They still go on missions, helping and converting people.

It also carries with it the false pretense that conservative Christians are racists and bigots. The fact is that very few of them are.

Is it bigotry to restrict gays from civil unions and marriage? Is it bigotry to restrict gays from the various rights of hospital visitations, inheritence, tax benifits, etc?

Parts of Christianity says that you are not the judge of man's actions. Only God is. Meanwhile, our country is entirely about giving everyone a chance to do well in life. Not giving gays equal chances at what we all agree is the most important part of life does not follow the spirit of this nation.

But according to you and MANY others, that's not the problem of the Democratic party, it's a problem with America itself. I can't even express how incredibly misguided and twisted that line of thought is.

Hehe. What's wrong with the Democratic party retaking their share of the Church and liberalizing it? Nothing. It's only good to have a strong debate amongst the Church folk about what it means to be religious. Movements in reinterpretation has been the standard practice in Churches going for nearly 2 millennia now. Do you have a problem with Martin Luther? Calvin? Unitarians? What's wrong with Unitarians presenting their world view to Baptists and Methodists?

[THT]

I've got another observation about Democrats. Ever since the 2000 presidential campaign, even further back in time, what I see in Democrats is an attitude that the American people will come to their senses and suddenly realize that GWB and various Republicans are baaaaad. It's always this action or that word has to shock the American people out of its stupor.

It's a very reactive attitude based on the assumption that America is just filled with Democrats. I hope Democrats realize that it is not true and that they have to be proactive, just like the Republicans, who began mastering it in the 90s. People do not have an innate sense of decency at the level of political positions. They have to be educated into outrage and educated into certain policy positions. Democrats have to start education the American public about their positions and why they are good for America again. The Democratic message-making machine has been awful for the last decade and they need to rebuild it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
Of course you think that - you mean to change to a closer approximation of the Republican position.

As things stand now, that is true - that is how they could gain power, the people would vote for them then as they would be in line with popular views.

I was suggesting coming at it another way - changing the public views as opposed to changing the policies.

The Repubs do this all the time - it's why they are where they are now and after all, it would be an improvement. It's not like the views of the public right now are TRUE.

The public needs educating I'm afraid to say and Kerry never even tried.

Your first statement again shows that liberals would rather dismiss their opponents than debate them. Yes I'm Republican. But I'm simply telling you the fact that liberals and democrats REFUSE to accept: It's not that the country hasn't gotten their message, as McCauliffe claims. It's that they've heard it and REJECTED it. The country is more conservative than the Democratic leadership is. The real rift in thinking comes into play when we discuss what to do about the problem for Dems. Your solution is to change the will of the people? You have got to be kidding. This is not what Republicans did in any sense of the word. If anything Republicans have become far more liberal, especially fiscally, than they ever were. They saw what the country wanted and adopted what used to be the Dems platform, coupled with tax cuts. That's why their in power. They adapted their positions and agenda over 30 years so that they, not the Dems, were the populous party.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
you are right, BUT those who are are incredibly concentrated in some places. i mean, hell, i am surrounded by white Christians in Louisiana who only talk to someone of another color if they have to, and are visibly horrified if you tell them someone they live near is gay. can i speak for them all? no. but it gets VERY difficult to see any positives when you are surrounded by that hate every day, and it's the haters that are the loudest and most organized.

as much as i would love to run for public office to make a difference, i wouldn't stand a chance in hell here, unless i totally sold out or lied through my teeth. plus, on a personal level, i am sure someone would run a smear campaign that would not only cause me to lose, but basically destroy my entire life and reputation.

in that respect, i am impressed by both bush and kerry that they would and could put themselves through it all.

Somehow I question your perceptions. And somehow I find it amusing that you're allowed to generalize, while someone like me is not.

[MarcUK]

The Democrats need to hire psychologists. They need to look at why the core reasons people believe/behave and act the way they do. Then they need to counter brainwash.

[talksense101]

GWB has dug a big hole over the past four years. He has four more years to do whatever he wants with it. It is a wait and watch game now.

[MarcUK]

And I wonder if GWB's vision of 'uniting' means Democrats accepting Republican principles, while Republicans dont budge an inch?

I propose that any Republican that asks for unification...Smack the fucker down, and make sure they stay down :D

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by MarcUK
The Democrats need to hire psychologists. They need to look at why the core reasons people believe/behave and act the way they do. Then they need to counter brainwash.

Thus demonstrating why Democrats won't ever be elected. "Once we fix them, they will vote for us". Nice. how would you like it if I talked about un brainwashing the leftists in SF or NY?

Your party stands no hope of winning an election if you think that people across the asile need therapy to be proper voters.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Thus demonstrating why Democrats won't ever be elected. "Once we fix them, they will vote for us". Nice. how would you like it if I talked about un brainwashing the leftists in SF or NY?

Your party stands no hope of winning an election if you think that people across the asile need therapy to be proper voters.

I would rather not ever win another election IF it means becoming or pandering to intolerant bigotted greedy twats.

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Somehow I question your perceptions. And somehow I find it amusing that you're allowed to generalize, while someone like me is not.

glad i amuse you. and that's fine to question my perceptions, but i would be goddamned shocked if my perceptions were wrong about my local community. i mean, shit, indian american bobby jindal polled great throughout the state for governer, yet the well-documented "bubba vote" felt like putting a woman democrat in office rather than him... and i'm sorry to generalize here, but it was because he wasn't white. EVERY SINGLE ISSUE he polled great on, yet when the votes came in... he got into cogress this go 'round because, well, his competition was terrible. i work for an election consulting company, so i get to see a healthy amount of data most folks don't.

btw, did i say that you couldn't generalize? if i implied that, it wasn't my intent. hell, stereotypes are handy. it keeps us from doing stupid shit like asking a hell's angel what the result of the tennis match was. but didn't i friggin' say i couldn't speak for everyone? that i recognized that?

[kraig911]

The right wing has incredibly galvanized its media image immensely high on cable news, radio, and internet. They've made an outlet for their followers to be able to communicate with each other, and their book sales are strong. Not only that but advertisers clamor to be on their networks as people who generally watch and pay attention to them have money to spend.

On the left wing side they used to have the media their last bastion is really MSNBC, Film, and also a very good lot of authors and publications to tap from. But almost all of which is owned in some part publicly by conservative stock-holders.

In terms of funding, its image, and its message we're in a very precarious situation.

The democratic needs turn back into its social reorganization party it was in the 40's, investing huge in military technology (less troops), R&D, and education K-College, create new government work programs, and not the anti-war, everyone else is wrong, and a bigot party, lets spend millions of dollars in SS, and healthcare reform, all while having the same problems party.

Its very clear to me that if you go over the airwaves and claim to someone that by their beliefs and structures that they are a bad person, they will not vote for you, or your interests.

We need to reach out and shake their hand... not their neck.

[SDW2001]

THT:

You have a problem with this? You don't a have problem with what Bush, Rove, Bennet, Buaer, Falwell, et al did and is doing? No problem with Faith-based funding? No problem with scores of religious groups powering the Republican machine?

Wow. Do you honestly believe that it is the Republican party that is responsible for "interpreting the bible" and for the current beliefs of Christians? You don't understand. Conservative Christians are Republican because the party represents more of their interests. The reason Democrats won't "infiltrate" the churches is because of the nature of the party itself. It's not a party of religion. The leadership of the party stands for secularism, abortion, the abolishment of religion from all public life, etc. That is why conservative christians will note vote for the Democratic party. And with this, you make the rather absurd statement that it is the Democratic party that should redfine the values and beliefs of their own constituents? So the goal then is to get the block of the the vote, not by changing to fit the block, but by redfining it? Who is representing who here?

(As far as "what Bush did", I am not thrilled about campaigning in churches...on either side. But honestly, when I wake up very Sunday to John Kerry in another black church, I don't think you have a lef to stand on with this argument)




Like [NCLB] federalizing testing wasn't federal involvement in education? Not only that, it does squat for education. It sounds like you are against education, for crony capitalism and gov't waste if you supported that. The education system is broke, it's curicula needs fixing. It's institutions need revitalising.

Well first, remember you are talking to a teacher, so realize that before you start spouting off about NCLB, of which you obviously have zero understanding. Don't assume I'm 100% on baord with it just because Bush signed it, either. Also realize that Ted Kennedy WROTE the NCLB, and John Kerry voted for it. As far as the act itself: I think it does begin massive federal involvement in education, which at this time I oppose. The federal government certainly should not be yet more involved in curriculum. That is a very bad idea. I do want to poitn out that under this President, federal education spending has gone up 50%, so everyhting you hear about not funding education is basically bullshit.



Soft power means economic power. The only place we've tried it is China. The means to moderation is the empowerment of the people through increasing their personal wealth. All we've done is support cartels, especially in the oil-rich countries.

We do use our economic power. You're not even making sense now. What do you want to do, sign an oil deal with Iran?

Heh. I'm merely suggesting the Democrats do what the Republicans do. What's wrong with the religious folk having a more liberal leaning point of view?

HAHA. This is getting amusing now. Nothing at all is wrong with that. Nothing. But what are you going to do? Make a concerted effort to get secularist true blue liberals to be more Godly? Why? Do you feel churches are discriminating against liberals? Has it occurred to you that true liberal democrats don't share the values of most churches? You're not suggesting that the Democrats do what the Republcians do. You're suggesting that Deomcrats become more religious and "inflitrate" the churches to they can grab the conservative Christian vote.



Is it bigotry to restrict gays from civil unions and marriage? Is it bigotry to restrict gays from the various rights of hospital visitations, inheritence, tax benifits, etc?

Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.

Parts of Christianity says that you are not the judge of man's actions. Only God is. Meanwhile, our country is entirely about giving everyone a chance to do well in life. Not giving gays equal chances at what we all agree is the most important part of life does not follow the spirit of this nation.

Christianity forbids homosexuality, at least most denominations do. You picked the wrong issue to make a biblical argument on. And really...there go you again. Now that 11 states have unquestionably repudiated your views (not that you can't still have them), you still think it's not your party, but the people themselves that are the problem.



Hehe. What's wrong with the Democratic party retaking their share of the Church and liberalizing it? Nothing. It's only good to have a strong debate amongst the Church folk about what it means to be religious. Movements in reinterpretation has been the standard practice in Churches going for nearly 2 millennia now. Do you have a problem with Martin Luther? Calvin? Unitarians? What's wrong with Unitarians presenting their world view to Baptists and Methodists?

Pardon me, but you must be smoking crack. "Their share" of the church? What the hell does that mean? The leaders of churches and the bible itself will dictate what it means to be Christian, not a political ideology. The people will then take their beliefs and make a decision as to which candidate or party (or both) represents THEIR beliefs. That is the very root of Demcoracy. What you are suggesting is that the Democratic party and liberals make a concerted effort not to find the best way of REPRESENTING the elecotorate, but actually change it to suit their political interests.

In other words, you guys want that block of the vote. What you don't understand is that until your party changes, it won't happen. Repeat that to yourself until it makes sense. Parties that don't represent their people cease to exist.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by THT
I've got another observation about Democrats. Ever since the 2000 presidential campaign, even further back in time, what I see in Democrats is an attitude that the American people will come to their senses and suddenly realize that GWB and various Republicans are baaaaad. It's always this action or that word has to shock the American people out of its stupor.

It's a very reactive attitude based on the assumption that America is just filled with Democrats. I hope Democrats realize that it is not true and that they have to be proactive, just like the Republicans, who began mastering it in the 90s. People do not have an innate sense of decency at the level of political positions. They have to be educated into outrage and educated into certain policy positions. Democrats have to start education the American public about their positions and why they are good for America again. The Democratic message-making machine has been awful for the last decade and they need to rebuild it.

So incredibly wrong. "If only they could comprehend what we stand for, they'd aghree with us".

The American people heard and comprehended the message. They just rejected it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by kraig911
The right wing has incredibly galvanized its media image immensely high on cable news, radio, and internet. They've made an outlet for their followers to be able to communicate with each other, and their book sales are strong. Not only that but advertisers clamor to be on their networks as people who generally watch and pay attention to them have money to spend.

On the left wing side they used to have the media their last bastion is really MSNBC, Film, and also a very good lot of authors and publications to tap from. But almost all of which is owned in some part publicly by conservative stock-holders.

In terms of funding, its image, and its message we're in a very precarious situation.

The democratic needs turn back into its social reorganization party it was in the 40's, investing huge in military technology (less troops), R&D, and education K-College, create new government work programs, and not the anti-war, everyone else is wrong, and a bigot party, lets spend millions of dollars in SS, and healthcare reform, all while having the same problems party.

Its very clear to me that if you go over the airwaves and claim to someone that by their beliefs and structures that they are a bad person, they will not vote for you, or your interests.

We need to reach out and shake their hand... not their neck.

Good start. I don't agree with you on specifics but I do agree with your approach.

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The American people...

there's that phrase again, and i feel like i have been bludgeoned with it by both sides in this campaign. you're a smart enough guy, you do realize that a hell of a lot of people didn't reject it, right?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
there's that phrase again, and i feel like i have been bludgeoned with it by both sides in this campaign. you're a smart enough guy, you do realize that a hell of a lot of people didn't reject it, right?

Your just being semantical. Bush and the Republicans got a clear majority. 51% of the vote in a national election is a mandate.

[MarcUK]

A mandate for death.

[THT]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Do you honestly believe that it is the Republican party that is responsible for "interpreting the bible" and for the current beliefs of Christians?... Conservative Christians are Republican because the party represents more of their interests. The reason Democrats won't "infiltrate" the churches is because of the nature of the party itself. It's not a party of religion.

I believe that Republican beliefs and Christian beliefs feedback on each other and the liberal voice within American Christianity has been minimized, most notably in the heartland. Democrats need to retake, a better word would be to participate more, in their Churches and provide a liberal voice.

The leadership of the party stands for secularism, abortion, the abolishment of religion from all public life, etc. That is why conservative christians will note vote for the Democratic party.

The reason why I think it is a good idea for Democrats to infiltrate their Churches again is that it would create more liberal Christians and less conservative Christians.

Being progressive is to force change is it not?

And with this, you make the rather absurd statement that it is the Democratic party that should redfine the values and beliefs of their own constituents? So the goal then is to get the block of the the vote, not by changing to fit the block, but by redfining it? Who is representing who here?

For the first question, Democrats have some work to do to redefine the values and beliefs of people who are not their own constituents, ie, to change people's minds. If it were their own constituents, they would be voting for them already.

For the second question, the goal is to change the block of voters to believe in a more liberal message. Liberals like to change things.

For the third, it is a complex question.

(As far as "what Bush did", I am not thrilled about campaigning in churches...on either side. But honestly, when I wake up very Sunday to John Kerry in another black church, I don't think you have a lef to stand on with this argument)

I see who is currently in power and who is making the wall of separation more and more porous. I vote the other way. GWB is actively providing public money to Churches. If he was a real Republican he wouldn't have spent the money and gave everyone a tax cut to do what they see fit with the money.

Don't assume I'm 100% on baord with it just because Bush signed it, either. Also realize that Ted Kennedy WROTE the NCLB, and John Kerry voted for it. As far as the act itself: I think it does begin massive federal involvement in education, which at this time I oppose. The federal government certainly should not be yet more involved in curriculum. That is a very bad idea. I do want to poitn out that under this President, federal education spending has gone up 50%, so everyhting you hear about not funding education is basically bullshit.

If there is a less structured education system that allows a group of educators to organize a school in whichever way they want, I think it is important that there is a standard level of curicula that each school should teach.

Only place where I think we need more funding is the college level in form of performance-based educational grants and more R&D style graduate level funding.

We do use our economic power. You're not even making sense now. What do you want to do, sign an oil deal with Iran?

I thought we should have signed an oil deal with Iraq in trade for lifting certain restrictions. If we open up business to Iran, Iran must lift certain restrictions. If we open business to North Korea, North Korea must lift up certain restrictions. Economic soft power, promoting freedom and democracy through business.

HAHA. This is getting amusing now. Nothing at all is wrong with that. Nothing. But what are you going to do? Make a concerted effort to get secularist true blue liberals to be more Godly? Why? Do you feel churches are discriminating against liberals? Has it occurred to you that true liberal democrats don't share the values of most churches?

Hence, more Democrats should become Church leaders.

You're not suggesting that the Democrats do what the Republcians do. You're suggesting that Deomcrats become more religious and "inflitrate" the churches to they can grab the conservative Christian vote.

Not to grab the conservative Christian vote, to make Christians more liberal in thought. To me, Democrats are just as Christian as Republicans are. They just need to make their message heard more in the "heartland," and the best way to do it seemingly is through church associations.

Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.

This is why Democrats have to participate in Church more and convince their fellow Christians otherwise.

Christianity forbids homosexuality, at least most denominations do. You picked the wrong issue to make a biblical argument on. And really...there go you again. Now that 11 states have unquestionably repudiated your views (not that you can't still have them), you still think it's not your party, but the people themselves that are the problem.

Liberal Christians have less of a problem with it.

Pardon me, but you must be smoking crack. "Their share" of the church? What the hell does that mean? The leaders of churches and the bible itself will dictate what it means to be Christian, not a political ideology. The people will then take their beliefs and make a decision as to which candidate or party (or both) represents THEIR beliefs. That is the very root of Demcoracy.

I'm suggesting that there be more liberal Church leaders providing balance to the conservative Church leaders in delivering the message of the Bible.

What you are suggesting is that the Democratic party and liberals make a concerted effort not to find the best way of REPRESENTING the elecotorate, but actually change it to suit their political interests.

It's a long twilight struggle, but it is the fate of those who want to change things. Not political interests btw, to do what is right. You are in the same struggle, no?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
made a crap post and deleted it because it was all crap

Post of the year. I wish I could have done it my self
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Your just being semantical. Bush and the Republicans got a clear majority. 51% of the vote in a national election is a mandate.

um, no. remember in 2000, when bush actually lost the popular vote, but still won? he called THAT a "mandate." by your logic, this constitutes a shut-out. hell, in an alternate universe where kerry won ohio, bush would have "pulled a gore" by winning the popular vote but still lost.

[rok]

Originally posted by THT
To me, Democrats are just as Christian as Republicans are.

well, thank GOD someone realizes this.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by THT
[B]My comment isn't about the government infiltrating Churches, it was about Democrats infiltrating Churches. They have to take back their share of the pulpit and provide a more liberal interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be religious.

I want zero government money flowing between Churches and government.

...

Heh. I'm merely suggesting the Democrats do what the Republicans do. What's wrong with the religious folk having a more liberal leaning point of view? They are still doing God's work. They are still faithful. They are still going to Church. They still support each other. They still go on missions, helping and converting people.

...

Hehe. What's wrong with the Democratic party retaking their share of the Church and liberalizing it? Nothing. It's only good to have a strong debate amongst the Church folk about what it means to be religious. Movements in reinterpretation has been the standard practice in Churches going for nearly 2 millennia now. Do you have a problem with Martin Luther? Calvin? Unitarians? What's wrong with Unitarians presenting their world view to Baptists and Methodists?

I had this exact thought earlier today about Democrats and the churches/religion, although I was thinking about it much more nefariously in terms of the Dems attempting to fracture the Republican unification with the Xian right. The message should be simple enough: Jesus was a liberal. How can true conservatives support this kind of expansion of government? This kind of intrusion of government into the home?

That kind of thing.

Damn fine post(s), THT.

Cheers
Scott

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
NYou don't need to change your ideas to woo middle America, you just need to change your tone.

This is an important statement and very true. I think the media gets a lot of blame for being biased when in reality they just follow a good story. With Democrats being lame and timid, the press didn't rally behind them. It wasn't necessarily intentional, but it happened. If they were at least interesting their whole public image would be changed.

No, I'm not trying to say the media is at fault, not at all. But the media is the vehicle used most often to reach voters. So, Democrats simply have to get better at being an attractive target for the media in order to gain some advantage from it.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This post scares me to death. It really does. Infiltrate the churches? I thought you guys were for Separation of Church and State? MORE government involvment in education? Curriculum reform at the federal level? I don't know about that. Soft power? We tried that, and look what it got us.

The problem is that you are STILL blaming the right for your problems. Nowhere is it more telling than in the statements you just made about religion. In your view, it's the people that should be brought to the thinking of the liberal leaders. This is completely the opposite of the spririt of Democracy. It also carries with it the false pretense that conservative Christians are racists and bigots. The fact is that very few of them are.

The Democratic party no longer stands for the masses as it used to. It no longer represents mainstream America. But according to you and MANY others, that's not the problem of the Democratic party, it's a problem with America itself. I can't even express how incredibly misguided and twisted that line of thought is.


Hey! some of your posts have scared me!

Democracy and america is all about the freedom to think how you want. Something your group doesn't practice.

[SDW2001]

THT:

I believe that Republican beliefs and Christian beliefs feedback on each other and the liberal voice within American Christianity has been minimized, most notably in the heartland. Democrats need to retake, a better word would be to participate more, in their Churches and provide a liberal voice.

Most Christians are not Democrats because most Christians do not share Democratic beliefs. I don't see a way to put it more simply. The Republicans simply represent their beliefs more closely. What don't you understand? It's not about changing the nature of the church or its people. It;s about figuring out what they want and are, and representing them accordingly.

The reason why I think it is a good idea for Democrats to infiltrate their Churches again is that it would create more liberal Christians and less conservative Christians.

Being progressive is to force change is it not?


You will just not let it go. Democrats infiltrating churches isn't going to "create" anything.


For the first question, Democrats have some work to do to redefine the values and beliefs of people who are not their own constituents, ie, to change people's minds. If it were their own constituents, they would be voting for them already.

For the second question, the goal is to change the block of voters to believe in a more liberal message. Liberals like to change things.

For the third, it is a complex question.


OMG. I simply cannot get through to you. The Democratic leadership must change, not everyone else. People vote based on their beliefs and desires, not because someone reeducates them and tells them what to believe in. I literally cannot believe that you are advocating changing people's opinions instead of your platform. It's the worst form of denial on your part. It's not a complex question at all, btw.

I see who is currently in power and who is making the wall of separation more and more porous. I vote the other way. GWB is actively providing public money to Churches. If he was a real Republican he wouldn't have spent the money and gave everyone a tax cut to do what they see fit with the money.


What public money? Examples please.



f there is a less structured education system that allows a group of educators to organize a school in whichever way they want, I think it is important that there is a standard level of curicula that each school should teach.

Only place where I think we need more funding is the college level in form of performance-based educational grants and more R&D style graduate level funding.


OK.


I thought we should have signed an oil deal with Iraq in trade for lifting certain restrictions. If we open up business to Iran, Iran must lift certain restrictions. If we open business to North Korea, North Korea must lift up certain restrictions. Economic soft power, promoting freedom and democracy through business.


Please, please listen. We've DONE those things. The NK nuke framework was a prime example. The problem is that these regimes are not negotiating in good faith. They cannot be trusted. And really, do you honestly advocate making a deal with with someone like Kim jong-ill or Saddam Hussein?

Hence, more Democrats should become Church leaders.


For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!



Not to grab the conservative Christian vote, to make Christians more liberal in thought. To me, Democrats are just as Christian as Republicans are. They just need to make their message heard more in the "heartland," and the best way to do it seemingly is through church associations.


Why should Christians become more liberal in thought? Why would this happen, when to do so in most churches involves a renunication of the church's teachings?



Liberal Christians have less of a problem with it.


True, and they are also disregarding the bible.



I'm suggesting that there be more liberal Church leaders providing balance to the conservative Church leaders in delivering the message of the Bible.


Why does there need to be a balance?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
um, no. remember in 2000, when bush actually lost the popular vote, but still won? he called THAT a "mandate." by your logic, this constitutes a shut-out. hell, in an alternate universe where kerry won ohio, bush would have "pulled a gore" by winning the popular vote but still lost.

He didn't call it a mandate.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by midwinter
I had this exact thought earlier today about Democrats and the churches/religion, although I was thinking about it much more nefariously in terms of the Dems attempting to fracture the Republican unification with the Xian right. The message should be simple enough: Jesus was a liberal. How can true conservatives support this kind of expansion of government? This kind of intrusion of government into the home?

That kind of thing.

Damn fine post(s), THT.

Cheers
Scott

Damn misguided posts. It's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that is going to keep the Dems out of power for a long time.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!

Some of them clearly need it.

[Scott]

Originally posted by rok
um, no. remember in 2000, when bush actually lost the popular vote, but still won? he called THAT a "mandate." by your logic, this constitutes a shut-out. hell, in an alternate universe where kerry won ohio, bush would have "pulled a gore" by winning the popular vote but still lost.

You must be thinking about 2002 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/) when the GOP won the senate. So I guess the rest of your post is pointless.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So incredibly wrong. "If only they could comprehend what we stand for, they'd aghree with us".

The American people heard and comprehended the message. They just rejected it.


Yes and now they'll get what's coming to them.;)

Too bad because the next 4 years will be interesting to say the least. Let's see where the economy is say oh a year from now. I'm betting true to form we'll right back where we were 4 years ago only this time you won't be able to blame it on Clinton.

Bush is a shill and the americans who voted for him are in for a rude awakening.

[Scott]

How could they possible be in for a rude awakening? He's been in office for 4 years. Just what do you think Bush is going to do that will be a "rude awakening"?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
How could they possible be in for a rude awakening? He's been in office for 4 years. Just what do you think Bush is going to do that will be a "rude awakening"?

1) Now that the democrats can't filibuster, Bush is able to pass any damned thing he wants.

2) Up to 3 justices on the SC

3) All the federal justices currently being held up for confirmation will now be installed

That's just for starters.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001

quote:Is it bigotry to restrict gays (what about blacks) from civil unions and marriage? Is it bigotry to restrict gays (what about blacks) from the various rights of hospital visitations, inheritence, tax benifits, etc?

Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that makes you and every member of the Christian right look like an ass.

Of course it's bigotry!!!! It couldn't be more blatant!!!!

To say gays can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners is ASOFUCKINGGODDAMNLUTELY the same level of bigotry that it would be to say that blacks can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners.

It's the same fucking thing. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING.

If you disagree because of church beliefs, and you think we should legislate on a federal level based on those beliefs alone, then you have no concept of the meaning of "separation of church and state". Are you able to think logically or not?

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
1) Now that the democrats can't filibuster, Bush is able to pass any damned thing he wants.

2) Up to 3 justices on the SC

3) All the federal justices currently being held up for confirmation will now be installed

That's just for starters.

Voters knew that before the election. It's what they voted for. Besides the Senate is 55 to 44 and 1 which is not filibuster busting numbers (forgetting for the moment that the Senate does not even do real filibusters these days).


So where's the rude awakening?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Hey! some of your posts have scared me!

Democracy and america is all about the freedom to think how you want. Something your group doesn't practice.

Please tell me that you don't believe that. I support your right to think whatever you want, even if it's stupid.

[SDW2001]

midwinter:
Some of them clearly need it.

True.

jimmac:

Yes and now they'll get what's coming to them.

Too bad because the next 4 years will be interesting to say the least. Let's see where the economy is say oh a year from now. I'm betting true to form we'll right back where we were 4 years ago only this time you won't be able to blame it on Clinton.

Bush is a shill and the americans who voted for him are in for a rude awakening.

Vague predications of the future. I guess time will tell. Oh, and one more thing about the election that I've been dying to say to you. I can't resist this:

I TOLD YOU SO. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!

tonton:



It is exactly this kind of thinking that makes you and every member of the Christian right look like an ass.

Of course it's bigotry!!!! It couldn't be more blatant!!!!

To say gays can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners is ASOFUCKINGGODDAMNLUTELY the same level of bigotry that it would be to say that blacks can't enjoy medical right of attorney over their lifetime partners.

It's the same fucking thing. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING THING.

If you disagree because of church beliefs, and you think we should legislate on a federal level based on those beliefs alone, then you have no concept of the meaning of "separation of church and state". Are you able to think logically or not?

Not the same thing. It's the same thing because you feel it's not a choice. That's a valid opinion, but there are many who disagree. I for one feel that homosexuality is usually NOT a choice, but there are times when people DO choose to live a certain way. It's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I don't feel it's the same as being black, for example.

To call Christians bigots is pretty extreme. The Christians I know are tolerant and accepting. Don't scream "bigot" just because you disagree with them. It all comes back to what I was saying: You can either delude yourself into thinking that there is something wrong with the PEOPLE, or change the party's platform to meet it. Your choice.

As for separation of church and state: First, I do not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I do support such State amendments. My argument is not religious. My argument is that I believe marriage is between a man and woman. To me, it's more of a law of nature. Moreover, I think states should not be forced to recognize other state's gay marriages. That is exactly what was about to happen.

Finally, let's make sure you realize something here. It is not George Bush and the Republicans that brought the gay marriage debate to the forefront (well, they did, but with provocation). It was broguht to the front burner by liberal justices and officials that were performing and sanctioning marriages in direct violation of EXISTING sate law, sometimes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that is why the federal marriage amendment came to the front. That, and of course the fact that Bush wanted to solidify his base.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
midwinter:


True.

jimmac:



Vague predications of the future. I guess time will tell. Oh, and one more thing about the election that I've been dying to say to you. I can't resist this:

I TOLD YOU SO. NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!

tonton:





Not the same thing. It's the same thing because you feel it's not a choice. That's a valid opinion, but there are many who disagree. I for one feel that homosexuality is usually NOT a choice, but there are times when people DO choose to live a certain way. It's not as clear cut for me as it is for you. I don't feel it's the same as being black, for example.

To call Christians bigots is pretty extreme. The Christians I know are tolerant and accepting. Don't scream "bigot" just because you disagree with them. It all comes back to what I was saying: You can either delude yourself into thinking that there is something wrong with the PEOPLE, or change the party's platform to meet it. Your choice.

As for separation of church and state: First, I do not support a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I do support such State amendments. My argument is not religious. My argument is that I believe marriage is between a man and woman. To me, it's more of a law of nature. Moreover, I think states should not be forced to recognize other state's gay marriages. That is exactly what was about to happen.

Finally, let's make sure you realize something here. It is not George Bush and the Republicans that brought the gay marriage debate to the forefront (well, they did, but with provocation). It was broguht to the front burner by liberal justices and officials that were performing and sanctioning marriages in direct violation of EXISTING sate law, sometimes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. that is why the federal marriage amendment came to the front. That, and of course the fact that Bush wanted to solidify his base.


Look almost nothing you've told me in the last 4 years has come to pass. No WOMD, Bush didn't win all 50 states, the economy still has trouble spots after all this time in the supposed recovery, there still is no proven connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. And by the way we're still in Iraq after all this time and still no end in sight.

Bush did win the election but not by much.

My predictions weren't that vague. Just watch the economy will be in the toilet soon. As for what other trouble Bush may cause? The mind boggles!


This unfortunately will be a very tough 4 years.

[NOFEER]

some of the above is true, but what about a flawed primary process. that has to be redone,Now all over the place pundits do the 20/20 hindsight parkbench quarterbacking. hey if they knew this some time ago, maybe hilliary could have been drafted, maybe dean was a better candidate. Kerry was viewed as elitist, arrogant, and out of touch, a spectator tothe electorate, not a participant. The primary process should have dug deeper into his past and shown what he truly was, and maybe a better candidate could be chosen..maybe the smoke filled room wasn't a bad way because as long as the primary process doen't change candidates will be weak.

or good candidate, good campaign, just bush and his team just out positioned him. carvell said someone wins power someone has to lose power, it was kerry's turn.

you have to have a candidate to support, not elect because to don't like someone else.

the interesting thing is kerry is chosen and a huge future rides with this candidate, can't be taken lightly hmmmmm, because it will set democrats back longer than 4 years. Can this huge loss be corrected in 2-4 years. i'm not so sure

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NOFEER
some of the above is true, but what about a flawed primary process. that has to be redone,Now all over the place pundits do the 20/20 hindsight parkbench quarterbacking. hey if they knew this some time ago, maybe hilliary could have been drafted, maybe dean was a better candidate. Kerry was viewed as elitist, arrogant, and out of touch, a spectator tothe electorate, not a participant. The primary process should have dug deeper into his past and shown what he truly was, and maybe a better candidate could be chosen..maybe the smoke filled room wasn't a bad way because as long as the primary process doen't change candidates will be weak.

or good candidate, good campaign, just bush and his team just out positioned him. carvell said someone wins power someone has to lose power, it was kerry's turn.

you have to have a candidate to support, not elect because to don't like someone else.

the interesting thing is kerry is chosen and a huge future rides with this candidate, can't be taken lightly hmmmmm, because it will set democrats back longer than 4 years. Can this huge loss be corrected in 2-4 years. i'm not so sure


If what I suspect is true about the next 4 years after that america will have had more than enough of Bush and the republicans.

[Scott]

For those still not getting it Dean was 10 times worse than Kerry and Hillary 10 times worse than Dean.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
For those still not getting it Dean was 10 times worse than Kerry and Hillary 10 times worse than Dean.


Oh Scott!:no:

[Scott]

Okay? Go with either of the two in four years but don't complain when you lose.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Okay? Go with either of the two in four years but don't complain when you lose.


Oh Scott!:no:

[Scott]

Some might find this interesting.


Baffled in Loss, Democrats Seek Road Forward (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07dems.html)

[NOFEER]

great post, the dems are baffled, peripheral, and anti everything but not for anything

[Scott]

This was amusing too.

The Election's Over. Are You Still Losing It? (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/fashion/07CHIL.html)


Group hug everyone.

[midwinter]

Nagourney is such a tool. With the help of find and replace, I've been able to recover what was most likely his initial draft:


crazy people Baffled in Loss, crazy people Seek Road Forward
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


ASHINGTON, Nov. 6 - crazy people emerged from this week's election struggling over what it stood for, anxious about its political future, and bewildered about how to compete with a party of god that some crazy people say may be headed for a period of electoral dominance.

crazy people said President Bush's defeat of Senator John Kerry by three million votes had left the party facing its most difficult time in at least 20 years. Some crazy people said the situation was particularly worrisome because of the absence of any compelling crazy people leader prepared to steer the party back to power or carry its banner in 2008.

"We really need to work on the question of what we are for," said Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president whose 1984 loss to Ronald Reagan was invoked by some crazy people in assessing the party's spirits now. "Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don't think we're going to truly connect with the American people."

Gov. Janet Napolitano, crazy person of Arizona, a state that Mr. Kerry failed to grasp from the godly people column, said: "We need a fresh reassessment of how we communicate with people. How did a party that has been out of power in Washington, D.C., become tagged with the problems of Washington, D.C.? How did a party that is filled with people with values - and I am a person with values - get tagged as the party without values?"

And Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said: "We need to be a party that stands for more than the sum of our resentments. In the heartland, where I am from, there are doubts. Too often, we're caricatured as a bicoastal cultural elite that is condescending at best and contemptuous at worst to the values that Americans hold in their daily lives."

Mr. Kerry's loss has, inevitably, created recriminations about a candidate that many crazy people had always viewed as stiff, and a campaign that was often criticized as slow-moving and unfocused. crazy people said that Mr. Kerry had failed to provide a compelling message, coasting on the belief that Mr. Bush would defeat himself, and that the campaign had been slow to respond to attacks on his war record by Vietnam veterans.

And some crazy people, especially flip-floppers ones, expressed concern that crazy people would draw a mistaken lesson from the loss: that crazy people needed to swing back to the left to energize crazy people base voters to counter the upsurge of conservative base voters on the right.

"That's not a recipe for winning," said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a crazy person frequently mentioned by party officials as a possible presidential contender in 2008. "That's a recipe for disaster."

But the criticisms of Mr. Kerry were slight when compared with the scorn offered for Al Gore after he lost in 2000, or for Michael S. Dukakis after his defeat in 1988. And there was little sign, at least so far, of the kind of intraparty warring that typically grips losing political parties.

Instead, in interviews with elected officials and party leaders across the country, crazy people were much more interested in talking about the future than this past year, reflecting what Stanley Greenberg, the crazy people pollster who advised Mr. Kerry and worked for the great satan in 1992, sardonically described as the unifying power Mr. Bush has wielded over the typically fractious crazy people Party.

"People are determined to get this right," Mr. Greenberg said.

Several party officials said what they were most concerned about was the extent to which godly peoples had succeeded in presenting crazy people as out of the cultural mainstream.

"I'm not saying that Kerry did anything wrong on this, but I think that we ignored in large measure the three big cultural issues of this election: guns, abortion and gay rights, epitomized by gay marriage," said Harold M. Ickes, a former senior adviser to the great satan who ran an independent political committee that sought to unseat Mr. Bush, adding. "These are very, very big issues. They really, really motivate people."

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, crazy person of Michigan, said that in order to be competitive with godly peoples, crazy people had to have a message that was ''strong and strongly pro-work, pro-responsibility, pro-duty, pro-service, pro-child, pro-seniors."

"And not to be afraid of saying God," Ms. Granholm said. "And not to be afraid of saying that this is a country that is based upon faith.''

Party officials said they were concerned about evidence of a cultural gap between crazy people and much of the country. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said that his dealings with Mr. Kerry and his advisers had vividly demonstrated to him the problems the party faces.

"I remember being on a trip with him in New Mexico: I put a cowboy hat on Senator Kerry and someone on his staff shuddered and asked me to stop," he said. "This is I think an example of the East Coast not connecting with the West Coast and with the rest of the country."

crazy people said their immediate concern was the 2006 Senate elections, when 17 crazy people incumbents are up, compared with 15 godly peoples, giving godly peoples an automatic upper-hand from the outset. Several of the crazy people are in nominally crazy people states where Mr. Bush made a strong showing, like New Mexico and Minnesota. The godly peoples picked up four Senate seats on Tuesday, expanding their hold on the Senate to 55-45.

The problem, some crazy people said, will be even more vexing in 2008, when there will be no incumbent president , leaving the race open on both sides. At this very early date, party officials said Hillary Rodham satan, the New York senator, is best positioned to win the presidential nomination. But crazy people and some godly peoples said Mrs. satan was open to caricature by godly peoples as the type of candidate that this election suggested was so damaging to crazy people: a Northeastern, secular liberal.

In addition to Mrs. satan, two crazy people from this year - Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who was Mr. Kerry's running mate, and Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor - are likely to move to wield influence, and perhaps run for president themselves.

Both men are burdened by their own losses this year. And in one disadvantage for Mr. Edwards, several party officials said there would likely be renewed hesitancy to run a member of Congress for the presidency, given the success the White House had undercutting Mr. Kerry's credibility with votes he had cast.

So the other crazy people mentioned as either high-profile leaders and possible presidential candidates are all governors; Mr. Warner, Mr. Richardson, Ms. Napolitano, as well as Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina and Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois.

Party officials said that the results of this election underscored what had appeared to be the case in 2002. godly peoples have now surpassed the crazy people in registering and turning out the voters.

Coming off this election, crazy people officials said they were concerned that the party's ideological and geographical appeal is shrinking after looking at an election night map blazing with red states. They said that Mr. Kerry might have been technically right in saying that a presidential candidate could win without competing in the South, but that the party would stumble unless it broadened its support.

"We must be a 50-state national party," the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said. "We must take on the South, reach more working poor people."

Ms. Napolitano, who in an interview over the summer expressed confidence that Mr. Kerry would win her state (he lost it by 11 percentage points), said: "You can't write off everything from Atlanta to California. You've got to find some beachheads there. Obviously it's going to be more uphill than we thought."

Some party leaders cautioned against glumness, noting that Mr. Kerry had come within three percentage points of defeating Mr. Bush, a wartime president. But other crazy people argued that the party had as strong a chance for victory as it could have hoped for, and argued that the loss presaged a period of godly people domination.

"We are in a tremendous amount of trouble," said Gordon Fischer, the Iowa crazy people chairman. "There are fundamental problems not only with the candidates, but also our tactics and the message: Who crazy people are and what we believe."

Andrei Cherny, who worked as a special policy adviser to Mr. Kerry through the spring, said: "Look, we lost in 2000 during a period of peace and prosperity in American history. In 2004, we lost as challengers with huge job losses and a failed war launched on false pretenses. We should have won."

Most of all, though, party leaders said the main challenge now was coming up with a compelling case to make to voters, to counter what they acknowledged was the clear message Mr. Bush had made. Mr. Warner, reflecting what has been a theme of his governorship in Virginia, said crazy people should seek to present themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility by attacking godly peoples for growing deficits.

"It would help in a host of ways in terms of just ending the notion of crazy people as free-wheeling spenders, 'government solves all your problems,' " he said. "Because that leads right into the slippery slope of crazy people being lax on moral issues, faith issues. Fiscal issues are a huge opportunity for crazy people."

Al From, the head of the crazy people Leadership Council, a group of moderate crazy people, said that the party made a mistake by spending too much time on getting out the vote and that the way to win an election was to come up with a message, the way Mr. satan did in 1992.

"This is the second election in a row where they got a majority of the popular vote, because they did in 2002," he said. "A mobilization strategy, while important, is clearly not the most important thing. We need to persuade people who would otherwise vote for them to vote for us. And you do that with good ideas.''

No Time for Whining, satan Says

Associated Press

Former President the great satan, in his first public remarks since the election, said on Friday that crazy people "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Senator John Kerry's defeat and warned the party not to "sit around and whine."

"This election presents a great opportunity for President Bush and a great opportunity for crazy people, and the two are not necessarily in conflict," he said in a speech in New York before the Urban Land Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The biggest opportunity he mentioned was the prospect of a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, made all the more likely because of the failing health of the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat.

[THT]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Most Christians are not Democrats because most Christians do not share Democratic beliefs. I don't see a way to put it more simply.

90% of the American people are Christians and %90 of Democrats are Christians. Liberal leaning Christians have to stop being passive and lead their Churches, especially in the South.

The Republicans simply represent their beliefs more closely. What don't you understand? It's not about changing the nature of the church or its people. It;s about figuring out what they want and are, and representing them accordingly.

Life is a feedback mechanism. I believe Republicans such as Ralph Reed, Falwell, Robertson, Buaer, and the Church leaders below them have shaped opinion within the Churches towards Republican politics too much. Their needs to be counterbalance.

OMG. I simply cannot get through to you. The Democratic leadership must change, not everyone else. People vote based on their beliefs and desires, not because someone reeducates them and tells them what to believe in. I literally cannot believe that you are advocating changing people's opinions instead of your platform. It's the worst form of denial on your part. It's not a complex question at all, btw.

I said Democrats have to change their leaders, their platform, and most of all their message-making. Message-making is all important in convincing people of the platform and changing people's opinion. They have to do that at all levels from nationally elected officials, state elected officials, city elected officials, community associations, all the way down to the Churchs.

What public money? Examples please.

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/) have been giving grants for a while now. Just on the front page alone, it says it has giving out 200+ million in grants.

Evidence (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2021/1/206) of favoritism for Christian organisations?

According to reports by The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, last year Downing’s shelter was denied a $415,000 grant renewal from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) because preference was given to faith-based providers. However, this year Downing decided to register his charity as a faith-based organization with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which made him eligible for technical assistance and information about grants opportunities. After registering, Downing contacted his representatives in Congress, whose staff helped with the preparation for grant applications. He also testified before Congress to explain the level of veteran homelessness in his community and his organization’s loss of funds. A year later, Downing and his newly registered faith-based organization, United Veterans of America Inc.(UVA), had a influx of federal funds. UVA received grants and loans from the VA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Home Loan Bank.

UVA never changed its name, nor changed the programs offered at the shelter. Yet after registering as a faith-based group they received almost $2 million in federal funds one year after it was denied $415,000. Both the VA and HUD claim that UVA’s faith-based status had nothing to do with their decisions.

Some more examples:

Florida's new approach to inmate reform: a 'faith-based' prison (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1224/p01s04-usju.html)
The Texas Faith-Based Initiative at Five Years (http://www.tfn.org/issues/charitablechoice/report02.html)

Sure sounds like a Christian recruitment program using public money to me. To my eyes, supporters of this program, namely Bushes, Rove et al, are abusing Christianity to get more conservatives voters with this program, and they are doing it on taxpayer money.

Please, please listen. We've DONE those things. The NK nuke framework was a prime example. The problem is that these regimes are not negotiating in good faith. They cannot be trusted. And really, do you honestly advocate making a deal with with someone like Kim jong-ill or Saddam Hussein?

We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We are in fact negotiating with Kim Jong-Il. We would have been fine with negotiating with Hussein. We should even be negotiating with the most evil of men, Fidel Castro, for some cheap labor and nice beach fronts. All negotiations should be about market freedoms and getting as much money into the hands of the people as possible.

For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!

Educate is a word. Persuade is another.

Why should Christians become more liberal in thought? Why would this happen, when to do so in most churches involves a renunication of the church's teachings?

Christains should become more liberal in thought because I think it would be better for them if they were. My conservative Christian evangelical friend thinks life is a punishment. It shouldn't be. I think it is necessary to be as educated as possible, to be as ethical as possible, to be as knowledgeable as possible, to be as diverse as possible. With increasing technological levels in our society comes tremendous power. We all have to learn quicker, adjust quicker to the happenings in the world and the neighborhood.

And Christianity has gone through a few changes in its life already. It hasn't stayed constant in a very long time.

True, and they are also disregarding the bible.

They are interpreting it a different way. The are no less Christian than you are.

Why does there need to be a balance?

Because I don't want the world to become unhinged.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Christianity forbids homosexuality, at least most denominations do. You picked the wrong issue to make a biblical argument on.

Just as an aside: Christianity also forbids touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath. Hell, Leviticus alone forbids all kinds of things.

Ever wonder why evangelicals focus on one thing and ignore so much of the other stuff?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by midwinter
Just as an aside: Christianity also forbids touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath. Hell, Leviticus alone forbids all kinds of things.

Ever wonder why evangelicals focus on one thing and ignore so much of the other stuff?
It's because they don't like homosexuals. They are bigoted.

Like the Dutch Reform Church of South Africa waited until the 1930s before it declared that black people had souls. Yes, folks, the Church isn't all Desmond Tutu, Dr King and Mother Theresa.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Look almost nothing you've told me in the last 4 years has come to pass. No WOMD, Bush didn't win all 50 states, the economy still has trouble spots after all this time in the supposed recovery, there still is no proven connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. And by the way we're still in Iraq after all this time and still no end in sight.

Bush did win the election but not by much.

My predictions weren't that vague. Just watch the economy will be in the toilet soon. As for what other trouble Bush may cause? The mind boggles!


This unfortunately will be a very tough 4 years.

No, not even you. Not even you could make those kind fo statements.

Many of the things I have told you have come to pass. Some have not. For example, I said the economy would recover and it has. Of course it has problem spots...every economy does. Unemployment is low and we added over 300,000 jobs to the payrolls last month. The markets are stable and now seem to be in a rally phase. This is certainly not the same economy we saw two years ago...not even close. Please, be reasonable and just admit that we are in recovery.

Now, WMD: It is true that we have not found any. I certainly thought they were there. So, if it makes you feel better to gloat about it, then go ahead. I'm not really sure what the point is. Bush and his team certainly didn't lie. We thought they were there, as did the Russians, Brits, French Israelis and Germans. Turns out we were all wrong. That's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. But running around screaming "no WMD"? I just don't see the point.

As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Of course we're still in Iraq. Why would we NOT still be there?

All of this is besides the point. Bush DID win by alot. Of course he didn't win all 50 states. You're so fucking petty with that QUESTION I posed two years ago. I said shortly thereafter that there was no way it would happen. The thread was posted before we went into Iraq. I said it was POSSIBLE. Nixon won 49 states, and at the time Bush's poll numbers were consistently astronomical. Get over it.

Coupled with the seats gained in Congress and the popular vote margin, the election was a total repudiation of everything the modern Democratic party stands for. People like you still make excuses and cannot accept it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers

:lol: :lol: :lol:

ok...must pull myself together....no wait....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[segovius]

Oops sorry. I'm allright now.

What I meant was....uh-oh....no.....hold on.....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Segovius, man, pull yourself together. What's wrong with you?

What?

:)

He said what?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Rant rant rant

Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Please tell me that you don't believe that. I support your right to think whatever you want, even if it's stupid.


Please tell me as a U.S. citizen that you don't!:wow:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
No, not even you. Not even you could make those kind fo statements.

Many of the things I have told you have come to pass. Some have not. For example, I said the economy would recover and it has. Of course it has problem spots...every economy does. Unemployment is low and we added over 300,000 jobs to the payrolls last month. The markets are stable and now seem to be in a rally phase. This is certainly not the same economy we saw two years ago...not even close. Please, be reasonable and just admit that we are in recovery.

Now, WMD: It is true that we have not found any. I certainly thought they were there. So, if it makes you feel better to gloat about it, then go ahead. I'm not really sure what the point is. Bush and his team certainly didn't lie. We thought they were there, as did the Russians, Brits, French Israelis and Germans. Turns out we were all wrong. That's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. But running around screaming "no WMD"? I just don't see the point.

As far as Al-Queda: There were not only ties, but ties to other terrorists as well. Some of them are very well documented, such as Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Of course we're still in Iraq. Why would we NOT still be there?

All of this is besides the point. Bush DID win by alot. Of course he didn't win all 50 states. You're so fucking petty with that QUESTION I posed two years ago. I said shortly thereafter that there was no way it would happen. The thread was posted before we went into Iraq. I said it was POSSIBLE. Nixon won 49 states, and at the time Bush's poll numbers were consistently astronomical. Get over it.

Coupled with the seats gained in Congress and the popular vote margin, the election was a total repudiation of everything the modern Democratic party stands for. People like you still make excuses and cannot accept it.


I'm tempted to say like Scott: " You can stop spinning the election's over ". However Everyone will be watching now to take a swing at the Bush pinata. As to my bringing up your prediction from 2 years ago? Don't you stand behind what you say? I made a prediction Bush would lose. I was wrong and I'm willing to face up to that. What's with you?

No matter how you slice ( or spin it ) Bush won by a slim margin. The other almost half of the country doesn't like him. Get over it!

As far as us still in Iraq? Well this was billed by every supporter as a quick operation. In and out. No Vietnam like quagmire. Well?

As far as the WOMD well you're still off in la, la land about that.:no:


http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news/economy/jobless_challenger/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news/economy/retail_sales.reut/index.htm

If the economy's so good how come we still get stuff like this......? :no:


After all this time ( as you painted we've been in recovery for years now ) shouldn't we be just about recovered by now?

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...

You do realize that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote? In '92 he got 43% and in '96 he got 49%.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
You do realize that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote? In '92 he got 43% and in '96 he got 49%.

Yes, but his margin was larger than Bush's...

Reading comprehension, people.

[Scott]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yes, but his margin was larger than Bush's...

Reading comprehension, people.

Yes I understood that and didn't contradict you. Maybe you could use some of that there "reading comprehension" yourself?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
Yes I understood that and didn't contradict you. Maybe you could use some of that there "reading comprehension" yourself?

Superfluous facts drown out the real arguments...

[SDW2001]

THT:

90% of the American people are Christians and %90 of Democrats are Christians. Liberal leaning Christians have to stop being passive and lead their Churches, especially in the South.

First of all, I'd like to see the backing for the 90% of Democrats claim. I'm not sure that's true. Even if it is, the point is that the leadership of the party is not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems in the nation. That's the real reason they are losing everything they can lose. The party is now controlled by the extreme left wing, and the nation is simply not going to vote for that.

Life is a feedback mechanism. I believe Republicans such as Ralph Reed, Falwell, Robertson, Buaer, and the Church leaders below them have shaped opinion within the Churches towards Republican politics too much. Their needs to be counterbalance.


I completely disagree.



I said Democrats have to change their leaders, their platform, and most of all their message-making. Message-making is all important in convincing people of the platform and changing people's opinion. They have to do that at all levels from nationally elected officials, state elected officials, city elected officials, community associations, all the way down to the Churchs.


But that's not what you're saying at all. You keep coming back to "gettin into the churches" to "educate" the masses about liberal beliefs. That's been your position.

As far as faith-based programs go, well if your position is that no public monye should be spent on them, I can accept that. I tend to agree, though I'm not up in arms about it.





We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We are in fact negotiating with Kim Jong-Il. We would have been fine with negotiating with Hussein. We should even be negotiating with the most evil of men, Fidel Castro, for some cheap labor and nice beach fronts. All negotiations should be about market freedoms and getting as much money into the hands of the people as possible.


We're not "negotiating" at all. It's more like we threatended him, which is exactly what we should have done. The only thing we're negotiating with NK is the format of the talks. I doubt we'll be making anymore nukes for peace deasl with the. As far as Fidel goes, I disagree.



Christains should become more liberal in thought because I think it would be better for them if they were. My conservative Christian evangelical friend thinks life is a punishment. It shouldn't be. I think it is necessary to be as educated as possible, to be as ethical as possible, to be as knowledgeable as possible, to be as diverse as possible. With increasing technological levels in our society comes tremendous power. We all have to learn quicker, adjust quicker to the happenings in the world and the neighborhood.

And Christianity has gone through a few changes in its life already. It hasn't stayed constant in a very long time.


I still don't think you hear what you are saying. You are saying that Christians should change. In other words, the people that are electing the government need to change. No matter how many ways you state it, it's just wrong. The government represents its people, not the other way around. Any statements you make on how churches should change are invalid, because your motivation is clearly to obtain that vote. If liberals start taking over the churches, then it will happen on its own. It won't happen because of some grand effort to transfer the voting block to the Democratic party.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nope. Bush won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in 150 years. So no, he didn't win by a lot...

Keep deluding yourself.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Keep deluding yourself.

I cited a fact that implies Bush didn't win by a lot, do you have any facts to base your assertions on?

I won't hold my breath.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
I'm tempted to say like Scott: " You can stop spinning the election's over ". However Everyone will be watching now to take a swing at the Bush pinata. As to my bringing up your prediction from 2 years ago? Don't you stand behind what you say? I made a prediction Bush would lose. I was wrong and I'm willing to face up to that. What's with you?

No matter how you slice ( or spin it ) Bush won by a slim margin. The other almost half of the country doesn't like him. Get over it!

As far as us still in Iraq? Well this was billed by every supporter as a quick operation. In and out. No Vietnam like quagmire. Well?

As far as the WOMD well you're still off in la, la land about that.:no:


http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news/economy/jobless_challenger/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/02/news/economy/retail_sales.reut/index.htm

If the economy's so good how come we still get stuff like this......? :no:


After all this time ( as you painted we've been in recovery for years now ) shouldn't we be just about recovered by now?

I posed a question. A question! I said it was possible based on his approval ratings at the time and the fact that Nixon had once won 49 states. I also listed some other reasons it could happen. I never claimed it "would" happen. Never. In fact, once things became more divided again, I quickly stated that it most certainly wouldn't happen. You only bring it up to try and discredit me as some kind of loon, when in reality it is you who saw your predictions of Bush and the Republicans losing go up in a puff of smoke. Moveon.org, ACT, Sorros, Hollywood, vitrolic Democratic leaders screaming that Bush betrayed the country...none of it mattered. Bush won just as I said he would. Stop trying to change the subject. You were wrong.

And now, I can see that even though Bush won, you're STILL claiming that the economy is not good. It is good, and it doesn't matter how mnay CNN money links you post to the contrary. You've been doing this for years. You present one statisitic or interpretation of a statistic, and then claim that it represents the state of entire US economy. You follow it up with a snide comment liek "uh-oh", like you hope that the economy actually does go downhill for your own personal ego and political gain.

GDP=Good Growth
Unemployment=Low
2,000,000 jobs created in just over a year
Markets=stable and on the rise
Homeownership=record levels

Tell me how that's bad. We ARE in recovery. Recovery DOES take years. If you had any understanding of economic policy you would know that. BTW, CNN is not exactly a non-partisan media source.

Oh, and as far as Iraq goes: I didn't see ANYONE bill it as a quick operation, except for the anti-war left who used it as a strawman.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I cited a fact that implies Bush didn't win by a lot, do you have any facts to base your assertions on?

I won't hold my breath.

Yes.

Bush won by more than 3 1/2 million votes in the popular vote.

More people voted for him than for any other President in history

Bush won key states like Florida by fairly large margins. FL was 52-47

Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.

Bush won 30 States, Kerry won 20


If you can't even admit that this was a disaster for your party, you have a long road ahead. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting help. ;)

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
GDP=Good Growth
Unemployment=Low
2,000,000 jobs created in just over a year
Markets=stable and on the rise
Homeownership=record levels

You're as bad as trumptman. Do me a favor and adjust these for the record deficit levels Bush is creating. When you factor in the excess government subsidies into the growth, how negative of a situation are we really talking about?

[hardeeharhar]

SDW2001.

1) The electorate grows with population.

2) Bush won Florida, and 29 other states. Nixon won 49 states. The democratic party didn't die when Nixon won...

But yes we have problems; they are organizational and message problems, not ideas...

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
You're as bad as trumptman. Do me a favor and adjust these for the record deficit levels Bush is creating. When you factor in the excess government subsidies into the growth, how negative of a situation are we really talking about?

Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
SDW2001.

1) The electorate grows with population.

2) Bush won Florida, and 29 other states. Nixon won 49 states. The democratic party didn't die when Nixon won...

But yes we have problems; they are organizational and message problems, not ideas...

1) No shit

2) I didn't argue that. Jimmac was being his usual self and pointing out that I once inquired as to the possiblity of of Bush winning all 50. The thread was created in a much different political climate than we have now. Even so, bush won a clear majority of states, popular and electoral vote, coupled with gains in the House and Senate. the Republicans haven't been in this position since the 1800's.

3) Not a problem with ideas? LOL! :lol:

[Outsider]

Anyone see this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/) ? Ouch!

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

Some deficit is OK, but the levels we're reaching are not healthy. You can ignore it, and blame it on Clinton in 4 years though.

:rolleyes:

[THT]

Originally posted by SDW2001
First of all, I'd like to see the backing for the 90% of Democrats claim. I'm not sure that's true.

The country is 80% Christians with another 10% saying they don't have a preference. 1% state they are athiest, 1% agnostic, and small percentages for other religions. The statistics should split down the middle within a percentage or 2 between both parties. Republicans will comprise of 90% Christians as well. I bet even the Athiests split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure a majority percentage of evangelicals are are Republican, but Democrats obviously need to change it.

For some population statistics, you can look at this site: Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html). The only solace I have in those statistics is that there is a slight downward trend for those who call themselves Christian, but that appears to be in trade for other sorts of religions, if it wasn't a margin error shift in the first place.

Even if it is, the point is that the leadership of the party is not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems in the nation. That's the real reason they are losing everything they can lose. The party is now controlled by the extreme left wing, and the nation is simply not going to vote for that.

The Democratic party is controlled by conservative Democrats with no message and no strategy. They rejected the liberal Democratic presedential candidate they had. Not only that, many of the extreme left wing have left the party for the Greens.

On your point about the leadership of the party not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems, your right. But it's because mainstream Dems want their candidates to fight and represent them, not to triangulate to the middle.

But that's not what you're saying at all. You keep coming back to "gettin into the churches" to "educate" the masses about liberal beliefs. That's been your position.

Yes, that's my position. It's vital for Democrats to counterbalance the conservative machine in the area of Churches and evangelicals. They need to influence, to educate, to redefine, to participate, to get into their Churches again. How's that different from my comments that you quoted? Not only do they have to improve their message-making, educating, at the level of Churches, they also have to do it at all levels of politics and media.

We're not "negotiating" at all. It's more like we threatended him, which is exactly what we should have done. The only thing we're negotiating with NK is the format of the talks. I doubt we'll be making anymore nukes for peace deasl with the. As far as Fidel goes, I disagree.

We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We didn't even have to invade Libya, yet he opened up the table. And don't be surprised if NK comes out of the negotiations with the exact same deal they had with Clinton.

I still don't think you hear what you are saying. You are saying that Christians should change. In other words, the people that are electing the government need to change. No matter how many ways you state it, it's just wrong.

Not wrong. It's the way things are done in life. The Republicans do it wonderfully. Democrats need to be just as good at it.

Christians will also change. They have been changing ever since the time Christians came to be known as Christians.

Any statements you make on how churches should change are invalid, because your motivation is clearly to obtain that vote.

How ironic.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy. (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/257979a6-30f4-11d9-a595-00000e2511c8.html)

[Gene Clean]

(SDW...whatever)

More people voted for him than for any other President in history

You do understand that, there are MORE people in 2004 than there were people in 1904 don't you?

So, saying more people voted for him than for any other President in history, is like saying more people own computers in his time then they did when, say, Kennedy was President.

Hell of an argument :lol:

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

But a national debt the size of Jupiter hurts the fucking economy and we have to do something about it now.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW200