The Democratic Leadership is still in Denial
This is NOT intended to start a flame war. I'll just say that now. I also can't find the first thread.
Well, it finally happened. I am actually in shock over this party's total lack of leadership. It's not even the party per se...it is the "leadership". Terry McCauliffe, Tom Daschle et al are really screwing things up terribly.
There is no question that whatever the reason, the 2000 and 2002 presidential and congressional elections (respectively) went badly for the party. They lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House (this thread will not be allowed to degenerate into an election 200 discussion or I will personally ask for it to be locked
). The Republicans now control both houses and the Presidency. The President is very popular despite the lackluster economy (again, the reasons for the popularity are not the issue in this thread).
And yet, almost unbelieveably, the Democrats are STILL in disaray. Speciffically, the party leadership has set out no clear legislatve agenda. They are constantly on the defensive.
This is apparent in the most recent Democratic "tax cut" plan. It is nothing more than a response to the Bush plan. No one here can tell me that they would have proposed it if Bush hadn't. In fact, it isn't a tax cut at all. It offers one time credits!!! That's not cutting taxes. They should simply say they don't believe a tax cut will do it and leave it at that. But they can't do that. Why? Because 1) They don't want to miss the political boat if a tax cut passes. 2) They KNOW that high, short term deficits caused by real rate reductions WILL help the economy. That's right...they know it. Think it through.....if they really thought it would a disaster, wouldn't they support it? If it made the economy tank, the cut would then be GOOD for the democrats in 2004, not bad. And that's just it: They KNOW it will work, and that would be very bad. The only solution is to offer a half-assed poltically motivated "cut" to make it seem as if they are trying.
This defensive posture gets worse and worse. The leadership and high profile democrats like Daschle, Byrd, Pelosi, Clinton (Hillary), and McCauliffe are now acting like cornered animals. The only thing they have left is to rip Bush on the economy. It's the only real issue left for them (and a an increasingly weak issue...it's improving)
They are certainly trying for more. Byrd's recent "how dare the desk-bound President land on a carrier" speech is an example of desperate, sad politics. OF COURSE Bush is going to use that. Yes, it was political, but PURELY politcal? No. McCauliffe's recent venomous attacks on Bush are tired, rhetorical nonsense ("This guy has been a disaster on domestic policy".....please, "disaster"? Really now). How about referring to the POTUS as "this guy"? That's REALLY inappropriate. Even Gephardt, who I find to be a little more tolerable, refers to the tax cut plan disrespectfully as the "Bush Tax Cut"....not the "President's plan". Can we at least treat the OFFICE with some respect?
The Democratic big wigs are scared.....scared that the economy is going to rebound and that Bush will remain popular as a result. If this occurs, he will be unbeatable. Some internal projections (Democratic ones) show them possibly losing MORE seats. Not a lot is going their way right now.
Here's the point: So they lost two major elections.... It's time for the party to come out with a real agenda. The personal attacks on the President and pathetic reponses to Republican initiatives are simply not working. The Republican party came back after a devastating loss of the Presidency in 1992 to take Congress in 1994. This has not happened for the Dems. Shockingly, there is still no real agenda and total lack of coherency on national security. Yet, the infighting and devisive rhetoric continue, and people like Daschle and McCauliffe keep their jobs? If I was a rank and file Democrat, I'd be asking: Why? What amazes me is that just haven't learned: The venom doesn't work. It failed last time and it will fail again. They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.
Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?
Well, it finally happened. I am actually in shock over this party's total lack of leadership. It's not even the party per se...it is the "leadership". Terry McCauliffe, Tom Daschle et al are really screwing things up terribly.
There is no question that whatever the reason, the 2000 and 2002 presidential and congressional elections (respectively) went badly for the party. They lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House (this thread will not be allowed to degenerate into an election 200 discussion or I will personally ask for it to be locked
). The Republicans now control both houses and the Presidency. The President is very popular despite the lackluster economy (again, the reasons for the popularity are not the issue in this thread). And yet, almost unbelieveably, the Democrats are STILL in disaray. Speciffically, the party leadership has set out no clear legislatve agenda. They are constantly on the defensive.
This is apparent in the most recent Democratic "tax cut" plan. It is nothing more than a response to the Bush plan. No one here can tell me that they would have proposed it if Bush hadn't. In fact, it isn't a tax cut at all. It offers one time credits!!! That's not cutting taxes. They should simply say they don't believe a tax cut will do it and leave it at that. But they can't do that. Why? Because 1) They don't want to miss the political boat if a tax cut passes. 2) They KNOW that high, short term deficits caused by real rate reductions WILL help the economy. That's right...they know it. Think it through.....if they really thought it would a disaster, wouldn't they support it? If it made the economy tank, the cut would then be GOOD for the democrats in 2004, not bad. And that's just it: They KNOW it will work, and that would be very bad. The only solution is to offer a half-assed poltically motivated "cut" to make it seem as if they are trying.
This defensive posture gets worse and worse. The leadership and high profile democrats like Daschle, Byrd, Pelosi, Clinton (Hillary), and McCauliffe are now acting like cornered animals. The only thing they have left is to rip Bush on the economy. It's the only real issue left for them (and a an increasingly weak issue...it's improving)
They are certainly trying for more. Byrd's recent "how dare the desk-bound President land on a carrier" speech is an example of desperate, sad politics. OF COURSE Bush is going to use that. Yes, it was political, but PURELY politcal? No. McCauliffe's recent venomous attacks on Bush are tired, rhetorical nonsense ("This guy has been a disaster on domestic policy".....please, "disaster"? Really now). How about referring to the POTUS as "this guy"? That's REALLY inappropriate. Even Gephardt, who I find to be a little more tolerable, refers to the tax cut plan disrespectfully as the "Bush Tax Cut"....not the "President's plan". Can we at least treat the OFFICE with some respect?
The Democratic big wigs are scared.....scared that the economy is going to rebound and that Bush will remain popular as a result. If this occurs, he will be unbeatable. Some internal projections (Democratic ones) show them possibly losing MORE seats. Not a lot is going their way right now.
Here's the point: So they lost two major elections.... It's time for the party to come out with a real agenda. The personal attacks on the President and pathetic reponses to Republican initiatives are simply not working. The Republican party came back after a devastating loss of the Presidency in 1992 to take Congress in 1994. This has not happened for the Dems. Shockingly, there is still no real agenda and total lack of coherency on national security. Yet, the infighting and devisive rhetoric continue, and people like Daschle and McCauliffe keep their jobs? If I was a rank and file Democrat, I'd be asking: Why? What amazes me is that just haven't learned: The venom doesn't work. It failed last time and it will fail again. They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.
Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Do you disagree with me?
One big knee-jerking yes.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
One big knee-jerking yes.
Fair enough, Shawn. I accept that. But why? Seriously, this isn't about our political differences. Are you, as a democrat, not concerned?
Nick
Fellowship
Originally posted by SDW2001
They lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House ... ...They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.
The Democratic party always seems to be complaining and playing the victim game. They do not seem to understand the concept of responsibility. They defend everything Clinton did and can explain reasons why things were not there fault in any and every situation. Including "lost control of the Senate.... twice, actually. They lost the White House". and yet they jump at the chance to attack any republican such as mr. Bennet. They attack Mr. Bennet even though he did not do anything illeagle. He did not lie or make up an excuse, he admitted it and said he was going to stop gambling, He maintained his integrity completely.
They are going crazy now because things are going well for Bush. Bush has done everything he has said he would do and it is confronting to their beliefs.
If the left wants to have a chance at getting a president in office they have to stop acting like children. They need quit trying to make obvious attempts to villify Bush in every way they can. Bush went to the aircraft carrier because it was an amazing way to thank and honor the military. He flew the plane because he is a pilot and pilots love to fly. I never met a pilot that passed up an opportunity to fly a military plane.
Comments like "Desk bound President" are foolish. I mean what does that mean, deskbound compared to what? They are always saying stuff with mo bassis. At the end of the speech he says "a president must be honest and say the truth" what did Bush Lie about? and if telling the truth is important why not complain about clinton. I do not think that this predident can easily be cought in a lie, The left do not base things on facts everything is feeling based. they just invent whatever they want and expect us to brlieve it. The general public see through this and they are digging their own grave.
And before you comment on how the aircraft carrier thing was good for his campaign. I know that it was. But what is wrong with that. A presidents term in office is his resume (it always has been). Opponets are supossed to discuss a presidents faults and the president is supossed to bring up his strengths and the war was a sucess. The left has been proven wrong about almost everthing. There was no disaster for them to point at, No big thing to complain about they are desperately trying to stop him from looking good in anyway no matter what at all cost. I actually think that if thousands of americans had died in the war the left would have been relieved.
I hope they keep complainning about the BUSH PHOTO OP so that they keep replaying it on TV. we see through the petty attempts to make a good president look bad and to distract from the fact that they have very week plans for running the country. With the way Democrats are going on Bush does not really have to campaign much.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
As a democrat, I'm disappointed with my party's lack of leadership... really. Republicans seem to have a very strong agenda. I disagree with it (to avoid a flame war I'll just stay out of why) but I have to say that the Republicans are doing a much better job of pushing their agenda and getting people to agree with them. I really wish the Democratic party had as much intensity.
This is a good point. I used to be a Democrat in my youth. The party has been lost since Clinton in my opinion. The debating that Democrats have with republicans is only slightly more intense as the debates that they have with each other. Snd though they bring up many good points that I agree with they never seem to have a plan of action that seems worked out to the degree to have a chance of working.
and untill things change I am a republican. Democrats are actually chasing people away from their party on droves and they are blaming Bush.
Originally posted by JC
Democrats are actually chasing people away from their party on droves and they are blaming Bush.
That is exactly the case..
Fellowship
but welcome back my friends, to the war that will never end.
it will be the administration's goal to have the american electorate believe that any change in leadership would be dangerous.
the democrats keep nudging at the foreign policy door but no one is willing to go through it. right now they just hope the economy will be the catalyst for a strong democratic run at the presidency and i'm thinking that's not a bad plan of attack at this moment, i think it would be dangerous to go at the president on foreign policy at this time.
remember, two months after churchill announced V-E day he was unseated, the british public thinking what was good in wartime might not be what is needed in peacetime.
the bush administration's agenda should be to make the american people think that the war is still on and not rest on the laurels of the victories they want everyone to believe we've had in 2003, but doing so would play into the democrats hands.
if america feels safe and the economy is still in disarray, the democrats have a chance, if not, well.......
Clinton was/is a master peddler of ideas for debate. He will spit our a 12 point plan for just about anything. I would argue that his best showing was in 1996 after the Republicans lost house seats because they shut down the government. I actually believe the impeachment hurt Republican gains and they would be further along now if they hadn't done it.
Clinton was a master of taking agenda items away from Republicans one, because he was constantly proposing policy and two because while he disagreed strongly, he seldom demonized them. Thus while literally being forced to sign welfare reform he benefitted because he could say he came to an agreement, not made a deal with the devil.
The Democrats could and should benefit from the war with Iraq. Many of them voted for it as well. However elements of the party cannot give up demonizing Bush. How can you take credit or even compromise with something when the other party is considered evil? It makes it impossible.
Clinton grabbed welfare away from Republicans. He vetoed partial birth abortion and got away with it because he cited policy concerns. Of course the policy concerns happened to strip the bill of all effectiveness but at least he wasn't screaming that all men, want to bomb women back to the dark ages and other such hysterics.
The Santorum things is another issue. Most laypeople who don't follow politics could have been led to believe this was just a debate about privacy rights. Most people believe in a strong right to privacy. It could have been a very mainstream issue, even a campaign issue. Instead it became a gay rights issue and Santorum became a hateful bigot.
There can't be any debate now because any concessions or discussions would be seeking agreement with hate speech and bigotry. Before they could have challenged Santorum to strengthen privacy laws. Of course in subcommittee they add a right to privacy regarding sodomy.
Affirmative Action is a perfect example of an issue the Democrats should own but instead of had taken from them. All Republicans did was say it should be by economic need instead of color and they now own the middle ground on this issue.
Democrats use to be very good about this type of thing, much better than Republicans. However it is hard to find middle ground when all the grounds you have to work with are "evil."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Democrats use to be very good about this type of thing, much better than Republicans. However it is hard to find middle ground when all the grounds you have to work with are "evil."
Nick
I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.
I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.
and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.
an example from the Wash Post:
"The Democrats issued a news release headed 'shameless' in large red type that cited the 'nerve required to delaoÃ×Àe rezrn of 4,000 sailors to their families after 10 months at sea in order to stage (a) photo-op.'"
I mean, really. Give it up. The public loved the appearance. Even if they were right, which they aren't, they have lost the PR battle on this point above. In other words, even if I agreed that what Bush did was wrong and purely politcal (and I don't as you know), it WOULDN'T MATTER. They are fighting a losing battle on trying to villify Bush. People won't hear it right now, and it will be yesterday's news in another fifteen seconds anyway.
I hear some of the same rhetoric I heard from the Republicans during Clinton's impeachement....but they (the dems) STILL haven't figured it out: Integrity is NOT Bush's weakness!!! Now don't get me wrong, he has weaknesses. This is not his, though. Go after him on the economy, health care, whatever....but not integrity. It's simply a battle their going to lose, and have already lost.
What they should have done before the election is put together a paltform that agreed with the President 100% on national security. Then, they should have RESPECTFULLY disagreed with him on "their" issues, like the economy. They should have said "Look, we respect the President a great deal and think he has done a tremendous job with the war on terror. That being said, we do disagree with his POSITIONS on other issues. Here is our plan for [the economy], [health care], [social security], etc. They failed to realize that Americans are smart. We are going to elect the people we think have the best answers (example: I, and many other registered republicans voted for Ed Rendell in PA. He had a better plan...period). Instead, they half-heartedly supported Bush on the WOT (and some not at all), then went absolutely "scorched earth" on nearly every other position he holds...not to mention their use of venom on his brother and other republicans by McCaullfie and Daschle. Their personal disrespect for the President and his allies really cost them in the form of a backlash.
One more point: This isn't 1992. The economy is on the back end of a recession, not the middle-front as it was for election 1992. This makes a big difference. The only way they will have a prayer is if 1) They find someone who can possibly beat Bush....I am talking about the PERSON, not the issues. Lieberman is the ONLY hope they have here. 2) Identify and exploit Bush's weaknesses. Focusing on integrity ain't going to cut it. Bush will kill them on that front. He will also kill them on trust, the military voters, national security and 9/11. The ONLY things they have left are the economy social security and healthcare . There are NO other issues for them right now. And as I've mentioned, they need ALL of those issues to win. If the economy goes well...they are absolutely ****ed. No joke....they are. No one is going to care about social security and health care if we have 4-5% growth. Yet, they continue to focus on bullshit like this carrier landing. It's pathetic.
I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.
I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.
and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.
Exactly. I agree.
PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.
Originally posted by jimmac
PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.
But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed.
Originally posted by Existence
But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed.
but they (the dems) STILL haven't figured it out: Integrity is NOT Bush's weakness!!! Now don't get me wrong, he has weaknesses. This is not his, though. Go after him on the economy, health care, whatever....but not integrity. It's simply a battle their going to lose, and have already lost.
Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.
But I agree with you. It's a fight they're simply not going to win. He's too "well-liked" (which is bizarre to me) by most everyone, and the Reps have possibly the most brilliant and ruthless political strategists on the planet (Karl Rove) calling the shots. You can't campaign against a war on terror. You can't campaign against tax cuts. And you can't call into question a sitting president's ethics/integrity/character when HE DOESN'T RESPOND TO THE ATTACKS.
Add to this the simple fact that the Dems are fielding the most soporific group of people ever assembled in one room (with the possible exception of Howard Dean), and we're looking at four more years of this nonsense.