"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"
Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:
If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.
Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.
I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.
Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.
Here is a great article from Time (that conservative mouthpiece of the RNC) this week. Seems they are tired of the Democratic Party inability to win campaigns as well and they try to provide a little analysis.
Here is a great article from Time (that conservative mouthpiece of the RNC) this week. Seems they are tired of the Democratic Party inability to win campaigns as well and they try to provide a little analysis.
Essentially, the dumbing down of <insert anything>.
It's sickening.
Well it is easy to boil down beliefs more easily than just criticism. Strong defense is easy to boil down because it is clear that Republicans stand for it. The two words simply remind everyone that when it comes to spending for military and safety, Republicans will do what it takes. Contrast that to the Democratic position that tries to convince people to balance safety with concerns of the world community, politics, veto's, envy, etc. That is much harder to communicate. Especially when many Democrats use doublespeak and attempt to stand for the troops, but not their mission, strong military, but cut funding, and things of that nature.
Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..
Quote:
No more than 10 minutes into it, two of those Democrats, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Howard Dean of Vermont, had entangled themselves in a ridiculous scuffle over the issue of gay rights. Not that they disagreed. Both are staunch advocates of equal rights and "civil unions." But Kerry believed that Dean had accused him of a lack of courage on this topic.
It isn't about a plan, because they both have the same plan. So it comes down to, who can I show secretly doesn't support gays or hates them in subtle, bigoted ways.
Another quote...
Quote:
And the Democrats enter the fray with all the shape and substance of fog. "People have no idea what we stand for," says Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. "They have a vague sense that we were against the war in Iraq and a vaguer sense that things were somehow better economically when we were in power. Beyond that, nothing."
Again this is what criticism, and no policy gets you...
The article makes some very clear recommendations...
Quote:
They will have to convince the public that they are as committed to national defense, and to the judicious use of military force, as the Republicans are. They will have to shed their congenital pessimism. They can't just rant against the Administration and hope for bad news to confirm their prejudices. They will have to propose firm, reasonable policy alternatives that are easy to understand and defend. If they oppose the Bush tax cuts, they will have to lay out, in some detail, what they would do instead.
Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..
You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.
How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.
When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.
How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?
You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.
How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.
When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.
How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?
Because it shows the tactics that they are trying to take and how it is going to get them no where. Please understand that I said the Republicans also damaged themselves when they focused on trying to prove personal flaws over policy as well.
You have a Democratic pollster and consultant complaining that the party has no message, not that they have too many messages.
The two of them weren't debating policy, one was calling the other over a personal attack that tried to say they weren't really supporting homosexuals.
The real point is that if they can't find a message and seek to hide that fact by using personal attacks in a insignificant inner-party debate how will they ever manage it when the election is on the line?
This is a point made repeatedly throughout the article and by others here. The Democrats believe that criticism, plus the other guy/gal being labeled intolerant in some regard = policy. The quote I posted only illustrated that point.
Clinton always, always, had lots of policy. He was such a policy wonk that he could go on for hours about it. He had a 5 point plan for everything and was the master of targeted tax cuts, targeted spending (or so it was claimed in both regards at least) and taking a personal tale and connecting it to policy. His state of the union messages were like laundry lists of priorities, most of which were soon ignored and never passed, but hey at least there was something to discuss. At least there was a message to stay on.
Consider the difference now. Obviously the Democrats don't like Bushes tax cuts. You follow them fairly closely, but can you tell me what their alternatives are to the tax cuts? Can you tell me what they propose instead? What have they done besides labeled it bad?
Clinton would not have done that. He infuriated Republicans in this regard. He would always have a laundry list of cuts. They might not go into effect unless there was this amount of growth, or no deficits, or until he was out of office 5 years, but he left the poor Republicans trying to explain to a largely apathetic public as to why their cuts sucked less.
It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.
Bush did this to the Democrats in 2000. He took away education as a federal issue. He obviously has defense well covered. He has a policy for prescription drugs. (Again letting the Democrats argue over whether it is good or bad is exactly what he would want because they are discussing his policy, not creating their own alternative) He can claim attemtps at jump starting the economy and further attempts to do so since 9/11, etc.
That quote shows the weakness of the Democratic position. Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?
What is their plan? There isn't one. They could propose massive infrastructure spending and justify it using 9/11. (Sure we have dams but are they secure and modern?) They could propose a massive citizenship drive and amnesty program for current immigrants with problematic status. (illegal) The best way to fight terrorism? Insure that the foreign nationals among us want to be Americans!
They might even get really bold and stop bashing on men and stop ceding their votes to Repubilcans. They could propose national standards for fairness regarding abuse claims made on men, especially when these claims only seem to come up during alimony, custody and divorce hearings.
Each has risk but at least they would be bold. Don't cut taxes, invest in our national security instead.
Make sure those among us love and pledge their allegance to America.
Make sure that women are treated fairly with regard to violence and abuse claims, but also insure men are not guilty without a trial at a time when they are most vunerable.
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country. For example they could advance a message about alternative energy and changes to the auto industry etc. They could present arguments for social security to once again try to install fear in the minds of seniors. They could push for a nationalized health benefits program. They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.
I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?
No. I just think comparing a discussion between two Democrats with the platform between the two parties is silly. It's just a poor example of what the party will or will not be able to do.
If you're trying to show that, based on the fact that two politicians got in an argument, Democrats can't put together a cohesive argument or that Democrats can only call names then you're just being dumb.
Bill had plenty of policy and Al had plenty of policy too. It worked for the most part in the presidential elections and once the party is unified behind a candidate that candidate is just as likely as Bill or Al to have a direction.
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country.... They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.
I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Wow. I think I agree with just about everything you said here. A first!
The Dems have to wait. If they show their cards now it will give Bush a headstart on how to counter the Democratic plan. It's better to wait.
Does the Democratic leadership have a plan? I don't know. But it's better that way considering the attention spans of the average US'er.
Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.
I'll join you here in part. But, it isn't just about the Democratic debate. In fact, I don't know that I was even thinking of it when I started the thread.
The "flimsy" perception goes back to Gore in 2000. He may not have changed his policy stance every day, but he did change HIMSELF and his image. Do you guys remember the thread "Who is Al Gore!?!" Gore also engaged in a mean-spirited style in the first and third Presidential debates.
I'm not saying he caused what is going on right now. But, there are similarities. He did a lot of attacking. The Democrats have no clear public agenda. The debate WAS telling in a way, because they had trouble differentiating themselves and attacked Bush at will. That's exactly what is happneing with the likes of Daschle and Byrd. There is something about these men that sickens me. This includes Gephardt. They seem to be....well, slimy. It's not even what they say that bothers me (well, sometimes it is). It's HOW they say it and the fact that they are attacking Bush on stupid, useless points like the aircraft carrier landing. Not only do I think it's absurd (since many Presidents have done things like this as well as DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN in recent months), it just doesn't work. In other words, even if I supported the premise of the attacks....THEY DON'T WORK.
To this day, no one in the party seems to have figured out that to have any chance of winning in 2004, they will have to:
1) Ensure the economy tanks for their own political gain. Without this, they WILL lose. I'll offer a 100% guarantee on that one.
2) Be as strong on national security as the Republicans.
3) Offer a clear domestic agenda that people wil percieve as helping them. The class warfare "people vs. the powerful" thing, while perhaps a good idea, has failed in two elections. It even failed after Enron and WorldCom. It's dead.
So then, what is that agenda? Most aren't going to propose any real tax reform. Most aren't going to call for an real change in SS funding. Most aren't going to talk about military reform, etc.
But here is the problem: It's a question of current Democratic beliefs. The Democratic party stands for greater "social" spending (i.e. education, healthcare, social assistance, federal funds for child care and maternity leave, social security funding increases without changing the WAY the system is funded, etc.).
The fact is, no Democrat has the balls to call for a tax increase to fund these things like they'd like to fund them. It's really a difference of philosophy. I believe that many Democrats have their hears in the right place. They legitimately want to fix these problems. But they're smart enough to know that when Democrats call for tax INCREASES, they lose. Dukakis proved this very recently. His poll numbers plumetted when people really found out what he was about.
So then, we have a dilemma. The country, as a whole, identifies more with Republican positons. These positions are strong national security policies, homeland security, tax cuts, etc. The Republicans are even talking about the medicare benefit issue away. Today's Republicans have taken away the Dems issues from them (and I have mixed feelings about that). They are left with attacking Bush and pointing out the economy's weakness. As I said, though, if the economy improves, there is really nothing left for them. Is there?
Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.
yeah i know, (there is no sardonic smiley face) it's sad when only person on the stage that is saying anything above the blah blah blah is al sharpton.
i mean really, dick gephardt? and don't even get me started on carol mosely-braun. she really really disappointed me, and she couldn't even carry illinois, the only state in the union where democrats seem to thrive.
so it looks like lieberman, and an administration licking it's lips at that prospect. but then that's what i thought about a certain governor from texas.
Comments
Originally posted by JC
so, I ask you if WOMD is found will you change your position?
About what? That the biochem suits proved they had WoMDs? Of course not.
PS: Sorry for the cheap shot Fellowship
[B]About what? That the biochem suits proved they had WoMDs? Of course not.
sigh, The bio chem suit thing was never my main point.
Though i guess that When they find Womd you will say they planted it or something.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
EDITED: unnecessary swipes at an ena=jc possibility...
Thanks...I think??
"The title of this thread should be : SDW IS STILL IN DENIAL.
Sure Bush will win easily because there's nothing wrong with the economy ( never mind the fact the last time we saw interest rates like this I was ten years old ). I'll bet he thinks Saddam still has WOMD in Iraq. Man you are one to talk about reality.
The question to ask is if the economy does improve slightly is the voting public willing to accept serial recession like they have for the republic"
Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now. Every piece of polling data, recent politcal history and simple common sense points the same direction:
If the economy improves in any significant way, and barring anything completely unforseen, the President will be reelected in a landslide. In addiition he will VERY LIKELY be reelected even IF the economy doesn't get much better, partly due to the weakness of the Democratic field Though, there would still be a chance he could lose.
Any other argument is not based in reality here. Once again, jimmac, you love to twist words, thinking all the while you are angering me for sport (you're not, by the way). I never said there was "nothing wrong" with the economy....YOU DID. I sais we weren't in a "technical" recessions, or something to that effect. I have admitted all along that we did have a PRACTICAL recession, and we are in a SLOWDOWN right now. Unemployment is still historically low, even at 6%. The market has stablized a bit and earnings data has been a little better as of late.
I know that you would LOVE for things to be worse. This isn't 1992, jimmac. If the election was this year, you and others would have a point. But it's not. All things being equal, Bush is going to DESTROY his opposition. The economy improving will simply seal the deal.
Oh, and on you stupid "serial recession" comment. Give me a break. Presidents don't directly cause recessions and booms. Go ahead and think that the 90's were a utopia caused by Clinton if you want. But then, you better also realize that the practical recession began at the end of his second term. Then again, you've always been a good one for illogical polarized beliefs.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, I am really fighting the urge to question your intelligence right now.
Fight that urge. Fight it!
Build a better Democrat
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Here is a great article from Time (that conservative mouthpiece of the RNC) this week. Seems they are tired of the Democratic Party inability to win campaigns as well and they try to provide a little analysis.
Build a better Democrat
Nick
Wow. Joe Klein, even (I thought he only wrote for the New Yorker). Thanks for the link!
In a battle of bumper stickers, STRONG DEFENSE beats YOUR FAMILY IS SAFER IN A WORLD WHERE AMERICA IS LOOKED UP TO, NOT IN A WORLD WHERE WE ARE HATED
Essentially, the dumbing down of <insert anything>.
It's sickening.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Essentially, the dumbing down of <insert anything>.
It's sickening.
Well it is easy to boil down beliefs more easily than just criticism. Strong defense is easy to boil down because it is clear that Republicans stand for it. The two words simply remind everyone that when it comes to spending for military and safety, Republicans will do what it takes. Contrast that to the Democratic position that tries to convince people to balance safety with concerns of the world community, politics, veto's, envy, etc. That is much harder to communicate. Especially when many Democrats use doublespeak and attempt to stand for the troops, but not their mission, strong military, but cut funding, and things of that nature.
Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..
No more than 10 minutes into it, two of those Democrats, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Howard Dean of Vermont, had entangled themselves in a ridiculous scuffle over the issue of gay rights. Not that they disagreed. Both are staunch advocates of equal rights and "civil unions." But Kerry believed that Dean had accused him of a lack of courage on this topic.
It isn't about a plan, because they both have the same plan. So it comes down to, who can I show secretly doesn't support gays or hates them in subtle, bigoted ways.
Another quote...
And the Democrats enter the fray with all the shape and substance of fog. "People have no idea what we stand for," says Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. "They have a vague sense that we were against the war in Iraq and a vaguer sense that things were somehow better economically when we were in power. Beyond that, nothing."
Again this is what criticism, and no policy gets you...
The article makes some very clear recommendations...
They will have to convince the public that they are as committed to national defense, and to the judicious use of military force, as the Republicans are. They will have to shed their congenital pessimism. They can't just rant against the Administration and hope for bad news to confirm their prejudices. They will have to propose firm, reasonable policy alternatives that are easy to understand and defend. If they oppose the Bush tax cuts, they will have to lay out, in some detail, what they would do instead.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Here is a perfect example of Democratic problems from the article..
You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.
How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.
When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.
How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?
Originally posted by bunge
You are trying to criticize the arguments in a primary debate. They're arguing against each other. Two democrats. They're not defining policy against the Republicans, but trying to differ from each other.
How does this show any faulty message in relation to Republicans? It's not a message about or for Republicans. It's to democrats. Looking at two candidates. Democratic candidates.
When a solitary candidate is choosen, a unified message will emerge. Until then, there shouldn't be a unified message. It should be exactly what you see in this passage you quoted Nick, almost confusingly similar messages. They're on the same team.
How on earth does this relate in any way to the direction the party is taking against the Republicans?
Because it shows the tactics that they are trying to take and how it is going to get them no where. Please understand that I said the Republicans also damaged themselves when they focused on trying to prove personal flaws over policy as well.
You have a Democratic pollster and consultant complaining that the party has no message, not that they have too many messages.
The two of them weren't debating policy, one was calling the other over a personal attack that tried to say they weren't really supporting homosexuals.
The real point is that if they can't find a message and seek to hide that fact by using personal attacks in a insignificant inner-party debate how will they ever manage it when the election is on the line?
This is a point made repeatedly throughout the article and by others here. The Democrats believe that criticism, plus the other guy/gal being labeled intolerant in some regard = policy. The quote I posted only illustrated that point.
Clinton always, always, had lots of policy. He was such a policy wonk that he could go on for hours about it. He had a 5 point plan for everything and was the master of targeted tax cuts, targeted spending (or so it was claimed in both regards at least) and taking a personal tale and connecting it to policy. His state of the union messages were like laundry lists of priorities, most of which were soon ignored and never passed, but hey at least there was something to discuss. At least there was a message to stay on.
Consider the difference now. Obviously the Democrats don't like Bushes tax cuts. You follow them fairly closely, but can you tell me what their alternatives are to the tax cuts? Can you tell me what they propose instead? What have they done besides labeled it bad?
Clinton would not have done that. He infuriated Republicans in this regard. He would always have a laundry list of cuts. They might not go into effect unless there was this amount of growth, or no deficits, or until he was out of office 5 years, but he left the poor Republicans trying to explain to a largely apathetic public as to why their cuts sucked less.
It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.
Bush did this to the Democrats in 2000. He took away education as a federal issue. He obviously has defense well covered. He has a policy for prescription drugs. (Again letting the Democrats argue over whether it is good or bad is exactly what he would want because they are discussing his policy, not creating their own alternative) He can claim attemtps at jump starting the economy and further attempts to do so since 9/11, etc.
That quote shows the weakness of the Democratic position. Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?
What is their plan? There isn't one. They could propose massive infrastructure spending and justify it using 9/11. (Sure we have dams but are they secure and modern?) They could propose a massive citizenship drive and amnesty program for current immigrants with problematic status. (illegal) The best way to fight terrorism? Insure that the foreign nationals among us want to be Americans!
They might even get really bold and stop bashing on men and stop ceding their votes to Repubilcans. They could propose national standards for fairness regarding abuse claims made on men, especially when these claims only seem to come up during alimony, custody and divorce hearings.
Each has risk but at least they would be bold. Don't cut taxes, invest in our national security instead.
Make sure those among us love and pledge their allegance to America.
Make sure that women are treated fairly with regard to violence and abuse claims, but also insure men are not guilty without a trial at a time when they are most vunerable.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
good points
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country. For example they could advance a message about alternative energy and changes to the auto industry etc. They could present arguments for social security to once again try to install fear in the minds of seniors. They could push for a nationalized health benefits program. They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.
I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you think this election is going to be won on who has more courage while implimenting civil unions? Do you think they can win arguing that they supported what Bush did with exception 1...2...3?
No. I just think comparing a discussion between two Democrats with the platform between the two parties is silly. It's just a poor example of what the party will or will not be able to do.
If you're trying to show that, based on the fact that two politicians got in an argument, Democrats can't put together a cohesive argument or that Democrats can only call names then you're just being dumb.
Bill had plenty of policy and Al had plenty of policy too. It worked for the most part in the presidential elections and once the party is unified behind a candidate that candidate is just as likely as Bill or Al to have a direction.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co. I would not rule out that the democrats may come back hard to articulate a contrasting message to the country.... They could run on a vast number of topics that differ from that of the current admin.
I think it is a long road ahead for the democrats but I am sure they are working on exactly what it is they will advance when the time does come.
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Wow. I think I agree with just about everything you said here. A first!
The Dems have to wait. If they show their cards now it will give Bush a headstart on how to counter the Democratic plan. It's better to wait.
Does the Democratic leadership have a plan? I don't know. But it's better that way considering the attention spans of the average US'er.
Originally posted by bunge
Wow. I think I agree with just about everything you said here. A first!
The Dems have to wait. If they show their cards now it will give Bush a headstart on how to counter the Democratic plan. It's better to wait.
Does the Democratic leadership have a plan? I don't know. But it's better that way considering the attention spans of the average US'er.
that's a rosy view.
but i'm afraid there is only one democrat who knows how to beat president bush, and
a) no one dare mention his name & b) he can't run & c) they've shunted him off to mount elba
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
that's a rosy view.
Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.
I'll join you here in part. But, it isn't just about the Democratic debate. In fact, I don't know that I was even thinking of it when I started the thread.
The "flimsy" perception goes back to Gore in 2000. He may not have changed his policy stance every day, but he did change HIMSELF and his image. Do you guys remember the thread "Who is Al Gore!?!" Gore also engaged in a mean-spirited style in the first and third Presidential debates.
I'm not saying he caused what is going on right now. But, there are similarities. He did a lot of attacking. The Democrats have no clear public agenda. The debate WAS telling in a way, because they had trouble differentiating themselves and attacked Bush at will. That's exactly what is happneing with the likes of Daschle and Byrd. There is something about these men that sickens me. This includes Gephardt. They seem to be....well, slimy. It's not even what they say that bothers me (well, sometimes it is). It's HOW they say it and the fact that they are attacking Bush on stupid, useless points like the aircraft carrier landing. Not only do I think it's absurd (since many Presidents have done things like this as well as DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN in recent months), it just doesn't work. In other words, even if I supported the premise of the attacks....THEY DON'T WORK.
To this day, no one in the party seems to have figured out that to have any chance of winning in 2004, they will have to:
1) Ensure the economy tanks for their own political gain. Without this, they WILL lose. I'll offer a 100% guarantee on that one.
2) Be as strong on national security as the Republicans.
3) Offer a clear domestic agenda that people wil percieve as helping them. The class warfare "people vs. the powerful" thing, while perhaps a good idea, has failed in two elections. It even failed after Enron and WorldCom. It's dead.
So then, what is that agenda? Most aren't going to propose any real tax reform. Most aren't going to call for an real change in SS funding. Most aren't going to talk about military reform, etc.
But here is the problem: It's a question of current Democratic beliefs. The Democratic party stands for greater "social" spending (i.e. education, healthcare, social assistance, federal funds for child care and maternity leave, social security funding increases without changing the WAY the system is funded, etc.).
The fact is, no Democrat has the balls to call for a tax increase to fund these things like they'd like to fund them. It's really a difference of philosophy. I believe that many Democrats have their hears in the right place. They legitimately want to fix these problems. But they're smart enough to know that when Democrats call for tax INCREASES, they lose. Dukakis proved this very recently. His poll numbers plumetted when people really found out what he was about.
So then, we have a dilemma. The country, as a whole, identifies more with Republican positons. These positions are strong national security policies, homeland security, tax cuts, etc. The Republicans are even talking about the medicare benefit issue away. Today's Republicans have taken away the Dems issues from them (and I have mixed feelings about that). They are left with attacking Bush and pointing out the economy's weakness. As I said, though, if the economy improves, there is really nothing left for them. Is there?
Originally posted by bunge
Well, not really. That's why I added the 'I don't know' part because I too get the impression that the Democrats don't have a plan. I just think that even if they do, I shouldn't know about it yet in any case.
yeah i know, (there is no sardonic smiley face) it's sad when only person on the stage that is saying anything above the blah blah blah is al sharpton.
i mean really, dick gephardt? and don't even get me started on carol mosely-braun. she really really disappointed me, and she couldn't even carry illinois, the only state in the union where democrats seem to thrive.
so it looks like lieberman, and an administration licking it's lips at that prospect. but then that's what i thought about a certain governor from texas.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The fact is, no Democrat has the balls to call for a tax increase to fund these things like they'd like to fund them.
I thought this wasn't supposed to be a flame war?
Originally posted by bunge
I thought this wasn't supposed to be a flame war?
it's always a flame war.
start a thread about dental floss (dental floss=montana's salvation?) and you'll get a flame war.
"i hear my flame a comin'"