The split in Iowa is not good. I am interested to see who wins the day.
As for our debate about The Dem candidates, I simply cannot believe what I'm hearing. Look, I accept that some of you truly despise Bush as a president, and want to beat him badly. That's fine, and I can respect that. I respect you disagree with many of his polices and actions, too.
What I CANNOT understand is your refusal to see the political reality of the situation. The Democratic party has major, major problems. It may not have even hit bottom yet. It's disorganized, without a clear national message and has lost two major elections in a row. Yet, the same leadership remains with McCauliffe, Daschle et al. If I was a Democrat I would be FUMING PISSED that things are the way they are. I have no hatred of the Democratic party....what I can't stand are their positions on issues (those who aren't flopping) and venomous and outrageous attacks on Bush that cross the line of decency and political discourse.
Further, each Dem candidate has a major flaw. Dean is a hot head and too Left-wing. We can argue about his positions, but he is Bush's dream opponent, especially with his ridiculous statements on 9/11 and OBL. He'll be destroyed. If I was a Democrat, I would do everything possible to make sure he didn't win the nom. Kerry is a decent guy...and probably their best chance. Edwards is too boyish as I said...he will not, absolutely will not win. Gephardt is a possibilty, though never seems to catch on. And Clark? Well, he's been a major disappointment and has made recent conflicting statemetns about his support for the war.
Look, I guess that given my support of Bush, it's easy to dismiss me as a zealot. But truthfully, I'd love to see a strong Democratic party with a real agenda. The fact is that is not happening, and I have been in disbelief about it for almost four years. I was sure that after 2000, the party would get its shit together. I was equally sure in 2002...and then it tanked further. And after the mid terms? Well, I thought "that's it...something has to come out of this for them". But it hasn't...it's actually gotten worse. The party is a total disaster.
Sorry to go off of my own topic. But, the nomination is a free for all right now, and that doesn't seem like a good thing for the party. And one more question: If you are Democrat, do you honestly, truly feel good about the party and its candidates chances at winning this year?
I am more than willing to talk about Bush's weaknesses and what might hurt him politically....why won't you do the same?
Look, I accept that some of you truly despise Bush as a president, and want to beat him badly. That's fine, and I can respect that. I respect you disagree with many of his polices and actions, too.
But it's just not true that from what we know now, Bush has clear and easy sailing to re-election.
Very true, I think time will tell. I tend to believe the moderate and independent voters will determine this next election. Not special interests, not corporate money, not the religious right. Those in the middle will make a judgement call. If you ask me this is a good thing when you think about it.
"Further, each Dem candidate has a major flaw. Dean is a hot head and too Left-wing.
Look, I guess that given my support of Bush, it's easy to dismiss me as a zealot. But truthfully, I'd love to see a strong Democratic party with a real agenda."
you would?
why is dean considered "too left wing" but bush isn't considered "too right wing" why is conservative considered "good" yet liberal is considered "bad" and btw you might want to ask the liberals in vermont if they considered dean "left wing" when he was governer. dean governed as a centrist. dont belive the hype that he's some left wing progressive because hes not. the candidate i REALLY wanted to support was dennis kucinich. now THATS a true liberal...
anyway you might be getting what you want:
Dean Tones Down 'Red Meat' Rhetoric After Iowa Loss
By Patricia Wilson
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - White House hopeful Howard Dean toned down his "red meat" rhetoric on Tuesday, hoping to recoup a stunning loss in Iowa with a more subdued campaign in the Democratic battle to challenge President Bush in November's U.S. election.
After his distant third in Iowa behind U.S. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, Dean seemed to be searching for the right tone in New Hampshire, contrasting his record of balancing budgets and providing health care as governor of Vermont and Bush's record as president.
"Today, I am going to give a different kind of speech," he told supporters in Manchester. "Those of you who came here intending to be lifted by ... a lot of red meat rhetoric are going to be a little disappointed."
--
"We spent a long time as the supposed front-runner and we paid the price that front-runners pay," Dean told reporters in Manchester. "Now, we have to regroup and it's a pleasure coming to New Hampshire not as the front-runner."
But it's just not true that from what we know now, Bush has clear and easy sailing to re-election.
I don't want Bush to have it easy getting re-elected, but I sometimes fear that nothing short of a major scandal will unseat him.
Now, when I say "major scandal", I'm mean "major" in the sensationalism category -- something juicy that the lazy media has an easy time selling, something with a Monica Lewinsky simplicity and tawdriness (without necessarily being sex-related). We can but hope.
Short of that, the trouble will begin once there's a clear Democratic nominee. It's easy to project your wishes on an unnamed Democrat vs. a known Republican, but once we're down to one specific Democrat, with specific faults -- real and imagined and manufactured -- those numbers are going to shift in Bush's favor.
I don't think that most of the reasons I dislike Bush really resonate with most voters.
War in Iraq? Someone hurt us. Bush got tough and fought back. Don't bother me with details about whether it was the "right war" to fight, if we went after the right bad guy, or if the war was sold to us under false pretenses. Bush got tough! We like tough. Someone's gotta pay. Bush made someone pay.
Huge deficits? Numbers, schmumbers, I don't notice any deficit.
Medicare? I won't fully experience how bad the Bush/Republican plan is until after the election.
Civil liberties? Things are okay for me, and we've gotta get tough. So what if some towelhead can't get a lawyer. Boo hoo. Cry me a river! (Editorial note for the sarcasm impaired: The views stated here are stated in an ironic manner, in the voice of a hypothetical ignorant, apathetic self-absorbed voter, and do not literally represent the views of the poster.)
Economy? Probably not looking too bad come November, at least not so bad that someone's untested campaign promise to make it better is going to sound that appealing.
Tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the rich? Bush said that's okay, because since the rich pay more, they should get more back. Sounds right. Don't bother me with confusing numbers and talk about proportionality to try and change my mind -- I won't understand all that math stuff, and besides, 19% of us are deluded into thinking we're already in the top 1%, and another 20% think they will be. (The Triumph of Hope over Self-Interest)
Environment? Things look pretty much the same out the window of my big SUV as they did before Bush -- can't be too bad.
Education? Bush has that "No Child Left Behind" thing, doesn't he. Not leaving children behind... that sounds good.
I think you're looking down your nose on the American voter a bit much. The intelligence of a group is lower than the individual, but a lot of those indepenent voters, when they do vote, are often times more considerate.
While shetlines post is dripping with sarcasm, he is right in that it going to be very hard to unseat Bush. Shetline is able to do what many cannot here, that being separating personal wishes and beliefs from political reality.
The unnamed Democrtat poll always shows Bush at his absolute weakest. It always has. When put against any specific candidate, he wins easily.
futuremac
Quote:
considered "good" yet liberal is considered "bad" and btw you might want to ask the liberals in vermont if they considered dean "left wing" when he was governer. dean governed as a centrist. dont belive the hype that he's some left wing progressive because hes not. the candidate i REALLY wanted to support was dennis kucinich. now THATS a true liberal...
Because the electorate is far more conservative thatn Dean is. That's why. It's not about my political beliefs. The country on the whole will not and does not buy his agenda. Period.
jimmac:
Quote:
The thing is we have been for a couple of years now. Haven't you been listening?
I wasn't clear. I meant why won't you acknowledge the political reality of the mess the Dem party is? Why can't you see the flaws of the Dem. candidates? On my end, I will say this: Bush is too much of a "big spender". I also think he should have sold the Iraq war differently...foucsing not just on WMD but also on the other major reasons, which were good ones. Bush stands for too much big government. That is his primary flaw in my book. Poltically, he will take flak on the jobs number...though that's deceptive because there are 2,000,000 more employed people than when he took office. Regardless...he'll take heat for it anyway. And there will be "where are the WMD" pressures that may hurt him. As always, he'll get slaughtered in the election with black voters, but he'll gain a good deal of the hispanic vote which will partially offset it.
why do you profess to care so much about the democratic party which you seem to hate so much SDW2001? i would think you would be overjoyed to have one party, YOUR party, controlling ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
you seem baffled that there are actually people out there who have a diffrent politcal belief than you and that we should just chuck our principles and join your side. we are just as commited to our guy as you are, and we have no intention of caving in.
dont worry your guy bush will likely be re-elected. i've said for 2 years now the election was bush's to loose and that dean was our best CHANCE to beat him (nothings for sure). but now that you've written him and the other democrats off it should be smooth sailing for you and the other republicans.
i remember speaking to my republican friends here in 2002 when they increased their majorites in congress, and hearing them bragging about controlling all 3 branches. my response was "now you have no one to blame..."
but remember its never good for a democracy (actually a republic) to have one party controlling everything. a strong opposition (thats proud of what it is) makes for a healthy republic.
why do you profess to care so much about the democratic party which you seem to hate so much SDW2001? i would think you would be overjoyed to have one party, YOUR party, controlling ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT...
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
sure he does...
as dean said "we're not going to beat bush by being bush-like"
so, sorry, we dont want a "bush-clone" to be our nominee. if you talk with some of the "real" dean supporters you'll find that many of them LEFT the democratic party because it was getting to the point that democrats were starting to act like republicans. you went into the voting booth and had a choice between a real republican, and a democrat who acted, and voted like one.
dean is bringing those people back so the nominee wont have to kowtow to "reagan democrats" (meaning republicans)
all the yelling and screaming and attacks won't get me to change my principles. and if dean is not the nominee or on the ticket im not voting for some right-wing bush-clone
as ann richards said: "the last thing america needs is 2 republican parties"
Because the electorate is far more conservative thatn Dean is.
If by more conservative you mean more towards the moderate sentiment, yes, I would agree with this. That's why Bill Clinton and his "new Democrat" gang have been so successful, why America voted in a Republican congress under a Democratic executive branch, and why Clinton isn't too enthralled with Dean right now.
People turned off to the Republican mantra of "family values" back in the day no matter how people might have agreed with this, because they don't like to be preached to, not by politicians anyway. They also don't like taxes, so politicians should avoid those moralizing and raising taxes if they want to get the moderate and independent vote. Dean has to be careful about these two things, they're why some people perceive him as too liberal right now.
I think you're looking down your nose on the American voter a bit much. The intelligence of a group is lower than the individual, but a lot of those indepenent voters, when they do vote, are often times more considerate.
One reason I'd never make a very good politician is that I couldn't pretend to respect the "wisdom of the people" very much.
Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (That might be a paraphrase. I've found a dozen different wordings trying to find the exact wording.)
As I see it, the advantages of democracy are that some rough compromise position derived from the diverse desires of the electorate tends to be met, and that flagrant incompetence and abuse of power are seldom tolerated. While not nearly enough to ensure good government, even this level of responsiveness to the public welfare is indeed an advancement in the conduct of human affairs.
Nevertheless, I still don't respect the intelligence, knowledge, or compassion of the average voter. Call me a snob or elitist for that if you like, but that's honestly how I feel. I think very few people truly embrace freedom of expression, truly care about the rights of the accused (How often do you hear "Why do criminals have more rights than victims?", with anger completely overriding any concern over whether the accused is actually guilty of being a criminal?), or truly understand or care about the difference between "democracy" and "liberty".
Very few voters have even the slightest grasp of the basic science and basic math needed to make sense of environmental, medical, and economic issues, nor to understand the use and abuse of statistics in debates of public policy.
I believe that most voters vote on the basis of a fairly shallow, emotionally-charged, poorly analyzed, and ill-informed sense of their own personal interests. Fortunately, some of the emotional energy of the electorate is compassion, and this often keeps matters from getting too far out of hand, but that compassion doesn't go very far when it comes to people who are easily demonized in the minds of the public.
My doubts about the defeat of George Bush stem from this dim view I have of the voting public. I think that right now the Republicans have the slickest and best-funded propaganda machine for influencing the public mind. For example: even if disgusted at the same time, I have to stand in awe of the way the Republican apparatus has managed to turn laissez-faire capitalism, rampant materialism, and supply-side economics into "Christian" virtues. I may not be a Christian myself, but in my own mind I have a hard time imagining Jesus smiling while a $100 million-a-year CEO gets a big tax cut, while at the same time his company's employees have a hard time affording basic health care.
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
So far that really hasn't been apparent from his posts.
Before you start I'm registered independent. If a republican that I liked was running against Bush I'd vote for him/her.
Bush is bad for this country for many reasons that have been outlined previously by more than myself ( Iraq, the enviroment, the economy etc. ).
When you try to communicate this to SDW he seems to have selective memory loss. Anyway the next time he asks the same question and you have to answer it again. He just won't accept the fact that there might be very many reasons why someone wouldn't want Bush in office. It's not personal. It's just that Bush is a bad president. Many people know better than to blindly accept what he says.
Actually, I completely accept that people have differing views. What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
That's because apparently you're not very good at logical and/or critical thinking. You more than anyone here absolutely can't separate what you want from reality. I apologize if this sounds harsh.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
I guess it depends on how you define stupid. There is a very large subset of the population that votes for Bush because they believe that Bush's economic policies will directly benefit them when in fact they're extremely far from benefiting. I would classify that group of people as not very intelligent, Bush probably would too even if he's plenty happy to gain their vote.
Comments
The split in Iowa is not good. I am interested to see who wins the day.
As for our debate about The Dem candidates, I simply cannot believe what I'm hearing. Look, I accept that some of you truly despise Bush as a president, and want to beat him badly. That's fine, and I can respect that. I respect you disagree with many of his polices and actions, too.
What I CANNOT understand is your refusal to see the political reality of the situation. The Democratic party has major, major problems. It may not have even hit bottom yet. It's disorganized, without a clear national message and has lost two major elections in a row. Yet, the same leadership remains with McCauliffe, Daschle et al. If I was a Democrat I would be FUMING PISSED that things are the way they are. I have no hatred of the Democratic party....what I can't stand are their positions on issues (those who aren't flopping) and venomous and outrageous attacks on Bush that cross the line of decency and political discourse.
Further, each Dem candidate has a major flaw. Dean is a hot head and too Left-wing. We can argue about his positions, but he is Bush's dream opponent, especially with his ridiculous statements on 9/11 and OBL. He'll be destroyed. If I was a Democrat, I would do everything possible to make sure he didn't win the nom. Kerry is a decent guy...and probably their best chance. Edwards is too boyish as I said...he will not, absolutely will not win. Gephardt is a possibilty, though never seems to catch on. And Clark? Well, he's been a major disappointment and has made recent conflicting statemetns about his support for the war.
Look, I guess that given my support of Bush, it's easy to dismiss me as a zealot. But truthfully, I'd love to see a strong Democratic party with a real agenda. The fact is that is not happening, and I have been in disbelief about it for almost four years. I was sure that after 2000, the party would get its shit together. I was equally sure in 2002...and then it tanked further. And after the mid terms? Well, I thought "that's it...something has to come out of this for them". But it hasn't...it's actually gotten worse. The party is a total disaster.
Sorry to go off of my own topic. But, the nomination is a free for all right now, and that doesn't seem like a good thing for the party. And one more question: If you are Democrat, do you honestly, truly feel good about the party and its candidates chances at winning this year?
I am more than willing to talk about Bush's weaknesses and what might hurt him politically....why won't you do the same?
Originally posted by SDW2001
But back to topic:
Look, I accept that some of you truly despise Bush as a president, and want to beat him badly. That's fine, and I can respect that. I respect you disagree with many of his polices and actions, too.
You may have just made Fellows Day!!
and like you say... "But back to topic:"
Fellows
-----------------------------------------------------------
" I am more than willing to talk about Bush's weaknesses and what might hurt him politically....why won't you do the same? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
The thing is we have been for a couple of years now. Haven't you been listening?
Bush 48
Democrat 46
Too close to call, it's only January.
Also, Dean will not win NH.
Bush job performance:
Positive: 49%
Negative: 50%
A month ago it was 53% positive, 47% negative.
Elect Bush or a Democrat?
Bush: 41%
Democrat: 45%
A month ago it was Bush 47%, Dem 42%.
Re-elect Bush or elect someone new?
Re-elect: 41%
Someone new: 48%
These numbers don't mean much because
1. The election is too far away and
2. The Democrats are "unnamed."
But it's just not true that from what we know now, Bush has clear and easy sailing to re-election.
Originally posted by BRussell
But it's just not true that from what we know now, Bush has clear and easy sailing to re-election.
Very true, I think time will tell. I tend to believe the moderate and independent voters will determine this next election. Not special interests, not corporate money, not the religious right. Those in the middle will make a judgement call. If you ask me this is a good thing when you think about it.
Fellows
They'll pretend to take the high road while releasing the smear hounds.
Look, I guess that given my support of Bush, it's easy to dismiss me as a zealot. But truthfully, I'd love to see a strong Democratic party with a real agenda."
you would?
why is dean considered "too left wing" but bush isn't considered "too right wing" why is conservative considered "good" yet liberal is considered "bad" and btw you might want to ask the liberals in vermont if they considered dean "left wing" when he was governer. dean governed as a centrist. dont belive the hype that he's some left wing progressive because hes not. the candidate i REALLY wanted to support was dennis kucinich. now THATS a true liberal...
anyway you might be getting what you want:
Dean Tones Down 'Red Meat' Rhetoric After Iowa Loss
By Patricia Wilson
MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - White House hopeful Howard Dean toned down his "red meat" rhetoric on Tuesday, hoping to recoup a stunning loss in Iowa with a more subdued campaign in the Democratic battle to challenge President Bush in November's U.S. election.
After his distant third in Iowa behind U.S. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, Dean seemed to be searching for the right tone in New Hampshire, contrasting his record of balancing budgets and providing health care as governor of Vermont and Bush's record as president.
"Today, I am going to give a different kind of speech," he told supporters in Manchester. "Those of you who came here intending to be lifted by ... a lot of red meat rhetoric are going to be a little disappointed."
--
"We spent a long time as the supposed front-runner and we paid the price that front-runners pay," Dean told reporters in Manchester. "Now, we have to regroup and it's a pleasure coming to New Hampshire not as the front-runner."
http://story.news.yahoo.com
Originally posted by BRussell
Elect Bush or a Democrat?
Bush: 41%
Democrat: 45%...
But it's just not true that from what we know now, Bush has clear and easy sailing to re-election.
I don't want Bush to have it easy getting re-elected, but I sometimes fear that nothing short of a major scandal will unseat him.
Now, when I say "major scandal", I'm mean "major" in the sensationalism category -- something juicy that the lazy media has an easy time selling, something with a Monica Lewinsky simplicity and tawdriness (without necessarily being sex-related). We can but hope.
Short of that, the trouble will begin once there's a clear Democratic nominee. It's easy to project your wishes on an unnamed Democrat vs. a known Republican, but once we're down to one specific Democrat, with specific faults -- real and imagined and manufactured -- those numbers are going to shift in Bush's favor.
I don't think that most of the reasons I dislike Bush really resonate with most voters.
War in Iraq? Someone hurt us. Bush got tough and fought back. Don't bother me with details about whether it was the "right war" to fight, if we went after the right bad guy, or if the war was sold to us under false pretenses. Bush got tough! We like tough. Someone's gotta pay. Bush made someone pay.
Huge deficits? Numbers, schmumbers, I don't notice any deficit.
Medicare? I won't fully experience how bad the Bush/Republican plan is until after the election.
Civil liberties? Things are okay for me, and we've gotta get tough. So what if some towelhead can't get a lawyer. Boo hoo. Cry me a river! (Editorial note for the sarcasm impaired: The views stated here are stated in an ironic manner, in the voice of a hypothetical ignorant, apathetic self-absorbed voter, and do not literally represent the views of the poster.)
Economy? Probably not looking too bad come November, at least not so bad that someone's untested campaign promise to make it better is going to sound that appealing.
Tax breaks disproportionately benefiting the rich? Bush said that's okay, because since the rich pay more, they should get more back. Sounds right. Don't bother me with confusing numbers and talk about proportionality to try and change my mind -- I won't understand all that math stuff, and besides, 19% of us are deluded into thinking we're already in the top 1%, and another 20% think they will be. (The Triumph of Hope over Self-Interest)
Environment? Things look pretty much the same out the window of my big SUV as they did before Bush -- can't be too bad.
Education? Bush has that "No Child Left Behind" thing, doesn't he. Not leaving children behind... that sounds good.
The unnamed Democrtat poll always shows Bush at his absolute weakest. It always has. When put against any specific candidate, he wins easily.
futuremac
considered "good" yet liberal is considered "bad" and btw you might want to ask the liberals in vermont if they considered dean "left wing" when he was governer. dean governed as a centrist. dont belive the hype that he's some left wing progressive because hes not. the candidate i REALLY wanted to support was dennis kucinich. now THATS a true liberal...
Because the electorate is far more conservative thatn Dean is. That's why. It's not about my political beliefs. The country on the whole will not and does not buy his agenda. Period.
jimmac:
The thing is we have been for a couple of years now. Haven't you been listening?
I wasn't clear. I meant why won't you acknowledge the political reality of the mess the Dem party is? Why can't you see the flaws of the Dem. candidates? On my end, I will say this: Bush is too much of a "big spender". I also think he should have sold the Iraq war differently...foucsing not just on WMD but also on the other major reasons, which were good ones. Bush stands for too much big government. That is his primary flaw in my book. Poltically, he will take flak on the jobs number...though that's deceptive because there are 2,000,000 more employed people than when he took office. Regardless...he'll take heat for it anyway. And there will be "where are the WMD" pressures that may hurt him. As always, he'll get slaughtered in the election with black voters, but he'll gain a good deal of the hispanic vote which will partially offset it.
you seem baffled that there are actually people out there who have a diffrent politcal belief than you and that we should just chuck our principles and join your side. we are just as commited to our guy as you are, and we have no intention of caving in.
dont worry your guy bush will likely be re-elected. i've said for 2 years now the election was bush's to loose and that dean was our best CHANCE to beat him (nothings for sure). but now that you've written him and the other democrats off it should be smooth sailing for you and the other republicans.
i remember speaking to my republican friends here in 2002 when they increased their majorites in congress, and hearing them bragging about controlling all 3 branches. my response was "now you have no one to blame..."
but remember its never good for a democracy (actually a republic) to have one party controlling everything. a strong opposition (thats proud of what it is) makes for a healthy republic.
Originally posted by futuremac
why do you profess to care so much about the democratic party which you seem to hate so much SDW2001? i would think you would be overjoyed to have one party, YOUR party, controlling ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT...
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
Originally posted by rageous
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
sure he does...
as dean said "we're not going to beat bush by being bush-like"
so, sorry, we dont want a "bush-clone" to be our nominee. if you talk with some of the "real" dean supporters you'll find that many of them LEFT the democratic party because it was getting to the point that democrats were starting to act like republicans. you went into the voting booth and had a choice between a real republican, and a democrat who acted, and voted like one.
dean is bringing those people back so the nominee wont have to kowtow to "reagan democrats" (meaning republicans)
all the yelling and screaming and attacks won't get me to change my principles. and if dean is not the nominee or on the ticket im not voting for some right-wing bush-clone
as ann richards said: "the last thing america needs is 2 republican parties"
Originally posted by SDW2001
Because the electorate is far more conservative thatn Dean is.
If by more conservative you mean more towards the moderate sentiment, yes, I would agree with this. That's why Bill Clinton and his "new Democrat" gang have been so successful, why America voted in a Republican congress under a Democratic executive branch, and why Clinton isn't too enthralled with Dean right now.
People turned off to the Republican mantra of "family values" back in the day no matter how people might have agreed with this, because they don't like to be preached to, not by politicians anyway. They also don't like taxes, so politicians should avoid those moralizing and raising taxes if they want to get the moderate and independent vote. Dean has to be careful about these two things, they're why some people perceive him as too liberal right now.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think you're looking down your nose on the American voter a bit much. The intelligence of a group is lower than the individual, but a lot of those indepenent voters, when they do vote, are often times more considerate.
One reason I'd never make a very good politician is that I couldn't pretend to respect the "wisdom of the people" very much.
Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (That might be a paraphrase. I've found a dozen different wordings trying to find the exact wording.)
As I see it, the advantages of democracy are that some rough compromise position derived from the diverse desires of the electorate tends to be met, and that flagrant incompetence and abuse of power are seldom tolerated. While not nearly enough to ensure good government, even this level of responsiveness to the public welfare is indeed an advancement in the conduct of human affairs.
Nevertheless, I still don't respect the intelligence, knowledge, or compassion of the average voter. Call me a snob or elitist for that if you like, but that's honestly how I feel. I think very few people truly embrace freedom of expression, truly care about the rights of the accused (How often do you hear "Why do criminals have more rights than victims?", with anger completely overriding any concern over whether the accused is actually guilty of being a criminal?), or truly understand or care about the difference between "democracy" and "liberty".
Very few voters have even the slightest grasp of the basic science and basic math needed to make sense of environmental, medical, and economic issues, nor to understand the use and abuse of statistics in debates of public policy.
I believe that most voters vote on the basis of a fairly shallow, emotionally-charged, poorly analyzed, and ill-informed sense of their own personal interests. Fortunately, some of the emotional energy of the electorate is compassion, and this often keeps matters from getting too far out of hand, but that compassion doesn't go very far when it comes to people who are easily demonized in the minds of the public.
My doubts about the defeat of George Bush stem from this dim view I have of the voting public. I think that right now the Republicans have the slickest and best-funded propaganda machine for influencing the public mind. For example: even if disgusted at the same time, I have to stand in awe of the way the Republican apparatus has managed to turn laissez-faire capitalism, rampant materialism, and supply-side economics into "Christian" virtues. I may not be a Christian myself, but in my own mind I have a hard time imagining Jesus smiling while a $100 million-a-year CEO gets a big tax cut, while at the same time his company's employees have a hard time affording basic health care.
Originally posted by rageous
Well maybe SDW might care about more than his party ruling the world? I understand that is a foreign concept to many people who post here, but some of us care more for the democratic process than for the parties who take part in it.
So far that really hasn't been apparent from his posts.
Before you start I'm registered independent. If a republican that I liked was running against Bush I'd vote for him/her.
Bush is bad for this country for many reasons that have been outlined previously by more than myself ( Iraq, the enviroment, the economy etc. ).
When you try to communicate this to SDW he seems to have selective memory loss. Anyway the next time he asks the same question and you have to answer it again. He just won't accept the fact that there might be very many reasons why someone wouldn't want Bush in office. It's not personal. It's just that Bush is a bad president. Many people know better than to blindly accept what he says.
Oh, jimmac: If Bush is a "bad" President, who was a good one?
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I can't believe is how many here will not acknowledge that Bush will almost certainly be reelected...regardless of their views.
That's because apparently you're not very good at logical and/or critical thinking. You more than anyone here absolutely can't separate what you want from reality. I apologize if this sounds harsh.
Originally posted by SDW2001
and shetline: While we certainly have our share of common fools in this country, the implication of your post is that Bush will only win because people are stupid. That's a typical liberal viewpoint...because after all, if people were smarter, they'd never support him. Hmmmm.
I guess it depends on how you define stupid. There is a very large subset of the population that votes for Bush because they believe that Bush's economic policies will directly benefit them when in fact they're extremely far from benefiting. I would classify that group of people as not very intelligent, Bush probably would too even if he's plenty happy to gain their vote.