Again I don’t count the mob as Democrats. If you aren’t going to the party meetings and participating you aren’t part of the party even if they convince you that being a member of the fan club gets you on the inside. Maybe you’ll even get advanced screenings to the sequel to Serenity with your membership!
This was inspired in two parts. The Republican Persecution thread, and a letter I got from Harry Reid whos newsletter I am on. Give em hell Harry is certainly giving em hell now, but where was he on 9/11 2001 and the subsequent two years when we had a chance to avoid this mess?
So, what’s your feeling about McCain in 2008, after he was trashed by Bush/Rove in the 2000 primaries? And who was the more qualified in that campaign?
I apologize for increasing your sorrow. But, in New York, at least, you ARE a party member if you sign that piece of paper, because that’s how membership in the parties are counted. When somebody says, “New York has X registered Democrats and Y registered Republicans”, it’s the voter registration numbers they use. What do you think makes you a “party member”?
Unfortunately, I think we get the government we deserve. For every person on the SDMB that appreciates a well nuanced argument, there are 10,000 voters that experience the political process though 10 second sound bytes.
Encumbent Dems can be called down for not fighting the good fight, but let’s not pretend that, especially during the early stages of the WOT, it was not the safest course politically. I can’t hate them for it, but it does disgust me.
But, for me, this is largely not a partisan issue- while I disagree with Republicans, I don’t hate them the way I do this administration. I just think it’s more likely that the Dems would be the means to curb the damage being done.
Participation is what makes one a party member. Me I’m just a part of the fan club, and I get to vote in the popularity contest every couple of years. I started registering Republican to vote for McCain originally, I reregistered republican so that I could annoy liberal reactionaries, and I thought it was funny cuz I registered in the major liberal hipster district, Williamsburg Brooklyn. That hardly makes me part of the party, no matter how it helps them to compare their fanclubs.
If the Republican party were more true to fiscal responsibility and living and let living on social issues, I’d be a die hard republican in all likelihood, but as long as they keep electing liberals like Bush, I’d be hard pressed to care. I find it funny how right of Bush Clinton was fiscally, I even kind of liked Clinton, I thought he did a fairly swell job, but everyone knows that he wasn’t really part of the democrat establishment at the time.
The system is a farce, all I care about is getting people to recognize that, and stop being blindly faithful to their political sports teams.
All this thread is about, is calling out the Democrats for voicing their opposition now when it’s easy, and not doing it 5 years ago when it mattered.
I think the government is FAR too involved in our daily lives. I agree that we do get the government we deserve, and that’s the way it is, we’re a country of media junkies, most people don’t care whether or not it’s substantive.
Actually, most Americans are actually more closely aligned with Democratic positions than Republican ones on a number of major issues, such as environmental regulation, spending on antipoverty programs and education, prioritizing fiscal responsibility over tax cuts, and international cooperation.
They just don’t like to describe those positions as “liberal”, because decades of concerted conservative propaganda has partially succeeded in making “liberal” a dirty word.
Wha…? We voiced our opposition plenty. In fact, there were a LOT of predictions about what would happen and how it would happen, and how long it would take to happen. You obviously weren’t listening, because your ears were ringing with shouts of “Tax cuts!” Yeah, people fall for that a lot, I’ve noticed.
Shut the fuck up and go fix your goddamned party. It’s broken and it’s getting people killed and destroying the country. That’s the right thing to do: throw the moneychangers out of the temple. Fix it. It’s your mess, it’s your party, you’re the ones they will listen to if they listen to anybody. Fix the goddamned problem.
Jesus fucking christ. What a fucking tool you are! Despite how it’s covered in the media these days, politics isn’t like a football game. As you can see in Iraq right now, political decisions have real consequences, and if the wrong political decisions are made, then the consequences can be real, real bad. But no, you just want to “piss of the hipsters” and then, when everything goes to shit, you come in here and blame the Democrats for not speaking out earlier or…hell, what is you’re trying to do again? Make an ass out of yourself? Well, mission accomplished, Mr. Bush! All you know about politics is that the funny man on the radio says you have to hate liberals. Educate your damned self and go fix your fucking party while we still have a country left!
The problem with the Dems is they try to be all things to all people (not Pubbie, that is) and their positions ebb, flow and change with the perceived political winds. You can’t please all the people all the time and this is what Dems try to do. It’s a coalition of splinter groups and it attempts to govern so as to win tonight’s polls and next year’s election.
One thing you hear all the time about Rebublican presidents – and this is especially true of Reagan and GWB – is that you know what they believe and where they stand. I believe this is largely the case with Republican congresssmen, as well. Republicans come into office with a certain set of moral beliefs, and they stick to them even in the face of fierce opposition and/or even though it may be politically damaging to their own future or the future of their party come election time. Democrats, on the other hand, are all over the place depending on the hot-button issue of the day and what the polls say.
Or in other words, Republicans have a pre-conceived idea of what is right and wrong and they act accordingly, whereas Dems appear to base their notion of what’s right or wrong on whatever they happen to want and/or upon whatever is politically expedient.
Thus, one never really knows what a Democrat politician will do, and therefore people are reluctant to vote for them…at least on the presidential level.
Ah, yes. Talking point #103. “They try to be everything to everyone!” No. We believe in letting everyone be whatever they want. There’s a difference. It just makes a lot of people nervous to admit that everyone is different, because differences are scary. Which is why Republicans get so much success out of the “good ol’ guy, just like one of you” routine.
vibrotronica In case you missed it the last 7 million times, I’m not a Republican. I registered on a lark because I had to pick one party or another. The party would take one look at me and say “Get a haircut hippy”, and that would be the end of it. Maybe one day if i make lots of money I’ll do it, but I’m just not interested.
See, I care about politics, and I get involved, but party affiliation I don’t take seriously, and anyone who does and is not actually involved in the decision makign of the party when there ISN’T an election, is brain damaged. I get involved in local politics somewhat, and if there were a candidate I liked, and they wanted to work with me, I could probably help them pull a few thousand people to a rally, but the issues I care about usually are ignored.
One of my goals is to affect the 2010 mayoral election. My friend is running Ferrer’s campaign in the Bronx, and he’ll be involved with elections in 2010. If I could get a good candidate, Battery Park and some time to prepare, I could pack it with thousands of people, I am certain of it. The platform they’d have to accept would be one that is working on poor people’s issues, helping small business, opening up public parks, and recognizing that the streets are the public’s streets. If a candidate did that, they’d have a huge activist community that could mobilize a lot of people on their side. In all fairness this candidate will probably be a democrat, but I’m not interested in party squabbles and blame.
You’re gonna be a little late. Also, if you care about politics, why are you not trying to affect the 2005 mayoral election? I don’t see you as someone who cares about politics, I see you as someone who enjoys hollering “A pox on all your houses!” while refusing to participate in the pragmatic and effective side of politics that gives results.
I weep when I see garbage like this, because it’s exactly the attitude that will keep us from ever fielding a viable candidate. (Yes, I am a Democrat) Wishy-washy political expediency refusing to take an issue and just fucking stand for it has gotten Bush elected twice now, I see absolutely no indication that 2008 will be any different.
So, did you have time to come up with the fix all after you dried your tears? Yes, yes, let’s all pick a point and stick with it. Except that doesn’t work, because we can’t agree on one point other than “live and let live.” And live and let live doesn’t win elections. Hate and fear wins elections. I hate what’s happening, and I fear for the country’s future, but that won’t win one either. Not specific enough. So what’s our scapegoat?
FYI 2010 isn’t for another five years. The reason I don’t work on the mayoral campaign right now is because my logistical capacity to produce results isn’t where I need it to be. The people I work with need to consolidate their energy more, and are working toward that end. I don’t work now because both Fernando Ferrer and Michael Bloomberg are candidates I don’t care about. I don’t work now, because I couldn’t get it together to find a candidate that I would have liked better and get him the nomination.
As I said, I have a friend in the Democratic Party that works on actually making the Democratic party a viable party with real results, and I’ll work with him. He has told me in the past that he’d work with me except that no candidate will listen to him unless I provide them with statistics, something I may actually be capable of doing in 2010.
See isn’t reality fun? That’s how you win elections, you figure out what your resources are, you have a clear concise list of issues that you want to address, and you get together a groundswell of people who are committed to the cause, relying on a hodge podge of resources built in the past that are more of a loose confederation than an actual organization, won’t get you dick.
Really? How about GWB’s numerous policy flip-flops on issues like nation-building, states’ rights vs. constitutional amendment on gay marriage, capturing Osama bin Laden, intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, farm subsidies, and a host of other things?
I think you’re just going by a superficial appearance of constancy in Republican rhetoric and propaganda, rather than genuine consistency in their actions. When you look at the various political policies Republicans actually support, they tend to be at least as inconsistent and two-faced as their Democrat counterparts can be.
“Republicans are crooks and liars.”
Sure, it’s far too sweeping and unfair to many honest Republican politicians. But all political rallying cries are sweeping and unfair, and this one is now acquiring a lot of support in public opinion from the actions of certain Republicans themselves. If you want just one pithy slogan for Democrats to campaign on, I think this one’s going to be it.