And it’s exactly this sort of contempt that makes it so hard for me to like Democrats. Thank you for providing a perfect illustration of the very thing I was talking about.
Way to go, Hentor, you spooked him.
As pointed out in another thread, this should be boogeymen (boogie is a racially derogatory term).
Besides, neither of those two has any rhythm, IMHO. :dubious:
You mean crazy shit like launching aggressive wars on no basis? Yeah, those nutsy, nutsy Democrats!
It’s also a musical term, denoting a sub-genre of jazz–or is it blues?
But there was some fucked up shit going on next door, and Gladys Kravitz was 100% correct, so I’m not exactly sure where Mr. Moto is going with that analogy…
If yer nuts, it doesn’t matter if yer right?
Really? I wonder how that could honestly be. Perhaps you could explain how Michael Moore or Al Sharpton reflect the Democratic Party in any meaningful way. Meaningful to the point that they make you not want to support the Democratic Party.
I mean, I would have to assume that if your support for a party extends to public figures who are loosely affiliated with it, you must support James Dobson if you continue to support the Republicans. Right?
It’s just a bit ironic that you would pretend to be thoughtful about your voting preferences, lamenting the lack of a party you could support, and then name two people who don’t represent the Democratic Party in any real way, but who have just by happenstance, been pushed by Rove as the demons of the left.
So please explain to me how Michael Moore and Al Sharpton represent the Democratic Party in a way that makes you reject the Democratic Party as an advocate for “working stiffs.” Particularly when it was the Democrats who fought off (so far) the Republican party’s attempt to anally rape the working stiffs on Social Security, who tried, if meekly, to fight the tax cuts for the weathly the Republicans love, or who constantly support programs favorable to working stiffs.
Think, man. Don’t just spout Republican talking points and believe you’ve made some sort of point, and then run crying when you are called on it.
Bingo.
And of course the Republicans are nuts as well. I won’t claim my party doesn’t have its problems. However, the Democrats seem to be basing their success on how fucked up the Republicans can get without reforming their own party.
If Gladys Kravitz had only taken her thyroid pills, maybe Abner would have believed her and that show would have gone a lot differently.
Mr. Moto may not have meant to, but he actually made perfect sense. The Democratic Pary IS like Gladys Kravitz. But to make perfect sense you must also see that the nation is like ABNER Kravitz. I can see a script like this:
Gladys: Look Abner, Bush went in about WMD and there were none.
Abner: So what, we got rid of Saddam.
Gladys: But now they’re torturing people!
Abner: Aw who cares, remember 9/11
Gladys: Look, Abner! Now they’re spying on us!
Abner: But what do we have to hide? 9/11 changed everything!
Gladys: Abner, Abner! Look at that debt piling up!
Abner: Who cares, I got my tax cut.
And so on. No matter what Gladys sees, either Abner doesn’t or he doesn’t care about it. A perfect analogy.
As to Dems needing to embrace a pro-gun stance. No. Let’s not even consider it. If you’re anti-gun control, you’re more than likely against abortion and would vote Republican based on that. Or you’re afraid of gay marriage. Let’s just recognize the fact that people who vote on single-issues and/or social issues just aren’t going to be in our corner, so rather than alienate the base trying to placate them let’s just get our own vote out.
Huh? I think you have it backwards there, but if you’ve got some stats to back up your claim, I’ll believe you. Social conservatives are mostly anti-gun control, but I think there are a lot of anti-gun control folks who aren’t social conservatives. While it’s hard to read anthing about abortion in the constitution, there’s a nice big fat amendment about guns that’s hard to miss.
I’ll see what I can find. I thought it was common knowledge. And that amendment is so big and fat that most people only see half of it.
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”
Well, we can argue about how it should be interpreted, but we can’t argue about whether it’s there or not. It’s hard to argue about a penumbra or an emination. Talk about something that belongs in a *Bewitched *episode! 
Alright. Well I guess we will see if that is enough then.
But agreed (with other posters in the thread), the parties both need some good cleaning up to be viable entities as of recent.
True, abortion is not in the Constitution. And penumbra was a pretty lame word. I just think that in the absence of compelling reasons to contrary, one should be free to do what one wants with one’s body. And the opposite side thinks the fetus has these same rights. This will never be settled by reading the Constitution, short of a new amendment.
Getting back to the OP…
Midterm elections are difficult to get worked up about. The incumbent re-election rate is, what, something like 95%? And most Congressional districts are so safe they’re boring. The Dems need their version of New Gingrich to organize a take over of the House. I don’t see anyone like that out there, and the Senate is pretty safe for the Republicans. We’ll see. I think the Dems will pick up seats in both houses even if they still remain the minority party. I’ll be very curious to see if my theory about Hillary holds-- that she won’t run for prez if the Pubbies still hold both houses of Congress.
Would you have said the same thing in 1994? I for one think that dissatisfaction with the way the Pubs have run things for the last 12 years dwarfs the dissatisfaction with the Dems in 1994. This time next year we’ll have Speaker Pelosi- you can take it to the bank.
I think what the Dems should do is watch the Pubs hang themselves. They certainly have the rope and they seem to want to do it, so why stop them?
I think there are problems with the Democrats, but the way you have written this makes me want to check for false equivalences. When you suggest that the Democrats need to clean up, it sort of implies that they are into dirty stuff. Is that what you mean? If so, can you point to what makes you think the present Democrats are engaged in corruption in any equivalent way to the present Republicans? If not, I apologize for the digression, but I think we should be clear about what is wrong with the parties as we try to figure out what should be done about it.
I, by the way, contend that the present-day corruption is vastly more endemic to the right/Republicans, and would argue that it makes the “corruption” of the 80’s-90’s Congressional Democrats look about as severe as check-kiting. Concluding that both parties are similarly corrupt is like saying that the Hutus and Tutsis were involved in a dust-up in Rwanda.
Are the Democrats still making gun control a major issue? I thought they–or at least a lot of them–gave up on that years ago. I recall Kerry making a somewhat silly photo OP going duck hunting. Some representatives may push for gun control if that’s what their constituents want, but on the national or even the state level, most Democrats don’t seem to mention it at all.