My comment was about organizational ability, not who is the sleazier party. The Pubs probably wouldn’t have succeeded without Gingrich riding point. I don’t see anyone in the Democratic party doing that.
Sounds like an invitation to a wager. Is it?
That tactic has it’s place, but the Dems need to do a little more than just that. A lot of the issues in a Congressional race are local, not national.
Well, it’s a good thing then that so many localities feature corruption-tainted Republicans.
No no. I was thinking (on their side) in terms of being less sensationalist about everything. Some of this I think is just an issue of Bush being such an annoying Republican and making American politics become so polarized. But when everything that comes from their side is a “reaction” rather than simply ignoring the annoying people and carrying on with business, there just isn’t much to be confident of.
And on the Republican side, personally I just want them to kick the whole religious thing out of there (Yo, you see this bit here in the law where it says that the government can’t endorse any religion? No?) After that just getting rid of Bush would be most of all needed for a reasonable face to present to the People.
Heavens no. I’m not a gambler. The amount I would wager wouldn’t cover the postage.
No wonder the Democrats are seen as wimps. 
I was just teasing before-- I should’ve put a smiley on that earlier post. We’ve been over the betting thing before, and I know you don’t partake. I just couldn’t resist with that reference you made about taking a prediction to the bank.
Frankly, I wish the Dems could win back the House. Speaker Pelosi, though, would be a little much. Still, it would give the SNL folks some good fodder.
That and he made a big deal over the lapse of the Assualt Weapons Ban and I seem to recall him leaving he campaign trail to vote againest it’s sunset.
That soured him in the minds of a lot of people much more then any duck hunting photo.
Here’s a paradox for you to work out. Those pigs would be elected before the 3rd party simply because of media coverage focused on your ass. (Which may be newsworthy in itself, but I’ve never met you, so I don’t know)
Don’t take this as being flippant because it isn’t. BUT, don’t many many people wind up somewhere in the area of “if the penumbra emanates MY way then it’s justice but if it emanates the OTHER way it’s bad” ??? I’ve been guilty of it myself.
Oh. I thought for sure you were going to say, “abortion.” I am an anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, pro-union, pro-lifer who would most certainly have voted Democrat many, many times–if only they had changed a single plank in their platform.
I don’t want to get into a debate, since I’m totally unprepared and swamped with work, but the basis for my opinion is that in my opinion abortion is an issue that is much more evenly split in the “average person at home” demographic, and thus I think a party is sort of “damned if they do…” whatever side they support idealogically. Whereas in my opinion, among the “average person at home” demographic, one is more likely to find people motivated to get out and vote against an anti-gun politician than those motivated to go out and vote against a pro-gun or neutral-gun politician.
Then of course there’s the whole side debate of whether or not gun ownership and use is a true civil right (along with that of self-defense) which Democrats should be embracing just as wholeheartedly as any other civil right. But that’s fodder for a whole other thread in another forum.
I believe Rahm Emanuel mentioned recently that one of the things the Democrats are going to hammer at is the idea of the “rubber-stamp” Republican Congress that has rolled over and played dead while Bush has proceeded to destroy this country over the past five years. Therefore, the only way to restore any semblance of checks and balances to our federal government is to elect a Democratic Congress.
Being that strongly anti-gun control is, to a normal city person (there are a few of us) the signpost of an ignorant, rural asshole. No, we don’t want you. Go figure.
An educated reading of the second amendment would allow for some regulation of firearms well above the standard of the NRA. There is no qualification re speech in the First, but there are still libel laws that are arguably stronger than anything that regulates guns in a lot of states in this union. To argue otherwise is to show yourself to be an utter, ignorant ass.
So no, we don’t want you. Stay in the Republican Party. It’s where the ignorant, rural assholes belong.
Wow. Tolerant, understanding, sympathetic and an open mind. You pantom are what make the Dems so great! You embody the ideal of the east coast, elitist, trust-funder drinking Merlot on your yacht in Martha’s Vineyard deploring the ills of society while making sure the Guatamalen illegal cleaning your house isn’t left alone for 5 seconds lest she steal all your wealthy trinkets.
There. Just felt the thread needed another broad brush. :rolleyes:
This whole Democratic attitude of being too scared to be against anything just kills me. With Republicans, I know what to expect- they’re anti-gun control, pro-business, anti-union, pro-life, pro-ID, pro-Christian, pro-Iraq War, pro-military, etc. With the Democrats, I hardly know what to expect- any given Democrat may have vastly varying opinions on all the above topics; in favor of some, against some, all different from the next Democrat down the line. Now while that may be what I want in government, these people are bound to never get elected because people can’t see “Democrat” and know what a Democrat stands for.
It all just makes no sense- in the last few years, the Republicans have had the whole giant WMD debacle, the Valerie Plame affair, the Abu Gharib prison beatings, the Guantanamo Bay prison beatings, the CIA wiretapping scandal, the insurgency in Iraq, the whole Jack Abramoff thing… The Democrats have all the ammunition anyone could ever need, but they refuse to load their guns with it, because (Oh, noes!) someone might get disagree! God forbid we make anyone angry, ever! The only person who’s acting on this is Russ Feingold*, and he’s getting absolutely no support. The Democrats won’t win elections until they can stand up for something the Republicans are against.
*I know Russ Feingold is a bit of a whacko. I agree he should have asked around, built up some support, tested the waters before asking for censure. I still agree with the guy.
I generally agree with the OP. The Democrats will climb any mountain, sail any ocean, go to the ends of the Earth, persevere through thick and thin, and generally do whatever it takes to achieve defeat in November. I think that strict partisanship has prevented me from seeing how arrogant, selfish, and falt-out stupid many high-ranking Democrats are, and also many who work in the organizations and special-interest groups. They’re short-sighted, oblivious to political realities, and don’t understand why their particular pet issue can’t be everybody’s sole priority. They don’t understand the concept of compromise, don’t realize that you have to work together, and they spend as much time attacking each other as working for a Democratic victory. By contrast, right-wing opinion makers are entirely dedicated to the cuase of installing savage, irrational hatred of liberals in their minions; they rarely spend a single word on anything else. That gives the Pubs an army of mindless drones who will turn out to vote without having the slightest clue what the Pubs stand for, or even what the major issues are. On top of that, the Pubs still have their traditional advantages (more campaign cash, the anti-democratic electoral college, and total control over the media). Add it all up, and the Pubs might as well count their chickens now.
duffer, I have no mercy, and no sympathy, for rural gits. We pay their taxes for them (you can check it out; NJ per capita contributes the most to the Feds while getting the least back; no rural state comes close to pulling its weight, meantime), and what we get back is contempt in the form of this idiotic attitude towards gun control. Just givin’ 'em back what they spit at me.
I think that you have an excellent point. New Jersey should become self-sufficient. Keep your tax money. Just don’t expect any grains, produce, meat, nuts, dairy products, wool, cotton or oil from the more rural states. I’m sure that you have some there. We will miss lovely Cape May and Princeton. We wish you well.
Meanwhile, I support gun-control measures, but I think there are more pressing issues at the moment: balance of power, invasion of privacy, torture, civil liberties, basic health care
With all the money they’ll be saving, they should have enough to purchase their own crops, or a state to do their growing for them. How much would Iowa sell for?
They did load ther guns and fire off, the problem is is that in a country where the most staunch Democrats spend all day decrying all this, then go home and post on everyone’s favorite message board about how cool Jack Bauer for doing all the things you mention…well there’s just not a lot of believability there.
Batman is great for the great pains he goes to to guarantee his enemies never die, but in the US this trait is dropped at a hat for the sake of a story that lives up to the desires of the mass populace–half of whom are Democrats. You watch Japanese anime though, the heroes who are avowed never to kill are very often submitted to horendous choices they have to make due to this, and that is almost never glossed over for something more keeping with the id.
If you cheered at the end of A Time to Kill, are you really against the death penalty? Etc.
Americans as a majority, regardless what they may say in public, still are a people who are going to make the hard choice and play low ball when push comes to shove. Bush himself may be an idiot, but the policies he has implemented are very in-keeping of what Americans seem to accept when they let their guard down–and personally I trust where people put their money a lot more than I do where they put their mouth.
Right, I wasn’t trying to start that debate, just making an observation. I understand your point.