Now Rick, that’s just mean. You’re getting their hopes up for nothing. The Democrats can do all that, yet they’ll still pick a candidate who will screw the pooch.
The Democrats’ choice for 2004 was so widely unpopular, I believe a great many moderates chose to reelect President Bush just so they could get the chance to spit in Lieutenant Kerry’s face.
Democrats, you have one choice: anoint someone now and get behind him. Have him carry your post-election resolve all the way to 2008.
So widely unpopular that he was crushed in the election, blown away by Bush, as utterly defeated as were Goldwater and McGovern. Sheesh.
I sure as heck don’t speak for gobear, but I do agree with the gist of what he’s saying. This conservative sure hopes that the democrats don’t take his advice!
Don’t think that the suggestion is to pander or lie to get elected. It’s to actually do what he suggests. Not just to pretend to do it or lie about intending to do it. Sticking with your analogy: it’s like getting a candidate who isn’t anti-gun and actually does hunt, rather than one who simply pretends to. Believe it or not, the voters can actually tell the difference.
Baste your words as much as you like, they’ll still taste the same.
You misrepresented a cite, just to “lead” Diogenes. Looking to take him to the taxidermist, I suspect.
Crazy pills, indeed. You refused to answer my question yesterday, then today, you chose to dance around it.
You lied about a cite in order to bait one of your fellow Dopers. This place is ragged enough without such behavior. Shame on you.
Maybe. I initially took his point to be that a positive attitude may be more effective than the hysterical doom-and-gloom approach. It’s much better to say “hey, we’ve got some great ideas here” than “ACK! You’ve got to vote for us or the Republicans will kill you and eat your children.” People respond positively to affirmative efforts. You don’t win elections by preaching Armaggedon and telling voters they’re stupid.
But then I read it again:
The wording here is clearly disingenuous, and if his intent is to be deliberately misleading in an attempt to con the stoopid commoners, then I would have to condemn that.
Yes!
The problem is when one side tries to actively legislate their personal/cultural/religious values, thereby forcing them on all of us via the law. Which values are better is irrelevant. Legislating that all marriages must be monogamopus and heterosexual and legislating (for example) that businesses must hire a specific percentage of minorities are equally bad ideas.
Find another board where posters are allowed to express themselves so bluntly without degenerating into mindless drivel or tinfoil hattery. 
You do understand that when this country was a mere 90 years old, it engaged in a war against itself? A war that was the single bloodiest conflict it has endured, either before or since? The harm that conflict did to the country has been repaired. If any of you truly believe the harm that one President could do to this country is greater than the Civil War … man, I just can’t understand that.
I’m not trying to offend you or other Democrats with that statement, but I speak as a citizen of a rural county that had a 90% turnout on Tuesday. Out here, exit polls have shown that a solid percentage of people hit the ballot box (just as they did in my hometown in Ohio) for the sole purpose of voting against Mr Kerry. That’s pretty serious.
No, I don’t see it as pandering, unless he doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
I believe he does.
I must respectfully decline your offer of leadership, Bricker. I don’t trust leaders, I don’t follow leaders. Point of fact, I am not even a liberal, I’m a radical. I don’t even have that much faith in politics, I argue politics because the only alternative is passive cynicism.
But I don’t want to tire you out, you should save your strenth. The assault on Fallujah that was kept on hold, could be any day now. Sure would love to be wrong about that. Pretty sure I’m not. So you gotta be ready, come in here and tell us how those civilian casualty figures are all wildly inflated. Tell us how, really, things are going just fine, how it all makes sense even though The Leader (respectful enough?) may have fudged the truth, here and there. Little things, like things that don’t exist are a desperate threat.
You’re gonna have a busy time, explaining stuff. Me? All I gotta do is point to the headlines. Unless, of course, by some miracle, Iraq is transformed into a placid bourgois democracy of entreprenuers and Starbucks franchises. Oh, latest headline? Doctors Without Borders is pulling out. Too risky. Oh, and some troops reporting how they watched looters pulling up in pick-up trucks and making off with whatever they wanted at Al Kaka. No doubt these are excellent signs of progress, due to the prescience and intelligence of The Leader. And as soon as you explain that, we will know.
So save your strength. You’re gonna need it.
C’mon man, we don’t need any of this, chill.
Well, then, I’ll admit he was wildly unpopular in your county. (And a number of other counties, I’ll also admit.) But he was hardly wildly unpopular in the country as a whole, and I will heartily reject any spin that attempts to assert that was so.
Hmmm. I think “mindless drivel” and “tinfoil hattery” can explain some posts here.
Nevertheless, I think blowero is right. Elsewhere another poster was thinking of taking a break from this place 'till after Christmas. I think it’s time to do the same myself. I know I hang out here in the Pit too much…it’s interesting in the way a car accident is interesting. Time to put “boards.straightdope.com/sdmb” on the old block list.
Well…
When a confirmed atheist starts a sentence with “We love God so much” I have to wonder.
Well, we could always have another one. 
I might add that in my county Bush received just under 30% of the vote, yet if I used that to assert that the Republicans had nominated a wildy unpopular candidate, I would certainly, and properly, be called on it.
How is my wording disingenuous? I’m presenting the exact same values that are clear and to the point, judst presented in a way that accentuates the positive.
Take “We love God so much that we want to keep the church safe from government (SOCAS).” You want to know where I got that? From reading James Madison’s “A eEmonstrance and Memorial Against Religious Assessments” (1785) this morning:
The concept of SOCAS originated because the founding fathers did not wish to repeat the errors of established religion persecuting others with the connivance of the state; to protect the free exercise of religion, it and the state must be kept apart.
Got a problem with that, take it up with Mr. Madison.
Wasn’t finished.
I think gobear was suggesting that the Democrats need to reframe their arguments in order put the debate on their terms, which is obviously a good idea, but I would like a clarification.
Not that I’m going to die if I don’t get one.
Speaking of which, I need to start hitting the gym and getting into “fighting for scraps of bread in the apocalypse” shape.
And yes, I’m a confirmed atheist, and I’m also a confirmed civil libertarian. How my philosophy differs from that of a confirmed Baptist or Jew in protecting the free exercise of religion is beyond me. I don’t have to agree with someone’s POV to allow them to exercise it.