The Dems need to grow a spine, a pair, and a few internal organs.
As a whole, they still view politics as a gentleman’s game, on the order of fencing, where you play to keep score and go out for drinks afterwards. There are still too many folks who haven’t realized the Republicans have turned into a party of thugs who treat politics as a knife fight, and they end up getting backstabbed as a result.
Perhaps I’m not explaining my point well. I’m comparing Nunn and Murtha, not Nunn and Kennedy. Murtha has, by any measure, a defense record that is probably more conservative than Nunn. I’m just not following how you can taut Nunn as a good role model for the Dems, but Murtha is some monstrosity to be hidden from public view, solely because of his stance on Iraq.
With all due respect, I think you’re going against the grain of your OP with this statement: instead of discussing how the Democrats could improve their electability, you seem to be slipping into throwing out reasons why you disagree with Democrats. You’ve proposed an interesting topic, and it ought not degenerate into a partisan discussion. (Same can be said of Dems who’d rather bash Republicans than think of ways to improve our party.)
What you seem to be arguing is that Democrats silencing themselves and backing up the President’s position on security issues will result in some kind of electoral advantage. The majority of Democrats supported the Iraq war resolution and the homeland security bill in 2002, and what happened? Dems got beat – pretty embarassingly – at the polls.
Heck, go back to the romanticized notion of politics stopping at the water’s edge: Truman lost his Democratic majority in 1950 due to claims he bungled the Korean War (which Republicans supported, eerily similar to Iraq today) and that Truman “lost China.” Politics stopping at the waters edge, my foot.
If you have specific evidence about political parties who did better by aligning themselves with a President of the opposite party, hop to it. However, I will stick with the time-tested axiom that to be elected, first you have to stand for something.
Let’s get real here: in what world do political parties gain an advantage or do better in the polls by supressing a constructive alternative view of policies, much in the way Martin Hyde seems to be suggesting? I’m not suggesting that Democrats will win on Iraq if they use rhetoric that one would expect from Sheehan or Reeder or Belafonte. Let’s keep in mind that a staunchly Republican district in Ohio came within that much of going Democratic for a Dem candidate who spoke out against the war. Surely you cannot be serious in suggesting that the election would have trended even more blue if the Dem had aligned himself with Bush’s policy in Iraq!
(I’ll ignore the unbelievable proposition that publicly disagreeing with the President somehow endangers a war effort – that just baffles me. Ferchissakes, even Bush has said that it is fine to disagree with him on the war! I can only wonder if the scorn expressed for Dems who criticize the war is extended to John McCain’s constant hectoring of Rumsfeld, Bush, and others about sending more troops to Iraq.)
As far as ‘making the troops pawns,’ I’d ask that you provide an example of what you’re talking about. I just don’t follow you. When you talk about “making the troops pawns,” my first thought turns to Republicans making Spc. Michael New (I believe that was his name) into a cause celebre for refusing a lawful order to wear a UN patch during his deployment to Bosnia.
Very little.
There used to be Democrats with credibility - not agreement with Republicans, necessarily, but Democrats who weren’t out-and-out fools. There are still a few around today - Lieberman is the first one I can think of, but some others as well. But the leaders of the Dems are blithering boobs like Pelosi and Dean. And this after eight years where the leading Democrat in the US seemed determined to prove that every thought he ever had was lightly coated with slime.
I would like at least one political party with common sense. Either one.
That is to say, fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Not moderate in the SDMB sense, moderate as a mainstream American can be moderate.
I don’t like big-government conservatives, but if possible, I like big-government liberals even less.
So, balance the budget. That means cutting spending, which means cutting spending on programs that will cause liberals to shit bricks. That means things like health care and other entitlements. Raising taxes will not address the issue, and the Dems might as well save their breath and stop telling that it will. They will spend every dime they get and more besides. So will Republicans, probably.
So stuff like zero-based government budgeting, spending freezes (not adjusting for inflation). Protectionism is a stupid idea, especially on jobs. Free trade. We need to address the long-term problems of Social Security and Medicare, and the way the Dems responded to Bush’s efforts was absolutely shameful - not because they didn’t accept it, but because they know perfectly well that the situation has to be addressed and they did everything in their power to prevent it from being addressed, for political advantage. Whores, the lot of them.
But I don’t like third parties. And I especially don’t like the idea of jiggering the election system to boost their chances - too much like sour grapes for groups that can’t make it under the current system and are jockeying for an edge.
What I want is a party with a soft heart and a hard head. With Republicans, they are both hard, and Democrats are both soft. And most of the fringe parties are off in the la-la land of ideological purity.
Regards,
Shodan
Just out of curiosity, who do you usually vote for? Or do you?
I think we both may have jumped the gun here. You’ve jumped the gun by acting as though one poll, especially one poll with such non-specific questions (imo) is enough to constitute a “fact” or a “clear representation” on what the people want.
I jumped the gun in saying that the portion I quoted “echoes my sentiments that the people want victory.”
I have no idea, but I do make the educated guess that if you were to construct a poll with a question like, “Do you support a pull out in Iraq if it means it will constitute a military defeat for the United States?” most Americans would vote “no.”
I also don’t think most Americans believe the war was a bad idea in general. I do think many Americans have begun to second guess themselves because they don’t have the strength of will to deal with the consequences of their actions and their prior stance on the matter. That’s one good reason that the masses don’t get to decide policy, the country would implode in a ball of pure idiocity and stupidity if that were the case.
Speak the hell up. ascenray’s got it spot on. Everyone knows what the Republican platform is. Why? Because they consistently repeat it, often. What’s the Democratic platform? “Well, some of this, and that’s nice too, maybe we’ll try something here, but most importantly, we’re not Bush!” Yeah - that doesn’t work. Give Americans concretes. Speak in languages they understand, with specific examples. Speak up, be heard, don’t be afraid of confrontation. Stop being wishy washy, testing the waters to see what goes over. Make a stance, then follow it up.
I think a bunch of posters are still politicking like it’s 1999.
Over the past five years, the Dems have all but stopped talking about gun control. It’s a non-issue.
I too would like to see gun control dropped.
And the Democratic party HAS done some house cleaning. It’s called the Green Party! Quit avoiding hurting the feelings of those on the extreme left and publicize it! Point out to the american people that the Republicans haven’t cleaned out* their* wackos.
Right now would be a good time to point out Bush’s fiscal excess. Bang that drum.
A little organization wouldn’t hurt either.
The Dems ought to seize the offensive on the GWoT, by accusing Bush of betraying the country by leaving the nation defenseless in said war. (The Dems should spefically use the word ‘betrayed’ too: no pussyfooting around. The GOP and its fellow travelers call us traitors all the time, for doing no more than pointing out that we’re not on the road to anything like victory in Iraq.) Four years after 9/11, where’s the added security to nuclear plants? Chemical plants? (Rove, etc. nixed that because the chemical industry didn’t want more regulation.) Inspection of air freight? Inspection of containers being shipped into the country? Securing of ex-Soviet loose nuclear materials?
I’m still stunned that we got out of 2001 without a clear, expedited plan for doing all of these things. For years afterwards, I assumed it had been done, but just hadn’t made the news, because of course we weren’t doing these things. Kudos to John Kerry for taking the time in the debates to point out Bush’s failing to do this. We should routinely bash the GOP Congress and Bush over this failing.
It would be nice if they wouldn’t lie all the time. Just once I’d like to hear a politician give an honest answer to an honest question, instead of trying to tell me what he thinks I want to hear. It would also be nice if they weren’t owned by faceless corporations.
If I could change the Democratic party I suppose it would be similar to changes I proposed in the Republican party thread…become the party of fiscal responsibility, dump the loony factions in the party (or at least marginalize them completely), move more towards the center…er, the center of the US that is. 
Ensure that programs actually work, dismantle and revamp education and healthcare making them cost effective and actually work. Stuff like that.
Specifically for the Democrats they need to drop the anti-Business rhetoric IMHO and try and take a middle road. They certainly need to drop gun control as an issue from the PARTY level (again, individual Dems can do what they want). On the environment they need to keep a hard stance IMHO on environmental issues…but do so with reason trying to see both sides. But I think they should remain very pro-environment (not fanatic about it mind you) as a counter weight to the Republicans. They also need to take a good hard look at their message, the same one they have been serving up for decades now…and really look at how that message is both coming across to middle America (where the majority of the votes are IMHO) and how it relates to todays problems.
Blah blah blah…I’ve said all this in greater detail in other ‘Whats wrong with the Dems’ threads and usually get shouted down with ‘Republican LITE!!’ type rantings. At least in the Republican threads the 'pubs on the board don’t do that…they generally just ignore me. You guys do what you like…it seems to be working so well for you after all. 
-XT
I’d do the opposite. I’d make the Democrats the Dove Party. All rhetoric aside, as it stands now they are only slightly less hawkish than the Republicans. I don’t see any serious drive from the democrats to change our massively bloated military budget. The most radical I’ve heard was Dennis Kucinich’s plan to reduce the defense budget by 15% and he’s probably considered amongst the “lunatic left” for proposing such a thing.
Actually, this is not correct. I am not talking about one poll - I am talking about dozens of polling points across dozens of questions over four polling groups, CBS News, AP/Ipsos, CNN/USA Today and ABC News/Washington Post. Please, go to the collection at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (this link will send you to the Iraq page directly).
I’m starting to think that you honestly don’t know what the public opinion is regarding the war in Iraq. Hopefully you will find this illuminating.
WTF?! Are you smoking crack? It wasn’t even two years ago that Democrats were tacking on amendments to bills in order to renew the AWB!
Are you forgetting the cries of blood and doom echoing through the senate chambers as the AWB was about to expire?
While on the campaign trail, John Kerry stood up and posed with the biggest, nastiest, movers-and-shakers in the anti-gun movement! Names like Brady, Schumer, Clinton, and Kennedy!
And just this week, a House Democrat (Moran, D-VA) proposed legislation banning another class of firearms!
“Non-issue,” my aching, bleeding, gun-owning ass!ass!ass!
Go peddle that bullshit elsewhere, 'cause this “might-be-a-Democrat-if-you’d-leave-my-fucking-guns-alone” white boy ain’t buying.
I don’t think most pro-choice politicians would have much trouble finding a compromise position that included those things. But would the pro-lifers accept it as a compromise position? Hell no; they won’t be happy as long as a single abortion happens in this country, and they won’t stop pushing.
It’s only a compromise if both sides are willing to stay there; otherwise, it’s just one side giving ground to the other side.
I know it’s hard to imagine now (it is for me, anyway), but it was just over five years ago when the Democrats lost a chunk of their base vote in the Presidential election because they weren’t giving enough credence to progressive causes like universal health care. We had just been through eight years of an administration that brought us Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, NAFTA, and welfare “reform”, and which had given up the health care fight, and we were looking at a candidate who promised more of the same.
So while the Democratic embrace of the far left is nowhere near as strong as you seem to think it is, any of it that exists is a welcome effort to bring those voters back to the fold.
Ah yes, the Republicans are ignorant dolts theory. Our “rural countrymen” just need to be edumacated! What country is this, North Korea?
The East Coast, pointy-headed, ivory-tower, Liberal approach worked so well for Sen. Kerry, didn’t it?
well, i’m a democrat on most issues. i don’t see why there can’t be a third party. why, can’t this mythical third party be the henry clay compromise party with the soft heart and strong head?
do you consider making political campaigns publicly funded as a bad thing? (let’s assume that the problem has been solved, there is a way to do it and it has been done in this mythical world.) if they were publically funded, i feel that would make campaigns more about substance over style. i’m sure exceptions slip through the cracks, but there are excpetions to every rule.
it’s sick how you can buy your special-interest mascot int he house/senate. it’s been like that ever since the greek times, and we can’t expect it to stop suddenly, but we can come up with a better idea. crooks, thieves, and liars must be exercised from both sides. this abrahamoff scandal is the beginning of one of these scenarios (hopefully).
i agree with the idea of free trade. dammit, we’ve got a global marketplace and we should have no boundaries when it concerns money (i notice how people that want to blur international lines in the name of trade also don’t want to blur those same lines when it comes to other things. is that a give and take type of agreement, or can it be had both ways?) i don’t like the outsourcing of jobs and the whittling (decimation) of the middle class. to say that it’s not killing the middle class seems to be sticking your head in the sand.
big government. it just sounds ominous, doesn’t it? but is it all bad? i don’t know if i mind “big government”, but i don’t like “convoluted, red-taped, difficult, usurping power” government. in your mind, is it possible to have a goverment that can streamline itself and become more responsive to the people and yet get more done? (i’m starting to think we should start bouncing emails off of each other soon if we keep the dialogue up in the middle of this thread)
Dude, I grew up in small town Arkansas. I have known a whole bunch of single issue voters (including relatives) from there and other places like it. I live in the city because of the greater economic opportunities. I didn’t go to an Eastern Establishment school and I actually resent Northeastern snobs.
This isn’t about calling Republicans idiots or anything like that. It’s just that there is a dearth of information being supplied to folks who don’t necessarily read the Wall Street Journal or hear any political discourse other than Rush and O’Reilly.
If at the end of the day, if someone puts some effort towards understanding the full range of issues and what the political parties are really doing (beyond the rhetoric), and they still vote Republican, I’m fine with that. But I have the distinct impression that’s not happening. That’s why I would like to have more outreach in that regard. Heck, I’d prefer it be from a non-partisan source.
Liberman has credibility? That fool is the worst part of both the Democrats and Republicans. Strong governmental control over social issues is just the least of it. He’s just another religious conservative. A different perspective, but he shares more with Pat Robertson than Harry Truman.