He balanced Vermont’s budget, while at the same time cutting income taxes twice.
He disagrees with you on immigration, but not to a large degree. Is willing to give limited amnesty to those illegal immigrants with work records and who have paid taxes (many do, surprisingly).
He’s pro-stem cell research.
No idea on the whole atheism thing.
Against the war in Iraq, so disagreement there.
He was endorsed 8 times by the NRA, against more federal anti-gun laws. (Not on your list, I realize).
Really, your only disagreement with him is over immigration and over the war in Iraq. That’s far outside the mainstream?
Maybe I should have specified that most of my views on other subjects tend to be conservative. I’m a member of the NRA for example and regularly donate money to them. I was simply pointing out that although I lean conservative generally, I do have agreements with the left enough that one would think I would consider voting for them. But, since they are so far onto the fringe, I won’t.
Dean was much more conservative when he was a governor from what I understand. So, yes, looking at his record there he isn’t that liberal on paper. However, from his presidential run through now he has found his niche. He’s a Bush bashing liberal who would probably be banned from the SDMB a la Reeder. His recent activity is cleary playing entirely to the radical, base elements of the party. It’s for this reason that he’s properly being viewed by most people as a fringe leftist.
Even other democrats are realizing that Dean is out of control:
The Democrats knew what they were getting when they chose this guy to be the chairman. He’s a hate mongering radical. That the party chose this man for their leader speaks volumes about how far to the fringe they are.
The problem with the “its all in the past” argument is that past mistakes predict future poor performance. It took a serious lack of common sense and partisan blindness to make many of the mistakes Bush made, and there was no reason to assume those things had changed. Past mistakes were evidence that Bush could not adequately deal with the problem he created.
The “Kerry voted for authorizing the use of force therefore he is accountable for exactly how the President ran the war” argument is ludicrous, and I see no need to address it in a more substantial way than just stating it again for your bullshit detectors to scan.
I’ll also note the fact that instead of debating my argument, you picked one example to awkwardly refute, leaving the argument as a whole standing.
I guess I should have expected vitriol, this is the pit after all. But I didn’t expect vitriol directed at yourself: don’t call yourself a nobody.
Your argument was quite clearly that SDMB Democrats had no platform. Not to mention several times in other threads where you’ve argued that Democrats in general had no platform other than “Bushsux.” But thanks for the congratulations; I’m glad you agree that the Democratic platform in the 2004 election was multi-faceted and expressed through criticisms of Bush.
Now, here’s the thing. I’m a New Yorker. I’m a Republican. I’m pro-choice, pro a lot of things.
I voted for Kerry.
I like Bubba. I’ve met Bubba. Bubba is the man. If he had a third term, I’d vote for Bubba.
No way in hell I’d vote for Hillary. And I’ve met her too.
This is me as well…right down the line. If a Democrat came along that I thought I could trust with the reins of national security and said that he/she would make cutting spending and border control a priority, I would vote for him/her in a heartbeat. But since we have a two party system, I have to vote for the Repuplicans because I agree with 6 or 7 issues out of ten with them. For the Democrats it’s more like 1 or 2 out of ten.
And, given the quality of your arguments and your non-stop strategy of offering nothing but snide put-downs, it seems to me that the only reason you register as a Democrat is that you feel it might give you some sort of credibilty.
Honestly, I’m a little stung by that. I didn’t think you’d degenerate into name-calling.
Well, I guess we’ll have to let the lurkers decide now that you’ve ended the “reasons” and “evidence” portion of the debate.
Incidentally, you seem to be under the impression that “parse” means “to interpret” or to “analyze the meaning of.” Outside of the context of computer programming, it does not (despite its frequent mis-use around here). To parse that sentence would be to identify each word’s part of speech (i.e. Subject noun; linking verb; definite article; object noun).
The interesting thing about this whole discussion is the question “why in the world should we listen to Republicans about the future of our party?”
I’m of the opinion that most of the voters don’t care about either party. Most of the voters seem to vote for who they think will be better at running the country. Your average voter does not read the party platform. A sitting war time president has never been unseated. There is a reason for this. But there is one thing the voters have never tolerated and that is incompetence. I know that it is tempting to be deluded into believing that everyone is a Republican at heart but this is not the case. For Republicans to then say that our party is bankrupt and in danger of collapse is completely ridiculous. The Democratic party is a lot grander and older than theirs and it will survive.
Part of the problem for Democrats is that we get caught up in defending ourselves against conservative dickheads who like to scream “look at the liberal” like it was a bad thing. Remember that they tried the same thing against Clinton and if he was a Republican in name but kept the same policies, he would have eclipsed Reagan in their tiny little black hearts. Clinton maybe sleazy but his lie didn’t kill anyone or it did not involve trading arms to our enemy now as well as then.
I love that after Bush’s last HUGE victory over a “closet” liberal, every Repub was giving condescending advice to prevent the Democrat party from going under. What a fucken joke. Like Rush “Dodge the draft cause of the pimple on my ass” Limbaugh really was concerned about the Democratic party after spitting bile for years and years about it all over the airwaves. Conservative ideologues know they are in trouble and they know we will continue to be in crisis if we ourselves believe the shit that comes out of their mouths. So they continue with trying to define the “problem” of the Democratic party.
Personally, we should not waste our time trying to conform or answer to anything they say. They want us to spin our wheels. It keeps us from getting real work done. It keeps us from positioning ourselves to reap the windfall from years of one party dominance of our government and things not getting any better. This is the real issue: The Republicans have control and things are going to shit. If they think they are going to maintain power for long thinking that calling us liberal is going to save them from a voter backlash, they are fooling themselves. Everything that rises must descend. So let me give you some advice Repub: Get your own house in order before giving us advice because you are the ones going downhill and you are the ones with the identity crisis.
The appeal of H. Clinton is the very fact that it puts W. Clinton back in the White House. This has appeal to a large number of people. I don’t think that the country is ready for a woman president unfortunately and I don’t think that she should run if it means we will lose in 08. The conservatives are toying with the idea of running Rice. I dare them to. I know it’s all talk because at the very basic core of the their party is a profound xenophobia and they would never risk the “Solid South” on half-baked ideas. But this leads to a good question. Why don’t the party chiefs of both parties get together and run a woman for vice-president on both tickets? This way, it will be a reality either way.
With all due respect, Shodan, you didn’t win the last election: you merely voted for the guy whose strategy won. That’s a little different.
If a star quarterback wants to give me some advice on playing the game, I’m all ears. If a fan of his team wants to give me advice, well, the fan was watching the same game I was watching.
Certain Republicans on this board seem to think that voting for the winning party is an astonishing display of insight and political acumen on their parts. On the contrary, it’s no more difficult or insightful to vote for the winner than to vote for the loser. You and I both watched the same election; we both read the same threads. Unless the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is way bigger than I think it is, you’re not privy to Bush’s secret strategies in the last election. And if you were privy to such secrets, I highly doubt you’d be sharing them with me.
That said, I agree with you to a certain extent. While the Democratic party had a serviceable platform last year, it was just a good solid unexceptional platform for running the country, your basic oatmeal-and-butter platform, nothing exciting or visionary. For excitement they relied on pointing out how awful a president Bush has been–an evaluation with which I agree, and with which the majority of the country now agrees to some extent.
That was a poor campaign strategy. The Democratic party needs to sex up their platform: they need to MTVify it, go all Gingrich on their platform with mottos and bullet points and bills with rico suave names like No Child Left Behind and stuff. They need to hire Madison Avenue. They need to hire some scary Frankenstein monster like Tony Robbins to re-envisionate their platform. They need to be a party of hope, not a party that just points out the Yog Sothoth in the living room.
Their platform was good, but boring; and nobody talks about boring stuff, not even in politics. So their good points weren’t discussed; so they lost.
If Maryland had open primaries I’d register as an Independent in a heartbeat, but alas, it does not. Also, why should I unregister from a party just because it’s gone insane? Wouldn’t the proper thing to do be to try and move it back to where it belongs?
The rest of this post is strange coming from someone whose entire “debate” with me in a recent thread was to call me a “mouth-breathing, spittle-flecked moron”. I’m not sure you have any leg to stand on if your contention is that my discussion style consists of “offering nothing but snide put-downs”. Tell me, friend ex-patriot, do you have anything to address with regards to the substance of my posts in this thread, or is it you who is content to merely lob insults? For that matter, would you care to link to an example from this thread of me engaging in my (according to you) only tactic of offering nothing but snide put-downs? I have stated my opinion and given a little background as to why I believe the way I do on this issue. You’ve thrown out baseless insults. I’ve shown you mine, do you have the integrity to show me yours? A year ago I would have thought yes. Today…I’m just not sure. The ball’s in your court, bucko.
But who decides where it belongs? Most of the success enjoyed by the Democrats in the twentieth century came when they were, on a national level at least, far more left/liberal than they are now, especially on economic policy. Is a New Deal/New Society-based policy, a la FDR or LBJ what you are advocating for the Democrats?
Or would you prefer to go back a little further, perhaps to the Reconstruction period, for your Democratic policies?
Selective memory.
My insult was in response to your accusing someone else of “hyperbolizing out of [his] asshole.” Not only that, but i provided citations that directly addressed the alleged point that you were making, and asked you to clarify your thinking on what constitutes the death penalty for minors. You apparently couldn’t be bothered actually supporting your argument, such as it was.
I’ve already addressed the “substance” of your posts. Just because the Democratic Party isn’t as conservative as you would apparently like does not mean that it is, by definition, too liberal.
Also, you started this little episode in post #200, when you said that the Democrats should not simply run on a platform of “I’m not Bush.” I that same post, without even starting a new paragraph, you said that the Dems were “revving Hillary up for an ignoble, disastrous defeat in '08.” It is reasonable for a reader to infer that you meant that Hillary would merely be an “I’m not Bush” candidate. That’s one of the things paragraphs are for—marking a new idea or piece of information, so the reader doesn’t get confused.
Of course, you did attempt to clarify your position in post #209. But your assertions there had virtually nothing to do with Clinton’s actual politics, but merely with her status (in your mind) as a polarizing figure, and as someone perceived as too liberal. Sure, she might be polarizing, and some people might see her as too liberal. But there are plenty of Americans who are going to see any Democratic candidate as too liberal. Why not nominate someone who might actually have good policies, and whom many Democrats think might do a good job,?
You started off talking about a lack of substance in the Democratic platform (something i agreed with), yet you apparently simply want to substitute one insubstantial strategy for another.
I’m not interested in trawling through the Boards to find all your gratuitous jabs at liberals. It would tax the hamsters too heavily. You know what i’m talking about; it’s come up often enough.
A year ago i probably actually believed some of your bullshit about being a “moderate.” Remember, just because you say it doesn’t make it so. Nor is it true just because you happen to dislike Bush.
Well, I think there is broad agreement across the spectrum that some policies of this period were excessive, and some are outdated. Absolutely nobody wants to return to Great Society-era tax rates, for example, which helped lead to the stagflation of the 1970’s.
Although if you can defend a 70% top rate with additional surcharges, let me know.
Additionally, Democrats of the New Deal era throught the mid-1960’s were very different than many Democrats of today when it came to matters of national defense, law and order issues, and issues related to religion in the public sphere. And it is on these issues where the Republicans today are closer to the national center, undisputably.
I do believe that there is a gun-totin’, ass-kickin’ progressive out there that isn’t about raising taxes, but just about getting a fair shake for Americans, but that the Democratic Party hasn’t run him/her.
Ironically, Howard Dean would have fit this bill nicely, if he hadn’t made the disastrous choice of chasing the “tattooed and pierced” vote.
Someone remarked during the race that Howard Dean was a dull centrist masquerading as a nut, while John Kerry was a nut masquerading as a dull centrist. I think there’s a bit of truth in this.
Except, you have yet to prove that they are on the “fringe.”
Bush bashing, I’ll give you. But, surely, there’s more to being a liberal than just Bush bashing. Please point to specific policy suggestions that make him a “radical.”
Again, let me point out that in the last election, he opposed new federal anti-gun laws. He was against a single-payor, universal health care plan and called it impractical. He wants to balance the budget, he was against a sudden pullout from Iraq. What policy initiatives did he support that were on the “fringe” left?
Bullshit. Please show what makes him a radical. Nothing he has said is worse than what Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove has said about the Democrats. Again, what policies does he advocate that indicate he is on the “fringe?” You keep calling the Dems a bunch of fringe lefties, but you have yet to do anything to back that up, outside of a few name-calling incidents - which both parties are guilty of.
It’s undisputable? Really? Well, darn, and here I was all set to dispute it, and I find out it can’t be done.
National defense? Come now, Moto, this is strictly party-line parrotry. The cheese-eating surrender monkeys are the French, not the Democrats. Law and order? The pale and ghastly spectre of Richard Milhous rises from the crypt, intoning vague threats of Democratic anarchy, liberal judges coddling criminals and wild-eyed flag burning hippies running amok. Amok! Amok! Who will save us from such dread fate? Why, the very same people who alerted us to the terrible threat, which we might otherwise not have noticed.
Religion in the public sphere? Which one? The Presbyterian God, the Catholic God, or the fire-breathing Pentecostalist Wrath of God? The whole point of seperation of church/state is not to make such a decision, God makes a lousy candidate. Nationhood as democracy is more a covenant than a communion. Most people who claim a devotion to God in the public sphere presume that it is, of course, their God who is to be invoked and adored. Sez who?
