In English, that is known as ‘Democracy’.
Agreed. But note that from the 95-97 Congress to the new 05-07 Congress, the Democrats have lost 3 seats, the Republicans have gained 1. Such a change in a decade is hardly indicitive that the Dems are sinking rapidly.
What are you talking about? In the last decade, the Democrats won a clear victory in the 1996 presidential race, got more votes than the Republican in 2000 but lost on what amounts to a technicality, and lost by less than 3% in 2004. That’s not a great trend, but with a whole new group of candidates in 2008, trends don’t really matter.
In the last five Congressional elections, the Republicans won two outright – 1994 and 2002 – and the Democrats picked up seats in 1996 and 1998. The gains by the GOP in the House in 2004 were based entirely on the illegitimate redrawing of lines for solely partisan reasons in Texas – yeah, it’s easy to win when you go in and try to stack the deck at every opportunity.
That’s a mixed record, it’s not a collapse.
Really? I realize that you’ve established that it’s your opinion, but as best I can tell, no one on the left has even begun to approach the level of animosity that existed from the very moment that Clinton won the election. The right didn’t even wait for him to assume office, ferchrissakes.
“Cost the Republicans votes,” indeed!
I’ll go out on a limb and say that the same would be true were the parties reversed. Proving nothing.
Please elaborate on the “lunatic fringe” positions which have been taken by the Democratic Party. And then explain why 48% of Americans supported those “fringe” beliefs in 2004.
Please show evidence that the Democratic party wishes to have the state seize control of the means of economic production. What? Can’t do that? Then take your charge of “socialism” and shove it up your ass. Words mean things, and the Democratic party is not a socialist party by any reasonable measure.
Ted Kennedy is in no way a leader of the Democratic Party. He is a prominent member, but he holds no particular leadership position, has no grand constituency within the party, has no particular sway over policy or party leadership. Just because he’s a Democrat whose name you can actually remember doesn’t make him a leader of the Democratic Party.
Howard Dean is not a radical. Look at his record in Vermont. Please demonstrate elements of radicalism. He was strongly anti-war, but that does not make one a “leftist” or a radical.
You have to be careful in how you interpret these types of results. People will say they’re in favor of the government doing all sorts of things, but the way you REALLY find out what they support is to find out what they’re willing to pay for.
Should the state provide child care services for working mothers? *Sure!! *
Who should pay for it? Someone else, but not me!!
I’m interpretting the OP as saying that he thinks the Democrats need to change their core positions in order to attract voters. But it’s a LOT more complicated than that. Core positions are often vague platitudes, like “we support the idea that working families should be able to make a living wage”. The real question is how you translate those values into actual policy. Both parties could support that position and yet propose radically different policies to achieve it. Clinton didn’t stray far from Democratic principles (IMHO), but he often supported Republican-type polices to achieve those principles-- NAFTA and welfare reform come immediately to mind.
I’d like to ask some of the Democrats in this thread to outline the top 3 - 5 core positions the Democrats should take, and to give specific policy recommendations to support those positions.
If you think it’s “right” to prosecute people for having unpopular political beliefs, or that it’s “right” to persecute adults who enjoy pornography, then that’s really all I need to know about your respect for freedom and democracy.
The man tried to use his own bench to force all around him to live by his own standards of morals and political beliefs. Thank you for posting this. I’m glad to learn that such a man is dead.
I for one would like to see a stronger Democratic Party. First off, when the guy in charge is surrounded by yes men there is no brake on his activities. Second, the hottest fire makes the strongest steel, so I would prefer there to be a bit more equivalence in numbers. Third, if nobody has an advantage there is gridlock, and gridlock is preferable to pretty much anything else. The only way to get something done is through compromise in that case, which means that this extremist crap would finally go away.
The reality is that the Democrats are out of touch with the center. They couldn’t beat a guy who took us into an unpopular war and gave us the largest deficits this country has ever seen. His father didn’t do half as poorly and he was crushed by a nobody.
Shouldn’t that give you pause for a minute, perhaps some incentive to stop and think about why this has happened to your party?
See, the thing is, in order to make policy you must first be elected. 50% maintenance of your ideals in winning is better than 100% of nothing, is it not? Until you guys figure out how to get voters to care about anything you say you’ll keep losing, and then where will you be? A better question: will where the country be? Are your principles so tightly held that you are willing to lose everything, or are you willing to compromise them so as to have a voice at the table?
If so, this country is in big trouble. There is always the need for opposing viewpoints. Hopefully you’ll figure out a way to make your opinions matter in a way that will allow you to serve as the opposition instead of as a bunch of doormats like you are now.
\
Against BUSH?? Demonized and villified since his election? Thought of as basically a talking monkey overseas? Who got us into a very unpopular war in Iraq? Under who the economy tanked in the first few months of his presidency?? And you are HAPPY about only losing by a few percentage points?? 
Methinks that if you couldn’t beat THIS loser you can’t beat anyone the Pubs throw at you…not with your current platform. Of course I’m merely a Republican undercover agent trying to trick you into coming over to the dark side and taking a more Clintonesque approach by going to the middle. But of course you see that as ‘running to the right’.
You really see Kerry as a centrist but Hillary as a ‘true liberal’?? I see it just the opposite. Oh, certainly Hillary has some liberal ideas (like health care) and Kerry has some centrist positions…but in general I see Hillary as an oppurtunist (like her husband) who will run to the center…while Kerry was a liberal trying to play a centrist on TV.
As to the OP…well, I’ve said it before and been blasted by the board on it, but I think the smart thing for the Dems to do is to go the Clinton route and run to the center. Take the center from the Republicans, marginalize their left wing loonies like the Pubs did their right wing loonies, give lip service to the more ‘moderate’ left wingers (again, like the Pubs do the right winger ‘moderates’) and run, don’t walk, don’t pass go, don’t collect $200, for the center. I’m sure this is all part of my master plan though to wreck the Dems from their sterling record for the past few decades though…
-XT
I don’ t think its whistling past the graveyard, I think its the pangs of conscience, that shred not yet suffocated by the demands of mean-spirited partisanship.
Yep. they won. To do it, they had to pull out every dirty trick in the book: slandering the patriotism of a good and honest man, demonizing a harmless minority as a Threat to the Sanctity of Marriage (whatever the Hell that means), drumming up fear in order to appear the cure for fear…what else?
The honest conservatives and Republicans cannot help but be disgusted. Maybe they can talk themselves into thinking it was justifiable, to prevent the country falling into the clutches of the Evil Kerry…but that’s a lot of work, and it wears away in the cold light of dawn. There was nothing evil in Kerry.
Look at the SwiftVet fiasco. McCain, the conscience of the honorable right, got it spot on: the President should have condemned such a low and tawdry assault. Instead, he came out with a mealy-mouthed declaration about how all those “527”'s should go. He looked at principle in one hand and advantage in the other, and it was no contest.
So, gloat away, guys. But remember what The Boss says: its not worth shit to gain the whole world if you lose your soul doing it.
There was a generational lag between the act of the abandonment of segregation and the loss of the white South, but the two are directly linked. The movement of the Democrats to the forefront of civil rights set in motion a Southern realignment which has taken 40 years to fully come to fruition. Lyndon Johnson knew this would occur, but still did the principled thing on the matter.
A similar realignment could be brewing in New England, where liberal Republicans are being marginalized by their party, risking the loss of that entire region to the Democrats.
There will always be a few conservative Democrats who can win statewide in the South, and some liberal Republicans who can win statewide in California or New England, but both are dying breeds on the national scene. This trend is entirely traceable back to the Civil Rights movement for the Democrats and the capture of the GOP by the religious conservative movement.
Except for her hawkish stance on terrorism, I consider her to be the model of liberalism and political correctness. Her health care plan that she failed to get off the ground in her husband’s administration is in my opinion a good indicator of her liberalism. I think Kerry is more likely to be a fiscal moderate and more moderate on other social issues than Hillary. Until she takes positions in a presidential campaign, it will be hard to compare her directly with Kerry.
Springsteen said that? In which song?
I can see that this thread has degenerated into yet another “who is liberal” pissing contest. Not surprising, I guess.
By what measure? We got about half the vote, just like the other guy. Bush and Kerry split the independent vote right down the center. Kerry won political moderates by about 10%. That’s pretty damn centrist.
His dad didn’t have Karl Rove and was running against one of the three or four best national politicians in the 20th Century. For every person who disliked the war, there was someone who supported it. For every person who thought that terrorism was being used to sew fear amongst the electorate there was someone in whom that fear had been sown. Bush senior faced a far harder challenge in 1992 than his son did in 2004.
'Luce…can you seriously, with a straight face, claim that the Dems (and THEIR loyal 527 minions) pull out all the stops as well on the slander and exaggeration front? That this kind of personal attack didn’t work BOTH ways?? Seriously? Because it sured seemed to me, unbiased independant that I at least claim to be, that the mudslinging was pretty fierce on BOTH sides of the fence, that the character attackes were just as relentless and unfounded (unless you believe all that talking monkey, evil shrub, blah blah blah crap of course :)) on BOTH sides of the isle. I was no fan of the Swift Boat guys…but then again, I figure that Moveon more than compensated with some of their bullshit, not to mention the breathless re-beating of the dead horse that was Bush’s National Guard record as if this were fresh news.
And can you, again with a straight face, claim that these kinds of attacks were unusual in American politics from a historic perspective?? Hell, some of the political attacks, even by our ‘founding fathers’ were enough to make what Bush and Kerry did to each other look like compliments.
The president DID condemn it…and all the other 527 attack dogs as well. I didn’t see Kerry coming out and condemning Moveon or some of the 527’s on HIS side who were pushing all manner of horseshit. Oh, but then you probably BELIEVE that stuff…right? If its on your side it must be true, ehe? From my perspective both sides have nothing to brag about in the mudslinging department…they both shamed themselves and gave as good as they got. There were no baby seals to be found, though you seem to want to protray the 'Crats as one.
-XT
John Kerry specifically condemned the MoveOn ad which challenged Bush’s service record in Vietnam. Bush did not have the character to do that with the Swift Boat Scumbags ad.
Such a man prosecuted Steve Nelson not because of his political beliefs but because the man was an agent of a foreign power.
And he didn’t go after the purchasers of porn, merely those who sold it indiscriminately, turning Pittsburgh neighborhoods like Liberty Avenue into a cesspool.
Rejoicing upon the death of another is an ugly thing, Spectrum, and this isn’t the first time you’ve done so.
I tend to wonder what has happened to the people.
Karl Rove this, Karl Rove that. I take it that you’re attributing Bush’s win solely to him? How absurd. You know what Karl Rove knows how to do? He knows how to persuade, by hook or by crook. That’s all. How did he get so many people to believe? You can call it pandering if you like, but that’s how you win elections. You do it by compromising on stuff. He floats a balloon, sees which way the wind is blowing, and then decides where to go from there. The Democrats make no such compromises and haven’t for years. It’s “Whatever Bush says we go exactly the other way”, not even realizing that the people want something in the middle. If they give the people the middle position they’ll win. It’s that simple.
Also, Bill Clinton=“one of the three or four best national politicians in the 20th Century”? You can say that now, but did you know anything about the man in 1992? He was a dark horse, an unknown. Bush senior faced no challenge except himself. He showed that he was out of touch, and lost as a result. See the pattern? Your party is living that right now.