I’m just trying to understand where you’ve placed them, and also get my head around your silly assertion that the GOP has no extremist fundraising elements.
I’m also trying to understand how the lack of grassroots funding to the GOP that you imply (which I would dispute) and heavy reliance on corporate donors is a good thing for either the GOP or it’s policies. You might think this would make the GOP unresponsive to it’s members and thier policies beholden to big business. Do you really think this is a good thing?
Swift Vets, who spent more this cycle than MoveOn. Cite. Next?
Your selective memory clearly doesn’t include the 1990s.
Evidence that Ted Kennedy is one of the four most important members of the Democratic Party? I never hear Democrats speak of Kennedy, only Republican trolls (like in this thread). Kennedy is not one of the major leaders of the Democrats. Either stop claiming it, or back up your crap with a cite.
And Howard Dean’s elevation to the chairmanship of the DNC is circumspect at best. From fifty miles out, I think it’s going to be Martin Frost in the end.
And what evidence do you have that shows that they wish to nationalize the means of industrial production?
Not even close. Over the course of his career, John Kerry’s voting record places him in the middle of his party. Left of center? Yes. But not way left.
Last year, when Kerry was out campaigning, he missed many procedural and minor votes, only coming in to vote when it was of utmost importance that he vote party lines. That’s the source of this only-idiots-believe-it bullshit about Kerry being "the most liberal Senator in the US. You can believe it if you want to, but that would make you an idiot.
Yeah, right. That’s why I’m always pushing a libertarian agenda-- because of it’s stellar track record of winning elections. I simply stated that THIS THREAD is about winning elections, which in fact it is.
Pearls of wisdom. Increasingly I think these threads are a complete waste of my time. I’m thinking this will be the last thread where I try and rationally express my views on what I think would be a winning strategy for the Dems…obviously my biased views are unwelcome in this forum. After all, I AM just a Republican spy. All you get is heaped abuse about how its some kind of Republican conspiricy to get the Dems to move right or some other such drivel.
I will await the coming of the great Democrat Lefty revolution in the US with hopeful anticipation. I’m sure the American people, disheartened by years (decades) of Republican or Republican Light (a.k.a. Clinton I guess) rule and yearning for economic and social liberalism the likes of which have never been seen in the US are poised to rise up and elect the next Kucinich you run while a benificient (and hopefully shaved) Michael Moore smiles on gently.
singing ‘Happy days are here again and the skys the skys are clear again…’
Have at it me hearties…yo ho hum and a bottle of rum. We can all dance on the chest of the dead man.
Probably as good an example as we can get. Although I would say the NRA is as much a “large fringe conservative group” as the ACLU or the Teamster’s Union is a “large fringe liberal group”.
Nobody thinks people who agree with them are “fringe”. And almost by definition any large group is American politics is not going to be fringe.
Red: Republican foreign policy is driven by the neocons – in essense, they’ve become the face of the Party.
Mace: What?! Who?! When?!
Red: Provides basic background on PNAC, overview of their agenda and the obvious adoption of same by the WH.
Mace: The PNAC is “just” another thinktank. Why the neocons could fade into the background tomorrow and no one would notice.
See, I actually know all about them and I was simply busting your balls.
Conspiracy! (1)
Red: Any other thinktank have as many members in key positions in this Administration? And who said anything about a “conspiracy”?
Provides link to PNAC website where their agenda is in plain view for all to see.
Mace (shifting unconfortably): Er…is Condi a neocon? Hmm…why didn’t Bush align himself with them to begin with?
Conspiracy I say! (2)
Red: Provides link to lenghty PBS documentary that tells the whole story of the inner struggles in between the two prevalent (at that time) ideologies, and how the neocons unltimatedly won that fight. Contains lenghty interviews with many of the very players involved, both on and off the record, as to how this came about.
Mace, gleefully chooses to skip the cite provided. After all, he’s having fun.
Mace: So, is Condi a neocon, huh? I could say the same thing about Kerry or Liberman. You’re saying the neocons managed to sell their world-dominion plans to all of Congress! How silly!
(Chagrined) Yeah, the neocons have “some” play in DC. But to siggest they want to build an empire!
Conspiracy! (3)
Red: May I point out that they are the main architects behind the Iraq invasion, which was clearly outlined as the first steppin-stone in the execution of their plans? Knowing what we know about that war, how’s that for “some play”?
In addition to the above, read the following cites, which show that if anythingh their pwoer has increased after the election. They are now virtually unopposed in the Bush Administration.
Mace: So, what aboiut Condi? What about answering my questions, even though I forgot what they are?
Bah! Go back to your conspiracy world! (4)
Red: Get back to me when you change your zip-code. Fanatsyland and facts don’t mix.
Mace: That’s not the way we do things around here! Blah blah blah…cite!
RedFury: That was funny. You have a great sense of humor. I’m glad you recognized that we were done debating a long time ago and gave yourself that little send off. You really didn’t have to exagerate your dishonest debating style quiite so much, though. Some people might mistakenly think you were serious, and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
Oh, you are quite welcome. Wouldn’t want any of those nasty descenting opinions, yes? Gets in the way of Kumbya after all…oh, and those cute temper tantrum inspired dialogues where you put words in the mouths of other posters. Interesting ‘debate’ style you have there. I always thought better of you in the past…but perhaps I was wrong.
Hope things work out for your party…I’m not holding my breath with attitudes like those expressed on this board.
Well, you know, ol’ Red’s one of them there Yurpeens. So its not really his party, at all, get right down to it. Hell, being Yurpeen, he’s damn near as irrelevent as a Libertarian.
Call them as I see 'em, xtime. Not here to earn popularity points and you not posting simply gfives my scrollwheel a rest. For as much as I don’t doubt you post in earnest, you read one of your posts, you’ve read them all:
US’s ultimately a force of good no matter who’s in charge.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
John,
Glad you’re amused. Personally, I find debating Bush apologists as exciting as watching paint dry. And always the same color paint to boot.
Since I’ve got the time, figured I’d lend a hand here and there if need be. Ya know, for solidarity’s sake…and all those other horrible pinko-commie slogans.
I agree. I’ll cheerfully lecture the GOP on right and wrong (they certainly need the help), but how to win elections is their lookout, not mine. And it inevitably seems that advice to the Dems from Republicans in this vein consists of “be more like us.” That may or may not work at a particular time, but if you’re selling yourself to people, Job 1 is always that of establishing your distinctive qualities in people’s minds. And the Dems need to do that for themselves, rather than giving the GOP so much room to do it for them.
Who the hell is International A.N.S.W.E.R.?
Deciding whether or not this is a problem is kinda like advice on how to win. IMHO, the ‘problem’ was when the Dems were reliant on soft money contributions from the business community. This had the effect of making Dems into GOP-lite business whores. Now the Dems have achieved fundraising parity, at least momentarily, via contributions from lots of small donors. If the money and the votes are coming from groups who believe different things, that’s an identity problem - and that had been the way of it until this cycle. Now the money and the votes are coming from the same people.
Groups like the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the Christian Broadcast Network, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, etc. have a major Web presence, in addition to all their other means of keeping their followers energized. They are not moderate, nor are they the least bit libertarian. They may agree with neocons on some things, but it’s hardly their focus. These groups can’t exactly be thought of as pulling on the GOP from the outside; they’re a good chunk of the GOP’s fundamental identity.
I’m not sure if conservative-v.-moderate is the right measure of Bush’s actions. I’d claim he’s basically about helping his friends - rich people, big business, and the ‘Christian’ right - above all else. His tax cuts are all about this; so are his judicial appointments. His assault on Social Security is a big favor for Wall Street, and cutting benefits leaves more room to sustain tax cuts for the rich. His environmental policy fits right in. No Child Left Behind is, IMHO, aimed at ultimately discrediting the public schools by eventually making every school fail. His hydrogen fuel cell plan is really a bit of stallball; he’s willing to spend a few bucks so his industry friends don’t have to worry about energy efficiency anytime soon. His prescription drug benefit is a Christmas tree of favors to special interests; with luck, seniors on Medicare might get a few bucks too.
We’ll see about that $15 billion for AIDS. So far, we’re looking at $488M in FY04, and $1.45B in FY05. (Ignore the funky rhetoric, and go straight to the table at the end.) Already dealt with most of the rest, and I’ll leave the tsunami bit for the appropriate threads.
Of course not - if government’s too small, he can’t use it as a piggybank for his corporate buddies.
That’s an impressive bit of mind-reading!
Gotta admit, I’ve run out of patience for those who claim on the basis of little evidence that the best way to help X isn’t by helping X directly, but by helping out Y instead, when oddly enough, they’ve always been much chummier with Y than with X.
Whatever Bush ‘believes’, I’ve got a strong belief in what works. I’m all for seeing the pie grow, if everybody’s slice grows with it. Under Bush, the pie may have grown, but Americans’ wages are flat (despite the fact that workers are much more productive than four years ago), and there are fewer jobs today than on 1/20/01. That’s even worse than Reagan - under Ronnie, at least some of the growth trickled down, even if the fat cats grabbed most of the gains.
Gotta agree with that - “compassionate conservatism” is most appropriate in quotes, since it’s all about helping fat cats under the pretense that ordinary Americans will ultimately benefit. They’ll generally get a few crumbs, in order for our Fearless Leader to be able to claim that his programs really are benefitting all Americans, but that’s about it. If you’ve ever read War and Remembrance, think Theresienstadt.
Can we trade? Like I said, I believe in what works. Bushonomics has brought us a $560B deficit (excluding the SocSec trust fund), the national debt is up to $7T and skyrocketing; interest eats up a bigger chunk of our budget every year; our military is being stretched past its limits by a war we have no idea how to extricate ourselves from; and so forth.
I’ll bet it does. He appeals to me, too. I think you’re imagining any resemblance to Bush, though.
I simply stated that THIS THREAD is about winning elections, which in fact it is.