Why are the Democrats Such Punks?
 

Why? It really boggles my mind. The party has no agenda, no plan, no vision, no leadership. That's why the Republicans are cleaning up shop. Howard Dean may not beat Bush, but if the Democrats don't use him to revive the party it's only a matter of time before the Republicans put the boot the Democrats like the Empire hunting down the Rebels. The party won't survive another twenty years if things continue.

Re: Why are the Democrats Such Punks?
 

Agree. The problem is that the Republicans have moved to the left enough that it's forced the Democrats to abandon all of their middle ground.

You look at the Republicans of today and their ideas -- they don't even vaguely resemble the Republicans of 1995 and the "Contract with America" era. The Dems have no agenda because the Republicans took theirs over. It's going to be an expensive trip for the people though to support both conservative and liberal agendas at the same time.

I've been really frustrated with the Democratic party ever since the whole post-election 2000 fiasco, starting with them trying to blame Nader for "stealing" Gore votes, and it's only gotten worse. I think most of us pretty much knew (and dreaded) that the campaigns for 2004 would turn out the way that they have: an incredibly fractured Democratic party that can't agree on an agenda and thus spends the entire time taking cheap shots at each other and weakening the party instead of strengthening it.

Sigh.

I think that Democrats like to think of themselves as "a party of the people" that embraces more views and is more multifaceted than the slick, "manufactured" Republican party but I think they have to learn to play that game if they want to have any hope of competing.

I actually do think that because of Dean's financial record, he has the best chance of being the candidate that appeals to the other side of the political spectrum. But too many Dems are taking the Republican bait about him being McGovern II or being too "Socialist" to appeal to anybody but far-leftie liberals.

ETA: Oh, and I would hardly say that the Republicans have moved left -- just that the country has moved right.

I agree that the country has moved right. Backlash to the social programs of the Great Society, such as Affirmative Action, and the liberalism which supported such ideas?

OK I understand you don't like Republicans and conservatives, but, damn it, take a course in history.

-Rudey

Or perhaps the definition of what is right-wing has been broadened? The right wing now embraces so many social programs, health care, government excess that it is really starting to not resemble a conservative party.

The ideals that they once heald have been traded in for social programs that appease certain groups to try to win their votes -- exactly what has always kept me away from the Democratic party.

I mean, what true "conservative" would ever embrace these new proposed changes to the immigration system? Or making the Patriot Act permenant?

If you look at America over the last few years, you won't see a huge change in values. You will see a major change in what types of platforms the parties are running on.

True that. Every time GWB opens his mouth I wonder what minority voting base he's going to appeal to today. I'm also really unhappy with so much of the mud-slinging that's gone on between the Dems this early in the campaign - all they're doing is providing soundbites. I also find it insane that nobody from the Republican party is running against Bush - couldn't they find anybody to do a better job?

If all the deomcrat canidates can strongly stand behind each other when there is only one canadiate they will be doing themselves a big favor. Don't need any grudges in the party that can devide votes. I agree with Kath and the canidates should focus on Bush only and not each other.

Well, they focus on eachother because of one fact. At this point, the only people paying attention are the people that will vote Democrat no matter what. Your middle-of-the-road voters won't even shop up til sometime after the conventions. Now is the time for them to show how liberal they are. Later, they will swing back to the right to try and capture the middle.

I wish someone truly conservative would run against Bush.

I'm tired of conservatives being lumped in with religious nuts. This God stuff has to stop.

It'd be great if someone like Alan Keyes could get elected..

My concern about the attacks, though, is that they'll be used as soundbites against us later.

I just wish Bush would go away. Normally I just don't like Republicans, but now I hate him and I don't like Republicans.

republican = religious nut??
 

The Republican party has done it to themselves on this one. Years of being backed by the religious right, not to mention the reliious rhetoric sputed by so many of it's members to appease the more conservative and religious members of their party have really branded this party. I am not a democrat, but segments like the religious right make it impossible for me to be a republican.

Fiscally I think they are (or are supposed to be) far more responsible, but the religious agenda behind a lot of republican policies turns me right off.

what's so off about that questions? Did not alot of Southern Democrats jump to the Republican party in response to liberalism of the 1960's? Isn't Strom Thurmond credited for being one of the first Democrats to lead the party switch?

also Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was coded language appealing to White racists?

UGH...actually Nixon would be the first to implement affirmative action.

-Rudey

It can be argued that LBJ is the one responsible for driving so many Democrats to the Republican party in the 1960s. When the Great Society legislation went through, LBJ commented that he knew that he was probably crippling the Democratic party in the South.

The "liberalism" of the 1960s was not really liberalism, it was social-democracy (watered down socialism.) At times, it was very illiberal, and very heavy-handed.

Not exactly.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affir...timeline1.html

Nixon's AA plan was more indepth than the ones before it, but it certainly wasn't the first, and as the timeline points out, he wasn't even the first to use the phrase "affirmative action."

You're wrong because my desk is brown.

You didn't mention my desk really in your post, just like i didn't say Nixon was "the first to use the phrase "affirmative action" or he came up with the idea. He was the first to implement it.

And actually that timeline isn't even right if it doesn't include In FDR's Executive Order 8802 or Truman's government contract compliance.

-Rudey
--Suki suki now

What really has irked me about the whole Dem campaign thus far has been their message, or rather, lack of one.

Almost as a whole, the whole campaign, regardless of candidate has been along the lines of "We don't like Bush for this, we don't like Bush for that, or, we don't like Bush." That may well be true, but if you don't like his policies, what are yours? I haven't heard any specifics other than the politically suicidal "we'll recind the tax cuts if elected" mantra. Does anyone else want to pay MORE taxes?

I think Dean is finished following his meltdown in Iowa - that is really gaining traction. It'll be Kerry or Clark up against Bush, and I don't think either of them can beat Bush. Kerry is too stoic and wooden (a better coiffed version of Al Gore in my opinion) and Clark flip-flops all the time on issues and beliefs, then gets mad when he is caught flip-flopping.

There is a lack of message, and worse, a lack of charisma. Right or wrong, at least Bush has been very consistent in most of his beliefs - so you know what you'll get, whether you like it or not. The Dems are too chameleon in this campaign.

I agree with you on a few points. I differ on the Dean statement. I felt his post-Iowa rant was unfortunate, but I think he is rebounding well. I also, disagree that Kerry is better coiffed (his hair bothers me ..lol).


I agree, Clark is a Republican in Democrat's clothing and his praise of the Bush's in the past will come back to haunt him if wins the Demo nod (which he won't).

Someone made a good point tonight in the debate. They have to win by standing for core Democratic beliefs and not trying to be like the GOP. Democrats need to focus less on saying the right thing in order to win.

IMHO, that would be Lieberman, who stands very little chance of being nominated. You'll notice that all through the campaign, he has flip-flopped the least (THIS campaign, not 2000) - where other candidates voted for the war, but now oppose it, or voted for the war, but NOT for funding it...he voted for it, and still supports it.

You are dead on about Clark. However, if anyone stands the "outsiders" chance of the nomination, it's him. Kerry seems to have the lead and momentum, followed by Edwards, but, Clark has an ace in the hole - silent, but consistent support from the Clintons.

FWIW, I am a right-of-center Republican, so I will be voting for Bush. However, if I HAD to vote for a Democratic candidate, it'd be Lieberman over Clark. I appreciate honesty and consistency in a candidate, and he's it, aside from Bush. It all boils down to what message resonates best with me. Being a veteran, and raised in a military family, that is my #1 voting point.

I really don't feel Lieberman embraces core Democratic values at all. I think Lieberman would actually do very well with the religious right. I cannot relate to him whatsoever and neither can the majority of other people I know.

re: Lieberman

I am the religious right, and I can't relate to him either :)

He is the only one belonging to the Clinton school actually and I don't see how many of his policies differ from that. There was a good article I think lately on the centrist elements. It's either in: The new republic, wsj, nyt, atlantic, or economist. I can't think.

-Rudey
--But Clinton wouldn't waste even his "possible" endorsement on someone who won't win.

^5. Lieberman is a Republican. He does not represent the majority of Demos I know. I don't understand Demos, who are basically Republicans.

The issue of consistency. When, I spoke of supporting the Democratic platform, I was not necessarily speaking of consistency. I feel that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind on an issue. Throughout your life, you encounter new things. Hopefully, you learn and grow from your experiences. So, I actually, admire a candidate that changes his position on an issue (provided a reasonable explanation is given and it's not mere posturing).

Regarding Clark..after reading Michael Moore's endorsement of him, I view him in a different light. He is an ideal democratic candidate to defeat Bush. However, I cannot support him because I distrust his reasons for joining the Democratic Party. It appears that he has a personal vendetta against the Bush family.

A Message From The Great Viceroy: Do Not Make Personal Attack

Just because you are not on the far left like Howard Dean or MoveOn.org doesn't mean you are a republican. Lieberman is a stand up guy and if I were a democrat that would be the man I was voting for. You have to give any democrat credit that doesn't get wrapped up in the evil of Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, or MoveOn.org. Rather than chastising Mr. Lieberman you should be applauding the man for sticking to his values. Abaici you fail to realize that at a time like this a centris democrat is the only chance you guys have of taking the White House back. No jackass that screams like he is Hulk Hogan has a chance of taking the presidency from George W. Bush. The democratic party has already dug its own grave for the upcoming election because they have gone against mainstream America. If you look at even the recent polls America still supports the action in Iraq, plus the majority of the public states that they feel safer with Saddam out of Iraq. I am sorry, but when will you liberals realize that you are building an agenda that only 30% of the American public agrees with. Get a clue, Saddam was commiting atrocities that rivaled that of Nazi Germany and none of you socialist democrats seem to care. The democratic party will never win another presidency until they stop being so childish and actually begin to adress the real issues.

P.S. My name is Howard Dean, "We will take South Dakota, California, and AWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!."

The Dean scream kinda reminds me of the Dukakis decision to do the photo shoot in that tank.

The 60s wasn't when the Southern Democrats left - it was a process that had been in motion for a few years, it just peaked at that time.

If you're talking true liberals, the last to win the nomination was George McGovern in 1972, and when he moved more towards the center for the election (eliciting the help of Mayor Daley in Chicago as well as other Dem. leaders) was when his support base dropped through the floor.

The country hasn't moved any more right; what the right is has changed. It is just recently that there is a lower percentage of Democrats in the country than Republicans http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33820

The fact is the Republicans have done a great job of redefining who they are, and the Dems just haven't caught up.

I can agree with that. Sounds pretty solid.