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."