The DNC has lost it's way because of several reasons; 1. They seem to need poverty and despair in order to gain power. They have to play to the lower class typically, so things have to be bad economically in order for that pitch to sale. - Clinton won because the economy was horrible, and we needed his "help". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 2. Some in the party appear to have disdain for people who live in "fly-over" country, and surprise, surprise that disdain has transferred from the people in fly-over country to the Democratic Party. Now the middle of the country are a bunch of white, christian republicans who don't vote Democrat. They hate eachother.. This only helps Republicans. YOU CANNOT BE ANTI-CHRISTIAN and win. - "I hate the Republicans. Their a white, male, hetero, christian party. They never earned an honest days living." - Howard Dean offending President Bush' base in 2004. 3. Bill Clinton; Clinton is/was a brilliant politician who was against gays in the millitary and promoted fiscal responsibility. He knows how to play the middle brilliantly and now Hillary is trying it, but now way in hell she'll win. Although Clinton simply did what the polls said the public wanted and enacted it from a leftist position - that's what the Democrats need, but it would be better to find someone who actually has been consistant in these moderate positions throughout his career. The Democrats need a charasmatic, SERIOUS and HONEST leader to run in 2008. Someone who has consistant solid, moderate positions throughout their carreer. No more, "I'll pretend to be moderate for the election crap." Rove will destroy anyone who tries that. Fortunately for Democrats, I think the country is getting tired of President Bush and his stuborness. I know I am. Typically the country wants change after so many years of one party in power, so I think it's time we get a President who will consider all options and weigh what is right and wrong. Someone who does not give such bad speeches. Someone who actually makes you proud when they speak. Someone who has the compassion of a mother, but the force of a father when it's needed. I wonder who that will be? Who do you think should run in 2008?
The DNC has lost its way because it has abandoned its grassroots base for large-donor fundraisers. Period. The Republicans naturally draw large donations from high-income donors since their policies mesh. In order to keep up with the cashflow, the powers-that-be in the Democcratic Party decided it was easier (and it is) to ask one guy for a million dollars than a million guys for 1 dollar. However, that means that the guy who forks over a milion dollars would really appreciate it if you do things like he would like them done. Makes sense. He gave you a million bucks. So those running the party and raking in the dough are obliged to take weak positions that alienate their own base. And instead, the talented voices who can speak clearly about what the Democratic grassroots stands for, get shut out of the process. The money going to the John Kerrys, Harry Reids, and the Hillary Clintons is telling them to be moderate and inoffensive or they won't get paid. They, at least, have a step above the "true" moderates, in that occasionally they do something that the progressive half of the country, centred in the places that elected them to their seats, appreciates. Basically, John Kerry looks better to the left than Joe Lieberman. Big accomplishment. No, what the Democratic Party needs to do to Win Elections is not to pander to some mysterious middle bloc, it is to convince people that the left has better ways of doing things than the right. Republicans have not won because the country happened to shift in their direction, they've won because they convinced the country to shift in their direction. Now, I'm not meaning this as a "the Republican voters are stupid" article. I'm just saying that there are enough people who heard a good case for something from the Right and didn't hear a good one against it from the Left enough times, that it made sense to them to vote Republican.
- "I hate the Republicans. Their a white, male, hetero, christian party. They never earned an honest days living." - Howard Dean This statement is not anti-Christian, or anti-white at all. Most of your statements are unimaginative and false. The democrats in fact would have won the last two elections if the cons hadn't cheated. Bush appeals to many misogynist and violent bastards who sought vengence rather than a sane policy after 9/11, and he has an effective political operative in Rove who doesn't care what rules he breaks. Hillary Clinton will win in 2008.
The republican party knows what it wants and has a plan laid out. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong or if such things can even begin to apply. To the public's eye, what matters is that they are trying to do something. I figure that the problem with the democratic party is that there just is no democratic party. Instead of one voice and position, they are a cacophony of ill thought out opinions and positions. In the last election, hardly anyone actually voted for Kerry. Nearly every vote Kerry got was simply for 'Not-Bush'. It doesn't say much about the strength of the Democratic party when voters waver from one candidate to another, following whoever they think might stand the best chance at the moment.
Oprah. She'll put the nation on a diet plan, get our kids (and hopefuly our adults) reading again, she's rich enough to lift the nation right out of debt, and she's not the sort to rashly go starting unessisary wars.
More people voted for Kerry than voted for Reagan. In my opinion, Kerry almost won, and if not for some shady republican tactics he would have, but that's another story. Isn't it interesting that the target of a 9/11, New York, voted for Kerry. Democrats are inclusive, that is why they seem to hold a variety of opinions, that's healthy, they are thinkers. Republicans seem to all think alike, they are followers. It doesn't matter if you do something, if it happens to be the wrong thing.
I don't follow Bush mindlessly. I support him because I figure that I can use him to affect to world stage in ways that I simply can not. He is the president that I figure America needs at this moment; a war president. A tool which can be dropped when he has served his purpose. When I feel one is needed, I will vote and otherwise support select democrats without hesitation. I have done so before. Interesting thing is that Kerry was the most Bush-like of all the Democratic nominees. They wanted someone just like Bush... only without the negative connotations they associate with Bush.
No. I think we needed to hit them far harder than we did and keep the pressure on, strangling out the initial Baathist resistence and preventing foreign insurgent fighters from entering the country as anything more than bloody sprays. We should have never tried playing nice.
Hit "Them" who? There was no "Them" before we invaded Iraq. We've done more for alqeda and middle eastern terror than they could have done on their own if we hadn't invaded Iraq. All the studdies and surveys so far are showing that the "Terrorists" Or insurgents or whatever you want to call them that we're fighting in Iraq are not people who were previously involved in this kind of thing prior to our invasion. We're making new enemies to fight so that bush can strut around like some sort of idiot and tell us again and again how proud we should all be of our brave men and women over there in Iraq killing all those brown dudes with guns. If your definition of a "War president" is a guy who will randomly invade countries that he knows jingoistic patriotism and raceism will justify in the minds of the American people, then I would contest that we absolutely do not need your kind of president. You call Bush a tool, and with a slight adjustment of context I'd have to agree - he is a complete tool. The end which he is serving sure as hell isn't making anyone here in the US, or in the UK any safer.
Mystech: I fail to see a problem with a certain amount of jingoism and nationalism in general. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We don't want to fight But, by Jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, We've got the men, We've got the money, too.
That's a great way to run forigne policy. "Well we don't wanna' fight, but we DID spend all this money on these tanks and planes and things. . . uum. . . hey those brown guys in the baretts sort of look like a mix of those brown people that bombed us and the French. . . let's go kill some of them and then make up by putting BBQ grills in their back yards and teachin' 'em the start spangled banner. We'll both get a little bloody but we'll probably become best friends afterward, that'd really rock hardcore."
I translate it more as 'Well, all else being equal, I would rather not fight... but if the need arises, we are ready and won't hesitate for an instant.' I don't give a shit about your skincolor, religion, political philosophy, or brand of toothpaste. FYI: Look at England, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, Mexico... Nearly everyone America has ever locked horns with we now have pretty damn good relations with.
IMO the Dems lost their way because they lacked the backbone to challenge the knee-jerk nationalism and bloodlust that followed 9-11. The worst excesses of the nopconservative-hijacked Republican movement were all couched in affected patriotism, and the Dems missed the chance to call the bluff from the beginning- They thought short -term. At first, the general response to a Democratic rebuff of the War Party wouuld have been "Huh?". But by now, the Democratic Party would be riding high, having never slid into the quagmire with the reckless Busheviks. By the time election season peaks again, both parties will be racing to distance themselves from the W. Bush puppet-show, which will increasingly stink like old fish. I expect the results of that race of distinction will be the deciding factor of 2008.
You know how much of my respect you lose each time you pin some stupid name on Bush and use 'neocon' as a derogatory slur? Have some decency. I at least refrain from using such insults toward those I oppose and I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
It's the handiest way I know to differentiate the neoconservatives from the mainstream Republican party that will be dissassociating themselves from today's fiscally and strategically reckless radicals in the future. I'm certain a similar shorthand will evolve among more Americans however we may each be politically categorized, because it will be increasingly common to assert our differences with W's gang. "Neocon" will, I expect, be a slur, or at least a term of contempt, in customary use by mainstream Republicans in the future. W's not going out with a sugar-coated epitaph like Reagan did.
