[quottrethew]

Very interesting read on democrats. Maybe they'll pull their heads out of their collective ass(es), maybe they won't. We have a couple years to see.


............the Democratic Party "has a disease" that must be rectified –- and soon -– if the party has a chance of gaining back the White House or the Congress.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/174657.shtml

More:

"If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a swipe at the Democrat, who lost the 2000 election to Bush only after the Supreme Court intervened.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/105341.shtml

[AutocadOemM]

Hope they do.

Carville's got the right idea... the question is-- which message are they going to focus on?

I like this "Progressive Patriotism", but it still doesn't seem like it has a core vision; it's just a way of repackaging the litany.

[catarleriarly]

"Without naming names, Carville says there's too much dead wood in his party"

That's a pretty accurate assessment.The Dems need fresh blood, much like the Repubs did when they finally gained control of the House in '94.

As far as winning a presidential election in 2008, I think it's too early to call that one one way or the other. The last two elections have been incredibly close in the Electoral College. A swing of one state in the other direction would have resulted in a Democrat president.

I know I just said it's "too early", but I fully expect Ohio to be a key state in 2008. Right now the Repub party there is having a ton of troubles. If the Dems can use that to their advantage it could be huge in 2008.

Then again, with the current leadership it's a toss up as to whether it can take advantage of the turmoil, or screw it up.

[inhitoemits]

Well, we can only (and I'm an independant mind you) hope that they'll get some sense together and throw in a decent candidate maybe ?

I mean, what were they thinking with Dean and then Kerry ? Is it any wonder we got bush again ?

God almighty, it kind of amazes me. The "disease" theory actually makes SENSE.

[royarnekara]

Well, we can only (and I'm an independant mind you) hope that they'll get some sense together and throw in a decent candidate maybe ?

I mean, what were they thinking with Dean and then Kerry ? Is it any wonder we got bush again ?

God almighty, it kind of amazes me. The "disease" theory actually makes
SENSE.

I think they saw what Dean did as far as fundraising and thought he would be the guy to "energize" the youth vote. Unfortunately, he's shown that the primal scream was not an isolated incident. He's a disaster.

[bettingonosports]

It would seem that democrats would do well to denounce as charlatans some members of their own party. Most obvious one, see below:




After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.

Ted Kennedy has a long history of hypocrisy.

Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefitted from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.

One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/100752.shtml

[XU8i6ysK]

Disease - pheh...more like who they have allowed to lead the party.
Think of some of the top people representing the party:

1) Hillary
2) Al Gore
3) Howard Dean
4) Hollywood crowd
5) Jesse Jackson

...can you get any worse?

[Sanremogirl]

Abramoff guarantees a Democrat Congress come election time.

By the way Thane, you don't have a leg to stand on. Talking about Democrats "Maybe they'll pull their heads out of their collective ass" doesn't really quite reflect current events.

Current events show that after a long had fought battle for Republicans to take control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, they have pissed it all away to be crooks instead of honorable people to uphold the constitution.

So anything you have bad to say about the Democrats is nothing more than a drop of water in the vast sea of Republican corruption. So no one has done more damage to Republicans than Republicans. They have proven to Americans that when you give the government to Republicans you end up with scandals, corruption, and indictments.

Probably the biggest stain on American politics committed by a democrat is on an intern's dress.

[Dyerryjex]

It would seem that democrats would do well to denounce as charlatans some members of their own party. Most obvious one, see below:




After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.

Ted Kennedy has a long history of hypocrisy.

Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefitted from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.

One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/100752.shtml

Question Thane. While I do agree that he would be one of the choices, I have to ask why you think they should dump him, rather than just ignore him



I don't think he is doing any real damage.

[BodoidearoLew]

Disease - pheh...more like who they have allowed to lead the party.
Think of some of the top people representing the party:

1) Hillary
2) Al Gore
3) Howard Dean
4) Hollywood crowd
5) Jesse Jackson

...can you get any worse?

Well, that's just it.

I mean did Micheal Savage have it right when he calls liberalism a mental disorder ?

It certainly LOOKS that way.

The list of five (above) could only be supported by someones whose thinking is pretty disordered.

Disease, disorder.

Guess it doesn't matter

LOL

[EntectCelpelm]

Abramoff guarantees a Democrat Congress come election time.

By the way Thane, you don't have a leg to stand on. Talking about Democrats "Maybe they'll pull their heads out of their collective ass" doesn't really quite reflect current events.

Current events show that after a long had fought battle for Republicans to take control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, they have pissed it all away to be crooks instead of honorable people to uphold the constitution.

So anything you have bad to say about the politicians is nothing more than a drop of water in the vast sea of politician corruption. So no one has done more damage to politicians than politicians. They have proven to Americans that when you give the government to politicians you end up with scandals, corruption, and indictments.

Probably the biggest stain on American politics committed by a democrat politician is on an intern's dress.

Lets fill in the right word there

I've said it before why I think we have no decent politicians. I think it's only going to get worse.

No decent people want to BE a politician.

Anymore than anyone decent wants to be a gang member or a crack addict.

Dummycats are just better at making themselves look FOOLISH is all. They have it fine tuned to an art.

[Trissinas]

Question Thane. While I do agree that he would be one of the choices, I have to ask why you think they should dump him, rather than just ignore him

I don't think he is doing any real damage.

I think he's making democrats, in general, look worse with his extreme hypocrisy.

Not that I'm against that

[celddiskend]

Lets fill in the right word there

I've said it before why I think we have no decent politicians. I think it's only going to get worse.

No decent people want to BE a politician.

Anymore than anyone decent wants to be a gang member or a crack addict.

Dummycats are just better at making themselves look FOOLISH is all. They have it fine tuned to an art.

I just don't understand why their goal seems to have become making themselves look BAD is all

There MUST be some kind of reverse, mass indoctrination kind of thing going on or something

Gad I don't know. Weird as hell though. I find it hard to believe that a large group, as a whole, can be so stupid. There's GOT to be more to it

[Saduyre9de]

Carville is correct in his assessment that people who want to use hatred for the GOP as a main driving force of the Dem party, are pushing the wrong thing.

But that's not the Dems' only problem, nor is it even their most important one.

Both parties seem to have forgotten that the only landslides that have occurred in Presidential elections in most living memory, happened when one candidate pushed CONSERVATIVE values (tax cuts, strong defense, reducing government, fewer entitlements, more personal responsibility, and opposition to socialist dictatorships abroad), and stuck to them enough that voters believed he meant them. And those candidates were up against opponents who clearly stated that they (the opponents) would implement liberal agendas.

And the conservative candidates STOMPED the liberal ones when the votes were counted. Their names were Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon - the only candidates to win by landslide votes in the last few generations.

They stuck to most of their platform planks after the elections, but not all. Nixon expanded government with his wage and price controls, and Reagan caved in to Congress's demands for exploding social spending, to save his military buildups and tax cuts, so bang went his promise to balance the budget even though tax revenues went way up after he cut tax rates.

But they promised CONSERVATIVE things, and delivered on many of them, and people voted for them in droves. Twice each. Their opponents promised tax increases, entitlements, more regulations and restrictions, and had records of waffling and indecisiveness in defense. And voters shied away.

Carville (or Bush and Rove) might want to keep these facts in mind when trying to decide how the Democrat (or Republican) party can attract more votes.

Currently neither party is very close to such conservatism. Bush has expanded government (some necessary due to war, but not all), greatly expanded spending, and introduced a new entitlement. Best news there is that Bush cut taxes several times despite stiff opposition, and has apponted two Supreme Court justices who may eventually find his entitlements and some of his spending, unconstitutional. Democrats, as usual, are in a completely different universe approaching outright socialism. So I frankly expect the Republicans have less far to go to get to a winning formula, than the Dems do. Whether they will actually do it, remains to be seen.

[NADALA]

Carville is correct in his assessment that people who want to use hatred for the GOP as a main driving force of the Dem party, are pushing the wrong thing.

But that's not the Dems' only problem, nor is it even their most important one.

Both parties seem to have forgotten that the only landslides that have occurred in Presidential elections in most living memory, happened when one candidate pushed CONSERVATIVE values (tax cuts, strong defense, reducing government, fewer entitlements, more personal responsibility, and opposition to socialist dictatorships abroad), and stuck to them enough that voters believed he meant them. And those candidates were up against opponents who clearly stated that they (the opponents) would implement liberal agendas.

And the conservative candidates STOMPED the liberal ones when the votes were counted. Their names were Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon - the only candidates to win by landslide votes in the last few generations.

They stuck to most of their platform planks after the elections, but not all. Nixon expanded government with his wage and price controls, and Reagan caved in to Congress's demands for exploding social spending, to save his military buildups and tax cuts, so bang went his promise to balance the budget even though tax revenues went way up after he cut tax rates.

But they promised CONSERVATIVE things, and delivered on many of them, and people voted for them in droves. Twice each. Their opponents promised tax increases, entitlements, more regulations and restrictions, and had records of waffling and indecisiveness in defense. And voters shied away.

Carville (or Bush and Rove) might want to keep these facts in mind when trying to decide how the Democrat (or Republican) party can attract more votes.

Currently neither party is very close to such conservatism. Bush has expanded government (some necessary due to war, but not all), greatly expanded spending, and introduced a new entitlement. Democrats, as usual, are in a completely different universe approaching outright socialism. So I frankly expect the Republicans have less far to go to get to a winning formula, than the Dems do. Whether they will actually do it, remains to be seen.

Thats just it. There's not a lot of difference between them today.

One "party" doesn't even try to hide its socialist veiws, the other party pays lipservice to conservative veiws yet drags us more and more towards socialist policy(ies).

One is just less OBVIOUS about it I guess.

[estelle]

Abramoff guarantees a Democrat Congress come election time.

The fact that you believe that is what will keep Congress in the hands of the Republicans. You and your ilk think that this mere scandal is all it's going to take to shift people from voting one way to another. You can't win based simply on your foes' follies. The Democrats need to present a platform to the American people that will be palatable to the voters and convince them that they are the better party for America. The Democrats aren't doing that. They're pouting like little kids and not putting forth any ideas that people like.

[StethyEntinic]

In Real Estate, it is location, location, location.
In Politics, it is message, message, message.

You have to have something that voters can identify with. When Bush became President for the 2nd time, he didn't win - Kerry LOST.
Bush won by default. People wanted someone to vote for, the polls all said it - the Dems had no one with a message other than "Bush is bad".
They still don't.
Too bad.

[ATTILAGLIC]

The fact that you believe that is what will keep Congress in the hands of the Republicans. You and your ilk think that this mere scandal is all it's going to take to shift people from voting one way to another. You can't win based simply on your foes' follies. The Democrats need to present a platform to the American people that will be palatable to the voters and convince them that they are the better party for America. The Democrats aren't doing that. They're pouting like little kids and not putting forth any ideas that people like.

What will be INTERESTING, is will one come forward with the ability to ASSEMBLE ideas that people like ?

If recent times are any indication, my INTITIAL guess would be no.

We'll see, I guess.

Can the dummycats recharge their party and change back into democrats ?

[eI7iqNot]

In Real Estate, it is location, location, location.
In Politics, it is message, message, message.

You have to have something that voters can identify with. When Bush became President for the 2nd time, he didn't win - Kerry LOST.
Bush won by default. People wanted someone to vote for, the polls all said it - the Dems had no one with a message other than "Bush is bad".
They still don't.
Too bad.

Yes, will one come forward with the ability to ASSEMBLE ideas that people like ?

Besides "bush bad"

[Maphpseurse]

Good example - yesterday was MLK day.
The President gave a short speech about how great Martin King was, how important he was etc. etc.

Hillary traveled to two southern communities - both times she ranted and raved about Bush...going as far as to say "this administration will go down as the worst in history"..people gathered to hear someone they [gulp] admire talk about the civil rights agenda - all they heard was Hillary's agenda.

It's all the top Dem's know.