Centrist Democrats warn liberals

[wendersfan]

<a href = "http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050403-115203-1997r.htm"><b>Centrist Democrats warn liberals</a></b>

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Democrats' postelection war about what they should stand for is heating up again, with centrists challenging liberals to "real fights" within the party about staking out a tougher position against terrorism.

In an attack on the party's dominant left wing, anti-war base, and a warning for new Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean "to do no harm," the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council said it is "a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections."

Instead, the DLC called on the party to dramatically change its message to "recapture the muscular progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and convince voters that national security is our first priority."

"To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time," said DLC founder Al From and President Bruce Reed in a new manifesto for their party.

Their criticism has been heard many times during the past two decades in their continuing battle against the party's liberal establishment. But this time, they say, it will take a divisive, all-out political civil war to scrub the anti-war orthodoxy out of the party's agenda.

"Shoring up our weakness will not come without real debate -- even real fights -- over national security and domestic priorities," they said in the DLC's Blueprint magazine.

The sooner these fights take place, the better, they said.

"We should not shy away from them. It's far less important that Democrats come together now than on Election Day. And we are far more likely to be together on Election Day if we battle out our differences now."

In an "open letter" to their party last month, 17 DLC members led by Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Democrats had "to make clear to the American people that winning the war on jihadist extremism will be the Democratic Party's first priority this year and every year until the danger recedes."

Although they acknowledged that for many anti-war Democrats "Iraq remains a difficult issue," they said, "It is essential that partisan enmity not obscure America's vital interest in helping the newly elected Iraqi government succeed."

But party liberals last week dismissed the DLC's advice as warmed-over Republicanism.

"I can't tell the difference between the positions the DLC puts forward and Republican policy," said Jack Blum, counsel for the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

"I've read this before and I am not carried away by it. Nobody in the Democratic Party, and that most especially includes the liberals in the Americans for Democratic Action, opposes fighting the terrorists."

[X]

Sounds just like what some of us have been saying here. Except some of us don't think they can do it by the next election.

[wendersfan]

I just love how liberal Democrats equate being realistic about terrorism and the Middle East with "Republicanism". Funny, the American people seem to feel the same way.

[dtcarson]

"But this time, they say, it will take a divisive, all-out political civil war to scrub the anti-war orthodoxy out of the party's agenda."

I thought Democrats were uniters, not dividers?

"I can't tell the difference between the positions the DLC puts forward and Republican policy"

Finally, some positive news from the left!

[Pharoh]

Sounds just like what some of us have been saying here. Except some of us don't think they can do it by the next election.


Particularly when one delves into the election numbers recently released. The picture is not a rosy one for Democrats.

[Pharoh]

Has anybody seen some of the recent statements made by the Party chair?

They really do believe that they just need "to get out more of their vote.," that the country really does think as they do.

[X]

“When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.”

[mikehunt]

Has anybody seen some of the recent statements made by the Party chair?

They really do believe that they just need "to get out more of their vote.," that the country really does think as they do.

is that their code phrase for "make sure the bus of ineligible voters stops at a few more polling places next election"?

[wendersfan]

is that their code phrase for "make sure the bus of ineligible voters stops at a few more polling places next election"?No, but how nice of you to think the only way the Democrats can win an election is through fraud. :rolleyes:

[classicman2]

It makes little difference if the Democrats get out the vote.

It's whether the Republicans get out the vote that counts - since the Republicans are the majority party. If the Repubs get out their vote in large number (which I certainly would expect with Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket) it's all over.

[kvrdave]

I have thought it odd that with the way the election played out, Howard Dean was chosen to lead the Democrats. It's like looking at the losing strategy and deciding you just need to double it.

[classicman2]

On the national level, unfortunately, unless voter demographics change it's the Republicans' election(s) to lose.

Basically the only way they do that is to select a candidate who alienates a signficant portion of their base - like the so-called Christian Right for example.

[DVD Polizei]

If the Dems can bring something exciting to the voters, they may do well in 2008. It was mostly moderates who put Bush in office. And they can sway liberal in 2008 if given a more concrete leader and logical stances on issues. Anything but a "Kerry Candidate", and they will probably win in 2008.

The Terri Shiavo case already began the alienation within the Republican party. If more stupid little incidents like this continue, the Dems will basically have their Presidency handed to them on a platter.

[sfsdfd]

Sounds just like what some of us have been saying here. Except some of us don't think they can do it by the next election.
<i>All</i> of us think they can't do it by the next election. Additionally, many of us think this will only further destroy the left wing of America.

The Republicans are going to be on easy street for the next four years, at least, because they have no real opponent. This is an ominous development - regardless of which side you're on.

- David Stein

[Pharoh]

If the Dems can bring something exciting to the voters, they may do well in 2008. It was mostly moderates who put Bush in office. And they can sway liberal in 2008 if given a more concrete leader and logical stances on issues. Anything but a "Kerry Candidate", and they will probably win in 2008.

The Terri Shiavo case already began the alienation within the Republican party. If more stupid little incidents like this continue, the Dems will basically have their Presidency handed to them on a platter.



Just the opposite is happening. Look, for example, at the trend in the Hispanic vote, even in "Kerry" districts. Look at how many Democratic Congressional districts were won by President Bush, and then look at how many GOP Congressional districts were won by Kerry.

More to your point, look at how the Democratic party, even in the last two weeks, has been attempting to appeal to "religious" voters, an effort that has been failing. They are not running away, they are trying to run towards, though without success. Their Saturday radio addresss is another example of this. A coherent message and strategy is not possessed by the Democratic party at this moment.

[Pharoh]

<i>All</i> of us think they can't do it by the next election. Additionally, many of us think this will only further destroy the left wing of America.

The Republicans are going to be on easy street for the next four years, at least, because they have no real opponent. This is an ominous development - regardless of which side you're on.

- David Stein


I will disagree on both counts. There are opportunities, if the Dems are willing to embrace them.

[DVD Polizei]

3 years and 7 months is a long ways away to say Dems can't win the Presidency. I remember when Dems said Bush would NEVER get a second term, because of Iraq and other issues. Then Dean and Kerry came along. And the Reps cheered, drank wine, and were very merry.

So, I guess I'm in the minority and saying I won't say the Dems can't do it by 2008.

[Pharoh]

3 years and 7 months is a long ways away to say Dems can't win the Presidency. I remember when Dems said Bush would NEVER get a second term, because of Iraq and other issues. Then Dean and Kerry came along. And the Reps cheered, drank wine, and were very merry.

So, I guess I'm in the minority and saying I won't say the Dems can't do it by 2008.



I agree. However, the trends are seriously working against the Democratic party at the moment.


And for the record, some of us were always certain of a second Bush term.
;)

[sfsdfd]

I will disagree on both counts. There are opportunities, if the Dems are willing to embrace them.
:shrug: I guess I can see the Republican agenda going so far right that moderates flee to the DNC as a lesser of two evils.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I feel myself growing increasingly cynical about the current trends in politics. It just seems - backwards.

- David Stein

[DVD Polizei]

Just the opposite is happening. Look, for example, at the trend in the Hispanic vote, even in "Kerry" districts. Look at how many Democratic Congressional districts were won by President Bush, and then look at how many GOP Congressional districts were won by Kerry.

More to your point, look at how the Democratic party, even in the last two weeks, has been attempting to appeal to "religious" voters, an effort that has been failing. They are not running away, they are trying to run towards, though without success. Their Saturday radio addresss is another example of this. A coherent message and strategy is not possessed by the Democratic party at this moment.

But these Dem Congressional districts were only won, in my opinion, because Kerry was bashing Bush and Iraq--which was a major no-no after America was personally injured. I think religion took second place, maybe even third, as to why Bush remained in office.

But even if we set aside our reasons for the 2004 election win, I can't see the Reps performing perfectly for next 3 and a half years. Of course, I can't see Dems performing stellar either, so it's going to be interesting for sure.

We could be seeing a possible historic shift in voting and party alignment. This is my own experience, but my friends who were pro-Bush, are no longer pro-Bush, and it has to do with religious interference. Now, if the Dems can push religion, but maintain the separation that the Reps have been unable to do, the Dems could likely get many Rep moderates. Hard to explain at the moment, and maybe I'll elaborate on it later on.

[classicman2]

Moderates didn't elect George W. Bush. The Republican base and the 7% undecided (a large portion of which Bush received) won the election for Bush.

Democrats better wake up and develop some strategy that will find favor with the ever growing numbers of Hispanic voters. I don't see much hope if the Democrats can't find a way to get 60% of that vote and assure a large turn-out of those Hispanic voters, because everything else seems to be trending toward the GOP.

[classicman2]

The best chances for Democrats to gain the 15 seats they need to take control of the House in 2006 are in these districts held by “Kerry Republicans.” The problem is that there are so few of them. John Kerry carried just 18 GOP House members’ districts, while Mr. Bush carried 41 Democratic ones.

Only five Republican House members currently sit in districts where Mr. Bush won less than 47% of the presidential vote last year: two in Connecticut, two in Iowa and one in Delaware. But 31 House Democrats represent districts where John Kerry won less than 47%. That means Republicans have many more opportunities to pick up seats in favorable political terrain as Democratic members leave the House. No one expects Democrats to hold the seat of Ike Skelton of Missouri when he leaves office; President Bush won 64% of his district’s votes. Ditto for the district of Gene Taylor of Mississippi, where Mr. Bush won 68%.

How many Senate Republicans are up for re-election in 2006? How many Senate Democrats are up for re-election in 2006?

[Pharoh]

But these Dem Congressional districts were only won, in my opinion, because Kerry was bashing Bush and Iraq--which was a major no-no after America was personally injured. I think religion took second place, maybe even third, as to why Bush remained in office.

But even if we set aside our reasons for the 2004 election win, I can't see the Reps performing perfectly for next 3 and a half years. Of course, I can't see Dems performing stellar either, so it's going to be interesting for sure.

We could be seeing a possible historic shift in voting and party alignment. This is my own experience, but my friends who were pro-Bush, are no longer pro-Bush, and it has to do with religious interference. Now, if the Dems can push religion, but maintain the separation that the Reps have been unable to do, the Dems could likely get many Rep moderates. Hard to explain at the moment, and maybe I'll elaborate on it later on.




Hell, I don't even think religion was in the top five reasons, probably not in the top ten for those whose vote decided the election. That is my point: religion is not going to sway large groups of voters away from the Republicans and to the Dems. Religion will continue to not be an issue, and for those for whom it is, it will be Republican levers they are pulling on election night. This group includes hispanic voters, voters who are moving more and more into the Republican side of the aisle.

I will also say once again, Kerry was not a terrible candidate, nor did he run a bad campaign. Believing this will only lead to more failure for the Democratic party.

[Pharoh]

The best chances for Democrats to gain the 15 seats they need to take control of the House in 2006 are in these districts held by “Kerry Republicans.” The problem is that there are so few of them. John Kerry carried just 18 GOP House members’ districts, while Mr. Bush carried 41 Democratic ones.

Only five Republican House members currently sit in districts where Mr. Bush won less than 47% of the presidential vote last year: two in Connecticut, two in Iowa and one in Delaware. But 31 House Democrats represent districts where John Kerry won less than 47%. That means Republicans have many more opportunities to pick up seats in favorable political terrain as Democratic members leave the House. No one expects Democrats to hold the seat of Ike Skelton of Missouri when he leaves office; President Bush won 64% of his district’s votes. Ditto for the district of Gene Taylor of Mississippi, where Mr. Bush won 68%.

How many Senate Republicans are up for re-election in 2006? How many Senate Democrats are up for re-election in 2006?


:hscratch:

I am pretty certain that I commented rather extensively on the mid-terms already in another thread, the Senate in particular?

At any rate, I actually think the Dems are in fairly good shape. My early prediction is only one, maybe two at most, more losses.

BTW, there will be 17 Dem seats up vs. 15 GOP seats up, plus 1 Dem aligned independent seat. The margin is 5 Dems vs. 3 GOP in cross vote states. If the GOP can hold both Tenn and Pa., they will be in very good shape.

[kvrdave]

:shrug: I guess I can see the Republican agenda going so far right that moderates flee to the DNC as a lesser of two evils.


I think this is the one way the Dems have a chance. But I don't see anything going on that would go so far right as to have that outcome. Some may want to bring out the Shiavo deal, but they will always have to deal with the likes of Jessie Jackson and Ralph Nader being on the same side as Bush on that one. It would have to be a real extreme position to actually do some good for the Dems.

[classicman2]

At any rate, I actually think the Dems are in fairly good shape. My early prediction is only one, maybe two at most, more losses.

That's good news for the Democrats? :hscratch:

Good news is a pick-up of 2-3 Senate seats and 7-8 house seats.

When the minority party loses any seats - that's bad news.

[Pharoh]

That's good news for the Democrats? :hscratch:

Good news is a pick-up of 2-3 Senate seats and 7-8 house seats.

When the minority party loses any seats - that's bad news.


Yeah, but remember I am a rank partisan. So the Dems have a chance to pick up a seat, or at least hold serve.
;)


Seriously, I think the best they could do is pick up one seat in the Senate. However, I don't think it probable that they lose more than one either, if any. The House is moving even further away from them.

[classicman2]

Remember - the Democrats would have picked-up seats (2-3?) in the House if redistricting had not have occurred in Texas in 2004.

Seriously, I think the best they could do is pick up one seat in the Senate. However, I don't think it probable that they lose more than one either, if any. The House is moving even further away from them.

There is little doubt that things are trending toward the Republicans.

[VinVega]

I think if the Dems can get a strong Populist candidate, they might have a chance. It's just hard to imagine that so many poorer people continue to vote away from their economic interests. Even if you get your ass handed to you, the Dems have to keep fighting in the South and the Bible Belt. The Repubs always take the fight to the Dems. They've made inroads into places like Hawaii and New Jersey. Why? One reason is that the Dems don't even challenge them in their base areas, while the Repubs challenge the Dems in ALL of their base areas.

[classicman2]

The candidate is important. However, IMO, it's probably not enough. You have to change some of the public's perception of the Democratic Party.

That will be tough chore since you have to still appeal to the base of the party and the many interest groups (rather liberal in their beliefs).

[nemein]

Not sure this is completely related, but it seems to be the best place for it... There is a hearing the AG and director of the FBI going on right now about the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I haven't been listening to it long but so far it seems the theme of the day for the Dems is to try and turn gun control into fighting terrorism issue. I wonder how that'll play out...

[Geofferson]

I think if the Dems can get a strong Populist candidate, they might have a chance.
I agree and that populist candidate will have to be a centrist candidate. It's mind-boggling to me when I hear disgruntled Dems wanting a more progressive (is that the word these days?) candidate for the 2008 election when that person won't have snowball's chance in hell of winning. First and foremost, the candidate will have to be from the South -- the place, where it seems, they have all but given up on because after all, they labeled it "Jesusland".

[Goldblum]

Thanks for the article. It was an interesting read. This is what many of us have been saying has to happen for the Democrats to survive. Liberal Democrats simply do not share the same views as the majority of American voters. Even worse, they [the liberals] are unwilling to budge from their extreme positions.

[adamblast]

"...Instead, the DLC called on the party to dramatically change its message to "recapture the muscular progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and convince voters that national security is our first priority."I don't know if I'm ready to be a muscular progressive internationalist, but I'm certainly ready to date one.

[VinVega]

Perhaps the Democratic leadership should take a page from the Republicans and learn the fine art of pandering to the base while still appealing to Joe Six Pack out there. ;)

[Red Dog]

This is just what we need - the Dems moving closer to the center. Wow - what a real choice we will have come 2008. :lol:

[VinVega]

This is just what we need - the Dems moving closer to the center. Wow - what a real choice we will have come 2008. :lol:
How much choice is there in a 2 party system? I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.

Well if you ran for office, I might just vote for you Red Dog. There's some choice. :D

[Red Dog]

How much choice is there in a 2 party system? I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.



I don't think there has been much difference btwn the 2 main candidates (in presidential elections) since at least 1988.

[wendersfan]

If you are a single issue voter and pay attention primarily to rhetoric and not actions, then there is normally a HUGE difference between the two major party candidates.

[classicman2]

Not sure this is completely related, but it seems to be the best place for it... There is a hearing the AG and director of the FBI going on right now about the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I haven't been listening to it long but so far it seems the theme of the day for the Dems is to try and turn gun control into fighting terrorism issue. I wonder how that'll play out...

You're correct - it's totally unrelated. :)

[classicman2]

This is just what we need - the Dems moving closer to the center. Wow - what a real choice we will have come 2008. :lol:


If you had a real choice - you still wouldn't vote for either one, would you?

[Red Dog]

If you are a single issue voter and pay attention primarily to rhetoric and not actions, then there is normally a HUGE difference between the two major party candidates.


:lol: Well, yeah.

Of course the biggest issue in the last election (at least to me) was the War in Iraq. What did we get - 2 candidates who wanted the war. Oh well. ;)

[Red Dog]

If you had a real choice - you still wouldn't vote for either one, would you?


It depends. I have for lesser offices.

[classicman2]

The 2 biggest differences between presidential candidates in my lifetime:

1. Johnson & Goldwater

2. Nixon & McGovern

[wendersfan]

:lol: Well, yeah.

Of course the biggest issue in the last election (at least to me) was the War in Iraq. What did we get - 2 candidates who wanted the war. Oh well. ;)Not only that, but we had a situation where lots of people wouldn't vote for Kerry because he was for the war, and lots of people who wouldn't vote for him because he wasn't. My conclusion about the last election was that Kerry lost because, regardless of how you felt about the war, Kerry gave you sufficient reason to think he was on the other side.

[Red Dog]

The 2 biggest differences between presidential candidates in my lifetime:

1. Johnson & Goldwater




See - now you give me that kind of choice today and I would certainly vote for one of them. I'll let you guess which one. ;)

[wendersfan]

See - now you give me that kind of choice today and I would certainly vote for one of them. I'll let you guess which one. ;)I'd like to see someone like AuH₂0 try to get the GOP nomination today. Not gonna happen.

[Red Dog]

I'd like to see someone like AuH₂0 try to get the GOP nomination today. Not gonna happen.


Which is exactly why I posted what I posted; only gets worse with a Dem right turn.

[classicman2]

Speaking of centrist Democrats - It seems as if Governor Bill Richardson (NM) is getting a little head start on 2008. I see where he's going to New Hampshire.

Well the Democrats could do a hell of a lot worse.

[sfsdfd]

I don't think there has been much difference btwn the 2 main candidates (in presidential elections) since at least 1988.
I have to agree with you.

The landscape of politics is vast - communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, theocracy. Yet throughout all of these vast acres of governmental organization, we have two political parties struggling to stand on the same postage-stamp spot in the landscape. It's pathetic.

- David Stein

[classicman2]

Major areas of disagreement between the 2 parties:

1. The role of government

2. No others need to be mentioned since 1 covers it all. ;)

[chowderhead]

Major areas of disagreement between the 2 parties:

1. The role of government

2. No others need to be mentioned since 1 covers it all. ;)

I will have to disagree a bit. Both parties want to spend YOUR money. They are just arguing over the details.

[wendersfan]

I have to agree with you.

The landscape of politics is vast - communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, theocracy. Yet throughout all of these vast acres of governmental organization, we have two political parties struggling to stand on the same postage-stamp spot in the landscape. It's pathetic.Allow me to channel some of our more partisan members and state that perhaps that postage-stamp size spot is appropriate in size because we know who and what we are as a nation much better than a lot of other countries.

[classicman2]

I will have to disagree a bit. Both parties want to spend YOUR money. They are just arguing over the details.

Since you brought up spending money, I will agree both parties like to spend it when they're in power. However, there's a considerable difference in what they believe we should money on.

[JasonF]

I have to agree with you.

The landscape of politics is vast - communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, theocracy. Yet throughout all of these vast acres of governmental organization, we have two political parties struggling to stand on the same postage-stamp spot in the landscape. It's pathetic.

- David Stein

It's a natural outgrowth of our winner-take-all system. If you want to see fringe ideologies represented, adopt a proportional representation system. Otherwise, don't be surprised that everyone fights to be right at the 50%+1 mark. Where's the incentive to stray from that?

[Red Dog]

It's a natural outgrowth of our winner-take-all system. If you want to see fringe ideologies represented, adopt a proportional representation system. Otherwise, don't be surprised that everyone fights to be right at the 50%+1 mark. Where's the incentive to stray from that?


True. But it always hasn't been that way. I suppose television has helped homogenize the parties (presidential candidates).

[LiquidSky]

Liberal Democrats simply do not share the same views as the majority of American voters. Even worse, they [the liberals] are unwilling to budge from their extreme positions.

I consider myself to be more of a middle-of-the-road liberal.

Wouldn't you be able to say the same thing about extreme conservatives and their unwillingness to budge from their positions? Not that this is a problem for the Republican party at this time.

[gcbrowni]

Otherwise, don't be surprised that everyone fights to be right at the 50%+1 mark.

And THAT is a very good thing indeed.

[dick_grayson]

And THAT is a very good thing indeed.


for who?

[Pharoh]

Allow me to channel some of our more partisan members and state that perhaps that postage-stamp size spot is appropriate in size because we know who and what we are as a nation much better than a lot of other countries.


I wonder who could you ever be refering to?








BTW :up:

[Pharoh]

I consider myself to be more of a middle-of-the-road liberal.

Wouldn't you be able to say the same thing about extreme conservatives and their unwillingness to budge from their positions? Not that this is a problem for the Republican party at this time.



Yes, one absolutely could say the same thing. However, and this addresses a couple of other posts as well, the problem for the Democratic party is, if things become more polarized, more partisan, the Republicans gain a clear advantage. It is simple demographics, and the trends of the last three Presidential elections and last few Congressional elections illustrate this.

[VinVega]

Yes, one absolutely could say the same thing. However, and this addresses a couple of other posts as well, the problem for the Democratic party is, if things become more polarized, more partisan, the Republicans gain a clear advantage. It is simple demographics, and the trends of the last three Presidential elections and last few Congressional elections illustrate this.
That's right. The best the Dems can hope for is that all the average Republicans are bored and don't turn out in 2006 or 2008. One way to assure their turnout however is to run someone like Hillary Clinton in 2008. ;)

That being said, even a Populist would have a tough time against the Republican attack machine. They're dirty and they do their job well. Heck, they probably could have had people hating the Pope right after his death if they turned the machine on him. :)

[sfsdfd]

That being said, even a Populist would have a tough time against the Republican attack machine. They're dirty and they do their job well. Heck, they probably could have had people hating the Pope right after his death if they turned the machine on him. :)
Yeah, it was pretty stunning to see them go after the AARP over social security reform. "Attacking the AARP" has about the same tactical merit in politics as "land war in Asia" has in military history. And they don't seem to have suffered for it.

The RNC currently has the same weird Teflon coating as the Schindlers: they can make up the most spiteful, odious complaints about their opponents, and they don't seem to suffer any damage in being proven scandalously wrong. I don't get it.

- David Stein

[dick_grayson]

The RNC currently has the same weird Teflon coating as the Schindlers: they can make up the most spiteful, odious complaints about their opponents, and they don't seem to suffer any damage in being proven scandalously wrong. I don't get it.

- David Stein


well, hopefully karma or some sort of due consequence will eventually kick in.

[X]

The RNC currently has the same weird Teflon coating as the Schindlers: they can make up the most spiteful, odious complaints about their opponents, and they don't seem to suffer any damage in being proven scandalously wrong. I don't get it.Sometimes when an action and its effect on public opinion doesn't make sense you have to consider that your opinion of the action might be different than most other people's.

[Red Dog]

Sometimes when an action and its effect on public opinion doesn't make sense you have to consider that your opinion of the action might be different than most other people's.


Well we'll see if that is true with their intrusion into the Schiavo case. The polls certainly indicate the public was against it. My guess is that it won't make much of a scratch in that teflon coating.

[X]

Well we'll see if that is true with their intrusion into the Schiavo case. The polls certainly indicate the public was against it. My guess is that it won't make much of a scratch in that teflon coating.It could be that people don't like the way it was done but agreed with the sentiment.

[sfsdfd]

Sometimes when an action and its effect on public opinion doesn't make sense you have to consider that your opinion of the action might be different than most other people's.
But I'm not talking (writing) about reasonable differences of opinion, but rather the innuendo campaign. Stuff like "Michael Schiavo tried to kill Terri" and "Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's breakdown" and "Michael Schiavo wants Terri dead so he can take all of the money." This isn't a difference perspective; it's slander.

And my "attacking AARP" reference was about the Cato Institute's attempt to discredit them by characterizing them as "anti-Iraq-troops and pro-gay-marriage."

I can't see how anyone can fairly "agree with the sentiment" of such tactics. Is it just floundering for an anchor for one's hatred of the opposition? Surely that's what the Schindler supporters appeared to be doing.

- David Stein

[mikehunt]

I'd like to see someone like AuH₂0 try to get the GOP nomination today. Not gonna happen.

5/5 on the use of chemical symbols

[X]

But I'm not talking (writing) about reasonable differences of opinion, but rather the innuendo campaign. Stuff like "Michael Schiavo tried to kill Terri" and "Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's breakdown" and "Michael Schiavo wants Terri dead so he can take all of the money." This isn't a difference perspective; it's slander.What if a large number of people believe differently than you and think there may be something to the notion that he may have had something to do with her original heart attack and has made less than genuine efforts to rehabilitate her?

These notions were not anything that just occurred over the last couple of months.

[sfsdfd]

What if a large number of people believe differently than you and think there may be something to the notion that he may have had something to do with her original heart attack and has made less than genuine efforts to rehabilitate her?
But how could they possibly reach that conclusion? - especially when none of the many physicians actually involved in her case ever raised this as a possibility? Did they personally examine her or something?

It's apparent that these people have just heard some scandalous innuendo on Hannity & Colmes and latched onto it. If the public is this easily misled by whispers and rumors about a political decision - well, it would explain a lot.

- David Stein

[JasonF]

What if a large number of people believe differently than you and think there may be something to the notion that he may have had something to do with her original heart attack and has made less than genuine efforts to rehabilitate her?

These notions were not anything that just occurred over the last couple of months.

If a large number of people believe that the moon is made of green cheese, the moon will still be made of rock.

There are certainly grounds for policy differences on every issue of public importance, from abortion to gay marriage to social security to the war in Iraq. But facts are facts, and there shouldn't be any grounds for disagreement on factual matters. Yet over the past 5 years or so, we've seen some on the right mislead, misdirect, or outright lie with no consequences from the American public. One might well ask "where's the outrage?" if that phrase hadn't become trite.

Note that this isn't meant to imply that the right has a monopoly on misleading tactics; merely that they've become much more brazen over the past half decade.

[X]

If a large number of people believe that the moon is made of green cheese, the moon will still be made of rock.If large numbers of people believe the moon is made of cheese, whether or not you agree with them, it would be wise to understand that they might look favorably upon politicians who say they will provide the wine and crackers.

[classicman2]

I'm not a great fan of the AARP (I used to belong). I thought it was shameful the way that the organization supported Bush's prescription drug 'plan.' It was clear, at least to me, that the reason for their support was strictly monetary. It benefitted their 'side businesses.'

I absolutely support their fight against Bush's Social Security reform scheme. They've produced a great commercial about it also.

[JasonF]

If large numbers of people believe the moon is made of cheese, whether or not you agree with them, it would be wise to understand that they might look favorably upon politicians who say they will provide the wine and crackers.

Once upon a time, a famous Republican said "I'd rather be right than President." Whatever happened to that attitude?

[X]

Once upon a time, a famous Republican said "I'd rather be right than President." Whatever happened to that attitude?He lost.

[classicman2]

Once upon a time, a famous Republican said "I'd rather be right than President." Whatever happened to that attitude?

To make a silly statement such as he made, he probably did believe the moon was made out of green cheese. ;)

[GreenMonkey]

If large numbers of people believe the moon is made of cheese, whether or not you agree with them, it would be wise to understand that they might look favorably upon politicians who say they will provide the wine and crackers.


That was very funny, X!! :D

[Dimension X]

Well we'll see if that is true with their intrusion into the Schiavo case. The polls certainly indicate the public was against it. My guess is that it won't make much of a scratch in that teflon coating.
Polls. :rolleyes: Nowadays you can find a poll that'll show public support or opposition for just about anything.
Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo

Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."

More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."

The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.

"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.

Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.

Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.

"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.

The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.

When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131

[CRM114]

This is just what we need - the Dems moving closer to the center. Wow - what a real choice we will have come 2008. :lol:

Ain't that the truth.

And the smug righties here wonder how on earth some Democrats would like their party to remain firm in the left.

[CRM114]

But how could they possibly reach that conclusion? - especially when none of the many physicians actually involved in her case ever raised this as a possibility? Did they personally examine her or something?

It's apparent that these people have just heard some scandalous innuendo on Hannity & Colmes and latched onto it. If the public is this easily misled by whispers and rumors about a political decision - well, it would explain a lot.

- David Stein

I think you hit the nail on the head. I believe this Shiavo stuff was spontaneously generated through the web of Right-wing talk radio and television. Those vigils with Sean Hannity were surreal to me. :shrug:

[DVD Polizei]

Whispers, rumors, and innuendo, are essential to forging the next Presidency.

[wendersfan]

Once upon a time, a famous Republican said "I'd rather be right than President." Whatever happened to that attitude?Along the way somewhere Republicans decided being President was a lot more fun, I guess.

[kvrdave]

Ain't that the truth.

And the smug righties here wonder how on earth some Democrats would like their party to remain firm in the left.


No we don't, we just wonder how on earth they expect to win with that tactic. :lol:

-wink-

[classicman2]

Ain't that the truth.

And the smug righties here wonder how on earth some Democrats would like their party to remain firm in the left.

Yeah, that's smart. Let the party remain where it is. You can feel comfort in your political philosophy. Of course you won't be in power, but you've got your undying 'liberalism' to cling to.

[Pharoh]

Along the way somewhere Republicans decided being President was a lot more fun, I guess.



Actually, I prefer option 'C.' Being right and being in power.

[Pharoh]

But I'm not talking (writing) about reasonable differences of opinion, but rather the innuendo campaign. Stuff like "Michael Schiavo tried to kill Terri" and "Michael Schiavo is responsible for Terri's breakdown" and "Michael Schiavo wants Terri dead so he can take all of the money." This isn't a difference perspective; it's slander.

And my "attacking AARP" reference was about the Cato Institute's attempt to discredit them by characterizing them as "anti-Iraq-troops and pro-gay-marriage."

I can't see how anyone can fairly "agree with the sentiment" of such tactics. Is it just floundering for an anchor for one's hatred of the opposition? Surely that's what the Schindler supporters appeared to be doing.

- David Stein


In the for what it's worth department, the die-hard supporters of the Schindlers who espoused such sentiments were not representative of average mainstream Republicans or conservatives. I don't recall anyone from the White House making such claims, for example.

Also, the Cato institute is not a Republican or true conservative organisation, but rather a libertarian one.

I believe your depiction misses the mark.

[Pharoh]

Polls. :rolleyes: Nowadays you can find a poll that'll show public support or opposition for just about anything.


http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131



There has been much discussion in certain circles over the biased and leading nature of many of the polls concerning this case. A few here even pointed out that, despite the apparent findings of the earlier released polls, that the Schiavo case would be a benefit for the Republicans. I believed that then, and I certainly believe it even more today.

[DarkElf]

Yeah, that's smart. Let the party remain where it is. You can feel comfort in your political philosophy. Of course you won't be in power, but you've got your undying 'liberalism' to cling to.

C-man,

In general, I'm kind of torn between the ideals of sticking to your ideology, and winning. I fully understand your point, but on the other hand, I'd feel kind of dirty if I suddenly supported a new set of principles just to win.

If the Democrats "reinvent" the party to appeal to a wider base, then won't they be accused of and be guilty of the charge of flip-flopping?

Can't you hear the Republicans? "Wait, the Dems were against the war, now they're for it? The flip-flopping Dems will do whatever it takes to win an election. Win or lose, we Republicans remain steadfast to our principles!"

BTW, folks, the Schiavo case will LONG be forgotten when the mid-term elections come around. It's only been a few days, and already, almost all of the talk has shifted (very predictably) to "removing the activist judges who arrogantly ignore the other supposedly equal branches of government and push their own liberal agenda."

[CRM114]

Yeah, that's smart. Let the party remain where it is. You can feel comfort in your political philosophy. Of course you won't be in power, but you've got your undying 'liberalism' to cling to.

No one said it was a winning philosophy - its simply my own. I'm willing to go out with the 3rd party loons (;)) at this point its all so depressing.

Ralph, where are you?

[JasonF]

It's only been a few days, and already, almost all of the talk has shifted (very predictably) to "removing the activist judges who arrogantly ignore the other supposedly equal branches of government and push their own liberal agenda."

This is because the Republicans have become masters of reframing issues, discarding facts that run counter to their positions and emphasizing the ones that support their positions.

[X]

If the Democrats "reinvent" the party to appeal to a wider base, then won't they be accused of and be guilty of the charge of flip-flopping?

Can't you hear the Republicans? "Wait, the Dems were against the war, now they're for it? The flip-flopping Dems will do whatever it takes to win an election. Win or lose, we Republicans remain steadfast to our principles!"Over more than a very short time, being right on the issues greatly negates the negatives of "flip-flopping".

Or you can continue to be stubbornly noticeably wrong. Take your pick.

[classicman2]

DarkElf,

I don't believe you have to re-invent the party.

The Democrats simply need to return to the New Deal Liberalism - the dominant theme of the Democratic Party from the 1930's until 1972 when the party embarked on a new philosophy - epitomized by George McGovern - weak on national defense and a foreign policy that failed to recognize America's place (importance) in the world. A foreign policy that seemed to say that policy that the U. S. engages upon is wrong-headed. The party needs to be influenced by the ideas of Henry 'Scoop' Jackson much more than the ideas of George McGovern. That's not the case now.

With the emergence of the primaries selecting the candidate, small interest groups achieved much more importance in the party than they deserved. Minimizing their influence will be very difficult, but necessary, IMO. Many of these interest groups simply are out of touch with the average general election voter.

The party needs to be tolerant and understand that many many (possibly the majority) doesn't share the party's view on social issues. I'm not saying the party has to adopt a different 'social policy.' The party needs to accept the idea that many don't share the party's view on these issues. In other words - stop calling them neanderthals, religious crazies, religious nuts, etc. - you know the names that are used everyday by folks on this forum who disagree with them. What is the old saying -'you can disagree without being disagreeable.'

The Democratic Party already has the support of the majority of Americans on such issues as Social Security, Medicare, importation of prescription drugs, and even taxes, IMO. Democrats should build on that, stop being almost apologetic for being the party of the less unfortunate in our society. Offer Americans tax cuts - tax cuts for the people that need them.

Finally, somehow, Democrats need to nominate a candidate who a real chance to be elected - not a northeastern Liberal, but a centrist, possibly from the midwest, but even more palatable - one who comes from the part of the country where folks speak a little slower than than they do in other parts. ;)

[CRM114]

Over more than a very short time, being right on the issues greatly negates the negatives of "flip-flopping".

Or you can continue to be noticeably wrong. Take your pick.

Now lets not get too excited. It wasn't as if Bush is presiding with an overwhelming mandate. Its was a pretty slim reelection - astounding, yes - but slim nonetheless.

[Pharoh]

This is because the Republicans have become masters of reframing issues, discarding facts that run counter to their positions and emphasizing the ones that support their positions.



And of course this is a brand new political development, one which is the sole domain of only one American political party.

[Pharoh]

Now lets not get too excited. It wasn't as if Bush is presiding with an overwhelming mandate. Its was a pretty slim reelection - astounding, yes - but slim nonetheless.


It was certainly not astounding, but rather expected, and convincing. I agree he was not elected with a mandate, (I don't even know what that means), but his electoral victories have been historic.

[sfsdfd]

In the for what it's worth department, the die-hard supporters of the Schindlers who espoused such sentiments were not representative of average mainstream Republicans or conservatives.
...except that these comments were picked up and repeated <b>a lot</b> by a whole lot of people on the pro-Schindler side of the debate. The Fox News commentators hurled a boatload of dirty laundry at Michael Schiavo by hosting a stream of "experts" with extremely sketchy credentials. Even though people noticed that the skeptics were disclaimed, they still think of Michael Schiavo as a scumbag.
I don't recall anyone from the White House making such claims, for example.
The White House knows better than to make such claims - it casts everything as vague optimism. But it has plenty of allies that can do it for them. Exhibit A:
Well I've got to tell you, I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way. He has refused to allow her to have therapy. He has refused to even let her have an MRI. For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused. She's not been outside, I think, for the last three years. Um..uh, I think his abuse and neglect of his position as guardian is outrageous. And, and,...and partnered with this judge that has allowed him to treat Terry like this for the last eleven years is outrageous. And my question is, what kind of man is he?
(etc.)
Also, the Cato institute is not a Republican or true conservative organisation, but rather a libertarian one.
...except that the AARP comments were repeated verbatim by everyone's favorite "independent" group, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you want to disclaim their GOP ties?

- David Stein

[CRM114]

I suppose we do have a new definition of "convincing" after 2000. And I'd also agree that it was "expected" after the Swift Boat ambush.

[classicman2]

I don't know what a mandate is either.

I do know if you win - you're mandated to govern, and that's what counts.

[Pharoh]

...except that these comments were picked up and repeated <b>a lot</b> by a whole lot of people on the pro-Schindler side of the debate. The Fox News commentators hurled a boatload of dirty laundry at Michael Schiavo by hosting a stream of "experts" with extremely sketchy credentials. Even though people noticed that the skeptics were disclaimed, they still think of Michael Schiavo as a scumbag.

Sorry, but I see nothing here to make me rethink my original statement. The treatment of Mr. Schiavo that you depicted, (and I do not question it taking place), was not done by mainstream conservatives and Republicans.


...The White House knows better than to make such claims - it casts everything as vague optimism. But it has plenty of allies that can do it for them. Exhibit A:

(etc.)

I will not defend or excuse Mr. DeLay's actions in this case, but there is nothing here that equates with your earlier depiction. And implying that was the thinking of the White House, but that they are too smart, (devious?), to say it publicly seems a bit specious.



......except that the AARP comments were repeated verbatim by everyone's favorite "independent" group, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Do you want to disclaim their GOP ties?

- David Stein


An inconsequential fringe group which has far far less impact than a host of other actual Republican tied groups which didn't attack the AARP in the same manner. It is irrelevant whether they have GOP ties or not, imho. Of course, I don't hold the AARP as the paragon of virtue, as an organisation who stays objective and above partisan politics, so you may be addressing that to the wrong person.

[Pharoh]

I suppose we do have a new definition of "convincing" after 2000. And I'd also agree that it was "expected" after the Swift Boat ambush.



I like this type of thinking, I really do.

[DarkElf]

Over more than a very short time, being right on the issues greatly negates the negatives of "flip-flopping".
Very good point, but of course, being right on any particular issue is a matter of great debate, and who/what decides what is the "right" stance on an issue. Polls? IMO, being right certainly doesn't mean you're even in the majority, as history has shown us time and time again. So if polls aren't what determines the right side of an issue, then you have to go with what you truly believe in, even if it means losing an election.

If the Dems suddenly abandon the leftist position and formally take a centrist position, what is the likelihood that they are now "being right" as opposed to just picking popular positions to win the election? This sounds disturbingly like taking a series of national public polls and letting the results dictate your platform.

Rather than pick the popular positions, I think the Dems need to stick to what they believe in and convince the majority of Americans that the Democratic Party is "right."

Or you can continue to be stubbornly noticeably wrong. Take your pick.
;)

[DarkElf]

And of course this is a brand new political development, one which is the sole domain of only one American political party.
True. :lol:

But Republicans are SOOO much better at it. And they have the bigger, more organized machine in place to get that message out to the average American.

[kvrdave]

I like this type of thinking, I really do.

It's not our message or our candidate that lost. And it sure wasn't what we stand for. It was dirty pool. -wink- Stay the course. It's a winner.

[Pharoh]

True. :lol:

But Republicans are SOOO much better at it. And they have the bigger, more organized machine in place to get that message out to the average American.



I honestly don't know if I can even agree with that. Sure there are some things conservatives have done better, the think-tank infrastructure comes readily to mind, but the Democrats have also been extremely successful at reframing issues and accentuating only that which reinforces their case. From a thirty-year history of employing scare tactics on the elderly and multi-millionaire politicians instigating a class warfare amongst average Americans, to multi-billioinaires and filmakers convincing millions of voters that Haliburton is the scourge of the devil and that the vile and greedy Bush administration only wants oil, the Democratic party has done quite well for themselves.

I get what you are saying, I just feel it to be a bit more balanced, that there are other reasons for the one party domination we now are experiencing.
:shrug:


BTW, how is everything going? Any plans to leave the beach?

[JasonF]

And of course this is a brand new political development, one which is the sole domain of only one American political party.

Obviously spin has been going on for as long as there have been politics, but in recent years, the Republicans have taken it to a new level and the Democrats haven't been able to do anything but stand on the sidelines, sputtering and fuming as the Republicans recast issue after issue in terms that benefit the Republicans.

[JasonF]

From a thirty-year history of employing scare tactics on the elderly and multi-millionaire politicians instigating a class warfare amongst average Americans, to multi-billioinaires and filmakers convincing millions of voters that Haliburton is the scourge of the devil and that the vile and greedy Bush administration only wants oil, the Democratic party has done quite well for themselves.

Here's the thing, though -- Americans don't believe Haliburton is the scourge of the devil. They think Michael Moore is a fat retard whose every word must be disbelieved. And the very fact that you're using the term "class warfare" shows how successful the right has been in framing the issue. Peasants beheading aristocrats is class warfare. Factory owners firing cannons into mobs of workers is class warfare. Debating whether wealth is becoming too concentrated in our society and if so, how to remedy that, is not class warfare. It's the same thing with the so-called "race card." Every time a liberal brings up a legitimate issue about race relations in this country, you can count on a conservative to try to shut the debate down by accusing them of "playing the race card." More often than not, it works.

[wendersfan]

I got this link in an email. Thought you guys would be interested. I'd just copy and paste the text here, but there are some graphics that are important, so it's easier if you just go there yourself.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253228&kaid=127&subid=900056

[DVD Polizei]

All it will take is the Democrats to find that one key issue or two most America agrees with. The Iraq situation and terrorism will be getting very old in 2008, unless we get a major terrorist attack.

2008 will also be a year when most of America will want their troops back home. By then, most of America will say Iraq should be on its own.

Conservatives will have to find a new platform to preach from, rather than the tried-and-trustworthy platform of terrorism and protecting America from the baddies. Thanks to Terri and The Pope dying, America got a break, and they will want more breaks in the near future, and permanent break in 2008.

[classicman2]

The Republicans don't have to find a new platform to preach from. They are already the majority party.

It's the Democrats who will have to find their way - a way to appeal to the folks they're not appealing to today.

[wendersfan]

Here's the thing, though -- Americans don't believe Haliburton is the scourge of the devil. They think Michael Moore is a fat retard whose every word must be disbelievedI think sometimes we forget that the average American - even the average American <i>voter</i>, doesn't pay as much attention to this stuff as we do here in this forum. I doubt most Americans have much of an opinion one way or another on Halliburton or Michael Moore, and those who do are probably evenly split.

[Pharoh]

I got this link in an email. Thought you guys would be interested. I'd just copy and paste the text here, but there are some graphics that are important, so it's easier if you just go there yourself.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253228&kaid=127&subid=900056


Nice. Thanks.

This is one of the reasons why I keep mentioning trends and demographics. Couple the above with the change in the Hispanic vote, and with the fact that 97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties went for President Bush, and you get some real problems for the Democratic party.

[wendersfan]

Nice. Thanks.

This is one of the reasons why I keep mentioning trends and demographics. Couple the above with the change in the Hispanic vote, and with the fact that 97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties went for President Bush, and you get some real problems for the Democratic party.Yeah, little did the Democrats know that I would be handing over their information to <blink>the enemy</blink>. :lol:

Good article, though.

[classicman2]

I doubt if the average American voter knows who Michael Moore is. If he/she does, they don't care. If they do care - the majority probably think of him as a bufoon.

It's difficult for some to accept (including me) the trend of voter demographics in this country; but, accept we must. ;)

[DVD Polizei]

classicman2,

You seem to think Republicans will stay in office if they just stand around and make the Republican Victory Sign? I don't think so. And it's already apparent to me the Republicans are trying to forge ahead into personal behavior laws, so I think their days are numbered if they keep it up. Republican or Democrat, if you try to tell Americans what to do in their personal lives, you lose.

The Republicans are in office because they stood behind the issues that were most important to Americans at the time. Terrorists. If Kerry would not have been so anti-Bush, Democrats would be dancing on the Presidential desk instead of Republicans. There are other smaller issues which I think led to a Republican victory, but the biggest deal was Kerry screwing up by being so hard on Bush. America instantly felt sorry for the old man, and voted for him, in retaliation of Kerry being so mean. America was actually ready for Bush to leave--but Kerry changed that opinion rather quickly.

Issues change. People change. People's issues change. Terrorism will not be in the forefront of politics if we don't have another major terrorist attack by 2008. It's that simple really. In the US, if it's not a problem, we don't go out of our way to prevent that problem from happening again. Americans are better at reacting to problems, than being proactive about them.

Terrorism is losing its evil claws. And by 2008, Americans will be so sick and tired of hearing about it, they certainly won't vote for another Republican who will want to ride in on Bush's coat tails of "The Continuous Terrorist Threat". And they certainly will not want another enormous war budget.

Now, this is all hinging on one or two important events. A major terrorist event. As I said before, another major terrorist event would justify a strong military and troops overseas. However, if we have a terrorist event in Iraq where hundreds of US troops are bombed and killed, this would mean bad news for Republicans as well, especially if we have Bush telling Americans we need to stay there, only days or weeks before it happened.

Democrats do not necessarily have to find a way to appeal to Americans like the Republicans are today. Why? Because the issues are changing. Priorities are changing. What was not a major issue to Americans 8 years ago, can easily be a major issue today, or 8 years from now. Or 4 years from now.

The Democrats need to consult the Dick Morris's of politics. Hell, maybe even Hillary. The party has lost their central command, and we have everyone running around trying to tell their peers what is best. There needs to be consolidation, and moreover, a way to become more mellow with Republicans, instead of appearing like a fat boob who couldn't say no to a Big Mac if he was chained to his Volvo.

It's back to basics, really. They need to disown Michael Moore, and few other radical retards, and then spin around and be ready for Republican Radical Retards--like in the Terri Shiavo case. If this was 2008, and we had the Terri Shiavo situation, I guarantee you, Democrats would be in the White house. Unfortunately, asking Americans to remember issues and incidents 3 and a half years later, is a waste of time--however, a witty commercial would get them some numbers a few months before the election in 2008.

I think we have the Republicans losing their platform of public opinion, and we have Democrats attempting to find their way to American hearts. By 2008, we will probably see some very interesting changes in regards to issues.

I don't understand why some of you base your statements on how many seats the Republicans have currently. These seats can change if public opinion changes. These seats can change if issues change. There's a reason why Republicans have so many seats, and they can lose them as well, if they try to become more than a "moderate" to the American people.

[Pharoh]

I think sometimes we forget that the average American - even the average American <i>voter</i>, doesn't pay as much attention to this stuff as we do here in this forum. I doubt most Americans have much of an opinion one way or another on Halliburton or Michael Moore, and those who do are probably evenly split.


(and to JasonF)


That is thing though, millions of voters did think they knew who Halliburton was, and they voted for Mr. Kerry accordingly. I do not dispel the notion that the same thing happened on the other side, I just dispel that it happened disproportionately.



I actually debated using the term class warfare, and I will admit that shows a successful conservative reframing. However, I think the sentiment is sound, that the Dems have done a masterful job of talking about stealing from the poor to give to the rich, a masterful job of reframing the fiscal policy discussion to being one in which the Republicans care only about the wealthy.

The larger point is that both sides, imho, are equally adept at changing the language of the discussion to suit their needs, to address and inspire their base. The fact of the matter is though, at the current time the solid base of the Republican party is larger than the Democrat's. More people in this nation vote for Republicans.

[classicman2]

DVD Polizei,

Voter demographics - unless they change (and they continue to trend toward the Republicans) the Republicans will remain in power - barring some catastrophic event such as the Great Depression or Watergate.

Of course the Republican candidate can not ignore a significant portion of the base - as George H. W. Bush did in 2002 and Bob Dole did (even more) in 2006.

BTW: Don't be mislead by party registration.

Case in point: The Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in 2004 in a particular state received more primary votes than all of the Republican candidates put together. The Republican candidate won the general election by 11 points.

[Pharoh]

...
I don't understand why some of you base your statements on how many seats the Republicans have currently. These seats can change if public opinion changes. These seats can change if issues change. There's a reason why Republicans have so many seats, and they can lose them as well, if they try to become more than a "moderate" to the American people.


We are not ignoring the possibilities, that issues can significantly change, (though they have not yet), or that the Republicans can field a bad candidate and lose. Presidential elections in particular are still largely about individuals.

However, we are also not ignoring the objective realities. More and more people are becoming partisan in their voting habits, that is they are voting straight party tickets. Incumbents, now perhaps more than ever before, almost always win. Gerrymandering of Congressional districts, performed by State Congresses, will continue to entrench one party over the other. The population of younger voters continues to migrate, while immigrant voters are moving a different direction than previously. Add all of these up, and it is easy to see a deck stacked somewhat against the Democrats. It is not however an insurmountable climb, but a rather difficult one.

I harbor no illusions that they can't win, either in the 2006 mid-terms or in the next Presidential election, but their gains if any will be minimal and short-lived. Of course that is barring any cataclysmic event as C-Man alluded to.


Personally I believe the Democrats are going to have to take a step back before they can go forward. I don't know if they are willing to?

[Geofferson]

I doubt if the average American voter knows who Michael Moore is. If he/she does, they don't care. If they do care - the majority probably think of him as a bufoon.
I wonder what the DNC thinks the average American's opinion of Michael Moore is? After all, they gave him the most honored seat at last year's convention.

[JasonF]

I doubt if the average American voter knows who Michael Moore is. If he/she does, they don't care. If they do care - the majority probably think of him as a bufoon.

Here's a link to an article from People Magazine about Michael Moore winning the People's Choice award. Contrary to my previous post, it would appear that there's a significant portion of the general public who don't consider him a lying retard.

http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1016006,00.html

[wendersfan]

I wonder what the DNC thinks the average American's opinion of Michael Moore is? After all, they gave him the most honored seat at last year's convention.
The DNC has had a lot of trouble telling the difference between fantasy and reality lately. They somehow think a large number of Americans connect with Michael Moore, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi.

[JasonF]

DVD Polizei,

Voter demographics - unless they change (and they continue to trend toward the Republicans) the Republicans will remain in power - barring some catastrophic event such as the Great Depression or Watergate.

Of course the Republican candidate can not ignore a significant portion of the base - as George H. W. Bush did in 2002 and Bob Dole did (even more) in 2006.

Nice try, oldie, but you won't shave 10 years off your age quite that easily.

Another possibility for the Democrats is an attempt to overreach by the Republicans. I think Americans, despite all the complaining, are relatively happy with the tax system we have, with the social safety net we have, and so forth. If Bush pushes really hard on some of his more radical plans (like scrapping the income tax in favor of a national sales tax), that could make people step back and rehtink their loyalty to the Republican Party.

Obviously, sitting back and hoping your opponent makes a big enough mistake to drive people away from him is not a very useful strategy for regaining power.