Democrats & Liberals Archives

Not a Conservative? Too Bad.

No, I’m not recruiting for the Republican Party. The title is a response to all those, who having seen Bush’s spending, his fiscal policy (let’s be candid: his tax policy), his foreign policy and all those little intrusion and extrusions of power still elected that man, George W. Bush, to a second term as president. You could be forgiven for having elected him the first time and seen him go off track, but doing so again in 2004 leaves you no room for complaint. You knew exactly what you were getting into.

Folks had a choice in the Republican Primaries of 2004. They had the choice to add more conservative voices to the mix in Congress and the Senate. They had the choice to hold a more conservative candidate up as the Republican presidential choice. They had the choice to stay home on election day, vote for the libertarian, write in a candidate, or if they were really wanting to be perverse about it, voting for John Kerry.

But you know what? They re-elected Bush. They rewarded years of deficit spending. They rewarded a man who had gotten us into an unnecessary war without cause or even another plan for fighting it, if the first plan failed to do the trick. They rewarded a guy who essentially gave up pursuit of Bin Laden. They rewarded a man for dropping the economy into the drink. The only thing one can suppose re-elected Bush was wishful thinking, that all Bush was doing was dealing with the consequences of Clinton's second term. Well, Bush's own second term has demonstrated that his first term was his responsibility.

Bush's election victory was the triumph of marketing. That's what Bush's plans are largely based on. He believes government is best used as a means to political ends. He honestly wants to change things, to save the world. Unfortunately he devotes himself to a false idol. Politics is evanescent, subjective, deceptive, and expedient. If it's your primary means or motivation, you're in trouble. It's a hell of a devil to sell your soul to.

There are all kinds of responsibilities, that if one tends to them, take much of the temptation and subjectivity out of politics. When we Americans are willing to hold our politicians to these, the pressure we put on the politicians serves to keep them honest. Well, maybe keep them more honest. You see corruption and incompetence are chronic threats to good government. We can't simply apply a one time solution, and hope it just solves everything. The shape of our government is our constant responsibility as citizens of a republic. We can't sit fat dumb and happy assuming that all candidates are the same, or that corruption can't be brought under control, or that government will simply screw up no matter what. It's these passive attitudes that have gotten us in the most trouble recently. What we don't correct in government remains in error, and encourages further error in those who benefit from the cockeyed state of affairs.

Conservatives have sold their vote to politics constantly, doing more to oppose and demonize liberals than to keep their own people in line. They've accepted one inconsistency after another from their people in the name of keeping their votes in the party. The Result is that most conservative politicians are anything but, and can get away with a great deal by deflecting more resentment towards the liberals and other enemies of the GOP. The Republican voters, not uniformly conservative to begin with, neglected to keep tabs on their own people.

Democrats have not had that problem. The Republicans complain about our treatment of Joe Lieberman, but they fail to realize that the blogs and the liberal pundits regularly criticize their own. We make sure our people know they're days are numbered if they fail to represent our interests. We're taking back our party. We're sick of seeing our people betray the very principles they are called upon to protect.

It's time for the Republicans to show their anger. They don't need to vote for our people, but they do need to make it clear what they expect of their people.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 9:37 AM
Comments
Comment #171754

Conservatives have not sold their vote. No true conservative would have voted for either main party candidate. Republicans and Democrats are the ones selling their votes. And yes the Democrats have that problem. They vote blindly for their party’s candidate without questioning one thing that the candidate says. Because he’s from their party he’s automatically right and everyone else is wrong.
Staying home and not voting isn’t an option for any responsible citizen. Voting is not only a right it’s a responsibility. Staying home is what both main parties hope the folks on the other side do. That way they can win easier. But then they also want folks without party affiliation to stay home too. Because we can throw a monkey wrench into their plans.
It’s time ALL voters show their anger and throw both major parties out of office. It’s time to hold EVERY office holder accountable.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 29, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #171769

Ron
I agree totaly so far as I can see neither party has a candidate worth voting for including the house, senate and president.

Posted by: KAP at July 29, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #171774

Ron Brown

Your arguement doesn’t hold water when it comes to the current situation with Joe Lieberman.He is being strongly questioned about his stance on the Iraqi Occupation, His support of Congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo fiasco, his support of the Bush policy on POW treatment at Guantanamo and other issues. His constituence may indeed hold him accountable for his words and actions. “Automatically right”; not Joe. Hopefully more of our elected representatives will take notice and listen to their contituence.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #171776

In 2000 Bush was not elected by the people and in 2004 with black box voting machines with no paper trail we will never be sure. It seems it doesn’t really matter who you vote for, it’s the ones who have the money and power that have the ability to change the results. We do have a responsibility to vote but we must insist upon fair voting practices and allowing voter’s access. Let us never revisit the injustice of 2000 and 2004 voting policies of the GOP ever again. Cheating has never been beneficial for America nor should it ever be allowed. People vote for the strangest reasons but that is their own right, just as long as they are counted without corruption from either side.

Posted by: Bruce at July 29, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #171778

ROn Brown

I understand and tend to agree with your statement about “true conservatives”. But why do “true conservatives” keep letting these pretenders(GWB, Chaney, Limbaugh, Hannity,etc.) get away with calling themselves conservative.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #171782

KAP

Saying that neither party has a candidate worth voting for(House or Senate, unfortunetly we don’t get to vote for President until 2008) is a pretty broad statement. Do you really keep track of all members of the House of Representatives and all the Senators up for re-election?

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #171785

—- Is there a list for those voting for the
wage an tax cuts??

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #171787

Mark
No just the ones in my home state and the news making dinosaurs of both parties.

Posted by: KAP at July 29, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #171788

Nicely done, Stephen.
It’s the plain truth. Republicans are no longer conservative in numerous ways.

Ron:
“And yes the Democrats have that problem. They vote blindly for their party’s candidate without questioning one thing that the candidate says. Because he’s from their party he’s automatically right and everyone else is wrong.”

Ron, mark is right, the strong sentiment against Leiberman is proof against what you’re saying here. For that matter, so is the outraged reaction to the blatant crookedness of Rep. Jefferson among many Democrats that I know, and among so many Dem posters to this blog. I believe that most of us are just as tired of the poor leadership and the crooks as you seem to be.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #171791

Anyone who runs as a TRUE conservative would win a national election. Conservative values are still the held by the majority of all Americans.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 29, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #171795

Stephen:

Bravo!

When things go right for them, conservatives agree to whatever the boss - Cheney - says. Once things start going bad, conservatives suddenly “find” their principles.

Let the so-called true conservatives in the Republican Party fight it out with the extremist radicals. If they don’t know how, we, the liberals in the Democrat Party can show them.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 29, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #171808

“Let the so-called true conservatives in the Republican Party fight it out with the extremist radicals. If they don’t know how, we, the liberals in the Democrat Party can show them.”

Now that’s humor! MoveOn, Code Pink, Sheehan rallies, Belafonte rallies, Screamin’ Howard Dean, “Bush is a Nazi!” … if it weren’t for the wacko left and their money the left would struggle even more than they already do. The mainstream left is now financially obligated to the extremist left. Meanwhile the right gets their money from companies & individual business men and women. The evangelical right, those “crazy, really Christian people” send the majority of their available money to their church.

The wacko left only have the church of extreme liberalism, so that’s where all their money goes. How the mainstream left will continue to accept their money without championing wacko left causes remains to be seen. But to say the Left has handled their extremists is “spittin’ your drink out” laughable.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 29, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #171811

Bruce

Just cut it out with 2004. You will never know if Bush won in 2004 or Clinton won in 1996 or 1992. You can say that about anything. It is existential. Sophomores ask it about everything. They mistake it for wisdom until they learn a little more.

Bush won fair and square in 2004. If he did not, you have no chance ever, since we are just too smart for you.

I enjoyed the Democratic line about the stolen election at first. When you boiled it down it was the Dems were tricked big time by much more intelligent (although less numerous) Republicans. It was funny at first. Now it is just sad. Move on.

Re Bush

I like most of his policies. I object to too much spending (although Dems would give us even more) and I don’t care for some of the social agenda, such as stem cells and making a big deal about gay marriage. When you vote for president, you get a package. You don’t always like all the contents. That doesn’t mean it is not the best package on offer.

Re Lieberman

This is a win/win for Republicans. If the activists fail and Lieberman wins the primary, he will be less influenced by the lefties than ever. If the activists beat him in the primary and he runs as an independent he will either win or so badly fracture the vote that a Republican challenger could get in creating a previously unbelievable situation in CT. Either way, it is one less Democrat. The worst case is that he doesn’t run at all and we get Lamont. But even there, we can an angry man w/o significant experience and no clout in Congress. The die is cast and Republicans either win big, win moderately or win a little. Thanks Mr. Lamont and moveon.org for making this possible.

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #171817

Jack

I disagree on Lieberman.

The Republican stands no chance(does anybody even know who he/she is?) regardless if Lieberman runs as an independent or not. If Lieberman wins the primary(as I predict he will) he will be deeply indebted to Bill And Hilary, Dodd, Boxer, and many other Democrats, not Republicans. If he loses the primary these same Democrats will convince him not to run as an Independent, despite being urged to do so by Rebublicans.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #171825

Mark

Bill has been good to him. The others less so. It is painful to see how few loyal friends the man has.

Take a look at this.

Lieberman has been a profile in courage; standing up to the loud activists in his party to defend what he considers the right thing. Whether you agree with him or not, that is something you need too respect.

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #171826

It is so ironic that instead of looking at the issue and discussing things in an intelligent fashion, there are those who go for insults and rhetoric rather then having an intelligent conversation. Besides I thought this was a Liberal and Democrat discussion board. Is it that threatening for the fascist right wing neo-cons? Here there are democrats that have individual thoughts and will continue to probe and ask questions. This, “Do as I say not as I do!” philosophy is what is really getting old. Wake up and understand that bush is evil and so is his minions or should state his legion. I will now discontinue reading or post from this site as it has become tainted.

Posted by: Bruce at July 29, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #171827

Ken Strong-
You folks get the majority of your money in the same way we do: 10,000 dollar a plate dinners. If you’re basing it on that Mona Charen column a while back, I’ll have you know the woman misinterpreted the numbers badly.

As for the Church of Extreme Liberalism, that’s a confabulation of folks who want to cast the agnostic politics of the left as diametrically opposed to the Christian Church.

So tell me, is there any other way to inspire confidence in your party than distracting people with cracks about mine?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #171828

——Stephen—- Since 1994 the Republicans found found that by strong arming their underlings by
telling them that their campaign funds would
be cut, an most likely had other controls as well.
when Bob Dole was the head of the Senate he did work
with Democrats. I also believe our politicians
are being intimidated by the right wing radio an news media, much more than they had before 1996
contract on Americans started.

Until the American voters decide to vote
for Honorable people we can expect to see no
honorable Senators or Congressmen, doing
the Honorable job they were sent to perform.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #171832

—-Stephen— I also believe the Democrats should be
very careful, since at least 25 have less than
acceptable loyalty to the Democratic Party in my
opinion.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #171838

“Lieberman has been a profile in courage; standing up to the loud activists in his party to defend what he considers the right thing.”

And his party has shown integrity standing up for THEIR ideals and not just rubber stamping his reelection based on incumbency and seniority.
If he feels the way he does about so many issues, perhaps he should switch sides to the one he agrees with more often? Fine by me.

Posted by: Observer at July 29, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #171839

Jack
Thanks for the link. I guess that’s about what I would expect. But I would interpret that differently than your take on it. I would expect that most of Lieberman’s peers in the Senate would have greater allegeance to their party than to Joe(remember the reception Jeffers recieved when he switched from Republican to Independent?). But I wouldn’t take that as a sign that he has few loyal friends in the Senate. He has many of them helping him to get re-elected. Clinton’s loyalty is outstanding considering the way Lieberman slammed him during the Lewinski scandel. Yes, I can respect his courage for holding his ground on what he thinks is right even though I strongly disagree. That doesn’t mean I would want him to represent me if I were from Connecticut, and it is the voters from that state who will decide, not his friends it the Senate. No elected official deserves a guaranteed job, that is what we have elections for. I would hope that we, the voters, would always hold them accountable regardless of their position.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #171840

“The wacko left only have the church of extreme liberalism, so that’s where all their money goes. “

Perhaps you could enlighten this liberal as to your version of the “wacko lefts” views and what makes them so “extreme”? I’d say most of the views of the people you listed have been justified, proven true, and match more closely the views of the general public than their counterparts on the right.

Posted by: Observer at July 29, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #171844

Bruce-
Hopefully you have not been so hasty as to discontinue your reading so soon. This column is not hermetically sealed against intrusions from the Right. This posting is not tainted by the presence of folks from the red column. In fact, I welcome and desire the debate.

If you are still not comfortable with that, you can go elsewhere. Still, I’d warn you that the real world is not so kind to people as to give them only true believers to discuss their points with.

Jack-
Lamont is gaining fast on Lieberman. Joe took out insurance when he registered to be able to run independent. You don’t take out that kind of insurance unless you think you’re going to need it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #171845

“contract on Americans”

David,

Brilliant, simply brilliant. It certainly was not a contract “with” Americans!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #171848

Jack:
“I enjoyed the Democratic line about the stolen election at first. When you boiled it down it was the Dems were tricked big time by much more intelligent (although less numerous) Republicans. It was funny at first. Now it is just sad. Move on.”

Much more intelligent? No. Much more crooked and devious? Very likely. There is a big difference between those things even if you aren’t personally able to see it, Jack. And since we now know it only takes ONE person with a handheld Blackberry to hack into whole banks of electronic voting machines and optical scanning devices, your dismissive arrogance of our concern is truly nothing short of an outrage. Move on? Screw that. That means allowing your party to rig our elections forever — and that ain’t American democracy.

“Re Bush
I object to too much spending (although Dems would give us even more)”

No. Your party has spent so damn much and ran up so much debt, there isn’t a chance in hell that Democrats will do worse. Everyone, both the politicians on the Hill and the voters know that the Dems are going to have to be strictly fiscally responsible, or this country may never ever recover.

“When you vote for president, you get a package.”

Yeah, we got Bush’s “package” all right — and as Rocky would say, we’ve been taking it right in the shorts ever since. Don’t think for a minute that voters don’t understand what has been happening and that what the Republicans have been doing doesn’t now or won’t one day affect them, because they do.

I’ll give you just one example: This past week California and Queens have been experiencing blackouts. Whether you know it or not, the people fully understand it’s because we’ve now got power grids that have been totally neglected due to Republican deregulation. This is what America gets when “the market” you righties love so well takes over regulating our power. No one providing the necessary investments in power generation and transmission, no one investing a share of the profits into improving reliability, and the industry and Wall Street not putting any money back into upgrading lines and/or distribution networks. Additionly, deregulation of the grid has allowed distributional utilities to get rid of highly experienced unionized workers, and cut back on preventative maintenance spending. The Result? Blackouts that can last for days on end. Thanks for everything GOP — now take a hike!

“You don’t always like all the contents. That doesn�€™t mean it is not the best package on offer.”

Nonsense. This administration has been a giant load of garbage from one end to the other.

“Re Lieberman”

Has lost the Democrats loyalty by voting more like a Republican than a Democrat. On top of that, he’s so disloyal and so terribly disconnected from the largely progressive state he was supposed to be representing, that he’s now running as both a Dem, and when and if that fails, as an Independent, as well. Holding onto his own power is what Lieberman now represents, rather than Connecticut’s voters.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #171850

—-Adrienne—-A good proud American Democrat, I
love ya! Unided we stand an Devided we fall.
Keep up the great work.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #171852

Stephen,

Good article! I’d add one question for all of the Republican’ts: If the problems we’re facing are so insurmountable and it’s all the fault of us Democrats, just how many years will it take for your bunch of miscreants to set straight all of our ill deeds?

Well I have a few more questions:

Is our economy stronger than it was six years ago? How can you ignore the national debt? How can you cut taxes at the same time you’re passing “emergency spending measures”?

Is our military stronger than it was six years ago? If so why are we redeploying troops for the third and fourth times? Why are we extending troop deployments?

Is no diplomacy better than some diplomacy? Can you explain Bush administration diplomacy to me? Is it, wait until things blow to hell and then see what we can cobble together?

If the Republican’t congress repealed the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution would you elect Bush to a third term? If your answer is yes, have you considered psychotherapy?

Do you truly think arrogance is a reasonable substitute for intelligence?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #171854

Why is it that so many Republicans who claim to be so much smarter than everyone continue to use lies and damaging nicknames like children. Why do they continue to call every Democrat an agnostic or atheist? Republicans pretending to be such Christians should take the time to learn what Christ taught before you call yourself Christian, Born Again, etc. Most Repuplicans I know are not living as true Christians. They are using Christ to further their politcal agenda. They latched onto a major voting group, pretended to believe in them, promised all kinds of unconstitutional laws and ran with it. They have not outlawed abortion. They have not banned gays from the human race. Can’t you people see a farce when it is repeated over and over again?
Since when does Christ stand for the rich and powerful over the poor and needy? Since when does Christ condone war for the sake of war or to further someones agenda? Since when does Christ ok bullying people into doing everything for your causes no matter the cost or crimes commited while doing it? It might be easier for all of the Republican party to call themselves Christians, but most intelligent people know a fake when they see it. I know may atheists who have much higher morals than Bush, Delay, Cheney, Rove, etc. etc. etc. They believe in doing good because it’s the right thing to do for humanity and society…not because they will burn in hell or lose an election.

Posted by: Peggy at July 29, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #171855

—-kansasDem—- Good post. I think,(the way the
Bush Administration thinks)(Planed Obsolesce) That
way Haliburton can come an make billions!

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #171856

Congratulations I knew someone else somewere would also see thru the veil of lies that both major politicial parties have been putting out.
Most of the recient posts I have read here are of the same vein. We good all others bad!!!!! The true liberials and conservatives must be sick with laughter reading the parroting taking place here. Both conservatives and liberals love their country and neither group would take part in this mutual hate-fest. both true liberals and conseratives place the trust of their costituents and love of country ahead of personal adgendas.

Posted by: dave at July 29, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #171857

—dave— I did not see a sign saying, or seeking
your approval or permission what is said on these
posts, take it or leave it, this is a no Spinmiester allowed site. thanks for your lop sided
view anyway!

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #171859

““Re Lieberman”

Has lost the Democrats loyalty by voting more like a Republican than a Democrat.”

Adrienne,

And, maybe that should be “AND”, he has given the Neo-Cons a really great “little tool” to pull out of their tool box and use against Democrats not only in Connecticut but across the country during a vital mid-term election year. Joey’s pretty much said he doesn’t need “us” or represent “us” so I say good riddance.

I think we’ve spent far too much time on Mr. Joe. It’s become just another trick in the Neo-Con playbook. The more time we waste speaking about Joey the less time we’re spending on changing the guard on a state-by-state basis.

IMO we should write off Hilly, Billy, and Joey. And as Democrats we can do that unlike the Republican’ts who stand behind their man no matter what. I truly want what’s better for America and I think that’s true of most Democrats.

I’ve never fallen prey to the “pied piper” syndrome and I’d hope that my fellow Democrats will steer clear of that crap. Don’t let the Republican’ts direct the debate by focusing on Lieberman. Refocus the debate on the failures of the Republicans! There are plenty of them.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #171860

—-KansasDem—- That’s a good one. I think
we-willy-winky- an hillery are also hedging their bets siding with Joe L?

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #171862

-KD-Any suggestions on a topic, you pick one!

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #171864

What makes up the conservative movement? What are its issues and who votes for them?
-Gay marriage, abortion, hard line v. illegal immigration, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, (ironically) pro-business, more violent foreign policy
-mostly white christian parents. Gaining support among minorities but remains at a disadvantage. A nationwide would help to see how much has slipped since 2004.

Since most conservatives tend to be Christians, let us examine Biblical issues:
-poverty, love, peace, purity of the Church (Reform or expulsion of people in open defiance of the Law or people ignoring the Law. I make this mostly to clarify “Love” as not excusing homosexuality)

Posted by: Silima at July 29, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #171866

“-KD-Any suggestions on a topic, you pick one!”

DAVID,

This is Stephen’s thread and Lieberman was at most a side note. The topic is right there in Stephen’s own words:

“They re-elected Bush. They rewarded years of deficit spending. They rewarded a man who had gotten us into an unnecessary war without cause or even another plan for fighting it, if the first plan failed to do the trick. They rewarded a guy who essentially gave up pursuit of Bin Laden. They rewarded a man for dropping the economy into the drink.”

Those should be the topics of true concern. Stephen’s sharper than I was on my brighest day.

Why would I need to name a topic?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #171868

Bruce,

“In 2000 Bush was not elected by the people”

No president has ever been elected by the people. The president is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Article II, section 1, U.S. Constitution

Posted by: traveller at July 29, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #171870

—-Silma—-Are you trying to inject us with a bible thumpers sermon. You would not do that would you?

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #171871

“Since most conservatives tend to be Christians”

Silima,

IMO most conservatives use Christianity to excuse their Dominionist characteristics and desires. Of course they get to take communion or “confess their sins” whereas agnostics like me have to just live with the reality of what they’ve done with no forgiveness or salvation.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #171879

KansasDem,
Actually one can be both a Christian and Republican, or a Christian and a Democrat - which is why I get so irratated that the Convervatives seem to think they have a corner on God.

Religion and politics do not belong together, just as religion and government do not belong together.

That is made pretty clear in the US Constitution.

Separation of Church and State…. Remember?

Posted by: Linda H. at July 29, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #171880

Don’t let the Republicans direct the debate by focusing on Lieberman. Refocus the debate on the failures of the Republicans! There are plenty of them.

Why don’t we redirect the debate to what we’re going to do to fix the mess we’re in rather than beat a dead horse? Crying foul will not win elections; well defined policies, focus and direction do.
I am tired of hearing from both sides how bad the other is doing, how evil they are, I want to hear some results oriented debate. What are we going to do now? We already know what has been done.

Posted by: Sheldon at July 29, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #171881

KansasDem,
I apologize.

I ended up addressing Silma, instead of trying to support your point.

I’m sorry.

Posted by: Linda H at July 29, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #171883

KansasDem-
I’d be careful about coming up with creative names for our opponents. That’s where our opponents got into trouble, really. When you can insult and degrade the competition, who needs self improvement?

Mediocrity thrives on distraction. If our intention is to replicate the Republican approach to gain power, we will replicate their fate in losing it.

Let’s base our strategies on what we are willing to do, and what the Republicans aren’t We will help the people who need it, with no need to give goodies to rich as window-dressing to our base. We will lay down the law on corporate crooks, balance the budget with both spending cuts and raised taxes, enforce immigration laws and punish those who hire illegals. When we talk about disaster relief, that will be exactly what we give people, and not lip service. we will put people in charge of agencies who actually know what they are doing. We will use the methods to interrogate our enemies and investigate their activities that actually work, and we will restore our nations reputation and relationships in the world. We won’t mindlessly sow turbulence and chaos in the world.

In short, we will govern, as the Republicans are afraid to, lest they prove that government can actually work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #171889

I think everyone misunderstood Silima’s message, or I did.

Please read Silima’s message again. I don’t find much to disagree with, but I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #171893

Most Christians I know(including myself) are either liberal, moderate, or open minded conservatives, believing srongly in the message of love that Jesus teaches and following His teachings and those of the New Testament rather than that of the Old Testament.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #171895

By “open minded conservatives” I mean people who live a conservative life style but do not judge others too harshly and believe in a separation of church and state. They do not believe in forcing their beliefs on others.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #171898

No I was not injecting a Bible thumpers sermon. Many republican politicians may only pretend to be Christians but they do so to appeal to their Christian constituents.

I did not say that Christians HAD to be republicans, I said they tended to be. I believe my post highlighted the difference between republican values and Christian values. No one has any business claiming a monopoly on God.

Where exactly the dividing line between religion and politics is subject to debate. The laws of this country should reflect the views of the majority of the voters. If the views of the majority of the voters are in some way religious, does that make their views invalid in the political forum?

KansasDem
Of course they get to take communion or “confess their sins” whereas agnostics like me have to just live with the reality of what they’ve done with no forgiveness or salvation.
If you are complaining that your religion does not treat you as well as other religions treat their followers, switch.

Stephen
YES! SOMEONE needs to start helping the poor and someone needs to start taxing the rich and the corporations for their share. And all those other things are good to. No intention to degrade them, but I’d rather not rewrite them all. I say give the dems control of the government in 2008. Republicans have proven themselves incapable of control of the government. Lets hope Democrats can prove themselves better at it.

Posted by: Silima at July 29, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #171899

KansasDem
Thanks. If my later post in anyway offends you, sorry…Please forgive me. I had not yet read your latest message.

Posted by: Silima at July 29, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #171909

Anyone for starting a “None of the Above” campaign? Truthfully, both parties have lost their focus and way and, so, something else more reasonable needs to be given to the voters to vote for. A “None of the Above” option would say that, if it wins, all candidates are not supported by the people and new candidates need to be found. We are in a place where we are all voting for the lesser of two evils rather than something that is clearly better. A “None of the Above” option would give the voter a third option which may, in turn, really shake up the two parties.

Vote “None of the Above”!

Posted by: DavidM at July 29, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #171910

“I’d be careful about coming up with creative names for our opponents.”

Stephen,

I assume you mean my use of “Republican’t”. IMO if they could paint Kerry as a traitor and worse with the “Swift boating” smear, I’m pretty darn mellow.

What have the RepubliCANS proven they CAN’T do?

They CAN’T balance a budget.

They CAN’T perform when it comes to true diplomacy.

They CAN’T be honest with the American people.

They CAN’T keep their promises to our brave fighting men and women.

I know you’re more level headed than myself, but I’m beginning to think we do need to “capsulate” our message.

“Flip-flop” was a winner! (Capsulated)

“Intellectual” is now a joke. (Capsulated)

“Lock Box” was laughable. (Capsulated)

IMO it’s time to start giving as good as we get.

We need a short and blunt message that delivers!

And the Republicans can’t deliver!

I can’t remember the nme of the movie or even the entire story line, but do you remember an old movie where a guy leans out the window and says, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not taking it anymore”. (Or something like that)

Well, that’s me right now. I’m in failing health and I don’t know how long I’ll be around, but I want my three grown children and their children and their children’s children to enjoy the true Democracy I’ve enjoyed. A democracy where hard work is rewarded with a living wage. A democracy where a persons wealth does not determine their worth as a human being. A democracy where every vote counts.

If you really think my words are a detriment to the Democratic Party I’d appreciate your feedback.
IMO we need to be loud and be proud and stop being apologetic. We’re strong and we need to reveal the weakness of the Republican…..Arrrgh!

Explain to me why that weakens us!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #171911

Kansas Dem

The movie was “Network”

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #171914

Kansas Dem

Both you and Stephen make good points. I agree with Stephen in that we can’t resort to the Republican tactics of name calling and preaching a message of hate and intolerance. On the other hand I think you are right about encapsulating a message that will stick with the people of this country and motivate them to vote Democratic. To accomplish both I would suggest we keep our ideas short and sweet.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #171916

“KansasDem
Thanks. If my later post in anyway offends you, sorry…Please forgive me. I had not yet read your latest message.”

Silima,

Thanks for that. I was beginning to think of the old saying, “never bite the hand that feeds you”. I believe I did understand you and I think you now understand me.

I’m not about to change my beliefs for any reason. I respect everyone’s choice of religion. I have three children from three different marriages all of whom have followed their mother’s religions with no interference from me. So, I have a Catholic daughter, one Mormon (LDS) son, and a baptist son. Oddly, even though fully grown, they all live within 35 miles of me and no less than 500 miles from their mothers.

Go figure, I can’t be that bad. I don’t try to influence anyones beliefs other than stressing that deeds far outweigh beliefs.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #171923

Mark, KansasDem-
We don’t have to be nasty or obvious. We should instead focus on wrapping words around meaning. To use it just to fling insults is to miss the great opportunities present in the language to inspire and captivate people. We cannot afford to be merely artistically snide.

We also cannot afford to be obsessed with the short and sweet. That’s good for basic structure, but we’ve got to be able to keep people’s attention for minutes at a time if we hope to give them anything complex enough to shift their perspective. Too much focus on zingers and one-liners can lead to an all too short-term oriented notion of rhetoric and debate.

Ultimately, communication is more than just verbal expedience. We can’t go the Republican route of just being great at expelling concentrated offensiveness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #171926

Our democracy has been so weakened by the “money equals free speech” doctrine that it can hardly be considered representative.
If the neocons hadn’t blundered their way into Iraq there would be no discernable difference between what they’ve done and what Kerry would have done. Basically it all depends on who gets the most money from whom and mostly the corporate jets, weekend retreats, big time lobbying jobs and well funded PACS belong to the top 2% of our population. Some people are just more equal than others.
Judging from our present situation, the American democracy seems to be failing and capitalism seems to be taking it’s place. It should be an interesting experiment.
(Before everyone starts screaming about Schiavo and social issues that’s all just smoke and mirrors for the masses, the Dems just use a different colored smoke)

Posted by: Dwight at July 29, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #171931

Stephen

Hard to argue with that point too. What do you think about what Karl Rove had to say today when he addressed George Washington University Graduate School todayhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm20060729/pl_nm/rove_dc_1

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #171934

I am tired of people saying that Bush stopped hunting Osama. Just because the media doesn’t report it doesn’t mean its not happening. I just got back from Afghanistan and we are doing everything we can do to find him.


Support our troops.

Posted by: Josh at July 29, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #171936

Josh-
I’m sure you folks have finding him as a priority, but I cannot say the same about the man who just closed down the Bin Laden unit, or who once said that Bin Laden was not so much of a concerns to him. That was actually my breaking point with Bush on his policys with the war on terror.

The troops have my support, they’re doing their jobs. This president is not doing his job, so he doesn’t have my support. That simple.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #171941


mark, Adrienne
Lieberman is more conservative than most Democrats want him to be. That’s why he’s being scrutinized so closely.
My statement about folks voting blindly for their party candidate was about both parties. Maybe I should have been a little clearer on that. Sorry.
As to why most true Conservatives allow the likes of most Republicans get away with calling themselves conservative I don’t know. I know I don’t. No one in the Republican Party is a true conservative. And I don’t like them calling themselves one. But then I really can’t stop them short of pointing a gun at them. And I sure ain’t gonna do that. But I can call them on it. And so can other true conservatives.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 29, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #171945

The President should have the support of every American. Support is not a synonym of agreement or, say that every American should blindly follow his will. But our government at least deserves the support of its citizens. Part of that support is to debate the actions and direction of the country. This is a distinction made by few. Reps support the President but do not debate, dems debate but do not support. We should be doing both. If we give the appearance of unity it will harm terrorists. If we give the appearance of a fractured and divided country, we encourage them. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We should be divided together through honest, goodwilled debate, not the bitter, partisan debate we see today.

Posted by: Silima at July 29, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #171948

By “open minded conservatives” I mean people who live a conservative life style but do not judge others too harshly and believe in a separation of church and state. They do not believe in forcing their beliefs on others.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 08:55 PM

Your talking about true conservatives here buddy.
We might be opposed to things and believe in things that don’t seem popular. But we won’t force anyone to believe anything.
When someone is forced to believe something the only thing you get is lip service to your beliefs. Not true belief.

Josh
Thank you for your service to our great country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 29, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #171952

“we’ve got to be able to keep people’s attention for minutes at a time if we hope to give them anything complex enough to shift their perspective”

Stephen,

I truly respect you. There is no doubt in my mind that you are the better man if it comes down to a challenge between you and I on any level. But I disagree with you.

We Democrats have tried and tried to tell the absolute truth and spent a gazillion words explaining the simple truth to people, but we’ve failed to realize that the majority of people want the truth in one short sentence. The less words involved the better.

We need a brief message, and that message must include the failures of the Republican party in recent years. The vast majority of voters aren’t going to listen to a “few minutes” of our excellent message. We need to get our message across in 10 to 30 seconds!

Then, of course, we must be able to back up what we say.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 30, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #171954

“The President should have the support of every American.”

Silima,

The President, even though he is our leader, is also in office to “serve” America’s best interests. If Americans feel he’s not doing that it’s their duty to make as much noise as they can. We Americans are not fond of being led blindly into the abyss.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 30, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #171973

I am guilty. Entranced by the GOP “stay the course” wardrums, and the invectives of talk radio show hosts, I made the profound mistake of voting for George W. Bush in 2004. I didn’t know what I was doing. I’m still young (22). Gosh, what a mistake.

For one with philosophical libertarian leanings like me, George W. Bush represents the worst of both worlds. He spends like the straw-man liberal conservatives fear (on disastrous, idealistic wars), and he extends the moral vision of the extreme religious right over an entire nation, further stunting its progression.


The time of the elephant is over. The donkey is rising

Posted by: Matt Henderson at July 30, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #171979

Matt,

So you’ll be voting libertarian in the 2006 and 2008 elections?

‘The Donkey’ is just as bad as ‘The Elephant’, possibly worse since they really don’t hide the fact that they have little regard for individual rights over those of the collective.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 30, 2006 4:29 AM
Comment #171997

KansasDem-
Absolute truth is not necessary. It’s impossible to know, much less convey.

Remember Kerry’s “I voted for the funding before I voted against it”? That is is the risk of being too short and sweet. Better that he had explained his voting for a tax-financed war effort than a debt financed one in detail, than he convey a powerfully bad impression in one sentence.

We need to work not on our brevity, which I feel we’re capable of, but our eloquence and imagination as public speakers. Playing to the perceived short attention spans of modern audiences might actually shorten what could be more sustained interest. The key is to interest people in the course of what we say both at the small time scale and at the longer one, stringing together the short scenes and witty passages into a longer, more complex package. Too much focus on the strictly short term can make the overall speeches dull, disjointed, and difficult to endure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #172012

“‘The Donkey’ is just as bad as ‘The Elephant’, possibly worse since they really don’t hide the fact that they have little regard for individual rights over those of the collective.”

OK - and your attempt to seem even handed came out as complete party pandering…

Posted by: tony at July 30, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #172021

Observer,

Su Bush is indeed Hitler or just like him? Coordinating with Hugo Chavez is a reasonable thing to do? Kathyrn Harris is Stalin? Refusing to at least listen to the Iraqi Prime Minister and calling him names is the right thing to do?

By refusing to believe there is an extreme left is not only ignorant, but is a good indicator YOU ARE ONE OF THEM!

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #172025

Stephen,

“So tell me, is there any other way to inspire confidence in your party than distracting people with cracks about mine?”

Um, are ya saying that you never said something negative about Republicans/Conservatives but only tried to emphasize the positive points of democrats/liberals … because I gotta tell ya Stephen, your loaded question sounds mighty hypocritical at this current juncture.

Everyone tries to promote their “pros” while indicating the other guy’s “cons”. I think Republicans, after ruling DC for the last many years are well aware of their “cons” while liberals just turn a blind eye. Perhaps that’s natural for the Party trying to regain control, but still the situation nonetheless … hence my post.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #172042
OK - and your attempt to seem even handed came out as complete party pandering…

I don’t think I was attempting to be even-handed. I was calling out the support of tyranny. If you have a problem with the application you could attempt to debate it, not simply dismiss my view as partisanship.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 30, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #172067

How refreshing it would be to have totally publicly funded elections, no political ads of any kind, and a real debate, no holds barred, of the issues facing the United States…

Posted by: Lynne at July 30, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #172088

Lynne

Publicly funded elections as in taxpayers paying for the entirety of a politician’s campaign? God forbid we ever do that. Such a gross violation of freedom of speech should never be allowed. Political ads, while often mean and nasty, are also an expression of freedom of speech. To quote Patrick Henry, “Gentlemen, I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Political ads are a constitutional right, no matter how disgusting they can get. Our job as voters is to not be swayed by personal attack ads.

Posted by: Silima at July 30, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #172087

Lynne

Publicly funded elections as in taxpayers paying for the entirety of a politician’s campaign? God forbid we ever do that. Such a gross violation of freedom of speech should never be allowed. Political ads, while often mean and nasty, are also an expression of freedom of speech. To quote Patrick Henry, “Gentlemen, I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Political ads are a constitutional right, no matter how disgusting they can get. Our job as voters is to not be swayed by personal attack ads.

Posted by: Silima at July 30, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #172090

Silma,
I misunderstod your first post and agree with your second one. Your third one is more a question of symatics.

I support our troops, enough that I don’t want them dying for a cause I can’t make myself beleive in.

I have spoken with soldiers going and coming. It is interesting to me that most of the ones going seem to favor the war, while all of the ones coming home are grateful to be home and none so far (that I’ve met anyway) think we should still be there.

Granted I haven’t talked to a great number in either case, but I’ve found the discripecy interesting.

Posted by: Linda H. at July 30, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #172096

Silma


How would publicly funded elections be a “gross violaton of freedom of speach”. Candidates would still be free and able to say what they want. We already use public funds in campaigns.

It would be nice to see some enforceable guidlines in regards to truth when it comes to campaigns. Probably not possible but it sure would be nice to see candidates stick to the truth, or at least attempt to.

Posted by: mark at July 30, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #172101

—-mark— The Court Has already spoken?*&%#A—es


The court says it’s a free speach issue?,

Posted by: DAVID at July 30, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #172102

————-SPEECH—SORRY,tpo

Posted by: DAVID at July 30, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #172114

Silma:

I know the USSC has somehow equate money with free speech, but it’s really a violation of free speech…those with more $$$ get a bigger say, which means that those with less $$$ get a lesser say…that means the rights of those with less $$$ are being violated.

Arizona has made great strides in public funding of elections…it makes for a greater number of candidates…especially against incumbents where they might otherwise not be able to run. It enables more women and more minorities to run for office.

Could you give me one good reason why only the rich and personally funded should be able to afford a run for office?

Posted by: Lynne at July 30, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #172120

We are headed toward becoming a country where only the super rich will hold public office at the upper levels of government.

Posted by: mark at July 30, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #172124

Anyone who runs as a TRUE conservative would win a national election. Conservative values are still the held by the majority of all Americans.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 29, 2006 02:28 PM

And the evidence that the majority of “all” Americans hold conservative values is………..

How would you know when the majority do not even know who their congressman is?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at July 30, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #172125

Coordinating with Hugo Chavez is a reasonable thing to do?
Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 12:03 PM


Checked what country your last tank of gas might have come from?

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at July 30, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #172137

How can any one call a Republican a conservative when this Administration took a nearlly balance budget into a debt so big that it may never be broght down, and yet we are operating on China borrowed money and, China is controling most all product sales that we now need in this good ol USA, and now are just going to start moving into our car sales with there new car line. When will Washington wake up?
Carson

Posted by: Carson Donner at July 30, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #172180

Maybe I was just dreaming, but I seem to remember a time when there were Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative Democrats, and likewise there were Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative Republicans.

All of these diverse personalities actually represented their diverse constituents…..

And surprise, the country worked.

My point is that Lieberman shouldn’t be pigeonholed only as a conservative.
The question should be whether or not he represents his constituents, if he doesn’t they should vote him out with a clear conscience. If he does, he should receive the support of his party, regardless if he is a liberal or a conservative.

The Republicans have tried to define themselves as representing conservatives only, that is their greatest mistake, as the country isn’t just conservative.

The Democrats should not be defined by liberalism alone, as there are conservative and moderates that identify as Democrats as well and they should strive to represent all who are their constituents, liberal or moderate, or conservative.

Until the Democrats are capable of doing that it will be an uphill climb back to electability.

Posted by: Rocky at July 31, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #172190

—-Rocky—-Until the last few months, all Rep.
voted in lock step as their leader told them.
They no longer can use the term conservative or
moderate, because they all vote the same, until
they saw President Bush’s ratings hanging at 35% for
the past three mo. I see 20 moderate voted
against the tax Bill over this week end an 25 Dem’s.
voted with Republicans thus showing something in
the Air the fix was in. The Senate said the bill
will not pass in the senate.

Posted by: DAVID at July 31, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #172261

Good ridence to that cartoon Joe Leiberman, and to the rest of the Dems. who vote against party lines.

Posted by: nhliberal at July 31, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #172265

nhliberal,

“Good ridence to that cartoon Joe Leiberman, and to the rest of the Dems. who vote against party lines.”

A truly sad commentary.

Time to wake up and smell the pavement, pal.

It’s not about the party, it’s about the country.

It’s not like the Dems have such an overwhelming surplus of support to the point they can begin to purge the folks that got them there.

Posted by: Rocky at July 31, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #172498

Jack wrote

Re Bush

I like most of his policies. I object to too much spending (although Dems would give us even more)

Do Democrats spend more than Republicans do? That misinformation has been repeated for so long even the propagandists have begun to believe it themselves.

The National Debt as of June 1948 (the first full fiscal year after the end of WWII) was 252.3 billion. As of January 2006 the National Debt was 8,196.1 billion.

Here is a list of the Presidents and the amounts added during their time in office.

Truman _ 15.2 b
Eisenhower _ 22.6 b
Kennedy/Johnson _ 69.4 b
Nixon _ 294.5 b
Carter _ 280.2 b
Reagan _ 1,763.9 b
Bush 41 _ 1,469.2
Clinton _ 1,548.9 b
Bush 43 _ 2,480.0 b

Democrats _ 1,913.6 b
Republican _ 6,030.2 b

Democrats _ 24% of increase
Republicans _ 76% of increase

Posted by: Arm Hayseed at August 1, 2006 4:48 AM
Post a comment