Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

One other thing. Leave all the negativity when you check your coat at the door. “Going negative” has indeed won elections, but without a positive message to back it up, it’s simply an exercize in futility.

In other words, “Bash Bush”…but have a positive alternative to offer.

Right now, all the Dems have is “Bash Bush”.

In the words of the late Clara Peller…”Where’s the beef?”

Bush has killed the GOP for this cycle. He has led the way in negativity and “ye shall reap what ye sowed” and people around the world and at home hate him with such ferocity because hate and division has been his message for the last 6 years.
Complaining about “Bush Bashing” is just whining desperation. If you dish it out with “liberal bashing” then you need to be able to take it. Doesn’t seem like most on the right can since it seems that most chickenhawks crap their pants if someone shouts “boo”.
Maybe the Dems will take recent lessons to heart or maybe they will digress to their prior bad habits. I can’t tell, but I’m pretty sure the GOP is today’s toast, the rightwing is getting crusty feeling the heat, and the only message the Dems need is “Bush sucks”

As for: “Such unified platforms are rare in off-year elections and hinge on a number of factors that are not present.”
Do you mean items such as(?):
Illegal surveillance of American citizens.
An interminable poorly executed war begun on lies.
A president whom the majority of the American public believes lies to them.
A president with sub40% approval.
A republican led congress with even worse approvals.
An uncontrolled budget with tax cuts going predominently to the wealthy and spending cuts going mostly against the middle class, poor, and let’s not forget service men and women.
8 trillion dollars in debt with continued deficit speding
Uncontrolled pork in a GOP led congress
Sycophant appointments such as Bolton and Myers
DeLaygate
Fristgate
Plamegate
Schiavogate
and the list goes on.

Democrats can’t get it together. Too bad. We need two strong parties. Republicans are having trouble. Democrats will be unable to benefit. They will win a few seats, but no more than in an average off year election. Republicans retain power. The game is over already. Just some ain’t heard the word.

Dave,

“Bush Sux” over and over will not win an election.

BTW…you have proved my point. Name one positive thing you have said in your last post.

Zero.

My point exactly. Nothing positive to give people hope…or the impetus to vote Dem. To swing those on the edge over to the Dems.

All the Reps need to win is to have Howard Dean remain a Democrat.

Jim T,
In the 2004 election, Bush won with an overwhelmingly negative ad campaign. His ads (his OWN ads, not including the Swift Boat slimers and others) ran over 75% negative, while Kerry’s own ads (no including moveon,org or anyone else’s) ran less than 30% negative.

So when you have nothing positive to say, the odds are the you’re a Republican.

I have to say that I agree with most of what’s here. The democrats have had chances time and time again to come out as a reasonable alternative to the Dear Leader and the GOP. But have mostly whined instead offered alternatives (with a few notable exceptions). Opportunity has all but bashed their door in by knocking and they are still running around too diseparate to answer the door. The iron was hot months ago and they did not strike.

Unless they truly unite and start singing from the same page they will stand no chance. Even if they did a perfect job now, I fear it is too late. A well oiled political machine would’ve dealt deafening blows the past few months, and all we get are whimpers. The thing is that the political climate is ripe for change, if the Dems loose the mid-terms they only have themselves to blame….again.

We will see. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are far more inclusive. We will see.

The dems are a split party … not to say the repubs have it all together BUT it is more apparent with the dems.

ElliotBay,

But 100% negative? You can’t win an election with 100% negative.

I only wish you could see the emails I get on a daily basis from the Democratic leadership. 100% negative…with a tag line. “Together we can do better”.

My question is…”Do WHAT better?” Criticize better? Spout sour grapes better? Balance the budget better? Provide for the common welfare better? Unite this country better? WHAT better?

That question is never answered.

The Dems had better come up with an answer to that question…and soon.

This could be a critical election…and the Dems could win it…or lose it. The Dems themselves.

If they start working from the same page with a positive message and a solid plan, the Reps will sink like the Titanic.

If they keep spouting Howard Dean hate, Ted Kennedy arrogance and Maxine Waters divisiveness, then the Reps will stay right where they are.

In power.

Jim T,

There is nearly nothing positive to say about Bush. There is little more positive to say about the Democrats, politically. A proximal cause for that is the Bush politics of hate and fear which are now coming back to haunt him. It left pols fearful of saying anything since if it weren’t to the Bush tune the slimegates opened wide and the Cheney proxy liars would be let loose.

My point is that negative politics win elections, people are disgusted with Bush, and negative is all that’s needed to defeat BushCo (i.e. Repubs) in 2006. The only people who need to hear something good about the Dems are the 40% who can’t see the truth when it stares them in the face, i.e. that the Bush GOP is bad for the vast majority of Americans.

‎Where’s the beef?‎

Umm, this post is a joke right? I mean, where isn’t the beef?
Right now America has enough beef with your party to open a steakhouse on every corner in the country!

If we can actually trust the Diebold machines not to be hacked by a single member of the GOP (and I’m certainly not-so-sure), Republican’s are without a doubt going to be thrown out in DROVES in the next election!
In my opinion, the only folks who will still vote for them at this stage are the Hardest of the Hardcore: The Unecessary War Afficionados. The Up With Torture and Savagery Types. Your Crime and Cronyism Adherents. The Scared Sh*tless. The Foxnews-edly Witless. The Fiscally Retarded. And those who actually think the Constitution is just a “g*ddam piece of paper”!

No, I think the Democrats are going to do very well in ‘06 — because no matter how you righties have tried to vilify Democrats, they do truly care about upholding and defending the Constitution, and they don’t like it when average Americans are made to suffer as much as they have been under this Republican controlled Administration, Senate and House.

I believe that when America considers everything that has taken place during the last five years, they’ll go to the voting booth knowing full well that that a balance of power MUST be restored.
I also think that third parties might do amazingly well in the next election, because I believe that there are plenty of true conservatives who strongly dissapprove of what their party has been doing, but who could never bring themselves to vote for a Dem — therefore, they’ll be looking for other alternatives.

Dave,

There is nearly nothing positive to say about Bush.

Then DON’T talk about Bush! Let MoveOn talk about him. Let the other “Swift Boat” types talk about him and run his ass into the ground!

Talk about what’s good about America! Talk about how it can be better! Empahsize how Democrats can make this a better country than it is already!

Let people on the margin jump on Bush and keep the “party faithful” in line, while convincing the “undecideds” that the Dems have a better plan. And, most importantly, TELL THEM WHAT IT IS!! Explain it to them. They’ll listen. I promise.

Name one positive thing you have said in your last post.

I’m “positive” that promising to NOT doing these things will be a winner.

Replacing a baby’s dirty diaper with a dirtier one IS change, but who really wants that?

The Democrats offer nothing in the form of positive change for the country.

They have yet to present one concrete idea to improve the lives of Americans. They a owned lock, stock and barrel by the ultra left-wing fringe of the party. It will be a true miracle if this bunch of Democrats can come together and agree on a platform, with details for implementation, that people can understand and rally behind.

Dave:

Unfortunately your hatred of Bush has blinded you and your leftist, liberal, whining minions in the socialist democrat party to the obvious: out of all the seats in the house up for re-election, only 30 or so are competitive. If you think that the demorats are going to pick off 16 to 18 house seats, your dementia has progressed beyond healthy levels. Just keep letting that idiot Dean speak, backed up by Pelosi, kennedy and kerry and you shall reap your rewards. I’ll wager that you are pining for the good ole clinton days. Just let the MSM keep up their relentless attacks as well. Remember, if you yell bush sucks long enough and loud enough, the demorats will sweep congress!

I don’t think it much matters who is the majority and minority party in 2006. I think the only thing that will matter is whether or not voters will continue to vote incumbents back into office and in so doing, continue voting mediocrity, waste, and political infighting back into office.

It is my fervent hope and effort that 2006, 2008, and 2010 will see such a growth in anti-incumbent voting, that politicians will recognize their political futures depend on American voters, instead of wealthy campaign donors and lobbyist’s special interests. For it is so obvious to me, that politicians no longer view voters as their employers, but, their employees, taking their orders from the politicians, instead of the other way around.

Well, I don’t agree with you on who is in the majority/minority. I dislike intensively what the Rs have done over the last few years. Federal spending is ridiculous, immigratiion control is non-existent, the Medicare drug entitlement cost and Bush signed that stupid campaign finance bill. But I still prefer these Republican clowns to the socialists on the left.

I think you will be disappointed when the elections come. Most people say they want change but when the voting booths open, their guy/gal is good and it is always those other ones that need to be voted out. Face it, these weasels (politicians on both sides) have established bullet-proof districts for themselves. The only time an incumbent goes is through retirement, chooses not to run or gets nabbed in a scandal. They are essentially elected for life and have absolutely no intention of “representing” the people.

Beak, it is about behavior modification. We can get much better results out of both parties if enough of us will stand together and deny them incumbency until they get the message.

Yes, you are right, there are some districts many districts which are locked up tighting than a drum, but, there are almost as many which aren’t. An anti-incumbent vote would not just affect individual politicians, but, both political parties who vie for majority status. If they can’t predict their incumbent races, they can’t plan or predict majority status.

Thus, the anti-incumbent vote will be as good for the goose as the gander. In more ways than one. What is currently tying anti-incumbent voters I work with, conseratives, liberals and inbetween, is their demand for more repsonsible, transparent, accountable and multi-partisan government.

If a number of incumbents from both parties lose in coming elections, both parties will be forced to appease the anti-incumbent voters in order to vie for majority status. And that will mean better government and more multi-partisan government which solves problems instead of wasting tax payers dollars legislating one way and reversing it the next, leaving the country’s future virtually rudderless and major problems unsolved.

Aldous,

You got to be kidding? The dems inclusive? That is a laugh! Despite all of their claims of inclusivity, dems can’t handle those who have opinions other than their own social agenda. Look at what is happening to Michael Steele in Maryland. Say it over again and again, and maybe someone will believe you. Certainly not I.

The question is will the Democratic Party finally become the liberal progressive party that it wants to be. It’s a battle that has been brewing internally since the 40’s; in 1948 the party split with a Democratic nominee (Truman), a Dixiecrat (Thurmond), and a Progressive (Wallace).

An uneasy coalition of those three, plus block voting by labor and minorities, gave them unequaled power for more than 30 years. But there are no more Conservative Democrats, the party doesn’t exist in southern states, labor’s power has been diluted over the past decades, and minorities are beginning to question the alliance. The time is right for the progressives to finally cement control of the party.

If they do, how about a third party headed by Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman, Colin Powell, and Rudy Giuliani? Drop the culture wars and promote effective government….

Adrienne,

No, I think the Democrats are going to do very well in ‘06 — because no matter how you righties have tried to vilify Democrats, they do truly care about upholding and defending the Constitution, and they don’t like it when average Americans are made to suffer as much as they have been under this Republican controlled Administration, Senate and House.

If that is so, then PLEASE let someone know about it, would you?

All the emails I get from the Dem HQ say the same thing:

“Bush Sux”, “Bush Sux”, “Bush Sux”, “Bush Sux” and together we can do better. Oh, and by the way, “Bush Sux”.

If “Bush Sux”, then tell us how you will do better. Tell us. Don’t just leave us hanging with “Bush Sux”.

Tell…us…how…you…will…do…better. And make us believe it.

It’s too bad we couldn’t fire the lot of them from the township trustee to the President and start over with a requirement that anyone running can have NO experience in government whatsoever.

Dave,
“As for: “Such unified platforms are rare in off-year elections and hinge on a number of factors that are not present.”

“Do you mean items such as(?):

Illegal surveillance of American citizens.”

THE VOTERS SEE THAT AS PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY, NOT AS VIOLATING CIVIL LIBERTIES.

“An interminable poorly executed war begun on lies.”

PROVE THE LIES; IT HASN’T BEEN DONE YET, SO GO AHEAD AND PROVE IT.

“A president with sub40% approval.”

IT’S NOW AROUND 50%.

“An uncontrolled budget with tax cuts going predominently to the wealthy and spending cuts going mostly against the middle class, poor, and let’s not forget service men and women.”

THE ECONOMY IS ROLLING AND THERE’S MORE AND MORE POSITIVE OUTLOOKS FROM ECONOMISTS RIGHT NOW TODAY. CHECK IT OUT.

“Uncontrolled pork in a GOP led congress”

THEY JUST PASSED A $40 BILLION SPENDING CUT BILL.

“Sycophant appointments such as Bolton and Myers”

BOLTON’S KICKING SOME SERIOUS TAIL IN THE (WORTHLESS) UN. AND, MIERS WAS REPLACED WITH AN OUTSTANDING JUDGE; HE’LL DEFINITELY GET CONFIRMED!

“DeLaygate”

THEY DROPPED MOST OF THE CHARGES, NOW IT’LL TAKE A FEW MORE MONTHS TO DROP THE REST OF THE (BOGUS) CHARGES.

“Plamegate”

TOOK TWO YEARS AND NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH OUTING HER. YET, LESS THAN 2 MONTHS LATER THE NY TIMES RUNS A STORY ABOUT NSA SPYING ON TERRORISTS INTERNATIONALLY MAKING CALLS TO THE US. NY TIMES “OUTED” OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

“Schiavogate”

PROVED THE POINT WITH THE THUG GANSTER GETTING EXECUTED FOR MUDERING 4 INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THE HOLLYWOOD CROWD SUPPORTS HIM. IN THE SCHIAVO CASE, THE SAME CROWD WERE AGAINGST HER. NICE!!

“and the list goes on.”

YOU’RE RIGHT, IT DOES:
RATHERGATE
NEWSWEEKGATE
DURBINGATE
DEANGATE
MURTHAGATE
SHEEHANGATE
FALSE STORY (AFTER FALSE STORY) GATE
DEMOCRATGATE

Poor Republicans… must be hard reading all those talkingpoints you keep getting. At least you are well-paid for it.

Matt:

I think you are wrong. Sure, Democrats are not unified on all positions. But when the campaign starts we will be. I believe Democrats will be for increasing the minimum wage, a univeraal healthcare system that covers everybody, assuring civil rights for everybody, getting rid of corruption and enhancing integrity in public office, improving the economy for workers as well as for investors, for leaving Iraq as soon as possible and for returning to fighting Al Qaeda rather than Iraqis.

The Republican Party today is so corrupt that many Democrats will win for this reason alone. Others will win because they will champion causes to help the average guy, not the rich and powerful.

Evidently, Republicans are apprehensive. Otherwise why would they start attacking Democrats this early in the game?

A contract with America may have worked once but probably not agian for a while. The problem with it is the last contract was broken beyond belief. Why emulate a strategy that worked but can’t be lived up to? I believe if the republicans don’t get back to that contract they will feel the rath of those very same republicans who voted them in. When all is said and done conservative democrates and moderate republicans who vote according to their concience and not along party lines may be the real winners.

Paul, Universal Healthcare and an increase in the minimum wage are just more giveaways. Who wants to give health care away when we can’t afford it now. Minimum wage is for entry level positions. Most earn a higher wage with experience.
Hand outs are why the Democrat party is in the shape it’s in now.
Sure you may be unified when the election starts but half way thru the election your candidate will become the “New” Candidate and their credibility will be lost again.

I will not teach special-ed here… have a nice day.

Better than me eh?

It’s a little early yet to say who is going to win what, or for all democrats to bow down to one plan as best. We’ll pick the best one from the best candidate that resonates with the most of us thanks.

It’s always a good sign though to see Republicans admitting publicly(finally, geez) that Bush was a national disgrace and that the only way they can win is to hope the Democrats totally blow it.

I think many will think back, compare Bush’s years with Clinton’s and make the right choice.

Thanks Matt, this post made my day!

Universal healthcare is a political loser in most of the country.

George in SC, not to defend Democrats, but, that is what is known as a big tent party. Republicans are learning all about that concept these days.

The end of this legislative semester demonstrated that ever so clearly. The days of one Republican voice between the White House and Congress, and Congressional Leadership and Congresspersons, are over, at least until all the posturing for votes in 2006 is past.

Then, all those Republicans spouting centrist, bi-partisan, put the nation first, rhetoric may go back to the Conservative extreme unified voice but, I doubt it. 2008 politics will engage almost immediately after the 2006 elections are over. Nothing splits a big tent party as easily as incumbents seeking reelection from a constituency which has lost faith with the party leadership. And polls show that has become the case with the GOP.

Democrats can strategize all they want.
They wont be able to keep up with the party of cheaters.

you dems need to remember that bush isnt running for anything. keep up the good work dems. go ahead and trash good dems like lieberman.works for me.

I recently watched a Canadian Citizen speak on cspan about the Universal Healthcare that Mrs. Clinton failed to enact. He stated a Canadian Emergency room visit waiting period is 48 hours. He comes to the U.S. for his health care. He jokingly said if the U.S. Adopted a “Socialist” health care system he would have to go to Costa Rica to get his health care and that was not an option for him.
He said the U.S. Citizen’s attitude of Self-Reliance is what makes this country great. I agree with that and can’t vote for someone who is forcing reliance on government.

I haven’t seen anyone stand up and identify themselves in the news clips I’m reading pertaining to the “spying on American Citizens”. Does anyone know the names of the unidentified sources? The “officials”? Any names at all?

Jim T:
“If “Bush Sux‎,

If? Ha! :^D

“then tell us how you will do better.”

Oh yeah Jim, like you’re really interested in how the Dem’s intend to do better.

Paul:
“Evidently, Republicans are apprehensive. Otherwise why would they start attacking Democrats this early in the game?”

Good point.

Dave:
“I will not teach special-ed here…”

You don’t have to teach Dave, but could please help hand out the “thinking caps” (safety helmets)?

David:
“Nothing splits a big tent party as easily as incumbents seeking reelection from a constituency which has lost faith with the party leadership. And polls show that has become the case with the GOP.”

That is very true, but…

Schwamp:
“Democrats can strategize all they want.
They wont be able to keep up with the party of cheaters.”

Unfortunately, this may be another good point.
How are we to ever know what the will of the people truly is until we have serious election reform that guarantees voters real accountability?

Weary Willie, either you are misrepresenting what the Canadian said, or, the Canadian is stretching the truth, a lot! Fact is, in Canada emergency rooms they triage, just like in the U.S., insuring those with life threatening emergencies are treated immediately, and those who can wait, if waiting is necessary, come after. That is not to say there are not waiting lines at emergency rooms in Canada. But, I took my daughter to the emergency room once for a possible broken arm, and yes, she waited too, while they had some other kids injured in a car accident treated first. Needless to say, we didn’t mind the two hour wait on a Friday evening.

The names of the whistleblowers are top secret! Present and former NSA officials don’t you know? Ain’t secrecy a bitch?

I sure hope the Democrats don’t win in ‘06. I also hope the Republicans don’t either. I hope the voters finally wake up to the fact that BOTH parties are screwing them. And vote ALL the incumbents out, and replace them with independent and third party canidates that know that keeping their jobs relies on them representing the will of the people. Not the will of special intrest.

We will see. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are far more inclusive. We will see.

Posted by: Aldous at December 28, 2005 12:09 PM

Your right, they’ll except any wayout wacko. Whereas the Republicans requrie their wackos to be not so far out.

David,

The Canadian Healthcare system is not one that will work very well long term. In fact, the only way to ENSURE that it will is to prevent access to private healthcare. But unfortunately that is not something that will happen now. Why? Because of the fact that the Canadian Healthcare system is incapable of providing adequate healthcare to Canadians.

In a 4-3 decision, the panel of seven justices said banning private insurance for a list of services ranging from MRI tests to cataract surgery was unconstitutional under the Quebec Charter of Rights, given that the public system has failed to guarantee patients access to those services in a timely way.

As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases, justices Beverley McLachlin, Jack Major, Michel Bastarache and Marie Deschamps found for the majority.

I’m not sure that removing competition and providing incentive to find better and more effective methods of providing healthcare is the best way to go.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are far more inclusive.

How do you figure?

Thanks Dave, I visited your website http://www.voidnow.org and read your mission statement. I think you would agree with my first post in this thread to a certain extent.
Are you a Canadian? Are you a U.S. Citizen who migrates to Canada for health care? I’m experiencing the necessity of having insurance as a prerequisite to getting healthcare. My son, 20, is experiencing getting healthcare without insurance. Two vastly different experiences.
Everyone else says “What have you got? What’s your idea?”
We have thousands of little emergency rooms driving around called ambulances. They could provide service on-site if they had a doctor on board.
I heard a former speaker of the house talk about the layers of beurocracy in the school system before the dollar finally made it to the student. Let’s have 300 schools instead of 3.
Let’s train our pets to carry survailance video and let them be our “Neighborhood Watch” eyes and ears. Let the video be reliable evidence.
Oh. Wait. All that has to be done on the block neighbor level. How on earth could the Federal government handle that.
They could let us keep our money.

“Who wants to give health care away when we can’t afford it now.”

If you can’t afford health insurance via the profit driven method maybe you should consider other alternatives. The main one being a system that mearly needs to pay it’s expenses and not someone elses expense account. It’s not about giving it away it’s about making it work better. It is no coincidence every other industrialized nation has decided profit should not be a part of health care. Maybe you should take some time to consider why you want someone else making money off your fear of illness.

fear of illness. Fact is illness. Only a profit driven industry is capable of advancing. Controls, by definition, inhibits advances.

Still haven’t seen a post that explains how the democrats are going to win in 2006…

They won’t. We get the next 100 years. :)

They won’t. We get the next 100 years.

Well, someone will. But unless one of the two major parties gets their collective heads out of their proverbial asses a ‘third party’ is going to come up and take over. A couple are already good candidates, one on either side of the spectrum, and eventually, as has happened throughout the history of the US, as the major parties continue to ignore the needs of the country and the ideals that the country was founded upon they will be replaced by ones that do.

It will just be interesting if both major parties fail at the same time or not. THAT would be something…

I think it will be a few months before we see how effective the Democrat’s campaign this year will be.

I think the Red Column, with it’s jones for being on message, have forgotten the virtue of ideological flexibility. In a time where neither party’s dogma is that trusted, the party that seems most accomodating, most willing to put principle over politics, will be the one that gains the most in the next election.

Recall, if you will, that The Democrats maintained their power for so long under a coalition of interests. It is not unlikely that the Democratic party can do so once again, and win elections doing so.

The last thing the Republicans need to be doing now is minimizing the threat to their majority power. They need to be scared as hell, and prepared to do what is necessary to get back into the good graces of voters. That is, after all, the point of a Democracy: correct your mistakes, clean up your messes, or be prepared to have somebody else take your job and do it for you.

Why did Samual Adams have the Boston Tea Party? Didn’t he want to dictate his own destiny? Didn’t he reject taxation without representation?
What do we have here? Federal Control (King) dictating Taxation and control of basicly, everything and an isolated beltway that only hears it’s own cacophony.
The Federal government needs us more than we need it.

Adrienne,

Oh yeah Jim, like you’re really interested in how the Dem’s intend to do better.

Yes…I AM interested in how the Dems would do better. I am a moderate conservative…but a moderate none the less.

Make you a deal.

You don’t confuse me with the fundamentalist right and I won’t confuse you with the lunatic fringe left.

Deal?

So…how would the Dems make things better?

A favorite canard of the right-wing echo chamber (RWEC) is that the Democrats have “no ideas”. Repeatedly frequently by all their paid media trumpets, apparently it has gained currency among a lot of ideologues. In general, though, the Democratic party stands for a few things:

1. Investing in people to enrich society as a whole. This means maintaining an adequate social safety net and providing things like early childhood education, access to adequate health care for everyone, advanced education to the capable (not just the rich), and a livable wage for those willing to work.

2. Respecting individual rights pertaining to privacy, reproduction, and expression, and tempering individual rights when they impinge on others freedoms, especially property rights and gun rights.

3. Respect for individual dignity, especially those historically disadvantaged by racism, sexism, and homophobia, and the encouragement of a diverse and creative society that respects newcomers as much as those of old-line European-ancestry. This includes making sure that such respect and encouragement flourishes throughout the US in all locales.

4. Restoring the role of the US as a good international neighbor that respects the opinions and rights of other countries, that strives to understand and enhance the cultural perspective of other nations, and that maintains the moral high ground by scrupulously observing the international treaties and laws that serve to bind us together.

I know some of you will quibble with the content and some will find the ideas reprehensible, sure that they hide some nefarious agenda (but even they must admit they are ideas). I also know that the Democrats have been imperfect in many of these areas as well, and that efforts to accomplish them have sometimes backfired. But these goals do, I think, characterize the aspirations of the bulk of people drawn to the party. The main failing is that the party has not successfully shouted down the RWEC braying that they have no ideas as they denigrate and mischaracterize those very ideas when expressed in the political market place.

Thanks MentalWimp, how do you do that on your block?

I am laughing so hard tears are in my eyes after reading the posts of you’ll Vichy..opps meant to say democrats ,,ah same idea any way ,last election demonstrated that the democrats no longer possess the ability to win any thing all they can do is whine,,,,a few points
11 states voted on the democrat & holloywoods pet projects of allowing gay marriage ,,,,hmm lets see 11 states overwhelmingly rejected thier agenda’s ,as well as having thier long time minority leader Daschle defeated by a new comer .
and now lets see majority of dems want to abandon Iraq and run away ,,is same crap we listened to from all dems if confronted like north korea in 94 with a dem in office we’ll pay them to be good ….so any voters who want an elected official who will run at any confrontation who will hand over the defense of america to the UN go right ahead vote dem ,,,,
However it’ll wind up being simalar to 2004 with the dems losin seats in the senate,(harry Reid look out) and more seats in the house.vast majority of americans will not tolerate bumbling cowards willing to sacrifice our security,and statements from Dean ,Pelosi ,and Harry reids famous (we KILLed the patriot act) will come back to haunt them .any time theyre given power you have clinton lying to a federal judge,gray davis removed from office ,or the governor of new jersey giving his gay lover the job of defending new jersey from possible terrorist attacks ,all you have to do is listen to thier hate filled speeches and for most voters they will vote for thier dog buck before a dem gets their vote.after ohio finished counting truly amazzing how many people who were Dead and buryed yet some how managed to vote democratic the party of democrats is most corrupt anti american socialist Vichy wanna be’s that they are in decline and will continue until they come up with a platform that people other than hollywood elite’s will support.just keep on spewing hate and anti bush shots for it will spell the end of any kind of democratic majority hopefully for balance of my life as well as my childrens.

Does anyone disagree with installing survailance equiptment on our pets and letting them patrol their territory?… Our territory? It’s alot more efficient than paying a cop to try to do it. Why don’t any of you think like this.
It’s the local government that is going to solve most of these problems, not the federal government.
Start talking about how your local government is going to save the day.

Rylee ryroks

“Ronaldus Magnus”, the “Teflon President”. He woke a nation. Ours. He cast off the cold war like cutting away fat. He was limited to 8 years because of the term limits amendment to the constitution.
I believe that amendment was to protect the legacy of F.D.R. Pure politic.

Controls, by definition, inhibits advances.

Wet Willie and Rylee

Thanks for proving my point.

Rhinehold, explain to me why, if the Canadian health care system is so wanting, that more than 90% of Canadians say they wouldn’t trade their system for ours. We do in fact, have the best medical expertise of any system in the world. But, Canadians wouldn’t trade theirs for ours. Can’t find the poll at the moment, it was done over a year ago, if I recall correctly.

They simply believe health care, and dying for lack of it, should not be left to profiteers is the short and simple answer. I agree.

I also don’t think Canada’s system would work in America. But, I do think a non-profit system could be far more ethical, and humane along side our commercial health care system. Also, greater stratification of professional services would go a long way to reducing the cost of health care. Far, far too much simple health care is delivered by doctors and far too much profit conferred upon doctors for visits and procedures not actually peformed by doctors.

If we invested in far more Physician’s Assistants, and relegated minor surgical, cut, abrasion, and contusion ministration to nurses, at PA’s and nurses rates, we could cut a significant amount out of the cost of health care in America. Doctor’s getting a take on every procedure administered by nurses and aides, is lucrative for doctors, but, unjustified in today’s spiraling cost environment.

I also think government sponsored urban clinics in which doctors and nurses education costs are covered by zero percent loans in return for government sponsored, not managed, urban and rural clinics in which those doctors and nurses practice until their loans are repayed, would be a very wise investment not just for the poor, either.

Doctors and nurses would have provisional licenses to work only in these clinics, and full accredited licenses could not be issued until their loans are payed. Hell of a deal for Americans, hell of a deal for practioners who otherwise could not afford Med School, and a helluva deal for patients in rural and congested urban centers, where waiting lines would be reduced, travel time and distance reduced, and competent medical care provided at as much as 1/2 to 2/3 of current costs.

Mental wimp said
1. Investing in people to enrich society as a whole. This means maintaining an adequate social safety net and providing things like early childhood education, access to adequate health care for everyone, advanced education to the capable (not just the rich), and a livable wage for those willing to work.
Hmmmm….well lets see pell grants have increased to highest level ever under president bush.
and lets talk of safty net ,,,,
social security net dems unwilling to state thier position or offer alternatives as system continues to erode with melt down coming soon.
No child left behind ,finally a leader willing to make teachers who do not do thier jobs accountable.

Mental wimp said.
2. Respecting individual rights pertaining to privacy, reproduction, and expression, and tempering individual rights when they impinge on others freedoms, especially property rights and gun rights.
wow have you been misled by your party..:
privacy rights yes i agree you should be able to do what you like in your bedroom ,however that is not the dems approach they insist on shoving there immoral, degrading,and very dangerous life style (how many have now died from aids?) down the throats of all americans and devoloping special rights for any who practice immoral sexual deviancy.
2.freedom of expression : yes its the dems who insist on using taxpayer money to support artists who take a painting of mary and covering it with human waste….very tasteful and we should all have to pay for this kind of expression of freedom,while a judge in alabama is forced to take down the 10 commandments.
then property rights jeez ask the citizens of connitucut where the democrats running town hall got away with condemming and taking over there propertys.and as to gun rights my god if given the chance the dems would make it so no one any where in this country would ever own a gun again.

mental wimp said
4. Restoring the role of the US as a good international neighbor that respects the opinions and rights of other countries, that strives to understand and enhance the cultural perspective of other nations, and that maintains the moral high ground by scrupulously observing the international treaties and laws that serve to bind us together.

like the international court eh ?and as i said earlier giving the right to defend ourselfs to other countrys while using chaimberlain like tactics to secure peace.you have been lied to and decieved by your party far if given the choice your elected offials would allow a 12 year old girl to have an abortion at 8 1/2 months with out ever getting consent from her parents …wake up my friend the leader ship of your party and most of its current supporters like move on are absolutly evil creatures of the night.

From the point where I am reading the book the Democrats have already imploded. They have nothing! Even the so called wire tapping that Jimmy Carter did and Clinton signed the executive order forever legalizing and Jamie Gorelik transfered to the justice dept. has sent that argument to the dump.
My suggestion? Quit telling the Dems how to win, what they lack and what messages they need. Encourage them as they are now. We have political heaven on earth. Nancy as minority leader, Harry as senate minority leader, and need I say anything abour Mr. Dean?
My personal opinion, we need Fred Thompson to declare for president. An excellent senator, good conservative, chose to step down rather than become an insider, much like Reagan.
Just some thoughts from a conservative who is loving the political atmosphere as it is now. We have already won!

Hi Mental Wimp,

“A favorite canard of the right-wing echo chamber (RWEC) is that the Democrats have “no ideas‎.”

That’s rich coming from people who think that supporting terrorists in Iraq and running up massive debt are good ideas.

when dems start giving us ideas other than we hate bush,then they might win an election.anti american anti military bs is not going to win an election for county dog catcher much less anything else.

Hi Mike,

Here’s a couple of ideas.

Get rid of Rumsfeld who is so stupid that he advocated “retaliating” against the wrong country after 9/11. The guy is actually dumb enough to have asserted that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” as a basis for going into Iraq.

Getting rid of Cheney’s guys who lied their asses off leading up to the Iraq war would be a good idea as well.

Having people running the country who aren’t extremely dishonest idiots is a good idea.

Not running up massive debt is another good idea. We’re paying 352 billion/year interest on the debt and that number is going up quickly.

Getting rid of the idiots who were stupid enough to think we were going to grow our way out of debt would be a good idea as well.

do the words able danger,jamie gorelick,911,and other little thing mean anything.obviuosly dems have forgotten these things. how convenient.

Who do you know in your neighborhood or on your floor has these tendencies? Do you know? What if your dog met everyone who came into your floor, into your building, neighborhood? What if everyone entering your neighborhood was documented? Would you find it easier to deter crime? I think so.
Whenever you step off your own property you are in the public. The public has the right to defend itself.

We are at war.

You can’t make a transaction without the public knowing. It’s the price you pay for living in a free society.

Hi Mike,

So you think my ideas are good ones?

richard
yes i agree fred thompson would be a great choice add bill frist or condalisa rice as vice president wed have another solid 8 years with someone ready to run for another 8 as well…nice choice i like it

Hi Mike,

“obviuosly dems have forgotten these things. how convenient.”

You actually buy into the right wing lie about everybody who disagrees with you has forgotten 9/11?

It’s not at all true. Those who push it are quite dishonest.

i agree that rumsfeld needs to go.replace him with someone that wants to protect america more.the others we have to live with.i think that during a time of war we should be a united country becuse bottom line terrorists want us all dead. republican,dem,independent whatever or whoever.

Hi Mike,

“obviuosly dems have forgotten these things. how convenient.”

You actually buy into the right wing lie about everybody who disagrees with you has forgotten 9/11?

It’s not at all true. Those who push it are quite dishonest.

Hi Mike,

“obviuosly dems have forgotten these things. how convenient.”

You actually buy into the right wing lie about everybody who disagrees with you has forgotten 9/11?

It’s not at all true. Those who push it are quite dishonest.

im not dishonest,i just wander if 911 would have happened if the people of able danger had been listened to?i do not question your patriotism just your point of view.

Hi Mike,

“i think that during a time of war we should be a united country becuse bottom line terrorists want us all dead.”

I assume you mean that everybody should agree with you?

I say this because you go in for vicious attacks on those you disagree with rather than speak in a way that brings people together.

Hi Mike,

“im not dishonest”

You were accusing everybody who disagrees with you of not remembering 9/11. That isn’t at all honest.

not at all, sometimes we have to agree to disagree i just want no more attacks on this country and no more dead americans in a war we didnt ask for but must win.

Hi Mike,

I don’t want any attakcs either.

We did ask for the Iraq war. We invaded Iraq despite the fact that they weren’t much of a threat to us.

The terrorists are winning in Iraq. They did very well in the elections.

We’re supporting terrorists in the Iraqi government and security forces.

im not a republican first. im a conservative first.i donot like being at odds with other americans. defeating terrorism should and must be our #1 priority.not rep good dems bad or visa versa.

Hi Mike,

I like your attitude!

We disagree on things but you seem to have your priorities right!

they were a threat,maybe not to directly attack us but given his past had he developed those weapons he would have provided them to terrorist,that is simply a risk we could not take.

thank you.i dont want anybody to think im a right wing fanatic. im an america fanatic. i love my country. i served it,i lost vision in my right eye defending it. not in combat but lost it none the less.

Hi Mike,

I’m sorry to hear that.

I thank you for your service to our country and I mean it.

Weary Willy-
Not to give you to big a shock, but you do know that the Big, growing government you so hate is controlled by the very Republicans you so love, which you would be so keen to given even more power. You see the sleight of hand is that they do what they tell you those Democrats would do, just given the chance, only you’re so caught up in hold we in the minority party accountable, that you don’t mind your own shop.

As for control? Well, the next time you’re feeling froggy, on a curvy hillside road, let go of the steering wheel, and ask yourself what the value of control is. Control can inhibit advance, but it can also inhibit setbacks. Fallin off mountainsides, for instance.

Rylee-
Why so sad about the Patriot act? Bush never needed a law’s permission anyways.

As far as New Jersey goes, You should recall that a Democrat won that Governorship, so you really can’t count that as a loss. Gray Davis was sunk, true enough, but Arnold isn’t exactly rubbing people in California the right way- his numbers are in the toilet.

As far as hate goes, I think other people can read what you’ve written, which personally attacks Democrats on many levels, and what most Democrats here write, and decide for themselves who truly lets the dark side flow through them the most.

Richard-
You have nothing. Jimmy Carter signed FISA into law, that Clinton’s action (A Physical search as opposed to a Wiretap) wasn’t covered under the law at the time, which Clinton remedied. Clinton also had a legitimate national security claim for the search in question, given that the search was done on Aldrich Ames. Only some guy who had been selling our agents out to the Russians!

Bush however, signed over 20 separate executive orders on Wiretaps, based on the argument that as Commander in Chief he could do anything he wanted in a time of war to defend the country.

He could have asked congress for more authority, or gotten the Warrants up to three days after the fact, but he did no such thing, and did no such thing again and again.

You folks have lost, and it’s a pity you don’t understand how much you’ve lost.

Mike T.-
If you wish to be truly independent on Nat. Security matters, you might want to step back and not take the GOP line on Gorelick. Folks talk about “the wall”, but you should keep in mind that this was the standard policy throughout a number of adminstrations since the late seventies. It did contribute to the Terrorist problem, but it was one of those things one could say was a mutual problem for the parties.

I think we’re all in this together, and we need to be able to acknowledge all the mistakes that have been made, so we can put together some semblance of a solution that all Americans can agree on. This being a Democracy, no solution that neglects the consensus of the broad spectrum of American opinion will work that well.

not a problem.i was honored to do it,and would do it again. id serve now if i wasnt to old and crippled to do it.

stephen, i agree. problems need to be solved not bickered over.able danger needs to be listened to not ignored or at the very least given very little attention.

i was in the military i know that things are glossed over to protect peoples backside. i also know it goes both right and left.

I think our military was smart enough to know they couldn’t chase Bin Laden around the Afgan Mountains for the rest of our lives. They chose a theatre of battle and they chose well.

There are many people in Iraq who want self-determination. They have it because of us. They respect and appreciate this opportunity.

We’re bickering. Manuvering for political gain.
Our media is against us.

The media was flumuxed when exit polls showed “values” played an important roll in their vote after the 2000 election.
What values were they? The “Family Values” of Vice President Dan Quale.
His “Family Values” were reduced to an antagonist to a sitcom and our media couldn’t listen, wouldn’t listen.

We have a 2 party system. One party is the government made up of the Democrats and the Republicans. The other party is the people.
The people are pushed to the fringe. They have no say. They are not represented.

They do not vote. A simptom not a cause.

How are any of you going to get these people to vote? Are you going to talk them into it? No.
Do you even want them to vote?

Turn to your neighbor, not your government.

i agree willie.complacency, and apathy lead to being dominated by the very people we put in there to protect us.

So, What do you want to do about it. Do you think calling your senator will help? I don’t think so. What if we quit paying taxes? Do you think that will make them take notice?
I think they will only to punish.

I like this free society. I grew up in this free society. I have a right to disagree with, not the war, not with helping disadvantaged people, not with feeding the hungry. I disagree with being forced to do it. We don’t need a huge federal government. We need a strong president and a strong military. With that as well as the complacentcy we have now.
If our country sat on it’s ass and let the world destroy itself we would be the winner. We’ve done it before. But it’s very expensive.
How many men died in the Second World War? How Many died in this war? Should we have let Iraq into Kuwait? Should we have waited another 10 years after Iraq went into Kuwait to stop Saddam?
The middle east is acting the same way europe was acting in the last century. We know that and we are being preemptive. Why shouldn’t we?

Matt
“the ploethora of opinions on the Democratic side of the aisle is so bad,”

“the Democrat never put forth their own plan,”

“Silence from the Democrats is deadly.”

“Democrats also fail to seize any initiative and devise a unified strategy.”

“The Democrats have called their plan, Campaign for Change. A great marketing play, but there is no substance.”

“The Democratic platform is a shambles of silence and simplicity, with nothing that distinguishes them from the pack.”

“One other thing. Leave all the negativity when you check your coat at the door. “Going negative‎ has indeed won elections, but without a positive message to back it up, it’s simply an exercize in futility.”

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

Rhinehold, explain to me why, if the Canadian health care system is so wanting, that more than 90% of Canadians say they wouldn’t trade their system for ours.

Well, basically because they know as much about our healthcare system as we do theirs. In fact, I bet most of those ‘90%’ would say that if you don’t have insurance in the US you will be denied healthcare.

They hear the complaints by many in the US and have no problem with funding healthcare by pointing a gun at the citizens of their country to force it’s support.

But, that could just be my opinion I suppose…

mike t.-
My one small quibble is that we do need a little bickering. Something’s wrong when nobody feels strongly about something, and things are worse when people don’t take the opportunity to work out their differences like mature adults.

Weary Willie-
I don’t think anybody chose to let Bin Laden go, as much as the numbskull policy effectively let his former allies do that.

As for Iraqi’s and self-determination, tell me how we call it self-determination when we have to march in to give it to them. Not that I object in principle to helping these folks out, now we’ve kicked Saddam off the top of the hill. I’m just saying, you call it what it is, not what you’d like it to be.

As for the people? They are as disenfranchised in this country as they allow themselves to be. When they tell themselves its no important who’s in the White House, you get crappy candidates, because it’s the committed partisans who are electing them, and folks like that are not so critical.

I say don’t turn to the government for just anything, but don’t be afraid to stand up for yourself and use the government that’s supposed to represent you to ensure fairness, transparency and safety in the systems you depend on. Turn to your neighbor when you can, but don’t turn your back on your government and what it’s doing.

I find your position contradictory, and perhaps symptomatic of why the combination of two “Small-Goverment” oriented branches resulted in the greatest expansion of government in over forty years. At once, you want to give Bush all the power in the world. At the same time, you fail to realize that no Government works without bureaucracy.

And this pre-emptive war thing- really. Wake me when there’s a actual threat to confront, and no time to consult NATO or the UN. The beauty of going after a specific enemy is that you know who your enemies are, and you can tell the world exactly why you’re there.

Hitler was no threat when he fortified Rhineland. No one opposed him. With the resources aquired there he built the largest army in the world and used it. It’s no accident peace came to europe only after democracy.

tell me how we call it self-determination when we have to march in to give it to them.

Who marched into europe and gave it to them? We did. We were the only one left to do it.
What would history think of F.D.R. if he were to have called December 7th a police action?
G.W.B. is only doing his job. It’s been defined by the constitution. Congress isn’t. Most of what it does is not in it’s realm as defined by the constitution. Read the 10th amendment.

My thought as a democrat is to make sure the Republicans maintain office and allow them to further erode our nation completely and turn it into a corporate shill entirely, 100%.

America as a nation needs to die and the republicans are the one’s to do it. Together we can do ‘BETTER’ to disenable and laissez faire whore our nation into the ground and erode the very foundations on which our country was founded. GO GOP hurrah!!!! Make us a shadow of our former self so we may never act in pride.

I believe that the affluenza of our society needs to come to a standstill and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. WE need to lose the vestige that is America entirely, let it go completely evil and run completely backwards. How else are we going to learn. I for one, do not believe in this American experiment anymore. Even Rome had a fall, let’s do that. Yippeee!!!!

Death to the USA and the wealth of it’s people keeping it in as few hands as possible. Ruin this nation just like O’reilly ruined all notions of Christmas goodwill this year.

Thank you Eric and all the republicans on this site help us keep America free to fall into a crushing whimper of it’s former self. So we may never again be proud of our nation again. GO GOP HURRAH!!!!!!

YEEHAW!!!! READ THIS!

Stephen-

So what issue(s) can the Democrats re-create their glory years coalition around? And are the progressives flexible enough to allow conservative or moderate views to remain within the party? Right now they are after Lieberman, and some have already begun to take shots at Hillary for her pro-war support.

If the litmus test for a Democrat becomes anti-war, pro choice, balance the budget by taxing the rich then I don’t see them gaining a lot of ground despite the Republican’s performance.

Two problems with the premise of the article:

1. It assumes that the average American actually cares about what either party has to say. Given that we haven’t turned out a majority of the citizenry to vote in over 30 years, that seems a pretty dubious assumption.

2. It assumes that the partisans on either side can be persuaded by rational argument. That is also pretty dubious, since the very essence of being a partisan means being a mindless drone of the party.

No hope in addressing point #2; those of you who simply spout tired talking points and fall into lock-stop with party leadership will never have a live brain cell. Sorry if I offended you, but I really don’t care about what you think; er, say-you haven’t had a real thought in years.

As to point #1: why do you think the typical American is apathetic about politics? Take a look at your talking points, regardless of which party you support. The Democrats have been trotting out the same ideas for the past 40 years, and mostly THEY DON’T WORK! The Republicans have been trotting out the same ideas for 30 years, and haven’t CARRIED OUT ONE PROMISE YET! Quite frankly, there hasn’t been anything new in politics since before I was in junior high. What the American people want is pretty simple: fresh ideas that might actually work, and politicians willing to work to implement those ideas. In other words, we’re waiting for someone with vision and honesty; two qualities that are sorely lacking in the current crop of politicians.

Consider the last President to win by a landslide. Regardless of what you thought of Reagan’s policies, there were two things about the man that stood out: he wasn’t afraid to do what he thought was right, and people actually believed him when he spoke. Some of his policies were sound (lowering taxes) and some were ludicrous (who can forget “Star Wars”), but he presented ideas and implemented them. He didn’t govern by opinion poll (remember how hated his policies were over the first two years of his Presidency).

Reagan wasn’t the only politician who exhibited these qualities. As a nation, we had a good run for a while: FDR, Truman, Ike, and JFK all had the same presence. They told party hacks to get a life, and did what they KNEW to be right. We had similar leadership in Congress and the Courts, as well. The people aren’t stupid, and we refuse to be conned by the dim-witted idiots in control of our major political parties.

So, how does either party gain a real win in ‘06? Give us candidates with real ideas, ones that take into account the nation and world as it exists in the 21st century, not the mid-20th. Stop bashing each other senselessly (we got the message. You both suck!). Give us honest candidates with the courage to say things that might actually be considered “politically incorrect” (as a people, we have an affinity for blunt, direct speech). Don’t treat us like we’re a bunch of teeangers whose opinions don’t count, or kids in nursery school!

If either party grasps that basic concept, then they can claim a mandate. Not before.

Well, I had asked Adrienne, but Mental Wimp answered my question.

Thanks, Mental.

David,

You said, “I also think government sponsored urban clinics in which doctors and nurses education costs are covered by zero percent loans in return for government sponsored, not managed, urban and rural clinics in which those doctors and nurses practice until their loans are repayed, would be a very wise investment not just for the poor, either.

Doctors and nurses would have provisional licenses to work only in these clinics, and full accredited licenses could not be issued until their loans are payed. Hell of a deal for Americans, hell of a deal for practioners who otherwise could not afford Med School, and a helluva deal for patients in rural and congested urban centers, where waiting lines would be reduced, travel time and distance reduced, and competent medical care provided at as much as 1/2 to 2/3 of current costs.”

The idea sounds good in political terms but it doesn’t mesh with reality (at least for doctors). According to this site, the average loan debt for a doctor is about $100,000 and the rate for the loan is close to prime. The problem in repaying the loans is not the interest but the principal. Your proposal would simply make doctors indentured servents of the state with no hope of paying off the loan and ever reaching “full” doctor status.

I was also curious about this statement, “I do think a non-profit system could be far more ethical, and humane along side our commercial health care system.” Is your proposal to supplement the current commercial paradigm with non-profits or replace it?

Weary Willie-
I think you’re missing the same crucial point that has been missed all along by the Neocons and Republicans: Self-determination is not an option once you invade a nation. Once you are an occupying power, it’s pottery barn rules: you’ve broken it, now you’ve bought it.

Because we invaded, we’ve stirred up some really negative feelings. Left to determine things by themselves, the natural response of an invaded nation has been to batter the occupiers with a insurgency. I don’t mind self-determination, but unless they do it themselves, it doesn’t qualify, and if we so foolish to invade a country, and then let thing sort themselves out without further intervention, we’re asking for a quagmire.

Bush and the other people should not have gone in thinking that things would simply happy. From the moment we invade and overthrew Saddam Hussein, the main enemy was chaos, and that has been the enemy we have failed to overcome all this time.

This is the issue you fail to perceive in our protests. You fail to see that our criticism is tis: That Bush got us into an unnecessary war, and then added injury to insult by not fighting that war with overwhelming enough force to control the battlefield.

Worse, He doesn’t respect the freedoms he claims to love and protect. His status as CINC does not give him the authority to break laws without answering for his violation of those laws. The status of CINC does not allow a president like Bush, even during a period of declared war, to flout the law. That’s legal precedent. It’s legal sophistry to believe that in a time like this, Bush gets to become effectively a military dictator, free to violate the constitutional laws. If he wanted new authority for warrants, he should have gone to congress, which makes the laws. Read the rest of the Constitution and don’t just quote it to me piecemeal.

George in SC-
If you have to ask that question, you probably haven’t been paying attention: We can take stands against Corruption, Cronyism, incompetence, and a bubbled-in administration. Everything else is just details, and there are plenty of those to go around.

I think it’s a bit of projection to believe that Democrats will be as fussy about their candidate’s orthodoxy as the GOP. Democrats in this day and age are much more varied in their approaches, and because of this, we have a greater ability to appeal to a wider audience.

I believe that what’s mainly been keeping Republicans in office is that things hadn’t gotten so bad to this point. With the unending cavalcade of screw-ups and the catastrophic destruction of Katrina, though, many people were pushed pass the breaking point.

I think the best thing we can do is put forward candidates that are serious contenders across the spectrum. If we look like we could be useful to constituents in the South and the West, we could make considerable gains. If we just put forward mediocre candidates, then things will be much more chancy.

Once upon a time there use to be a left and right wings within each party. There were liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats; liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans. The Democrats are split on the war, which I believe there should be room for such dissent on such an important issue. On the Republican side there is no room for such things, either “you are with us or you are against us”.

The Republican party, however, is not immune to this split. Republican unity over the last few months has been on shaky ground. There is a divide on torture, the patriot act, and the biggest split to date, domestic spying. I would rather see a party in power that allows room for such dissent within its ranks, than to have the “Yes Men” we have now, that have led to the mess we are in today.

JayJay,

Please explain how your assessment of the current Democratic ‘big tent’ agrees with the reality of what the Democratic party is doing to Lieberman?

Democrats also have a ‘you are with us or against us’ mentality atm. Denying it will just ensure that nothing will resolve it in time for the 2006 elections.

JayJay, for further examples, look at Richard Steele, anyone who disagrees with the environmental religion of the left and anyone who isn’t politically correct being treated as if they have an incurable transmittable disease (unless it’s AIDS, that’s ok).

We could go on…

Jay,
“The Republican party, however, is not immune to this split. Republican unity over the last few months has been on shaky ground. There is a divide on torture, the patriot act, and the biggest split to date, domestic spying.”

That’s b/c the Republican party (actually) has ideas; the dems don’t even have any and they are very, very united within their own party with not having any solutions to any of the complex problems this country faces.

Oh, unless you call whnining and pointing fingers issues; then they have plenty of those…

Rhinehold,

I agree with you on this. I think some in the Democratic party made an error in coming down on Lieberman. However, I watched Lieberman’s speech that caused all the uproar, and Lieberman was not so much stating his position as much as he was chastising some Dems for their dissent. If Lieberman had simply stated his position on the issue, I think all would have been fine, but he was coming down on others in the party for their stated position on the issue. There is a differance between stating your position, and telling others within your party that they are wrong for their position.

That’s b/c the Republican party (actually) has ideas;

rahdigly,

You mean like starting pre emptive wars on countries with no ties to 9/11, with no plans to win the peace? Or how about the idea of cutting revenue while at the same time spending like there’s no tomarrow? Great idea! Or how about the one, lets cut programs to the poor so we can give tax cuts to the wealthy? Gotta love that one! Or how about their idea of the war on terror- start wars and spy on Americans, while ignoring the borders, ignoring security for our biological, chemical and nuclear facilities, and ignoring the potential at the local level to stop terror? Are these the ideas you are talking about? “Bushie, your doin’ a helluva job…!”

If these are not the terrific ideas you are talking about, then please enlighten us.

BTW all those things that the repubs are ignoring, border security, securing our chemical, biological and nuclear facilities and giving local law enforcement the info and tools to stop terror are all ideas of the Democrats.

I get so tired of listening (reading) the bullshit crap that Democrats have no ideas. It reminds me of a kid who doesn’t want to listen putting his fingers in his ears and screaming so as not to hear what he doesn’t want to hear.

I always thought Republicans were better than that. I am being proved wrong every time I read that Democrats have no ideas.

Take your fingers out of your ears and quit screaming. You might actually hear something.

Jay,

“all those things that the repubs are ignoring, border security, securing our chemical, biological and nuclear facilities and giving local law enforcement the info and tools to stop terror are all ideas of the Democrats.”

Ok, which democrats speak out against illegal immigration?! This ought to be a short, short list. Definitely shorter than the repubs on this one.

“You mean like starting pre emptive wars on countries with no ties to 9/11, with no plans to win the peace?”

No, I mean like campaigning and voting on starting pre-emptive wars on countries that had ties to terrorists, and no operational involvement to 9/11. That’s what I mean.

“Or how about the idea of cutting revenue while at the same time spending like there’s no tomarrow?”

Where I do agree the spending is out of hand, the Repubs just signed a spending cut bill for $40billion last week. And, as far as revenue; the Bush tax cuts increased tax revenues and cut the budget deficit by 100billion this year. Besides, this economy is rolling and, according to the latest gallop poll, 85% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their own lives.

“Or how about their idea of the war on terror- start wars and spy on Americans”

If the dems want to let the American people know that they are not willing to spy on Al Qaeda internationally while they’re making calls to the US, that’s fine. We’re already seeing that unfold right before our eyes. I applaud Bush and every other President (and yes that includes Democratic ones as well) that spied on the enemy to keep America safe. Good job, guys.

Womanmarie,
My fingers are out of my ears (always have been), but I still don’t hear any ideas from your side. Why don’t you share one with us, instead of complaining that your side is being called out on it.

JayJay,
“BTW all those things that the repubs are ignoring, border security, securing our chemical, biological and nuclear facilities and giving local law enforcement the info and tools to stop terror are all ideas of the Democrats.”

Please explain how these are Democrat ideas. As far as I know those are all concerns shared by everyone. I suppose you’ll also give the Dems credit for the upcoming troop withdrawal.

Stephen-

“We can take stands against…”

South Carolina is a prime example of the challenge facing the Democrats. In 2004 Jim DeMint won the vacant Senate seat by 9 points after saying that an unwed pregnant woman should not be allowed to teach in the public schools. The Democratic opponent was one of the most popular in the State.

Our current GOP Governor Sanford was recently rated as one of the 3 worst Governors in the country by Time Magazine. His only challenge in getting re-elected will be from a Republican Lovelace in the primary. The Democratic Party no longer functions in South Carolina.

With the redistricting efforts in Colorado and your State, and you can pretty much give the House to the GOP for at least another 2-3 election cycles. It might me possible to flip the Senate with 15 GOP spots up for bid, but even that would be a difficult task.

I guess what I’m rambling about is that it is going to take more than just opposition and being against something to climb the hill Democrats must climb. And if the only thing the party stands for is opposition, I just don’t see how it is going to happen, no matter how much of the mud actually sticks to the GOP.

With regard to both “schiavogate” and socialized health care:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_african.bb0e76d.html

This is how bad the health insurance industry in America is getting, people. A terminally ill woman, conscious and talking and just trying to hold on long enough for her mother to get there so she could die in her mother’s arms, was taken off the respirator by doctors and died, due to a Texas law which says a doctor is “not obligated to continue” medical treatment “medically inappropriate” when care is not beneficial.

Notice the lack of protest, the lack of outrage. Notice the lack of notice this has recieved on the “Right”. Terry Schiavo, a woman who was medically BRAIN DEAD, they would go to Congress and the President to fight for her right to “live” and be kept on a feeding tube. Why not Tirhas Habtegiris too? What about her right not to be taken off a respirator and suffocate to death while conscious over a period of about 15 minutes? Why won’t they fight for that? Oh, that’s right… Bush signed the law that allowed them to kill her. That’s why.

THC:

My fingers are out of my ears (always have been), but I still don’t hear any ideas from your side. Why don’t you share one with us, instead of complaining that your side is being called out on it.

Funny, I have seen lots of ideas on both sides of the aisle. I can only wonder why you don’t. I have no intention of repeating them for you to miss them again. There is lots of info out there.

In fact, I have seen many ideas presented here that Republicans have actually responded to, in terms of why they disagree. Too bad you missed them.

Ah WomanMarine, the fresh scent of truth thank you.
Kerry’s idea of taxing big oil to pay for the restortation of the Louisiana wetlands last year was a great idea. Anyone else hear it?
Guest worker programs, great idea. Republican i think.
We need to start thinking about our water and fresh air, it’s getting bad. I wanna eat the fish I catch more than once a month.

I am with those that say Country first. Our Freedom and Safety have been undercut by Arms dealers for way to long. Love the land, love the people, loving your party is just wierd.

Why President Bush and the military thought they could just boot Saddam out and be the end of it I will never know. It was extremely short sided.
I won’t say he was wrong to go in, but he should have been able to “buy the pottery” afterwards.
The spying thing is still up in the air. I notice no facts are present just allegations. Taps on incoming international calls, Taps on calls routed thru the U.S. from one foriegn country to another. Who exactly was tapped, we don’t know. Was it Joe Blow at the corner bakery. I doubt it.
The method used to aquire the information identifying paterns didn’t specifically target individual persons.
I don’t think Congress is the body to issue the warrents to begin with. Is It? Isn’t it the Judiciary? And imagine having to go to congress. That would be like saying “Hello Everybody!!! Do you think we should tap this guy’s phone so we can see if he’s a terrorist?
Not a good idea even if the media thinks it should be.
We’ve been at war with terrorists for 30 years. Bill Clinton was the most able to engage this war but he chose to cut back the military and gut the intelegence network. When asked what his worst moments in office were I would have thought he was going to comment on the soldier being dragged thru the streets but he didn’t. He said he wished he would have gotten Health Care passed and He wished he would have gotten Bin Laden
As far as what the Democrat party can do to regain it’s standing. If Ted Kennedy was “Dashelized” I think it would have a chance.

Weary Willie:

I don’t think Congress is the body to issue the warrents to begin with. Is It? Isn’t it the Judiciary? And imagine having to go to congress.

No it isn’t Congress, nor is anyone suggesting it should be. I think you are confused. This issue is, in fact, Bush not going to the judiciary system that is already established to address this, or going to Congress to request something different if what exists is not sufficient.

The facts are not in, and won’t be without some form of Congressional investigation. As upset as I am about this mess, I am willing to wait and see, but they better get on it soon. I just hope it can be done in a non-partison manner, but that’s probably wishful thinking on my part.

Weary Willie:

I don’t think Congress is the body to issue the warrents to begin with. Is It? Isn’t it the Judiciary? And imagine having to go to congress.

No it isn’t Congress, nor is anyone suggesting it should be. I think you are confused. This issue is, in fact, Bush not going to the judiciary system that is already established to address this, or going to Congress to request something different if what exists is not sufficient.

The facts are not in, and won’t be without some form of Congressional investigation. As upset as I am about this mess, I am willing to wait and see, but they better get on it soon. I just hope it can be done in a non-partison manner, but that’s probably wishful thinking on my part.

Marinewoman,

The President of the US is responsible for foreign policy; look what the Constitution says about that. Besides, if your arguement is Congress, they already gave the President the Authority in September 14, 2001:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/congress/sep11-joint-resolution.shtml

“the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Weary Willie,

“Bill Clinton was the most able to engage this war but he chose to cut back the military and gut the intelegence network.”

History son, read it.

The military gutting started under then Sec. of Defence Cheney when Bush Sr. was President. It was called “the peace dividend”. Clinton didn’t choose it, that was political reality after the “Cold War”.

As for the intellegence network, I belive that happened in the ’70s under Carter.

The President of the US is responsible for foreign policy; look what the Constitution says about that. Besides, if your arguement is Congress, they already gave the President the Authority in September 14, 2001:

rahdigly,

You better go back and read the Constitution again. Pay close attention to Article I, section 8. It is not the responsibility of the President to set foreign policy. The Constitution clearly gives that responsibility to the Congress. It is the responsibility of the President to carry out those policies as directed by Congress.

“use all necessary and appropriate force ” what is necessary and appropriate? I do not believe that working outside the law and the Constitution can be considered “appropriate”.

The military gutting started under then Sec. of Defence Cheney when Bush Sr. was President. It was called “the peace dividend‎. Clinton didn’t choose it, that was political reality after the “Cold War‎.

The defense budget under Clinton in his first term was identical to the defense budget proposed by Bush Sr. in his final year in office. Clinton did increase the defense budget in his second term due to increased terrorist threats, the Republican controlled congress accused him of wagging the dog.

Weary Willie,

“The defense budget under Clinton in his first term was identical to the defense budget proposed by Bush Sr. in his final year in office. Clinton did increase the defense budget in his second term due to increased terrorist threats, the Republican controlled congress accused him of wagging the dog.”

Yeah, what he said.

Jay Jay Snowman,

“”use all necessary and appropriate force “what is necessary and appropriate? I do not believe that working outside the law and the Constitution can be considered “appropriate”. “

I checked in section 8 of Article 2 and I didn’t see where it mentioned Foreign policy.
http://www.njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/United%20States%20Constitution.htm

However, I did see where congress has considerable power and influence, but the bulk of that is the President’s responsibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy

If you read my post, you will see where I cited the “Joint Resolution Authorizing use of Force against Terrorists”, you should look at that again, b/c they clearly gave him the authority:

“he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided…in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The President has the authority and was certainly given authority by congress. So, the point is mute; this President kept us safe and the American people know it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

“December 28, 2005—Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations b