Third Party & Independents: Archives

That partisan divide. Hmm - sometimes I feel like I fell between the cracks somewhere.Between the two sides, I’ll take the libertarians, thank you. Let’s get it correct, guys. We may have our best chance coming up in 4 years. As for this current crop, well, I have heard enough screaming by those on the left and bumper sticker phrases by those on the right to send me running for the hills. I have posted to my leftist friends elsewhere that they need to sit down, cool off and start THINKING about what their position is and how they should present it. In any election from here on out people on both sides need to realize that the phrase ” I don’t care for my guy but I HATE (insert name of other party candidate)” is not a strong energizing endorsement. And no matter what the topic is, no matter what the position on hand is, screaming will not endear large masses of people to vote for you. Logic and persuasion might
if it’s presented thoroughly enough. Those on the right need to work more logically and realize that bumper sticker phrases don’t persuade. I will credit the republicans for not screaming but the talk needs to be less tribal and more inclusive, especially now. The President did indeed win a mandate by the percentage of the vote. He beat the pants off Clinton even, and everybody had the chance to go vote. The Prez can now work from a greater position of political strength given the numbers of the system. That’s the game, that’s the standard and he beat it. Anybody who argues that should head to Ohio to count chads. (Point being they would be wasting their time.) Better yet, go to USATODAY.COM and look at the county by county vote map - IT’s RED all over (except in the northeast and dapples on the coast - it is staggeringly pro Bush). The Prez., though he has political capital, now has to be careful about spending it in order to get things done. But he doesn’t need to pander to anybody, he and his party are in the majority. In two years we’ll have to see if this changes. Usually it does. The irony of the democrat debacle is that they worked in lockstep so long to garner so much political power for so long. Under Clinton they tried and failed to build it in a fashion that would outlast a poor candidate. This week they may have aced themselves out for a whole four years if not an entire decade. Seeing Mr. Daschle tossed out capped that! There has usually been about a dime’s worth of difference between the two sides, after this week, the repubs look more like the old dems and the dems now look like screeching losers. I will say this though, Mr. Kerry gave a wonderful going away speech. Too bad that their party may just become experts at that. We need two robust parties but the term “loyal opposition” needs to become operative again. I anticipate many dems will now quit since they are so far out of power. We’ll see.

Well, www.boycottredstates.org is registered and under construction, I think you may be right.

“Better yet, go to USATODAY.COM and look at the county by county vote map - IT’s RED all over (except in the northeast and dapples on the coast - it is staggeringly pro Bush).” - jimbob

Happily, we’re not letting fields and roads vote, just the people. Take a look at California - in square acreage of red vs blue, it’s something like 90% red. But those blue spots happen to be in the most populous places: LA, San Francisco and other parts of the coast. So looking at the huge red blob that is the central United States, the two largest cities in California make up most of that in terms of people.

As far as bipartisan maneuvers, Cheney might have been less happy about having more Republicans to do what he wants (I paraphrase) and perhaps said something like, “Some good people were elected to office, and I hope they’ll allow us to move the country forward”. The delivery is important, especially when you have the attention of half your country.

Despite Cheney’s comments, I’m hoping the Administration takes the split country as a message that they need to change the way they’re doing things. The goals: Peace, Prosperity, Liberty, Happiness, remain the same for both parties, but the means are different. Taking rights away from people isn’t American. Taking over other countries for profit isn’t a strategy we should be using in the 21st century - a superpower starting wars to not look like a “paper tiger” is an outdated maneuver in this modern world. Destroying the environment (and other countries) to preserve a dwindling and outdated fuel supply is neolithic.

Republicans can be conservative, but they need to try to imagine the future, stop the backward-thinking. Democrats are looking at the future, but could stand to move a little more slowly, and state their plans better.

I am an independant as well, because I think the two major parties (who used to be the same “Democratic Republican” Party) are too similar to bother with either one. I’m researching other parties, like the Libertarians, the Greens, and so on.

—-Fay

what is bugging me is this:

i am a democrat.

never once have i wanted to move to canada, nor do i want to…i like being an American.

i know i know, alot of people say “well, time to move to canada”…and some do…

however, 3 times in the past two days, i have heard a fox news anchor say he hopes the democrats move to canada…

it’s the whole…we won get out of OUR country thing….

you know what….i was born here, my family can track back to the mayflower, and i don’t intend to leave….

but the politic of blue/red is a very dangerous thing….we are americans…..you can’t kick us out just cause we disagree with you…

sure the heartland voted on issues like gay marriage, but go out to the farm lands and ask someone how many gay people they know….chances are not many

the country is divided, but the majority of the midwest and south lack the “melting pot” experience of the big cities.
mabey if people understood how other people live thier lives, they might not be so hasty to judge them…

While Bush may of won the votes in this election, he failed to unite the people of this country. 3.5 million out of 120 million still shows that None of the Above still wins with 65% of the vote. Therefore, the time for an acceptable third party platform has arrived. Instead of talking about the issues that divide Americans, the Independents and Moderates need to come together and lay out a stance that will promote a strong federal and state government.

I think that most of us can agree on the need for Energy Independence, Positive Environment Controls, and an Economic System that promotes a race upward not to the bottom. These 3 E’s are the base of our society and thus how we use them shows the morals from which we will govern.

On most social issues we need to be conservative and force them back into the public areana for more local debates. The idea that our government has the right to tell us how we are to live, act, and be responsible does not set well with most of America. Therefore, one of the major goals should be to simplify the laws by making all of them governing social issues to boil down to “What is Acceptable Behavior.” By adopting this stance a third party would be able to allow the local governments to set the standards in their own community. As long as these laws pass the Charters and Constitutional standards, a person has the right to move to a different town that has the values which they can live by.

As for a vision for the country, we must look into the future (30 years or so) and ask ourselve what type of legacy and society do we want for the future generations.

Military Power is that of an Eagle. With the ability to see from high above and strike with sudden deadly force, our troops must be able to regain their rightful place in our society.

World politics should be governed and lead by the US to unite and mold the rest of the world into a place that allows a higher ruling government that will include those who choose to live in the international space surrounding earth. Although I would like to see this space remain political free, the forces in todays society will not allow it.

Yes, the extreme left and right of this country remains divided, but since most Anericans still have a live and let live attitude. The Moderates of America has a chance to come together and have an intellegent conversation on where do “We the People” want to take Our Country.

Remember, it is the same old argument our fore fathers had over 236 years ago. State and Local government vs Federal government deciding what is best for the people.

How appropriate Washington gave his Farewell Address on Nov. 2.

A pox on both political parties. $600M on elections and huge sums given to the politico consultant pimps and to the media cos. whores. A pox on them both. Can we not all agree to limit the time period and money in campaigns? How many companies, how many jobs, were possible with that sum?

We need a Moderates & Swing Voters Party. The ultraliberals and right wingers can have their
own.

What would a Moderate and Swing Voter’s Party agenda look like, Alex?

It seems like that kind of party wouldn’t have it’s own agenda, other than acting as a moderating influence on proposals by other parties.

What would a moderate agenda look like?

If anyone is really interested in what it will take for a third party candidate to win they need to go to C-Span.org and watch
Georgetown Univ. Panel on Election Results
The Georgetown Univ. Public Policy Institute hosts an election wrap-up panel. Participants include Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, Newsweek’s Melinda Henneberger & Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen.
11/5/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr.

While it is somewhat boring, the panel breaks down how the repubilcans and democrats used the polls to define the issues.

AP,
I can’t speak for anybody else, but here is a list of mandates I fell President Bush and Congress should pass in the next two years.

My Personal Mandate to Our Newly Elected Officials

Dear Elected Official,
As a representative of the Citizens of America, I who am a citizen want to publicly state my mandate to you for the next four years.

1st) I demand that you completely fix the voting system in this country. According to our own State governments and citizens there has been found huge mistakes in the tallying of votes on machines that leave no paper trail. Personally, I do not care if “We the People” have to use 3X5 index cards to vote for Our President and other elected officials; I want something in place that is accurate, verifiable, and tamper proof. It amazes me that in the 21st century our elections have not past a constitutional test which will stand up in court.

2nd) I demand that any change in Social Security replaces the money our government has spent from the fund with interest. At over a trillion dollars owed to the American People in just the last four years, our government has abused the trust “We the People” have installed in them. Therefore, why should “We the People” pay for the mistakes made by a body of government which has used the Social Security Fund as a supplement for the Federal Budget?

3rd) I demand that you return our two tier economic system. While the current model served our country well during the cold war. Current facts show beyond a doubt that a major overhaul must take place. We have found out through trial and error that trickle down economics only makes the top 20% of income earners grow. Therefore, I want to see a change from Rapitalism to True Capitalism. By increasing the hourly wages of the bottom 30% while requiring these employees begin to become financial secure and owning their own health care, our overall government social programs will begin to shrink. Additionally to the financial and insurance industries benefiting, the manufacture and service industries will benefit from the extra “Spend-able Cash” built into the system.

4th) I demand tax reform that balances the burden between Corporations and Tax Payers. International and Interstate Corporations should bear any and all social burdens their operations put on local and state governments. Single State or Local Businesses will only be responsible for their impact on the environment & federal property. Additionally, any net profits over $10 million dollars will be taxed at 90% to ensure that the corporation invests the money.

Personal Federal Investment will equal the federal budget divided by the number of citizens in the country. Currently that figure is somewhere around $13,000.00 per 159 million/yr. By changing our payroll taxes into treasury notes and allowing them to be used only for “In Country” collateral, all Americans will begin to actually own Our Government, something I think our Founding Fathers would be proud of.

5th) I demand that our public schools come into the 21st Century. Every student from the first grade will be provided with a laptop that has a wireless intranet connection. By limiting access to the intranet, the students will be safer as well as able to reach other sites granted by the local school boards. Additional changes will include personal money management from the 7th grade up, Orbital Astronomy, and American Community Policy & Politics.

6th) I demand that our DOD move up the revamping of equipment for our troops to include arming them with the M-29 in Iraq.

7th) I demand that DOD and the Justice Dept. create a Terror Task Force which will be charged with tracking down all known terrorist and their associates for trail. Additionally, the US should go to the UN to get all forms of terrorist violence outlawed.

This list is what I see needs to be done by Bush in the next two years. Moral accountability to ensure that any change in American Domestic Policy should give the people who make our society function the biggest part of the pie. Not because they may have financial contributed more, but because without their daily sacrifice to our society all of us would be lost.

So tell me how close I am to the Democrats view.

Good question.

A moderate platform would probably include some of the more reasonable parts of either party’s platform and modified versions of their more liberal or conservative programs. Their far left or far right ideas would be rejected.

It’s all about balance.

Henry, you’re pretty out there. :)

Seriously, I doubt you’d get some your agenda through Congress no matter who was in power.

I don’t think anyone will argue that the voting system can’t be better. Democrats have always argued against raiding the Social Security “lockbox”. We like raising the minimum wage, and Kerry’s healthcare plan was all about making it affordable so that businesses don’t have to bear the burden.

But as for your tax reform and personal federal investment, I’ve never heard of anything like that. I’m not sure giving away laptops to first graders is feasible from a fiscal or technical standpoint. And I don’t think your defense measures go far enough or address the big issues like stemming the flow of new al Qaeda recruits.

BTW, what’s an M-29? Do you have a link?

Anyhow, it’s always interesting to hear from someone who’s done a lot of thinking about how America could be better. Thanks, Henry.

It’s all about balance.

No doubt, Angie. It just seems like it would be hard to attract the constituency necessary to form a third party with that as a slogan. Usually, a party forms around a particular agenda like the environment, fiscal responsibility, or legalizing pot.

I’m really interested because I consider myself a moderate and the idea of a ruling centrist party appeals to me. It just seems like it would be hard for such a party to be more than a niche swing party - backing (or most likely blocking) one major party or the other on an issue by issue basis. Is that a viable platform?

Just like with any political party, it would take time for a Centrist party to gain any real power in numbers. It would start with state house and senate seats, city posititions, mayors, congress, etc.

I really think it would start at the college level, because as much as people say that college kids are liberal, I think most are centrists.

We can work on the slogan:).

AP,
Here is a M29 assualt rifle The 21st Century of warfare

Now why would the Democrats and Republicans want to return our economic system back into a true capitalist market?

As far as my tax reform, you must go back in our history before the civil war in order to find a time when our federal government was in the hands of its citizens. Back than if the federal government wanted to do something that cost money they would have to ask special interest groups and citizens to step up and buy treasury notes. Talk about control over wasted government spending.

Yes, AP even a three year old can now have a computer that they can abuse just check out a frog laptop at Toy’s ur Us. As far as cost of each unit, special worksites in low income communities can produce the parts and asembly of the laptop can be done by the school’s community. Thus the laptop would create American jobs and low cost kits saving tax payers millions for a few hours work.

As far as using military power I better leave that to people who are level headed. Put simple, I think that our troops need a bigger gun than the M-29. Here is what I want to play with

A couple of things:

1. “the country is divided, but the majority of the midwest and south lack the “melting pot” experience of the big cities.
mabey if people understood how other people live thier lives, they might not be so hasty to judge them.”

New internal critique on this: This is so ironic given all of the judgmental rhetoric being thrown around against religious-types who voted for Bush. It seems that there are some on the left that think cultural relativism applies to everyone except religious conservatives- whose cultural is the only one in the world not worth respecting.

My external critique: I have no problem with judgmental people- we are all judgmental and we should be (think about how judgmental YOU are about racists, for example). The inquiry is not whether someone is judgmental, its whether they are right or wrong. To refuse to condemn someone who does wrong is itself wrong. In my view, for example, the religious right is correct in being judgmental against pro-choice people, but wrong in its judgmentalism against gay rights. The reason is that they are correct to condemn the disrepect for unborn life, but wrong to attack those that just want to live their lives with someone they love while hurting no one else.

2. I have to completely disagree on needing more “middle of the road” parties. The two parties are actually toward the middle- and what we need is parties that stand on PRINCIPLE, not just pandering. What we need are several parties, all over the political spectrum, so that more people believe there is a party out there that at least somewhat approximates what they want our government to look like.

Partisan division makes sense if their rhetoric
matches their beliefs.

However, too often, I see people trying to
force their parties policies into their beliefs,
even when it’s very difficult to defend.

The parties messages are different, so there
will and should be partisan division.

Members of each party should be clear
where they disagree with their party’s message,
so that they don’t get voted of office because
voters identify them with their party’s
unpalatable message(s).

However, stonewalling, gridlock, filabustering,
and standing in the way of progress merely for
the purpose of opposing the opposite party should
be punished. Voters should take notice and vote
those obstructionists out of office ( like what
happened to Tom Daschele ). It’s one thing to
stand up for beliefs, but quite another to
simply be an obstructionist piece of crap.

No party policy is going to fit everyone’s
beliefs and values. Nothing is perfect, but
what government does is still limited by what
is (mostly) right, just, and legal.

The pandering is harmful, and is a result of
too many voters that want to be taken care of
and too many in government that want to be in control of the purse strings for all things promised.

Voters should be wary of politicians that promise
more than is obviously possible to deliver.
I think Kerry lost some votes by too much
pandering. It was obvious that there wasn’t
enough money for all the things he promised,
and the pundits and analysts jumpted at the
chance to pick it to pieces.

Also, voters should be wary of politicians that
try to be on all sides of every issue.
Politicians better watch it too, because that
also hurt Kerry.

stonewalling, gridlock, filabustering, and standing in the way of progress

I like to think of it as slamming on the brakes right before we go over the cliff.

I think Kerry lost some votes by too much pandering. It was obvious that there wasn’t enough money for all the things he promised

Bush had the same problem, but it didn’t seem to hurt him.

Also, voters should be wary of politicians that try to be on all sides of every issue. Politicians better watch it too, because that also hurt Kerry.

How much time, ink, and bandwidth did the GOP machine make us waste debunking that one over and over. Good times… Good times. :)

Well, maybe most of America got it wrong this
time, like they did with Clinton and Nixon ?

Clinton disgraced the office and himself
because he couldn’t keep his zipper zipped.
Nixon disgraced the office and himself because
of burglary of the Democrats offices.
And both tried to cover it up afterward.
History will probably judge them harshly.
That’s not to say they didn’t accomplish
some good things.

Opposing things because they’re wrong is good,
but petty partisan obstructionism isn’t good, and
those that continue it, may end up being
voted out (like Tom Daschele).
I think Daschelle lost largely because he
engaged in too much petty partisan obstructionism.
He really thought that was galvanizing his base,
but he was wrong. It was just making voters
angry at him. The look on Daschle’s face was
one of amazement, when he heard he had lost.

The “Kerry is on all sides of every issue” is not a myth.
Kerry’s own actions, and statements, and deeds
led people to that conclusion. Being recorded on
tape time after time saying contradictory things
is not a myth created by the GOP, who was
correct to point it out. Even Democrats
were at a loss to explain much of the incidents.

The fact is, though, there is much exaggeration
of both candidates. Kerry was exaggerated as
a person who can not take a firm stand, and
Bush was exaggerated as a religious fanatic
who used religion and fear of terrorism and
homosexuals to galvanize his base.

Most people are really not buying that crap.

Voters have now selected a Republican majority
in the White House, and Congress.

If the Republicans don’t blow it,
they will try to get some good things
accomplished in the time
(probably a short time) they’ll have.

If the Democrats want to regain a majority,
they will do what they think is right, and
not just pander, filabuster, stonewall, and
stand in the way of progress for merely the
sake of petty partisan obstructionism.

Voters don’t like gridlock from either party,
and start analyzing the reasons. When they
see petty partisan obstructionism, they
will remember, and they’ll vote those people
out ( just like Tom Daschele ). A lot of
people like and respect Joe Lieberman, because
he mostly does what he thinks is right even if
he’s in agreement with the other party.

So, all in all, it’s good to have two parties and
partisan divide is not always bad.
Each party needs to hold the others’ feet to
the fire, point out their faults, and keep them honest.

It would truly be scary if there was no
partisan divide and no checks and balances.

Brifely at this juncture.

I have waited years for my thinking to reach its time. I leave you today with: the only way for any clear thinking man is that of the Moderates & Thinking Independents path.

Think about it. Political parties are made of overemotional followers who follow like some religion of ultraliberals or right wingers. They each want to force their lack of logic on us, whether it’s overspending, control over other people’s lives, etc. And, as for the leaders they choose, how, why, and huge sums of money wasted on electioneering that could be better used …

In his Farewell Address, Washington warned of the dangers of political parties.

That depends on what you mean by the Moderates and Thinking Independents labels.

Political parties are like unions.
They exist because their numbers make them
stronger.

More parties may give voters more choices.

However, while the parties’ messages vary some,
they are more similar than different.

It’s the fine differences and splitting hairs that used to distinguish them.
Much exaggeration is attempted to highlight
the typically minor differences.

The parties are also constrained by laws.
They can’t really get away with too much
trampling of rights and disregard for the laws.
That’s what brought down Nixon. And Clinton
was impeached, but allowed to stay in office.

The opposing party serves a valuable purpose;
to keep an eye on the other party.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s all we have
for now, until something better comes along.
These things, unfortunately, take a long time
to evolve.

I often wished that we didn’t have to vote for
people so much. It would be nice if we all could log-on to a computer and vote on issues
monthly, weekly, and / or daily.
I wish that all people had more opportunity to
vote on issues and less representative
government. That would be nearer to a
true democracy. However, even that may
have some pitfalls, since citizens may not
adequately study and evaluate all issues
to vote responsibly….but I suppose they could
learn over time how to do that.

But, that probably won’t happen in my lifetime,
because it would require a fast, secure, and
reliable computerized voting system. So, until
something better comes along, we will have
to rely on our current representative system,
and unfortunately, those representatives don’t
always mirror their constituents.

Some people say things like “How could 59 million
people be so wrong ?” . Well, how could only
56 million people be right ? The fact is
neither side is that different, or they are very
different and so are all of the voters.
But, Kerry was in agreement with most of
Bush’s policies (at least for a while).
Congress (Democrats and Republicans) were
in agreement on many things.

Thus, there are some differences, but
we are not really that divided.
Neither Bush or Kerry or Republicans or Democrats are all right or all wrong.

But, still, it’s a good thing to have someone
keeping an eye on government (i.e. the opposing
party), criticizing, and evaluating every move.

Without that, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So, power must be balanced.

In a democracy, no one has so much power that
they can get away with many ethical or criminal
misdeeds. Yes, yes, it’s not perfect.
Admittedly, I’ve often nearly given up on the
entire system, and it aspects of it still make
me sick. But we need to fix it; not destroy it.
Hopefully, it is fixable.

One important thing that needs to be fixed is
the impact of special interest money and influence that don’t reflect the interests of
the true majority.
Some of our politicians are corrupt and on-the-take.
Many in both parties are guilty, so the citizens need to watch the politicians too.
If it makes you happy, find one in your opposing party, investigate their practices, and watch how they vote.
Some of them are shady, even if they can’t be
convicted of a crime. Let the people know, make
it public, post it on the internet, and lets get rid of them.

And if that doesn’t work, then people should
try voting out all incumbents at every new
election.

That might make them all behave more responsibly.
Think about it. Citizens of the country could
unite ( like driving with your headlights on
for one day, or putting a yellow ribbon on the back of your car ).
Imagine if all of the citizens of the U.S. got together ( like their own party ) and voted all incumbents out of office except those behaving and voting responsibly; stop all
of the pork-barrel spending, stop wasting
tax dollars, stop stealing, stop a lot of crap,
etc. Should that be so difficult ?

We can call it the “Vote Out The Incumbents” Party.

: )

It’s termed, Logic and Thinking with some basic humanness accompanying.

There are reasons most people fall within a baseline plus a few standard deviations on each side— excising the extremes as major influences on their thinking and modus operandi.

uuuhh…yeah
OK

Being recorded on tape time after time saying contradictory things… Even Democrats were at a loss to explain much of the incidents.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Daniel. How about an example?

(1) I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

(2) Kerry then said he only miss-spoke about
the $87 billion….but it’s not just what he
said….it’s how he voted against it.
Did Kerry think that was going to fool
everyone ?

(3) I’ve never waivered in my life.

(4) Bashed and criticized Edwards,
until he picked Edwards as running mate.

(5) Kerry said he committed war crimes, but
then said he never witnessed them…
which is it ?

(6) Once said he wasn’t interested in running for
President. Once said someday he would be
President.

(7) Kerry supported removal of Saddam, then
later said he never gave the authority
to remove Saddam.

(8) Kerry says he supports efforts to fight
terrorism, and then doesn’t attend the
anti-terrorism committees, and votes to
cut $1 billion from the anti-terrorism
funding.

(9) Kerry strongly once supported Secretary
Bob Rubin. Then he didn’t. Then he did.

(10) Kerry supported the Patriot Act.
Then he changed his mind.

(11) Kerry supported disclosure of political
spending. Then he changed his mind.

(12) Kerry voted for restrictions on political
spending, and then wrote a $6.4 million
dollar check to support his own sagging
campaign. Kerry didn’t ever
mind George Soros spending on his behalf.

(13) Kerry said there wasn’t enough spending
on education, even though it increased
almost 50%.

(14) Kerry says he’s going to reduce taxes, but
says he’s going to repeal taxes on the
rich. Kerry’s track record on voting for
more taxes is in direct contradiction
with his new switch to now say he’ll lower
taxes…why now lower taxes ? And if Kerry
now supports lower taxes, why did he
continually bash Bush for lowering taxes ?

(15) Regarding IRAQ, Kerry said he would have
done everything the same knowing what he
knows now, and then said he would have done
everything different knowing what he knows
now.

(16) Kerry said the Israeli’s fence was a
barrier to peace and then said it was
legitimate for self defense.

(17) Kerry opposes the death penalty but says
he will kill the terrorist.

(18) Kerry wanted to release oil from the
Strategic Oil Reserves, then opposed it.

(19) Kerry said he opposed the marriage penalty tax
but voted to retain it.

(20) Kerry opposed amendment to gay marriage and
then later said he would rule that out.

(21) Kerry supported affirmative action, and
then he opposed it.

(22) Kerry voted against ethanol tax breaks, until
he started his campaign, and he suddenly
now supports ethanol tax breaks.

Want to see more …. just search for “Flip Flops” or see
Flip Flops at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml

Democrats Need to Keep the “Crazy Aunts” Locked in the Closet!

“Thank you!” That’s what Republicans are saying privately about a long list of democrats. Even more surprising is that these same democrats will refuse to acknowledge the republicans’ heartfelt gratitude – and republicans are happy about that too!

America’s most dysfunctional families – the democrats and republicans – must be in need of some serious therapy! Or are they? As Dr. Phil would quiz, “How’s that working out for ya?”

“It’s working out friggin’ great,” scream the delusional republicans. “Just put the democrat’s “crazy aunt” back into the closet until the next election!”

More accurately, it’s put the “crazy aunts” – plural – back in the closet. Aunt Howard Dean. Aunt George Soros. Aunt Michael Moore. Aunt Jesse Jackson. Aunt Hollywood. Aunt NY Times. Aunt “60 Minutes.” Aunt Dan Rather. Oh yes, and the craziest aunt of all: Aunt France.

Moderates fought hard to stay open-minded and be persuaded for a change to George Bush. But instead of being persuaded, moderates were just scared of the Aunt’s gene pool!

Instead of calmly discussing how America should have higher expectations of the president with Iraq and giving a real solution (i.e., “go home” or “send more troops and win it sooner”), the “crazy aunts” were hysterically yelling: “Liar, liar the president’s pants are on fire,” or “It’s about stealing oil, giving favors to the Saudi royal family, or Halliburton. Terrorism isn’t really a war” Huh?

On days when the medication was skipped and the conversation turned to health care, the economy and education, the “crazy aunts” would break into song: “What ever the president can do we can do better!” This was followed by incoherent thoughts: “We hate Bush. Spend more money. We hate Bush. Increase Taxes. We hate Bush. Let the government do it. We hate Bush. Your life sucks. You should hate Bush too.” Huh?

The republicans have their “crazy aunts” too, but they keep them locked up! Yes a “crazy aunt” – Aunt Pat Robertson – will escape occasionally, but the republicans quickly pick her up, reassure the neighbors, and quietly tell the aunt they still love her as they shove her back into the closet.

Moderates want to be persuaded with logic, facts and reasonable emotion. They don’t want to hate the president – of either party. Moderates recognize that all families are dysfunctional. But next time, please don’t make them sit next to the “crazy aunts” at Thanksgiving dinner!

Republicans are thankful you do!

It is obvious to all that John Kerry was not a striking figure. Democrats worried about his ability to nuance everything, which gave off the opinion of wavering. The truth is that as a Senator, he carefully tried to lay out a record that wouldnt sway too far to either side.

But in doing so, he also didnt take a strong enough stance on anything. What he should have learned from Howard Dean was that people admire a strong stance. We might agree or disagree with the stance, but we know where the person stands. With Kerry, no one was ever truly sure.

Kerry needed to embrace the concept of liberalism, rather than running from it. With a little skill, he could have taken the “L” word, and transformed it so people would understand HIS meaning of it, rather than some hackneyed cliche of what it means.

For example, as a Christian, I rarely if ever use the term “born again”, because I know the connotation it has. People hear the term, and react viscerally to the stereotype of what they THINK the term means. I am nothing like that stereotype. What I do is simply allow them to see me for what I am, without allowing the stereotype to cloud their vision.

Kerry needed to do the same, but was unable or unwilling. He ran from the Liberal label rather than choosing to redefine, or properly define, it.

OK, so enough Kerry and Bush bashing.
They all got some problems. For instance…
_______________________________________________

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
____________________
GEORGE W BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
____________________
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it!
____________________
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
____________________
HANS BLIX: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
____________________
RALPH NADER: The chicken’s habitat on the other side of the road had been polluted by unchecked industrial greed. The chicken did not reach the unspoiled habitat on the other side of the road because it was crushed by the wheels of a gas-guzzling SUV
____________________
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
____________________
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I don’t know why the chicken crossed the road, but I’ll bet somebody out there is already forming a support group to help chickens with crossing-the-road syndrome. Can you believe this? How much more of this can real Americans take? Chickens crossing the road paid for by their tax dollars. And when I say tax dollars, I’m talking about your money, money the government took from you to build a road for chickens to cross.
____________________
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the farmer’s Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
____________________
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
____________________
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain. Alone.
____________________
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR: I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.
____________________
GRANDPA: In my day, we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Someody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
____________________
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
____________________
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together - in peace.
____________________
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
____________________
KARL MARX: It was an historic inevitability.
____________________
CAPTAIN KIRK: To boldly go where no chicken has ever gone before.
____________________
SIGMUND FREUD: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.
____________________
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2003, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet explorer is an integral part of eChicken2003.
____________________
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
____________________
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
____________________
AL GORE: I invented the chicken!
____________________
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
____________________

Daniel, that’s all just oversimplified spin. In that same CBS artcle you cited, there’s a link to Bush’s Top Ten Flip-Flops.

(1) After the war, Bush stated “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. For those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” Then after the Deulfer report came out he admitted that he didn’t really find any.

(2) He said he’d never do nation building. Now he’s doing it in Afghanistan AND Iraq.

(3) Talking about 9/11 he said you can’t distinguish between Saddam & al Qaeda. After the 9/11 Commission report he admitted there were no 9/11 connections between al Qaeda & Saddam.

(4) He opposed the 9/11 Commission, then supported it.

(5) Bush said he was for free trade, then he became protectionist.

(6) He was against the Dept. of Homeland Security, then he was for it.

(7) He said he was against a same-sex marriage amendment, then he was for it.

(8) He said we can win the war on terror, then he said we can’t, then he said we can again.

(9) Bush was against campaign finance reform, then for it, then against it.

(10) Was for pressuring OPEC to lower oil prices, then he was against it.

(11) Bush says he supports a strong dollar, but he’s letting it drop.

Etc., etc.

I’d rank any one of Bush’s flip-flops as more important than 18 from your Kerry list (specifically, 3-6, and 8-21).

jbod, I think Kerry was a great candidate. He’s passionate, intelligent, wise, and most importantly, his proposals were very, very good. Your mileage may vary. :)

AP:

I’m struck by the following thought: Either the Dems have a policy stance that the public disagrees with (based on the popular vote) or they have a good policy stance but cant seem to get their message out.

Its either they have a bad product (policies or candidate) or bad marketing. If the product is good, then the marketing must be bad. If the product is bad, no amount of marketing will help sell it.

There will also be those that take the “poor me” route and blame the public, the Republicans or anyone else they can think of. But this is just a smokescreen. Kerry was selling himself and his ideas—he did not do so enough to get elected.

Its not adequate to blame the other team for your team’s loss. To do so is like a grade schooler saying the refs werent fair, and that’s why his team lost. Its a defeatist attitude, and what it REALLY says is that your team couldnt control the outcome.

AP, I don’t see another alternative for the Dems. Was it a bad candidate? Was it a bad message? Was it a bad campaign?

They need to decide on how to best move forward to put themselves in a winnable situation. I don’t see it happening, but at least I think I’ve laid out their needs.

This isnt meant to disparage Kerry or the Dems. Its really just logic. IFFF Kerry were the best candidate, but got fewer votes, that means the Dems screwed up somewhere in the marketing. Ifff the marketing was great, then the candidate or positions require alteration.

American Pundit,

Very good. Yes, you are correct about some of that. Some of that is spin too.

But, it’s not all over-simplification.
It’s just not all over-complication.

The fact is they all flip-flop sometimes.
Especially many in Congress.

Some more than others, however.

If you sum it all up, Kerry comes
across as more flip-floppy and trying
to be on all sides of every issue.
The scales barely tipped against Kerry,
because Kerry’s flip-flops and opportunism
was more noticeable, and more reprehensible
to the majority.

Also, Kerry had a 20 year record to defend.
Bush didn’t, because he’s never been in
the House or Senate.

That’s good though…looking for facts,
rather than resorting to non-sequitur conclusions.

Too bad the Democrats didn’t do a
better job of highlighting Bush’s flip-flops.

Keep up the good work though.
Hold their feet to the fire (all politicians).
Now, that the election is over, we all
need to scrutinize everything all politicians do.
There’s still much work to be done, and
there needs to be more transparency and
continuous scrutiny of the politicians, lawyers,
media, clergy, lobbyists, media, and interpretation
of the constitution.

Was it a bad candidate? Was it a bad message? Was it a bad campaign?

They need to decide on how to best move forward to put themselves in a winnable situation.

Jack, it wasn’t really bad marketing, we just don’t have the marketing muscle to compete. Yet. On election night, Tucker Carlson made the point that the GOP has spent the last two decades building up a network of think tanks and media outlets to hone their message and get it out to the public. We’ve got Air America and the Center for American Progress. Oh, and Michael Moore. :)

I just blogged on a Clinton article I saw last weekend. It turns out I’m channeling his political expertise, so people should take me more seriously,

Clinton attributed Kerry’s loss to the Democrats’ failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to rural and small-town America.

“If we let people believe that our party doesn’t believe in faith and family, doesn’t believe in work and freedom, that’s our fault,” he said.

Democrats “need a clear national message and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won’t have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil.”

As for moving forward, I just posted that article here a couple days ago. I doubt the party will take my advice, though, so we’ll probably just have to retake America the hard way - by letting you guys fail again. ;)

American Pundit wrote:
_______
; …so we’ll probably just have to retake
; America the hard way - by letting you
; guys fail again. ;)
_______

If you want to be constructive, put this
back and forth, back and forth, petty
partisan politics aside for now.

Remember, that most of Congress is responsible
for most of what happens, so don’t focus
too much on only Bush, Kerry, or
the petty-prtisan politics.

Now is the time to hold ALL of
Congress accountable. That’s more important
than whining and gloating and perpetuating
petty partisan politics, which only
encourages the politicians to do the same.

The politicians love the petty partisan
politics, despite their claims otherwise.

Don’t fall blindly headlong into the deceptive
game of petty partisan politics…both

Democrats and Republicans want you to do that,
to distract you from their own shady activity.

Tom Daschele thought that sort of pettiness and
obstructionism was working for him, but from
the look on his face, he got a big surprise.
Generally speaking, Americans don’t like
grid-lock, and petty partisan politics.

Instead, scrutinize and analyze EVERYTHING that
ALL of the politicians are doing, how they
vote, what they say and do.

Some of these politicians are
master-cheater-parasites, and need to be
revealed and removed.
Watch how they vote, see if their actions
match their rhetoric.
Scrutinize all of the politicians, despite
their party affiliation.

Seems to me good discusssion and comments, Group.
Edson, part. enjoyed the apt humor re Dems Crazy Aunts they paraded out, while Repubs kept theirs in the closet(s).