Please find where I have said all liberals are “scum of the earth fringe radicals.”
Short of that you are a liar, and jsbrook is just as bad for swallowing the lie hook line and sinker.
[/quote]
I was not saying that you personally claimed that all liberals are “scum of the earth fringe radicals.” How do you feel about them? I personally feel that true liberals are naive and misguided with a misunderstanding of human nature and an overwillingness to use a state apparatus to correct inequities to an extent that is unfair to those who are better off. But I do believe in safetey nets and social iniatives, and I do think we as a society have some degree of responsibiltiy to try to elevate people.
There may not have been any attacks on the US if LIBERAL Bill Clinton had done something about the attack on the USS Cole and the UN!
Of course-that really would have disuaded lunatic suicide bombers from sacrificing their lives to try to hit the White House and otherwise throw America into chaos. Absolutely. Trying to destroy the central organisation of terrorist networks is the right thing to do-it’s the best thing we can do to ensure there won’t be more big hits. But destroying the terrorist mentality is not something that we can do through force. I’m not sure how we can do it or if it can be done. It’s certainly not something any politician’s on either side of the political spectrum has addressed. There are no easy answers.[/quote]
When there was no answer to those two (and other smaller) terrorist acts it inspired the terrorists to do more.
There may not have been any attacks on the US if LIBERAL Bill Clinton had done something about the attack on the USS Cole and the UN!
Of course-that really would have disuaded lunatic suicide bombers from sacrificing their lives to try to hit the White House and otherwise throw America into chaos. Absolutely. Trying to destroy the central organisation of terrorist networks is the right thing to do-it’s the best thing we can do to ensure there won’t be more big hits. But destroying the terrorist mentality is not something that we can do through force. I’m not sure how we can do it or if it can be done. It’s certainly not something any politician’s on either side of the political spectrum has addressed. There are no easy answers.
When there was no answer to those two (and other smaller) terrorist acts it inspired the terrorists to do more.[/quote]
Maybe. And I’m not defending the lack of response. I don’t agree with it. (On the other hand, I’m not convinced that Bush or another president [Republican or Democrat] would have responded differently to that or other hits of a lesser magnitude than 9/11). But does the fact that there’s an ‘answer’ now make attempted attacks less likely? No, it does not. Terrorists do not care about reprisals or getting caught or killed. What we do accomplish in disrupting the terrorist network and central organization is preventing their ability to execute large scale attacks. Whoever we kill, there will be another cause-driven lunatic to take their place, but we can hopefully prevent them from having the ability to attack.
What I did say was that most of the center/moderate dems are being alientated by a party that is in bed with the extreme left. I don;t think I need to articulate a party’s policies when the proof is in the election results. The center is finding more to vote FOR in the republican party than they are in the democratic party. [/quote]
Right on, and look no further than the recent Daily Kos-DLC, er, thing.
And that is entirely the point - there are legions of moderate-liberal Democrats or independnets out there that the current leadership - and by leadership, I also mean leading voices within the special interest 529s and the blogs - has no ability to reach.
Worse than that, it’s not just lack of ability - it is a lack of desire. Many of the leading voices are very much against the idea of moderating the party at all - they think it is too moderate as it is (Republican lite). These are the individuals and groups that are directing the party.
Trust me, I am all for a stronger, more moderate Democratic Party. I want one to exist. I am sad that it doesn’t.
What is your opinion of those who are unable to consider alternative viewpoints in anything more than an utterly superficial manner before summarily dismissing them?
What I did say was that most of the center/moderate dems are being alientated by a party that is in bed with the extreme left. I don;t think I need to articulate a party’s policies when the proof is in the election results. The center is finding more to vote FOR in the republican party than they are in the democratic party.
Right on, and look no further than the recent Daily Kos-DLC, er, thing.
And that is entirely the point - there are legions of moderate-liberal Democrats or independnets out there that the current leadership - and by leadership, I also mean leading voices within the special interest 529s and the blogs - has no ability to reach.
Worse than that, it’s not just lack of ability - it is a lack of desire. Many of the leading voices are very much against the idea of moderating the party at all - they think it is too moderate as it is (Republican lite). These are the individuals and groups that are directing the party.
Trust me, I am all for a stronger, more moderate Democratic Party. I want one to exist. I am sad that it doesn’t.
[/quote]
I am sad as well. But what are these liberal policies that the political elite among the Democrats would like to enact. Can you tell me?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
While the democrats are supposedly in disarray, they are garnering about 49% of the vote in recent elections – so what you are really saying then is that you don’t think the republicans can ever win except when the democrats are being very incompetent?
[/quote]
I’m not talking about presidential elections. Those are always close, and probably always will be in our 2 party system.
I’m talking about congressional, state an local elections. In these races, the margins are not 51-49. And the growing republican majority in congress proves that people are moving away from the far left, and have found something they like in the republicans.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I was not saying that you personally claimed that all liberals are “scum of the earth fringe radicals.” How do you feel about them? I personally feel that true liberals are naive and misguided with a misunderstanding of human nature and an overwillingness to use a state apparatus to correct inequities to an extent that is unfair to those who are better off. But I do believe in safetey nets and social iniatives, and I do think we as a society have some degree of responsibiltiy to try to elevate people.
[/quote]
It certainly sounde like you were saying that.
How do I feel? I wish there were a more honest political dialogue in this country. At the very least I wished that both sides would carry some intellectual honesty with them. What you have now is partisanship.
I am as guilty as the next guy for arguing from a partisan stance. But I would like to think that my partisanship only extends as far as the ballot box.
By that, I mean that I think I am openminded enough to have friends that disagree with me. I don’t think anyone is necessarily the scum of the earth because of their beliefs. I get along famously with ProfX in most all other areas. I find myself on vroom’s side of the fence in most other subjects that are not political. Hell, my best friend’s wife is a stone-cold yellow-dog democrat, and she seems to get more liberal each year. We get along just fine. I think she’s going to burn for eternity in the firey bowels of hell, but I’d give her my kidney if she needed it.
It’s possible that republicans are better at some aspects of getting elected at those levels.
For example, raising money, getting support from other republicans during the process, having “hot topic” issues that can electrify the voters, etc, etc.
I don’t know, that’s for sure, just thinking out loud. It’s certainly taken very seriously anyway.
I am sad as well. But what are these liberal policies that the political elite among the Democrats would like to enact. Can you tell me?
[/quote]
Well, one big problem is that the current incarnation is not a party of ideas, it is a party of reaction. Whatever the GOP or Bush stand for, they stand against. There is no ‘idea movement’ at the moment coming from the left-of-center, mostly just invective about how Bush is ruining the world or is acting in bad faith.
What the Democrats need is to stop assuming every move being made by the GOP is in bad faith and say “well, the GOP thinks we should go that way, but we have a better solution…” and then actually offer one.
That is part of where the debate has broken down. Too many liberals don’t think Republicans are just wrong, they think they are evil. Can’t keep doing that.
Right now, most Democrats pride themselves on being clever first, wise second. How many Democrats do you know that have a treasure trove of quips about Bush, Halliburton, and Rumsfeld, but when you ask them to get sober and talk policy - implementable, practical policy, specifically, not just abstract stuff - they glaze over and give you a blank, no-one’s-home stare? Too many. That has to change.
As for what the liberal elite want to enact - hard to say, but here is an attempt, from what I read in the blogs:
Higher tax rates, particularly more progressive at the top
Higher minimum wage (the ‘living wage’)
Ratification of gay marriage
Universal health care
A foreign policy deferential to the UN
A command-and-control emissions reduction policy that is also a stalking horse for reducing corporate power
Appointing judges that make ‘progressive’ policy choices and act as a superlegislature
Just a general survey. Again, most of these are recycled platitudes. The Democratic Party needs an injection of two things: a moderate temperment, and an infusion of policy ideas.
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but you raise some interesting points.
I’m not so sure this is true. It’s hard to be the “opposition” party and also be the party of leadership and ideas. While you oppose you generally criticize and don’t want to put anything out there for criticism on your own until an election.
I think what you are saying is how the republican machine wants to characterize the left, but I think anyone stuck in opposition will come across that way.
I’d agree that if democrats are saying the administration is acting in bad faith they should stop. However, we all know that every rock is picked up and examined closely these days.
Generally, it seems that this is a problem that goes both ways. The liberals are all misguided idiots, or elitists, or some other very negative characterization.
It’s possible that republicans are better at some aspects of getting elected at those levels.
For example, raising money, getting support from other republicans during the process, having “hot topic” issues that can electrify the voters, etc, etc.
I don’t know, that’s for sure, just thinking out loud. It’s certainly taken very seriously anyway.[/quote]
First of all, your logic assumes that everyone that votes republican is some how gullible, and subject to voting for whoever has the shiniest buttons. Maybe in one election cycle, but I choose to believe that the people are smarter than that as a whole.
The Republicans have always out-raised the Dems, so I think that reason should be off the table.
It comes down to message. That is where the Democrats lose. They don’t have a message. Like Thunder said - they react. They react with anger. I can’t remember a proactive idea put forth by the democrats since Hillary Care in the early 90’s.
Not at all. What I’ve said has nothing to do with anything negative on behalf of voters at all.
This is huge! There is no way you can take this off the table. Money buys publicity. Having the ability to get your message out or get a counter message out more effectively shouldn’t just be dropped like it doesn’t mean anything.
Again, I’m not saying anything negative concerning republicans or republican voters at all.
When you say that Republicans had a better command of the hot button topics, or a better catch phrase, you are saying that the voter is gullible. I hate to break it to you vroom - but if a postition, or idea resonates with voters, then the holder of said position or idea has a better than average chance of winning. If you are saying that the right has been more successful at this, then you are admitting that it is about the message - which is what I have been saying all along.
Republicans out-raised the Dems all through the 70’s and 80’s, and the Republicans couldn’t hardly win an election. You can’t look at the party’s checking account balance, and correlate that to a victory.
You seem to have a predisposition to assume I’m saying negative things because you see me as a liberal. However, it isn’t the case at all.
The issues I stated have nothing to do with gullability.
Moving on… (ha!)
I think “the message” these days is one of negative mischaracterization. Liberals have no message - those angry hating atheist liberals. Radical leftists using the environment as a way to negatively impact the USA. These are all very negative and broad labels that get applied regularly.
I’d rather see both parties lay our their thoughts and reasoning and their policies and let the populace decide what to do, but that will probably never happen again.
My dad’s side of the fam are all republicans, even the blue-collar guys/women in the group and all voted for bush. Yet surprisingly, we have all regretted our votes and all hate him as a president. Quote from my grand-dad " they should send bush over to iraq to fight " and he’s about as red as you can get.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
When you say that Republicans had a better command of the hot button topics, or a better catch phrase, you are saying that the voter is gullible. I hate to break it to you vroom - but if a postition, or idea resonates with voters, then the holder of said position or idea has a better than average chance of winning. If you are saying that the right has been more successful at this, then you are admitting that it is about the message - which is what I have been saying all along.
[/quote]
It is about the message, which is why people can’t cry “elitist” when someone points out that catch phrases are what helped win that election. “flip flopper” was tossed around so many times by people who don’t even follow the issues deeply that it stands to reason that it did its job.
I find it hilarious how many posters on this site can jump on the general public for being lazy and fat. They are degraded for watching too much television and for being unmotivated, yet when someone claims that the majority don’t even follow or understand the issues but latch onto “catch phrases” all hell breaks loose as if suddenly the entire world is so bright and intelligent.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’d rather see both parties lay our their thoughts and reasoning and their policies and let the populace decide what to do, but that will probably never happen again.[/quote]
Of course not. One thing that was crystal clear in this last election is that anything said by any politician can be dragged back out of the closet 10, 20 or 50 years later and used against them based on spin and catch phrases. This, I truly believe, is why there are no new messages. I think many are afraid to take any risks. I am honestly not sure if I can blame them.