Yes, in a republican controlled house and senate you think the democrats aren’t doing enough? Hahahahahahahaha! I suppose they need to be doing more rubber stamping of administration initiatives? Ahahahahaha! [/quote]
The question was whether they were doing enough to provide a viable alternative, not whether they are doing enough to effect policy changes.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
Anyhow, too bad nobody actually lived up to that supposed contract.[/quote]
Actually, they did live up to it. It was a pledge by candidates for the House of Representatives that they would bring up for a vote 10 items. They brought up, and passed in the House I believe, all the items. Those that weren’t passed either failed in the Senate or were vetoed by President Clinton.
[quote]
vroom wrote:
I find it continually amusing that things are so close when the democrats are supposedly so fucked up. Stop living in a dream world and consider how things work when you aren’t in power.[/quote]
Again, you’re not addressing the point, which is that Dems aren’t doing what’s necessary as a political party – not as government functionaries. I know you enjoy your tangents, but Thunder (if I may speak for him) and I were addressing one of the main reasons that the Democrats are failing to provide anything more than “me too” initiatives or “not enough” criticisms, which are not enough for them politically.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t think that the republicans were well able to elucidate positions when they weren’t in power either. The contract with America may be an exception, but it doesn’t mean it is easy to accomplish.[/quote]
The minority republicans stopped Hillary care in its tracks. Not by running to a judge. Not by lodging a filibuster. They appealed directly to the american people. The Republicans had learned over 40 years how to be effective in the minority. You can believe it, or not.
FYI - the CWA was not a policy. It was a campaign tool used to convey a message. It was also a promise that the right used to effect the largest house-sweeping effort in the histoy of our country. You see, when the voter hears a message that resonates with him - he responds.
[quote]I know you can’t see it and would never admit it, but when the republicans were not in power they sounded like a bunch of whiny crybabies who had nothing to offer but criticism too.
Get over it. [/quote]
Being that you are too young to have even voted in in the 80’s, much less form a logical opinion of the day - you marginalize yourself with statements like this. But keep trying.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, you’re not addressing the point, which is that Dems aren’t doing what’s necessary as a political party – not as government functionaries. I know you enjoy your tangents, but Thunder (if I may speak for him) and I were addressing one of the main reasons that the Democrats are failing to provide anything more than “me too” initiatives or “not enough” criticisms, which are not enough for them politically.[/quote]
Honestly, would a staunch republican EVER think that the democrats are “doing what’s necessary as a political party”? Just wondering.
You’d better check your math… I could vote for some of the eighties. That was also the period that I was a mondo republican and in fact a cheerleader for Romping Ronnie.
It’s also the time that I started to open my eyes and look a little further into what was going on.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Honestly, would a staunch republican EVER think that the democrats are “doing what’s necessary as a political party”? Just wondering.[/quote]
I don’t think the debate is centers around partisanship. I could be wrong about everyone else, but for me, I am talking about the reasons for the implosion of the democratic party.
It has nothing to do with the fact that all dems think all republicans have their heads up their ass - and vise versa. Only an idiot would think that both parties would ever agree on everything - especially when it comes to their respective platforms.
There is a reason that democrats are losing more and more seats in each successive election. The simple answer is that more people are voting for republicans. But why? That is the debate, as far as I can see.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Every now and then issues present themselves that offer a home run for one or other political party.
It doesn’t make them geniuses because they managed to take a swing and connect… they just did what they were supposed to do.[/quote]
And that could be the correct answer for this:
If half of the country is afraid of gay marriages and/or polarized on religious issues (the only reason porn is now a major target worthy of putting man hours towards), you have your magic hot topic buttons. All you have to do is keep pressing them. It doesn’t mean republicans are so holy or that they are so focused on their agenda. Spin is in. We just saw it as far as the words of some democrats being spun into new meanings by talking heads of news shows. People are into neat little sayings and catch phrases. It keeps most from actually researching the topics deeply.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Every now and then issues present themselves that offer a home run for one or other political party.[/quote]
There were at least 10 issues. But you knew that, right? The point I was trying to make - that you seem determined to ignore, regardless of who is trying to get it across to you - is that the republicans had a message. They articulated that message, and it resonated with the voters. They did it again in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. Do you not see a trend here?
I think the one with their head in the sand, and living this dream world they speak of.
No - but it makes them the majority party in congress. The whole issue is why can’t the left do it? I mean - if there were ever a hanging curveball served up for a party to get back into power - the left had it in 2004. Yet they failed miserably.
They will continue to fail until they find a message that resonates with voters. Getting their talking points, and strategies from George Soros/Moveon.org/MMoore is not working for them . It is alienating the center, and the center is voting republican.
2/3 of the country oppose gay marraige, yet the dems embrace it.
a full 60% of the country opposes abortion, yet the dems cater to militant pro-abortionists.
The country still supports the war, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to Dean/Gin-Nosed Ted/Harry Reid/or Donna Pelosi.
A majority of the country favors privatized SS accounts - but don’t tell that to the left-wing leadership.
I’ll say it one more time for those that still have trouble understanding - until the dems come up with a message, and a direction for the country that resonates with the center - they will continue to lose elections.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
Every now and then issues present themselves that offer a home run for one or other political party.
It doesn’t make them geniuses because they managed to take a swing and connect… they just did what they were supposed to do.
And that could be the correct answer for this:
There is a reason that democrats are losing more and more seats in each successive election. The simple answer is that more people are voting for republicans. But why? That is the debate, as far as I can see.
If half of the country is afraid of gay marriages and/or polarized on religious issues (the only reason porn is now a major target worthy of putting man hours towards), you have your magic hot topic buttons. All you have to do is keep pressing them. It doesn’t mean republicans are so holy or that they are so focused on their agenda. Spin is in. We just saw it as far as the words of some democrats being spun into new meanings by talking heads of news shows. People are into neat little sayings and catch phrases. It keeps most from actually researching the topics deeply.[/quote]
Stick with that one Prof - and you’ll continue to lose elections. Maybe you could go to work for the DNC - they seem to be right up your alley.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Stick with that one Prof - and you’ll continue to lose elections. Maybe you could go to work for the DNC - they seem to be right up your alley.
[/quote]
I have already told you that I don’t have a “party”. I just won’t vote for anyone who I feel will negatively affect policies or freedoms in this country more than their opposition. I know, you are one of those who has been fooled into believing that anyone who wouldn’t vote for Bush is obviously against all republicans…and quite possibly the country itself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I have already told you that I don’t have a “party”. I just won’t vote for anyone who I feel will negatively affect policies or freedoms in this country more than their opposition. I know, you are one of those who has been fooled into believing that anyone who wouldn’t vote for Bush is obviously against all republicans…and quite possibly the country itself.[/quote]
No - I am a republican. I hold no such view of those that oppose him. I hold that view for those that are so against him that it clouds their ability to govern. I don’t think all democrats fall into this category.
There have been several Democrats that, had it been a different time, I would have voted for him. Charles Stenholm of Texas is one of them. The only reason I vorted against him this past electioncycle was becasue he was standing in the way of a Republican, and the party’s majority in the House.
But I am a republican. I don’t think Bush is the be all and end all of American presidents. I’ve said numerous times that I am a Forbes guy. But I voted for Bush twice because he was better than the other two dems that have run against him.
The problem I have is with those that are still saying Bush was “selected not elected”, and can;t get past the fact that their guy - whoever it was - lost. They are the ABBers. They are the enemy. With that said - I will do whatever I can to ensure that the party that reflects the lion’s share of my beliefs wins.
If that means playing the role of a partisan - then I will do it. It is for the greater good. My greater good. That is how the game is played, whether you agree with it or not.
I seriously doubt you have the capacity to actually listen to and deal with a democratic message.
The fact you don’t listen doesn’t mean they aren’t talking.[/quote]
Oh I have capacity. I have capacity out the yeng-yang. I choose to disagree with the democratic message because they are in direct opposition to what I believe in - for the most part.
I find it quite elitist of you to assume that because I know what I believe, and which party represents those beliefs best, that I somehow lack capacity.
The thing you miss time and again vroom is that it is not a single person that can’t hear the left’s message. There are millions of voters that have started listening to the right. The ballot box proves this.
[quote]They are the enemy. With that said - I will do whatever I can to ensure that the party that reflects the lion’s share of my beliefs wins.
If that means playing the role of a partisan - then I will do it. It is for the greater good. My greater good. That is how the game is played, whether you agree with it or not.[/quote]
You are always looking for a way to slant a statement made by someone you disagree with in as negative a light as possible.
Is it because you are looking for fuel for your anger? Is it because you enjoy partisan politics so much? Is this something you can stop doing when you want to? I hope so.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yep, another “ends justify the means” guy here.[/quote]
I’m sorry to break it to you vroom - but that is politics. You can dumb it down to little insults if it helps you to cope, but that doesn’t change the fact that real life isn’t about sitting around singing Kumbaya, and thinking about shit all day.
I think you are just arguing to hear your head rattle - and you accuse me of not listening?
[quote]vroom wrote:
You are always looking for a way to slant a statement made by someone you disagree with in as negative a light as possible.
Is it because you are looking for fuel for your anger? Is it because you enjoy partisan politics so much? Is this something you can stop doing when you want to? I hope so.[/quote]
I am not angry. Always is a strong word - sure you wanna go with that one? Answer me one question - in this rush to judgement of me - are you the pot, or the kettle? I mean the post I quoted of yours sounds like a slant job to me.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, you’re not addressing the point, which is that Dems aren’t doing what’s necessary as a political party – not as government functionaries. I know you enjoy your tangents, but Thunder (if I may speak for him) and I were addressing one of the main reasons that the Democrats are failing to provide anything more than “me too” initiatives or “not enough” criticisms, which are not enough for them politically.
Professor X wrote:
Honestly, would a staunch republican EVER think that the democrats are “doing what’s necessary as a political party”? Just wondering.[/quote]
Depends on what you mean. Probably not enough to vote for them myself, unless they rearranged their positions to be closer to libertarian than are the Republicans.
However, I could see acknowledging that they were being astute political operators – but they’re not.