NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, guys, we lost. Last election the we won the majority and the electoral college and corrupted ballots and ragistration laws were at fault, but this time around, we have no one to blame but ourselves. So don't die. Read The Onion, watch some John Stewart, laugh a little.

And here is a little philosophical inspiration for everyone: "Try. And, if you fail, try harder next time." Just remember, there is always hope.

Btw, there is no debate or flaming here. Give us a few jokes, a little inspiration of your own, and, if you're a republican, refrain from gloating. We are disappointed and we have learned a lesson from this election, namely, no one is watching out for you. Today, we continue our path of disillusionment. Someday, we may finally achieve what we started long ago: Equality. Try a little harder next time. Here is a place to act lachrymose and maudlin without fear!

Ok, guys, we lost. Last election the we won the majority and the electoral college and corrupted ballots and ragistration laws were at fault, but this time around, we have no one to blame but ourselves. So don't die. Read The Onion, watch some John Stewart, laugh a little.

And here is a little philosophical inspiration for everyone: "Try. And, if you fail, try harder next time." Just remember, there is always hope.

Btw, there is no debate or flaming here. Give us a few jokes, a little inspiration of your own, and, if you're a republican, refrain from gloating. We are disappointed and we have learned a lesson from this election, namely, no one is watching out for you. Today, we continue our path of disillusionment. Someday, we may finally achieve what we started long ago: Equality. Try a little harder next time. Here is a place to act lachrymose and maudlin without fear!

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.
I'm sure Republicans were saying this through the 80s. :p

and I'm sure the Democratics were saying that the Republican party was dead in the Clinton era.

I think the Democrats lost because of their poor choice for leadership. The majority saw Kerry "flip flop" as we were reminded of how he voted as a senator. His campaign pushed the focus on what George W Bush was doing wrong and not what Kerry would do right. His campaign was overboard with negativity; from Fahrenheit 9/11 to the tactless ploy with Lynne Cheney's sexuality to using Bin Laden's "October Surprise" video. The majority saw through John Kerry and that is why you lost.

I think it's wrong to think of this as a contest. Sure Bush was re-elected, but the numbers were so close, and I don't think Bust can really say he won, as almost half the country voted for Kerry. I just hope that Bush thinks a little more clearly this go around, and maybe Kerry will keep fighting. That's a good thing. We don't need one person lecturing the country. Variety is yummy.

On another note, I really, really hope that this whole gay marriage thing is resolved. Just let people marry who or what they want. I think I have a Constitutional right to marry my left sock if I want, not that I would want to, but it's nice to have the option.

Btw, I voted for Bush...how's that for a paradox?

Dems, and 3rd-parties, don't throw in the towel!

A bit of advice.

I think if the democrats would loosen their views on abortion (voting to have it limited to cases of rape, and when the mother's life is in danger, perhaps?) It would give them the extra votes they need in 2008.

The Democratic party suffered a major defeat this election. I really don't think there was much they could've done. Bush jr. was not as hated as they made him out to be, and they based their campaigns on this--that Bush sucks and everyone hates him, which certainly wasn't true. A simple tactical error on the DNC's fault.

But don't despair too much, the Democratic party is not dead yet. Though they have taken a very crushing blow this election--primarily Daschel's (spelling?) defeat--but they are far, FAR from dead. Remember, the Republicans have healed similar wounds before, and I have little doubt you guys will too.

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.
I said no flaming... *attacks*

Oh gawd, I still have the Gaian (I just recently moved in from the anime forums, yes, but the extended discussion section) regional dialectic netspeak my friends speak to me in... No one on NS uses the little actions-in-asterisk dialect... it comes from the dork forums, not the nerd ones...

Anyway, glad most republican replies followed my guidelines and didn't gloat too much...

I honestly think theres potential for this re-election to be a good thing. A LOT of republicans were just as disgusted with bush as the dems...the problem was Kerry wasnt all that compelling an offering so party loyalty led them to vote republican as usual. It seems to me (and ive been wrong before) that the republican party itself is building to a split in its ranks. The far right of bush/cheney and the way they spend dont sit well with a lot of the more moderate fiscally conservative republicans, just as the histronics coming from the far left unnerved a significant percentage of the democrats. Honestly im hoping that the moderate elements from both partys split and form a third...snowballs chance in hell but its something to hope for in the future for my grandkids eh?

Moreover, nows the time for bush to put up or shut up (being as he has a trifecta), if after 8 years in office the economy is still crap and Iraq is still going poorly or degenerating, it SHOULD put the nail in the coffin of his policy of reckless spending, privatization and preemptive war.

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.

Actually, I would say this is inaccurate; had turnout been higher in this election, I'm fairly sure Kerry and other Democrats would have won in higher percentages. The Republican Party relies very heavily on specific high-turnout voter groups that operate on certain issues, moreso than the Democrats.

Additionally, the popular margin was quite slender, and very few Congressional seats changed hands.

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.

Actually, I am not so sure of this. Never in American history has a wartime president been replaced (although LBJ did agree not to run again in '68), and the vast majority of such campaigns are landslide victories for the incumbent. However, out of 120,000,000 votes, Bush only won by about 4 million. That's a pretty damn solid effort on the part of the Dems, if I do say so myself.

Moreover, we built the groundwork for a lot of different constituencies. Young voters may have only represented as much of a percentile of the electorate as before, but when 15 million more people show up to the polls, that translates to an increase in 1.5 million more young voters. Even better, these voters are overwhelmingly Democrat. The Republican Party of today may have the majority, but it faces a great peril of buying success today at the cost of cutting its own throat down the road, when their support dies off and is replaced by ours. Latinos and African-Americans are still solidly in our corner, and they've upped their efforts to go out and vote.

The greatest effort we face right now is fairly simple: most voters would be much better off if they voted Democrat than Republican from an economic standpoint. Democrats, for all the talk about how they "tax-and-spend", are actually far more fiscally responsible than the Republicans (the difference between a Dem and Republican isn't that one wants government and the other doesn't, as Republicans have consistently grown the government during their periods in office. Rather, it's that Democrats believe you have to pay for it, whereas Republicans believe in signing an IOU to Social Security and Chinese investors), and their tax policies are far better for the middle class than the Republican trickle-down system is (it's been tried twice, and both times it buried the government in debt. At this point, if you don't take it on faith, you don't take it seriously). Why then do they vote Republican instead? Because the Republicans keep throwing distracting issues at them: partial-birth abortion (look, of course we'll sign it, provided that Republicans offer protection for life and health of the mother, something you haven't wanted to do), gay marriage, etc.

The trick seems to be that we either need to do some kind of massive propaganda campaign to match that offered by the Republicans over the last 20 years (Rush Limbaugh et. all on talk-radio, Fox News, etc.), or we need to find wedge issues of our own.

In the end, yeah, it was a pretty heartbreaking experience. I'm in Nevada, and I had to watch as the majority of people voted to put a guy into office guaranteed to drive trucks loaded with poison through our neighborhoods. But cancer-laden chins up, Dems! We still put up a heck of a fight, and we've laid a lot of the groundwork for sometime down the road completely demolishing everything that Bush has tried to accomplish. All we need to do now is pray that there is something left that doesn't glow in the dark on its own when that day comes.

I vented on my blog, and that's enough for me on the subject. I've become very Zen about the train wreck we're looking at in the near future--sort of the opinion that we need to go through a Great-Depression-esque meltdown every three or four generations just to keep us on our toes. And it's coming, make no mistake.

I'm most upset by the notion that the news media in this country has become such a lapdog that Karl Rove was able to take a subpar candidate, mix in some evangelism, fear, and dirty tricks and win a clear majority. That frightens me more than anything else, because the religious right will only be emboldened by this victory, and if this goes on, we'll be staring a Nehemiah Scudder theocracy right in the face.

But here's one potential line of attack that we might do well to focus on as Democrats. The states that voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 are largely the states that drive the nation's economy. California is a nation unto itself economically speaking, and the northeast is no slouch either. On average, blue states get back far less money in federal benefits than they put in, while the red states are the welfare mothers driving Cadillacs (to appropriate an ugly metaphor from Ronald Reagan). Florida is the notable exception to that general rule.

So let's start talking about real welfare reform--weaning the user states off the federal teat, and creating a system where you get back what you put in. Let's put those red states to work, by gum! Workfare, not welfare! I'm tired of having my hard-earned tax dollars go to those slobs in Montana or Mississippi or South Carolina! That's an argument they can understand.

That, or we could just secede. :D

Meh, I shrug it off and continue. Most of the 25 years I've been voting I've endured under a president I didn't want and thought was the wrong choice for America. If I was gonna start whining about it I would have started when Republican backroom dealing with Iran secured Ronnie Ray-Guns victory in '80. Life goes on, hope springs eternal.

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.
Hmmm there are 300 Million Americans and 51 Million voted Republican.....what majority do you refer to, or do you profess to speak for the other 200 Million that did not vote, or could not vote? :eek:

The Democrat Party is dead? Perhaps 49 Million might disagree with you?

Actually, I would say this is inaccurate; had turnout been higher in this election, I'm fairly sure Kerry and other Democrats would have won in higher percentages. The Republican Party relies very heavily on specific high-turnout voter groups that operate on certain issues, moreso than the Democrats.

Additionally, the popular margin was quite slender, and very few Congressional seats changed hands.
Actually, it was the first time since 1988 a Presidential candidate of either party won more than half the vote, as well as the fact that the turnout was larger than any election since 1960, and more votes were cast for Bush than for any president in American history. It is all public record, look it up before trying to downplay it. Also it is the first time a president of either party won reelection, while also increasing their house and senate seats, etc.Yes they gained many seats, politically speaking...opening up an insurmountable lead in the Senate of 55-44-1, and adding to their already large House lead with 3 more seats. It was an overwhelming victory.
That aside, I do think the reason the Dems lost so heavily was not because of Kerry himself, who seems a decent guy. It was because they sold out to the extreme left. When Kerry stood on a stage with musicians and Hollywood actors, calling Bush a thug and criminal, and then stated that these were the "voice of America" THAT pretty much did him in with the real voice of America, in the minds of nearly everyone I know,including Dems(the Dems I know voted roughly 80% for Bush, Republicans I know voted 100%...those odds, spread throughout middle America, are impossible to beat. If you want to have a legitimate chance, do not embrace the far left, and tell us they represent your and our values.

Hmmm there are 300 Million Americans and 51 Million voted Republican.....what majority do you refer to, or do you profess to speak for the other 200 Million that did not vote, or could not vote? :eek:

The Democrat Party is dead? Perhaps 49 Million might disagree with you?
Bush won with a majority of all votes cast, for the first time since 1988. Clinton never managed this even. And for the record, look it up, popular vote is nearly 60 million for Bush

Bush won with a majority of all votes cast, for the first time since 1988. Clinton never managed this even. And for the record, look it up, popular vote is nearly 60 million for Bush
I was trying to point out the absurdity of the suggestion by The True Right. No matter how you want to spin it, the fact remains that Bush was elected by about 19% of the population. Do the math when you talk about majority? :eek:

I was trying to point out the absurdity of the suggestion by The True Right. No matter how you want to spin it, the fact remains that Bush was elected by about 19% of the population. Do the math when you talk about majority? :eek:
I do understand the point you were making. However, by the same token, Bush was elected by more of the population than EVER has elected an American President, and a larger percentage of the population as well, so to imply that 19% is not enough, would be to denigrate every elected official ever in this country, yours, most of Europe, etc. Because when you add in the total population, you are including large sums that are too young to vote as well. The facts are 1-largest turnout in 44 years as far as percentage of eligible voters, and 2-best winning percentage(among that high turnout, that DOES say something) since 1988. I never heard anyone on the Dem side or even really other than ultra right on the Repub side, claim Clinton was not elected by enough of a percentage, despite lower turnouts among eligible voters, and of the lower turnouts, still not managing over 50% of these, he owed his presidency to a third party taking away Rep. votes in both elections, but for the most part Republicans accepted and did their part without pointing that out.
Edit: Just looked up the numbers...60% of eligible voters turned out, highest turnout since 1968.

Doesn't this all just mean that the American population has increased since - when was it, 1988 or someting? I don't see the relevance of the numbers thing.

Doesn't this all just mean that the American population has increased since - when was it, 1988 or someting? I don't see the relevance of the numbers thing.
That would help explain the raw numbers, but I am referring to a percent, percentage is the same regardless of numbers, and thus is a better indicator. Bush in this election was the first president to get more than half of the votes, more than 50%, since 1988,when his father did it. Clinton nor Bush Sr got 50% in 1992, No one also in 1996, no one in 2000.
Edit: Also, of the people who were eligible to vote, only 44% voted in the Clinton years, so he was elected by less than half of that 44%...of those elgible to vote now, in 2004, 60% voted, and Bush was elected by roughly 52% of those votes....a sizeable lead when looked at in a historical perspective.

I do understand the point you were making. However, by the same token, Bush was elected by more of the population than EVER has elected an American President, and a larger percentage of the population as well, so to imply that 19% is not enough, would be to denigrate every elected official ever in this country, yours, most of Europe, etc. Because when you add in the total population, you are including large sums that are too young to vote as well. The facts are 1-largest turnout in 44 years as far as percentage of eligible voters, and 2-best winning percentage(among that high turnout, that DOES say something) since 1988. I never heard anyone on the Dem side or even really other than ultra right on the Repub side, claim Clinton was not elected by enough of a percentage, despite lower turnouts among eligible voters, and of the lower turnouts, still not managing over 50% of these, he owed his presidency to a third party taking away Rep. votes in both elections, but for the most part Republicans accepted and did their part without pointing that out.
I still don't think you are getting the true picture here.

FACT: only 19% of the people actually voted for Bush

FACT: about 18% of the people voted for Kerry

FACT: 63% of the people couldn't vote or were unable to vote

So, when people talk about the majority of Americans, well their voices were simply not heard.

What I find truly amazing is that 55 Million people voted for a man that has been sadly labeled on these threads as being a "coward", and a "traitor". So to then turn around and tell people that their party is "dead" on top of that, adds insult to injury and demonstrates the clear divisions within your country?

I still don't think you are getting the true picture here.

FACT: only 19% of the people actually voted for Bush

FACT: about 18% of the people voted for Kerry

FACT: 63% of the people couldn't vote or were unable to vote

So, when people talk about the majority of Americans, well their voices were simply not heard.

What I find truly amazing is that 55 Million people voted for a man that has been sadly labeled on these threads as being a "coward", and a "traitor". So to then turn around and tell people that their party is "dead" on top of that, adds insult to injury and demonstrates the clear divisions within your country?
I agree...but the trends developing will lead to the demise of the Dem Party UNLESS they try to look at moving more to the moderates, and away from the far left. If they insist on staying far to the left, they will lose even more of what once was a decent majority. The US, and you can tell by looking at the states who voted pro-Bush or Pro-Kerry, the giant swath of the middle of the US, is staunchly conservative, and holds enough electoral votes to turn any election. A party that appeals to values not shared here, will not win ANY national elections as long as they do so.
Also to keep saying only 19% is in fact close to corret, although low somewhat, but in effect, is actually misleading. Our population is roughly 290 million. Of those, a LARGE amount,close to half, are under voting age, and most of these, if they voted, would vote for who their parents voted for, as they do not really know much more than what parents or friends or teachers say.There are roughly 180 million who are old enough and could vote. Of these, 60% voted, and of these 52% favored Bush. By the token , and I do understand you were simply making a point, but as I said, every election in European history, North American(yours too) history, etc, would be belittled if you start with semantics of counting even infants in the population, then saying only 19% voted (in actuality it is about 22%)for the winner.

I despair, I really do.

How could this have happened........
Did no one know this? :

GEORGE W BUSH
CURRICULUM VITAE

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The
company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took and using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden
city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history. With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S.
Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her. I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government. I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time. In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans 71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

I agree...but the trends developing will lead to the demise of the Dem Party UNLESS they try to look at moving more to the moderates, and away from the far left. If they insist on staying far to the left, they will lose even more of what once was a decent majority. The US, and you can tell by looking at the states who voted pro-Bush or Pro-Kerry, the giant swath of the middle of the US, is staunchly conservative, and holds enough electoral votes to turn any election. A party that appeals to values not shared here, will not win ANY national elections as long as they do so.
To be totally honest with you, I do believe that if Bush continues down the path that has been cleared, that in the next election in 2008, the Democrats will crush the Republicans by default.

To be totally honest with you, I do believe that if Bush continues down the path that has been cleared, that in the next election in 2008, the Democrats will crush the Republicans by default.
Only if they lean to the middle, in my state and several other states, including Ohio, they lost even among Dems. The far left, Michael Moore, Bush hating, does NOT play to America, it plays to anti-America, and in this part of the US, who as I said, holds the electoral majority needed, that will never be a popular stand, even among our Democrats(our Democratic mayor campaigned for Bush, Democratic state legislature members did not want to be associated with Kerry visits, and several of them also pledged support to the Bush campaign.

Wow, a perfect fusion of succinctness and verbosity, thanks, Dianamania.

Dianamania..."how it happened" was that the majority of voters realized most of those points were lies, and the points that were not, were more than made up for by good points and /or corresponding bad points in the opposition.
Enron CEO was a friend and frequent dinner guest of the Heinz-Kerry family as well, including one in particular days before the scandal broke.
Your comments on the National Guard belittle everyone who has served(and yes, died) serving in that branch of service. Also you know next to nothing about the military if you really believe you can"refuse"to drug test as a military pilot especially, but in reality, as a military anything. Kerry's service, while honorable, was seen by many current military,myself included, as a slap in the face, when it was considered this man threw away ribbons, and denigrated everyone he served with with unfounded accusations of warcrimes. Nevertheless, personally, I did not know about that, for me, it was that he was so quick to jump on the bandwagon he thought would get him elected to be our Commander in Chief, by last week jumping to the gun and accusing us of losing weapons that it is now known were not there in the first place in Iraq.

... if you're a republican, refrain from gloating.

... Might as well ask them to stop sticking money in their pockets, or breathing.


BTW ... you do all realise that now you've elected Bush for another four years Jeb is waiting in the wings to take over in 2008? And if you all thought Bush was either cool, clever and right-thinking in his attitude to foreigners, blacks, poor people, women, and anybody not an oil baron, OR thick, corrupt, and unable to move without Cheney's fist up his ass, you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to Jeb.
Welcome to the wonderful world of inherited power - funny, I thought the US ws founded on opposition to that sort of thing, together with religious tolerance. Oh well, I was wrong.

Please folks..this is not a "continue the partisan crap that everyones had to listen to for the past year and a half or more" thread....EVERY other thread on the forum is that....how about we try to stick to the intended topic and spirit of the first post.

... Might as well ask them to stop sticking money in their pockets, or breathing.


BTW ... you do all realise that now you've elected Bush for another four years Jeb is waiting in the wings to take over in 2008? And if you all thought Bush was either cool, clever and right-thinking in his attitude to foreigners, blacks, poor people, women, and anybody not an oil baron, OR thick, corrupt, and unable to move without Cheney's fist up his ass, you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to Jeb.
Welcome to the wonderful world of inherited power - funny, I thought the US ws founded on opposition to that sort of thing, together with religious tolerance. Oh well, I was wrong.
Well, if what you know of George, is an indication of what you think you know of Jeb, then I am fairly certain you are wrong on Jeb, as you are way off on George. The cabinet for the first time ever had 2 blacks(one a woman)in it. The only black member of the Supreme court was appointed by Bush Sr.
Most of my neighbors(failrly poor) were quite happy with the tax breaks they got, which goes a long ways to helping raise a family. And do you seriously want to talk about family money etc etc? The Dems are loaded with it...look at the Kennedys, Kerry himself, etc. In fact according to Federal records, of the largest political contributions money wise...the richest contributed in 2004,2002,2000,1998,1996,1992,1988 to the Democrat ticket, with only 1994 and 1990 going to Republicans.
I am an independent, who usually sides Democrat on domestic and Repub on foreign, and even I feel that the Dems of now are not really worth my vote unless they move away from the leftward path they are taking.

Please folks..this is not a "continue the partisan crap that everyones had to listen to for the past year and a half or more" thread....EVERY other thread on the forum is that....how about we try to stick to the intended topic and spirit of the first post.
Ok, good idea, ceasefire accepted pending acceptance by other parties:)

I vented on my blog, and that's enough for me on the subject. I've become very Zen about the train wreck we're looking at in the near future--sort of the opinion that we need to go through a Great-Depression-esque meltdown every three or four generations just to keep us on our toes. And it's coming, make no mistake.

I'm most upset by the notion that the news media in this country has become such a lapdog that Karl Rove was able to take a subpar candidate, mix in some evangelism, fear, and dirty tricks and win a clear majority. That frightens me more than anything else, because the religious right will only be emboldened by this victory, and if this goes on, we'll be staring a Nehemiah Scudder theocracy right in the face.

But here's one potential line of attack that we might do well to focus on as Democrats. The states that voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 are largely the states that drive the nation's economy. California is a nation unto itself economically speaking, and the northeast is no slouch either. On average, blue states get back far less money in federal benefits than they put in, while the red states are the welfare mothers driving Cadillacs (to appropriate an ugly metaphor from Ronald Reagan). Florida is the notable exception to that general rule.

So let's start talking about real welfare reform--weaning the user states off the federal teat, and creating a system where you get back what you put in. Let's put those red states to work, by gum! Workfare, not welfare! I'm tired of having my hard-earned tax dollars go to those slobs in Montana or Mississippi or South Carolina! That's an argument they can understand.

That, or we could just secede. :D
The red states which covered the vast majority of the center of the country, are Repub because they are AGAINST welfare, for one thing. This is the food basket of the nation,people who believe in hard work, not in being given government handouts...you will need a different idea I am afraid.And to further show the lunacy of that statement, MOST of the "welfare mothers" you refer to, are actually from the inner cities of those Repub states, the only Dem part of the states in most cases...that would be a great way to even further reduce your party ;)

.
Your comments on the National Guard belittle everyone who has served(and yes, died) serving in that branch of service.


Actually, "my comments" was a statement denigrating Bush, not the National Guard. I merely mentioned that he joined and went AWOL, which is not something that "everyone who has served" does, and therefore is a reflection on Mr Bush not the honest and brave men who do what they have to do. And it is a fact, by joining the NG, he managed to avoid Vietnam. Many more young boys did not have that option available to them.

The red states which covered the vast majority of the center of the country, are Repub because they are AGAINST welfare, for one thing. This is the food basket of the nation,people who believe in hard work, not in being given government handouts...you will need a different idea I am afraid.And to further show the lunacy of that statement, MOST of the "welfare mothers" you refer to, are actually from the inner cities of those Repub states, the only Dem part of the states in most cases...that would be a great way to even further reduce your party ;)


Not quite correct. The people doing the food basket thing get subsidized by the govmt to let crops lie fallow at times. Its one of the great tragedies of our time...people starve in the world..yet farmers get paid NOT to grow food. Because it would drop the bottom right out of the market.

(Four years of agriculture class woot)


Edit: And this is not a slam at either side...its a slam at the entire government because it wouldnt still be there without the support of both parties.

Not quite correct. The people doing the food basket thing get subsidized by the govmt to let crops lie fallow at times. Its one of the great tragedies of our time...people starve in the world..yet farmers get paid NOT to grow food. Because it would drop the bottom right out of the market.

(Four years of agriculture class woot)


Edit: And this is not a slam at either side...its a slam at the entire government because it wouldnt still be there without the support of both parties.
Good point, I had not really thought of subsidies, just was annoyed with the gentleman's(or womans) belief that my state and others are somehow worth less. It was that general belief by Dems that actually probably cost the election, so many Dem voters here just feel turned off by the main national party, they either did not vote, or voted Bush, and those voting Kerry, simply wanted to get rid of Bush, and were not that excited about their national party still even in that case.

Understandably so. I do feel obligated to tell you that im pretty rabidly Democrat here. I live in oregon, whenever the Republicans are in power, the beauty of my state tends to fade and go to crap via clear cutting...natural gas pipelines and other things, thus..in pure self interest in my state I dont like when theyre in power.


I'd kill for a McCain fiscal conservative with a slightly less Gore environmental outlook to be in office.

Understandably so. I do feel obligated to tell you that im pretty rabidly Democrat here. I live in oregon, whenever the Republicans are in power, the beauty of my state tends to fade and go to crap via clear cutting...natural gas pipelines and other things, thus..in pure self interest in my state I dont like when theyre in power.


I'd kill for a McCain fiscal conservative with a slightly less Gore environmental outlook to be in office.
I am a military man, and for that reason have voted in all four elections since I was eligible for the Republican candidate. That said, domestically I usually agree with the Dems, plus my own family is mostly Dem, and while we often disagree on foreign policy, I find myself agreeing on most, not all , domestic issues.
Might I add you are lucky to live in Oregon, it is beautiful country.

Good point, I had not really thought of subsidies, just was annoyed with the gentleman's(or womans) belief that my state and others are somehow worth less. It was that general belief by Dems that actually probably cost the election, so many Dem voters here just feel turned off by the main national party, they either did not vote, or voted Bush, and those voting Kerry, simply wanted to get rid of Bush, and were not that excited about their national party still even in that case.

This is actually a perpetual blue-state sore spot. The biggest blue states pay considerably more in taxes than the federal government spends in our states (in IL and CA it's about 4/3 taxes/spending, in NY about 5/4, with MA about halfway between). The opposite is true in many red states (in SD, for example, spending/taxes is about 3/2, in MS it's about 11/6, in OK about 3/2, and so on). Given how big the economies are in the blue states, the amounts of raw money are even more out of line. That makes it a bit hard to take self-righteous little speeches about "rugged individualism" and "moral fiber" from red-staters.

In other words, your taxes aren't going to pay welfare checks in our states. They're not even covering the agricultural subsidies and military installations in your own states. We're helping cover those, too, so the least you could do is not refer to yourselves as "the real America." (That "you" isn't aimed at you personally; it's just a common descriptor that red-staters use when they're feeling bumptious.)

Just have to remember the majority of Americans do not share your party's values. That is why you lost, and will keep losing. The dnc is deceased, and needs to seriously rethink itself if it wants to make an impact in the future.
Strange assertion to make when less than 60% of voters voted and only 51% voted for Bush. The onlly thing you can read from this is that around 30% of Americans support Bush and nearly as many support Kerry, 40% did not register support for either, so the don't knows and don't cares are the only majority.

Strange assertion to make when less than 60% of voters voted and only 51% voted for Bush. The onlly thing you can read from this is that around 30% of Americans support Bush and nearly as many support Kerry, 40% did not register support for either, so the don't knows and don't cares are the only majority.
The voter turnout was the highest since 1968, and the Republicans were the first to win by an actual majority of votes cast since 1988.
The first point is actually a good thing, and a bad thing, as you have to say..great job with the turnout...but still..for that to be a high-mark, that shows many are content just to sit back and complain of the result without ever trying to change it. The same holds true however in most ever democracy in the world.

I hate to say it but Takrai is right, it was a huge voter turnout..we lost...trying to spin it to not be so bad by pointing out that only 60% of the people that could have voted did..just makes Americans look crappier and crappier.


The only way to really fix that is to do like austrailia and fine the hell out of people who dont vote. when we get a 80 or 90 or even 100% turnout, and they win 60 to 70 percent of the vote...THEN they can yammer on about mandates of the people. Til then...they just won.

Republicans were the first to win by an actual majority of votes cast since 1988..
That's because the third-party candidates got slaughtered by Bush AND Kerry this year. Nader picked up 0.3% (compared to 2.7% in 2000), Badnarik took slightly less, Cobb got about .05%...

Ross Perot took 19% in 92 and 8% in 96. With those numbers Clinton couldn't hope to get over 50% (even though he trashed Bush Sr. and Dole by MUCH more than Bush beat Kerry, 6% and 9% respectively).

That's because the third-party candidates got slaughtered by Bush AND Kerry this year. Nader picked up 0.3% (compared to 2.7% in 2000), Badnarik took slightly less, Cobb got about .05%...

Ross Perot took 19% in 92 and 8% in 96. With those numbers Clinton couldn't hope to get over 50% (even though he trashed Bush Sr. and Dole by MUCH more than Bush beat Kerry, 6% and 9% respectively).
True, and as a supposed "Independent"myself, it makes me feel sorry for the 3rd party in a way. But really, to be competitive they would need to start at local levels, get some elected officers in SOME city or county, get a record, and work up, it is the only way they ever really could stand a chance...without that, a vote for Perot in the 90s(most of his supporters were Republican) was really a vote for Clinton, the opposite of what his supporters would want...and a vote for Nader in the past 2, was a vote for Repubs, again,probably, the opposite of what he would actually want.
Edit: To further make my point, until election day I had never even heard of Cobb ;)

For my two bits...until the third parties STOP WASTING MONEY ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS and start working on representative seats, then senate seats, they'll continue to lose. Representatives are a small enough section of the country that they can actually physically go out there and get their message out with some chance of success. The OTHER problem is most third parties stances are too extreme one way or another, they need a middle ground party to take votes from both sides...otherwise theyre just giving votes to the side they would normally oppose. If we can get a functional and moderate third party up and running, the other more extreme parties have a chance at glory, because even if people vote their concience theres still a run off between the two remaining parties, one of which..being moderate..isnt ALL that far from their own ideals.



On a side note, i heard the best ideas ever to help voting

1) Move election day to the fourth of july, the upswelling of patriotism should help people get out to the polls.....vote and then watch some fireworks..yay!

2) Make it a mandatory federal holiday...no one works except those jobs absolutely required to maintain the integrity of the country...police...firemen..air traffic controllers.

3) Institute a non-voting fee to be included in yearly taxes, and require an option of abstain or none of the above on all ballots.

For my two bits...until the third parties STOP WASTING MONEY ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS and start working on representative seats, then senate seats, they'll continue to lose. Representatives are a small enough section of the country that they can actually physically go out there and get their message out with some chance of success. The OTHER problem is most third parties stances are too extreme one way or another, they need a middle ground party to take votes from both sides...otherwise theyre just giving votes to the side they would normally oppose. If we can get a functional and moderate third party up and running, the other more extreme parties have a chance at glory, because even if people vote their concience theres still a run off between the two remaining parties, one of which..being moderate..isnt ALL that far from their own ideals.



On a side note, i heard the best ideas ever to help voting

1) Move election day to the fourth of july, the upswelling of patriotism should help people get out to the polls.....vote and then watch some fireworks..yay!

2) Make it a mandatory federal holiday...no one works except those jobs absolutely required to maintain the integrity of the country...police...firemen..air traffic controllers.

3) Institute a non-voting fee to be included in yearly taxes, and require an option of abstain or none of the above on all ballots.
In principle, I actually would agree with all of those. However, are you REALLY sure you want people voting because they have to,and in that case, not even bothering most likely with finding out WHAT they are voting for/against? If I was a lawyer, I could word some propositions and amendments that would look just great to a fast scanning lazy set of eyes ;)

In principle, I actually would agree with all of those. However, are you REALLY sure you want people voting because they have to,and in that case, not even bothering most likely with finding out WHAT they are voting for/against? If I was a lawyer, I could word some propositions and amendments that would look just great to a fast scanning lazy set of eyes ;)


A significant chunk of voters do that anyway....I heard two middle aged women in line talking about how they were voting for bush because Laura bush looks more like a first lady should look like. At least that way we'll have representational apathy...and after a few propositions bend them over the barrel people might start to give a shit again.

Edit: Dont you hate it when you realize you should have added something right as you click post?

Plus thats what the abstain choice is for...put that shit right on the top above anything else...that way the lazy bastards can just fill it in right there.

...Plus thats what the abstain choice is for...put that shit right on the top above anything else...that way the lazy bastards can just fill it in right there.
Ah, good point :) Then it's a good idea. At least that way they show up, and MAYBE after awhile, as you said when some things go against them, they may finally actually research some parts. Myself, I am quite open to thought out opinions from all(not"both") sides, but I hate ALL sides when they jump to attack each other,using just propaganda.In my experience, everyone in public office at least has the intentions of helping, so the propaganda attacks are a quick turn off. I think if mandatory voting were in place, we should also mandate the advertisements...instead of "look what this SOB did" they should not even refer to their opponent, they should say"this is what I will do, and how I will do it" Then, voters will I believe start paying attention again. Most of the lack right now is that, to most voters, both main parties are more of the same, attack,"flip flop" etc.

I have just a few suggestions in mind to give the Democratic Party a chance in 2008. Before I go into them, yes, I'm a Republican, but I have no intention of gloating here. Regardless of the fact that Bush made a few firsts this election, this wasn't a McGovern style blow-out for Kerry, and shows that the Republicans are far from the undisputed masters of the US.

Now that that's outta the way, let me list my ideas:

1. End the atmosphere of negativity in your party. Yeah, Bush is not the perfect president, but comparing him to Hitler or photoshopping pictures of him with red-tinted eyes and horns isn't gonna win you any brownie points with the voters. And true, I know not all Democrats are like this, which brings me to the next point...

2. Hide away the lunatic fringe of your party. Of all the people you could have campaigning for you, Michael Moore is not one that'll get you alot of smiles from average folks. True, the Republicans have their fair share of fruits, flakes, and nuts, but we didn't see Anne Coulter campaigning for Bush. These are the kinda people who scare away the moderates, meaning they should be the crazy aunt you hide in the closet, not the face of your party.

3. Start supporting the more moderate/right-leaning members of your party. I'm not saying become DINOS, but instead start trying to find a middle ground. Guys like Joe Lieberman (D) and John McCain (R), to name a couple, are the kinda candidates that Americans as a whole could get behind. When you've got candidates that represent opposite extremes of the spectrum (Bush and Kerry) and no viable third choice, then nobody's gonna be truly happy.

4. Walk away from Election 04 with hope for 08, not bitterness. For every level-headed person I've heard who admitted they gave it a good run and that they'll just have to live with the results, there's at least 4 people who think the Third Reich is reborn and civil liberties just went out the door. Begin working now on creating a viable candidacy for 08, instead of lingering on how Kerry might've won and this country might've gone on a better route.

5. Finally (for now), be Americans first. The election's over, Bush is here for another 4 years, make the most out of the years to come. Work to fix what you don't think is right and make this country better. Moaning and groaning never accomplished a damn thing. Be the change you want to see in the world, rather than expecting it to change on your whim.

Once again, I don't intend to gloat, as that doesn't accomplish anything in the long run. But I do have some good news...I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico. j/k The good news is that John Ashcroft will be gone soon and that leaves open the chance that Bush will select someone more level-headed and moderate. To be totally honest, Ashcroft was just plain creepy.

there will be a democrat elected president,
maybe even a libertarian, or other
that is a fact.

For Democrats, we are in the middle of the dark years. Think Republican in the 1950s and 60s.

Beginning in 1932 the Democrats began nearly forty years of political domination, with only the two term election of a moderate, non-dealogue Republican president in Dwight Eisenhower during the 1950s as a brief respite from Democratic control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It was a time when everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, was proud to call themselves some version of liberal.

Well, we had our Dwight Eisenhower in Bill Clinton (who was really much more conservative than either Republicans or Democrats care to admit - think NAFTA, defense of marriage act, welfare "reform," the telecommunications act, emphasis on a balanced budget, etc.). The beginning of GOP dominance began with Nixon and really took off with Reagan. We are now at the high water mark of Republican control in the nation. Liberal has become a pejorative and Democratic candidates will continue to try and show they are just as conservative as their GOP counterparts.

The GOP will take the country too far to the right and there will be a backlash, just as there was a backlash to liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s. However, I think these dark days will last for another decade or two. Yet, just as the conservative revolution began with Goldwater, at the height of liberal domination, it is now, at the height of GOP control, that liberals must begin planning and working for a return to power.

Ok, guys, we lost. Last election the we won the majority and the electoral college and corrupted ballots and ragistration laws were at fault, but this time around, we have no one to blame but ourselves. So don't die. Read The Onion, watch some John Stewart, laugh a little.

And here is a little philosophical inspiration for everyone: "Try. And, if you fail, try harder next time." Just remember, there is always hope.

Btw, there is no debate or flaming here. Give us a few jokes, a little inspiration of your own, and, if you're a republican, refrain from gloating. We are disappointed and we have learned a lesson from this election, namely, no one is watching out for you. Today, we continue our path of disillusionment. Someday, we may finally achieve what we started long ago: Equality. Try a little harder next time. Here is a place to act lachrymose and maudlin without fear!


I want to thank you for the light hearted thread :-D awsome times

I have just a few suggestions in mind to give the Democratic Party a chance in 2008. Before I go into them, yes, I'm a Republican

Just as the conservatives did not return to power by heeding suggestions from liberals in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (whatever happened to the liberal Rockefeller wing of the GOP?), liberals will not regain power by taking advice from conservative Republicans.

We have one conservative political party. We don't need two.

I have just a few suggestions in mind to give the Democratic Party a chance in 2008. Before I go into them, yes, I'm a Republican, but I have no intention of gloating here. Regardless of the fact that Bush made a few firsts this election, this wasn't a McGovern style blow-out for Kerry, and shows that the Republicans are far from the undisputed masters of the US.

Now that that's outta the way, let me list my ideas:

1. End the atmosphere of negativity in your party. Yeah, Bush is not the perfect president, but comparing him to Hitler or photoshopping pictures of him with red-tinted eyes and horns isn't gonna win you any brownie points with the voters. And true, I know not all Democrats are like this, which brings me to the next point...

2. Hide away the lunatic fringe of your party. Of all the people you could have campaigning for you, Michael Moore is not one that'll get you alot of smiles from average folks. True, the Republicans have their fair share of fruits, flakes, and nuts, but we didn't see Anne Coulter campaigning for Bush. These are the kinda people who scare away the moderates, meaning they should be the crazy aunt you hide in the closet, not the face of your party.

3. Start supporting the more moderate/right-leaning members of your party. I'm not saying become DINOS, but instead start trying to find a middle ground. Guys like Joe Lieberman (D) and John McCain (R), to name a couple, are the kinda candidates that Americans as a whole could get behind. When you've got candidates that represent opposite extremes of the spectrum (Bush and Kerry) and no viable third choice, then nobody's gonna be truly happy.

4. Walk away from Election 04 with hope for 08, not bitterness. For every level-headed person I've heard who admitted they gave it a good run and that they'll just have to live with the results, there's at least 4 people who think the Third Reich is reborn and civil liberties just went out the door. Begin working now on creating a viable candidacy for 08, instead of lingering on how Kerry might've won and this country might've gone on a better route.

5. Finally (for now), be Americans first. The election's over, Bush is here for another 4 years, make the most out of the years to come. Work to fix what you don't think is right and make this country better. Moaning and groaning never accomplished a damn thing. Be the change you want to see in the world, rather than expecting it to change on your whim.

Once again, I don't intend to gloat, as that doesn't accomplish anything in the long run. But I do have some good news...I just saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance to Geico. j/k The good news is that John Ashcroft will be gone soon and that leaves open the chance that Bush will select someone more level-headed and moderate. To be totally honest, Ashcroft was just plain creepy.


Very good post I agree


We have to STOP the negativity

1As in point 1 the comparing him to Hitler, or whatnot, really tends to just drive people deeper into party lines … we are trying to make them unsure about their point of view, not solidify their suspicion that we are evil and all hate their position.

2 we both do this badly, but they are right we have grown too close to our WAY lefties (probably out of fear from the right) we have to understand that our fringe is just as much idiots as theirs

3 that is truly what happened … we became too polarized and with a combination of 1 and some other things like personal attacks on the intelligence of the right wing voters as individuals (yes classifying them all as hicks or un-educated tends to cause them to not like you and solidify them in their familiar position whatever that may be)


Really some good points

Like I covered some in 3 … we really have to stop the personal attacks on people. I know they do the same but we got to be the grownups here. From what I have run across we tend to take it a bit more personal (in the general … when we get on a specific topic like gay marriage then no holds bard on both sides)
Getting upset and stereotyping them (specially to their face) is NOT a good idea

We got to continue to be a reasonable party … try to be a bit more moderate for awhile … and remember as long as we keep working at things it will work out in the end if we have patience

We have to STOP the negativity

We got to continue to be a reasonable party … try to be a bit more moderate for awhile

Why?

Everyone claims to hate negativity. Well guess what? This negative campaign resulted in the largest turnout in decades (60% of voters). I want my party to stand up firmly for what I believe, not offer some weak, watered down version of what the other side wants.

A bit more moderate? What does that mean? The far right has turned moderate into extremism. Where are the moderates in the Republican party? Did you not follow the election results? The moderates were squeezed out - from both parties. GOP redistricting has made it impossible for moderates to win.

The answer for the Democrats is NOT to turn into GOP lite. Real conservatives are going to vote for the real thing and liberals and true Democrats will walk away in disgust.

By the way the GOP won with a scorched earth, take no prisoners, any-lie-justified-for-victory approach. It worked for them, but Democrats are now supposed to go back to their tried and true role-over-and-please-don't-hurt-me ways?

Please.

Why?

Everyone claims to hate negativity. Well guess what? This negative campaign resulted in the largest turnout in decades (60% of voters). I want my party to stand up firmly for what I believe, not offer some weak, watered down version of what the other side wants.

A bit more moderate? What does that mean? The far right has turned moderate into extremism. Where are the moderates in the Republican party? Did you not follow the election results? The moderates were squeezed out - from both parties. GOP redistricting has made it impossible for moderates to win.

The answer for the Democrats is NOT to turn into GOP lite. Real conservatives are going to vote for the real thing and liberals and true Democrats will walk away in disgust.


But personally insulting the people on the other side is both not called for and does not tie well with the original values that we stand up for.

And the moderates on BOTH sides were squeezed out because they felt they didn’t have a chance! We both were insulted and confronted and told what to do so much that we were forced to polarized

I not saying it is just us that needs to change SO DO THEY but they have to work on it to! But keeping up this nonsense will only perpetuate it farther.

You know the old saying that “hate breeds hate” well it is true we have to stand up for what we believe but more as a “this is my view … I would like you to see the value for it”
Rather then “this is my view … ohhh you disagree huh, you buck tooth illiterate hick” (the previous was a dramatization) but it happens on a small degree a LOT of the time)

People get defensive … we have to understand how PEOPLE react and we have to stick to our principals and be open to varying points of view and different backgrounds (that is a lot of what the democratic party means to me) respect for your fellow people … where has that gone? Why has it turned into criticizing the people when they have a different opinion?
You should be arguing with the belief not attacking the people

By the way the GOP won with a scorched earth, take no prisoners, any-lie-justified-for-victory approach. It worked for them, but Democrats are now supposed to go back to their tried and true role-over-and-please-don't-hurt-me ways?

Please.


But THEY go on a platform of “This is what we believe in”

Where we usually go on a platform of “we understand the people and want to do whats best for them”

The difference is they are standing up for what they believe in and that is their policy … when we start fighting back all nasty like (and don’t give me that “we didn’t do the scorched earth thing too” BS) we both fought dirty

But for their supporters that is fine … ours we start to seem hypocritical and non understanding … because we are supposed to be the enlightened ones that care for other people … and here we are attacking them

Their methods line up more with their philosophy
Simple as that

You should be arguing with the belief not attacking the people

That is a nice thought and sure to guarantee Republican victories for years to come. They play attack politics, Democrats should play nice, is that it?

Let me give you an example. In the past election there was a particularly nasty GOP campaign for the state senate seat in Ohio's district 20. The Democratic candidate was the former AP reporter Terry Anderson. Anderson was kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas in Lebanon for 7 years in the 1980s. He did what you called for - discussed ideas, stayed away from the personal, played nice.

His GOP opponenent handed out fliers with an unidentified picture of Anderson confronting one of his Hamas captors years later on CNN. The flier claimed Anderson met with terrorists and was therefore weak on terrorism. Anderson is a Vietnam vet, a former university professor, a local businessman, and a former victim of terrorism, yet she ran a nasty smear campaign for a local state office claiming he was weak on terrorism (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=18651).

The result? She won by 9%.

This is the hallmark of the new Republican party. Don't give me that play nice crap. I don't want the Democrats to fight as dirty as the Republicans - I want them to fight dirtier.