NationStates Jolt Archive

Because we need another Dean thread. :D

I think that he will energise the grassroots base that is sick of Bush. He could end the Bush ass-licking tendencies that Democrats often sadly exhibit.

Republicans here say that the Dems will lose more if they go more liberal. I disagree. One of the worst things that can happen to a political party is when it loses it's core message/identity/values. Then people think, well, why should I bother voting for a light-version of this other party? I might as well vote for the real thing.

What's your opinion?

I think Howard Dean is a solid choice for Democrats, he doesnt want to become right wing for the south and west but rather have them become our way, that will also help the Democrats in Congress, Senate and the House. Not to mention help future Democratic leaders.

It's a long shot. If he can actually whip the party in to line (as in, listen, Lieberman, either start voting against Republican bullshit or we'll toss you on your ass), then they might start to fight again, something they haven't done in... well, decades. They have to fight fire with fire at this point, which means, and I mean this in all seriousness as a democrat, that they've got to stop thinking for themselves and start acting as a *PARTY*. If Arlen Specter can be made to abandon his own pro-choice instincts because of pressure from his party, then surely the rank and file of the Democratic party have to be able to show that they can fight tradition, fear of the "liberal" label and certain constituencies by banding together to, say, oppose the architect of our torture policies for nomination to the justice department (oops), or an incompetent boob to the state department (whoops), or the rollback of class action lawsuits (oh, well). So far, they've turned out to be the same motley crew of accomodationists mixed in with a handful of genuine statesmen that they've always been. The Bush-voting public said has come up with a lot of absolutely asinine reasons for voting the way they did this year, but they were right on one point: the Democrats don't stand for anything. They've got to start to, en masse. Whether Dean can enforce that remains to be seen. I'm not getting my hopes up.

Honestly, I think we've finally landed our own Newt Gingrich. And that's a good thing.

I dunno, all the Republican sites I visit seem quite overjoyed that Dean is going to be the DNC chairman. He is very liberal, or at least that is his image (I admit I don't personally know if it's true) which just isn't very popular in America these days. Thankfully :)

Hmm, I'm not so sure if it will work in the intended way. Many of the target group of Democrats, at least the ones I know, defected to the Greens after Kerry ran, and don't seem to much enjoy Dean now that they look at him from outside the perspective of the Democratic Party.

It might work, but it's a stretch.

The more the Dems try to imitate the Republicans the more they piss me off. I have no use for right-lite.

Howard Dean was the only major Democratic nominee that held his ground on challenging the conservative movement toward war, the attempt to role back civil rights legislation, and the unwarranted attack on lawsuits designed to hold defrauding businesses and incompetent physicians accountable. Say what you will about him, but at least he has an ideology.

He stands for something.

I will fully support him and pray that the Democrats finally get the message and actually begin fighting for our platform.

Nothing that Dean says or does (or is allowed to say or do) will endanger the Democratic Party - that being said, nothing he says or does will be permitted to help it, either.

The trouble is that both political parties are conservative parties. There isn't an effective voice or reasonable representation for the left. The liberal. You know, the 'unfashionable' viewpoint.

Ooooh, I said 'liberal'...and my typing fingers weren't cursed with leprosy! Ohmigosh!

I think Dean has the capacity to put the party back on track, but whether or not this will reverse the conservative trend I cannot say. I'd wait to see just how much this election put off people from the party, unless the democrats can miraculously get back seats in congress, I'd expect to see a lot more third party support than usual in the next presidential election, which would mean hell to the democrats, because as long as they're the underdogs, they're really the ones at risk to a third party uprising. Republicans would prob. keep solid numbers on their side in that case, meaning that it's essentially a garunteed victory for them, resulting in further loss of support for dems. But that's only one scenario, and it's unlikely due to the status of the third parties over here. Then again, who knows? We'll have to wait and see.

Because we need another Dean thread. :D

I think that he will energise the grassroots base that is sick of Bush. He could end the Bush ass-licking tendencies that Democrats often sadly exhibit.

Republicans here say that the Dems will lose more if they go more liberal. I disagree. One of the worst things that can happen to a political party is when it loses it's core message/identity/values. Then people think, well, why should I bother voting for a light-version of this other party? I might as well vote for the real thing.

What's your opinion?

If Dean had made it to the candidacy, I would have been much more hard pressed on who to vote for but leaning towards him. I agreed w/ more of his policies (as stated, he actually had opinions) than W. and he took a firm stance on 2nd Amendment rights, an issue that hurt Kerry, Daschle , and the Democratic Party as a whole.

For some very odd reason I'm hearing that song from the training montage from 'Rocky'. With Stallone's character training in the streets. (lyrics like 'feeling strong now' and 'won't be long now')

Either way, Howard Dean seem to have a spine and can take a stand. The Dems are going to seriously lose out in 2008 unless they can stop being Republican-Lite. They need to appeal to the half (or more) of the country that had enough of Cheyney/Bush.

Dean's weakness is that he's from Vermont (small state, small scale, small budgets) and his antics like the 'Raaaaaaa!' speech in the Democratic President candidacy.

Um, you're joking right? Cause, this guy's freaking crazier than Bush, Nader, and Kerry put together. Well, maybe not Nader, but still.

I dunno, all the Republican sites I visit seem quite overjoyed that Dean is going to be the DNC chairman. He is very liberal, or at least that is his image (I admit I don't personally know if it's true) which just isn't very popular in America these days. Thankfully :)
See that's the thing, I think it doesn't matter. All of the Reps are saying "oh no, he'll turn the Democrats in to a communist party" :rolleyes:

Possibly, but at least then they will be a real opposition party that people will want to vote for for reasons other than "they're not Bush".

Um, you're joking right? Cause, this guy's freaking crazier than Bush, Nader, and Kerry put together. Well, maybe not Nader, but still.
That's what's good!

Dean's weakness is that he's from Vermont (small state, small scale, small budgets) and his antics like the 'Raaaaaaa!' speech in the Democratic President candidacy.
Better than stony-faced boring John Kerry.

I'm quite proud, actually. Howard Dean is what the Democrat Party actually stands for and believes in. Dean is a true Democrat and that's why the Republicons are afraid of him.

I see good things arising.

Dean is a true Democrat and that's why the Republicons are afraid of him.
Yeah, their howling is suspiciously loud.

I'm quite proud, actually. Howard Dean is what the Democrat Party actually stands for and believes in. Dean is a true Democrat and that's why the Republicons are afraid of him.

I see good things arising.
I agree he will stand for all the right things.

Howard Dean was the only major Democratic nominee that held his ground on challenging the conservative movement toward war, the attempt to role back civil rights legislation, and the unwarranted attack on lawsuits designed to hold defrauding businesses and incompetent physicians accountable. Say what you will about him, but at least he has an ideology.

He stands for something.

I will fully support him and pray that the Democrats finally get the message and actually begin fighting for our platform.

He also stands for no license necessary for concealed carry of a handgun.

That's the candidate for me!

Howard Dean was the only major Democratic nominee that held his ground on challenging the conservative movement toward war.

*cough*Dennis Kucinich*cough*

*cough*Dennis Kucinich*cough*
He's good. One of the few truly progressive US politicians left.

He's good. One of the few truly progressive US politicians left.

But he's also a textbook conservative stereotype of the wishy-washy, love-one-another far-lefty. They try to paint Dean with the same brush, but it's clear he's a bit more dynamic and serious than that. Eccentric in other ways, maybe, but he's not Kucinich, thankfully.

Kerry lost because the Republicans were able to portray him as a spineless flip-flopper who would run from any fight. Nobody can pin that on Dr. Dean. He's also pro-gun, which will keep the NRA from being a factor, and he's a populist liberal. Willing to keep the moneyed interests in line while serving the people. After all, didn't he make most of his campaign funds from small individual donations? Nobody owns Dean. He could be a real threat to the Republicans if the incompetant pussies who run the Democrat party can keep their hands off and let him do his thing.

Kerry lost because the Republicans were able to portray him as a spineless flip-flopper who would run from any fight. Nobody can pin that on Dr. Dean. He's also pro-gun, which will keep the NRA from being a factor, and he's a populist liberal. Willing to keep the moneyed interests in line while serving the people. After all, didn't he make most of his campaign funds from small individual donations? Nobody owns Dean. He could be a real threat to the Republicans if the incompetant pussies who run the Democrat party can keep their hands off and let him do his thing.

I think that if Dean is running the game, it has to be a central plank of the Democratic Party that they view gun ownership as a constitutional right, and that they will sponsor no legislation that will restrict that right. Otherwise, the NRA will always be a factor. If he runs for President, for example, and the Democrats still are anti-gun, he'll get the tar and feather treatment.

BTW, the NRA is not a "moneyed" interest. It gets the majority of its money 25 dollars at a time from millions of members. Those members are also members of "the people".

He's good. One of the few truly progressive US politicians left.

He's a crazy little elf, but I was a Delegate for him at the Texas Democratic Convention. :) Now *that* was a party.

I think that if Dean is running the game, it has to be a central plank of the Democratic Party that they view gun ownership as a constitutional right, and that they will sponsor no legislation that will restrict that right. Otherwise, the NRA will always be a factor. If he runs for President, for example, and the Democrats still are anti-gun, he'll get the tar and feather treatment.

BTW, the NRA is not a "moneyed" interest. It gets the majority of its money 25 dollars at a time from millions of members. Those members are also members of "the people".
Ok, by moneyed interests I was thinking of the major corporations that spend millions to lobby for laws that benefit their profit margin and hurt the USA.

I feel a tear coming...

It seems that the democrats are finally getting back on track after the last election.


I would not say liberal views are on their way out of this country, politics is like a pendulum, it swings one way, people get sick of the flaws of that party, and it swings back.

Except the degree of conservative control and propoganda will ensure that we swing left for a very long time. Especially with someone like Dean in control.

Although I am not a Democrat, I can admire Dean for his honesty. I do think he will end up alienating the more moderate Democrats though. I also liked the fact that Dean never wavered on his opinion of Iraq when all of the other Dems did.

Although I am not a Democrat, I can admire Dean for his honesty. I do think he will end up alienating the more moderate Democrats though. I also liked the fact that Dean never wavered on his opinion of Iraq when all of the other Dems did.

I am wondering just how he alienated the more moderate Dems.

He has a long track record of being a "centrist". With the exception of his stance on the war, is is closer to the center than Bill Clinton ever was.

His own followers don't even seem to realize that. His followers, by and large, are really far from center.

His trouble now will be paying those people back with some action on his part to assauge them, and still keep the rest of the party from becoming Republicans.

Just as an aside, why is the current Democratic strategy appear (on any issue) to be "wring our hands, say it's terrible, and pray that it turns out to be a bloody disaster"?

I haven't heard any intelligent, well-articulated ideas out of Pelosi or Reid. Just a lot of sour faces and hand wringing and the distinct feeling that they are secretly praying for the Great Depression and a terrorist nuclear attack.

I don't think that Dean has the following or the vision to pull the "party of ideas" out of it's current doldrums. The legacy of Bill Clinton is going to be hard to overcome. Ever since the Democrats started focusing on Clinton's short term needs to stay alive, they have lost the ability to do anything more than complain about how "unfair" the Republicans are.

It doesn't have anything to do with Dean's personal politics. He just doesn't have the ability to figure out what's wrong with the Democrats. A trait that is shared by many other Dems, incidentally.

*cough*Dennis Kucinich*cough*

I was first for Kucinich, because he has integrity, stands for what he believes, was truly anti-war, and a true liberal in the truest sense of the word.

That being said, we live in a quasi-racist-right-wing society (gay is the new black/Jew) where in truly Orwellian fashion (fear is strength, war is peace, etc.) we elect people based upon perceived strengths rather than tangible facts. We elect people based upon image...Kucinich has sort of a book-smart appeal that to me is refreshing but to the right looks elitist. (unlike our elitist Marloboro Man currently running things).

It never fails to impress me why we as a country would rather an "everyday kind of guy" running things rather than the smartest guy in the room. Oh well. Maybe Jeb's smarter than W, but I'm not holding my breath.

I was first for Kucinich, because he has integrity, stands for what he believes, was truly anti-war, and a true liberal in the truest sense of the word.

That being said, we live in a quasi-racist-right-wing society (gay is the new black/Jew) where in truly Orwellian fashion (fear is strength, war is peace, etc.) we elect people based upon perceived strengths rather than tangible facts. We elect people based upon image...Kucinich has sort of a book-smart appeal that to me is refreshing but to the right looks elitist. (unlike our elitist Marloboro Man currently running things).

It never fails to impress me why we as a country would rather an "everyday kind of guy" running things rather than the smartest guy in the room. Oh well. Maybe Jeb's smarter than W, but I'm not holding my breath.
Kucinich always reminded me of an alien from outerspace. He certainly dressed the part.

Kucinich always reminded me of an alien from outerspace. He certainly dressed the part.

The Dems are out of ideas because the whole idea of the Left is effectively dead in the US.

It never fails to impress me why we as a country would rather an "everyday kind of guy" running things rather than the smartest guy in the room. Oh well. Maybe Jeb's smarter than W, but I'm not holding my breath.

What never fails to impress me is that we can take a guy who had two nannies, grew up in a family of multi-millionaires, is the son of a President, ran oil companies, owned babseball teams, went to Yale, and holds stock in some of the country's richest corporations and place the label "Average Good Ol' Boy" on him.

The Dems are out of ideas because the whole idea of the Left is effectively dead in the US.
It is hard to take a Democratic candidate seriously when he or she is on the same stage debating the likes of Al Sharpton.

The Dems are out of ideas because the whole idea of the Left is effectively dead in the US.

No it isn't. Never has been and never will be. Progressive Populist thought is what has always made this country great. Without the leftist ideaology, there would be no women's vote, there would still be slavery, we would not have Freedom of Speech, there would be no civil rights.

America needs the left. Without the socially progressive, we may as well stick a King in the White House and be done with it.

What never fails to impress me is that we can take a guy who had two nannies, grew up in a family of multi-millionaires, is the son of a President, ran oil companies, owned babseball teams, went to Yale, and holds stock in some of the country's richest corporations and place the label "Average Good Ol' Boy" on him.

Seems like we've hit a whole new level of Orwellianism, haven't we?

...
America needs the left. Without the socially progressive, we may as well stick a King in the White House and be done with it.
Well, we don't have an opposition party. Not a serious one, anyway.

Seems like we've hit a whole new level of Orwellianism, haven't we?

It's a little creepy. If it weren't for reminding myself at least 3 times a day that elected officials are temporary, I'd have gone off on a multi-state shooting spree weeks ago.

No it isn't. Never has been and never will be. Progressive Populist thought is what has always made this country great. Without the leftist ideaology, there would be no women's vote, there would still be slavery, we would not have Freedom of Speech, there would be no civil rights.

America needs the left. Without the socially progressive, we may as well stick a King in the White House and be done with it.

We may not have a king but we do have a dynasty. With control of the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and now strengthening their control over the media, it's hard to argue that they don't have full control over the agenda. What's scary is that you are absolutely right about what we as progressives have accomplished over the years. Those on the right have consistently oppossed those things. It seems with overwhelming power the things I feared most are beginning to happen: the fundamental consolidation of power for the rich and connected and the subordination of the people. Look at what they are doing (or trying to do) to Social Security. They now believe they have the clout to do just about anything they want to.

He also stands for no license necessary for concealed carry of a handgun.

That's the candidate for me!
Is that your only issue?

But he's also a textbook conservative stereotype of the wishy-washy, love-one-another far-lefty. They try to paint Dean with the same brush, but it's clear he's a bit more dynamic and serious than that. Eccentric in other ways, maybe, but he's not Kucinich, thankfully.
You're probably right. I'm not saying Kucinich is electable in most places, but I think he's good. Nothin' wrong with being "love-one-another". It's the Christian message, right?

He's a crazy little elf, but I was a Delegate for him at the Texas Democratic Convention. :) Now *that* was a party.
Delegate? What does this mean?

I am wondering just how he alienated the more moderate Dems.

He has a long track record of being a "centrist". With the exception of his stance on the war, is is closer to the center than Bill Clinton ever was.
Of course he's closer to the centre than Clinton ever was. It's hard to be more right-wing than Bill Clinton and still be a Democrat.

We may not have a king but we do have a dynasty. With control of the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and now strengthening their control over the media, it's hard to argue that they don't have full control over the agenda. What's scary is that you are absolutely right about what we as progressives have accomplished over the years. Those on the right have consistently oppossed those things. It seems with overwhelming power the things I feared most are beginning to happen: the fundamental consolidation of power for the rich and connected and the subordination of the people. Look at what they are doing (or trying to do) to Social Security. They now believe they have the clout to do just about anything they want to.
How are Republicans strengthening their control over the media?

They now believe they have the clout to do just about anything they want to.

They almost do, but there is enough dissent among the ranks to keep it from going too far. However, if we don't wise up and do something quick, that dissent will vanish with the 2006 mid-term election.

How are Republicans strengthening their control over the media?

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
How does enforcing decency give any one political party an advantage?

What never fails to impress me is that we can take a guy who had two nannies, grew up in a family of multi-millionaires, is the son of a President, ran oil companies, owned babseball teams, went to Yale, and holds stock in some of the country's richest corporations and place the label "Average Good Ol' Boy" on him.
Yeah, this has definitely baffled me too. I think they could do it because he has a Southern accent and didn't wear a tie and jacket on the campaign trail.

It's almost as crazy that they managed to paint liberal Democrats as elitist. They're the party of workers and trade unions and yet they're the elites?

The Dems are out of ideas because the whole idea of the Left is effectively dead in the US.
?

No it isn't. Never has been and never will be. Progressive Populist thought is what has always made this country great. Without the leftist ideaology, there would be no women's vote, there would still be slavery, we would not have Freedom of Speech, there would be no civil rights.

America needs the left. Without the socially progressive, we may as well stick a King in the White House and be done with it.
I don't agree with Whispering Legs, but freedom of speech wasn't invented by the left. It was part of America right from the start. Before that it was a protected right in Britain.

How are Republicans strengthening their control over the media?

Well in many ways: the actions passed by Powell when he ran the FCC that allowed consolidation of power in the media among seven different conglomerates was the most subversive and dangerous. It can be argued that between Newscorp, NBC, Disney, Clear Channel, etc. the most vocal viewpoints heard by the most people are from the right. Critical examination of the policies are not being done and we are more interested in the latest Michael Jackson or Laci Peterson infomercials.

In a less subversive and more blatent way it is clear our government has paid people to espouse their views and planted shills in the White House press corp (Jeff Gannon, anyone?) to slant the news their way.

Before you know it, we'll have the Thought Police.....

Delegate? What does this mean?


Part of the election process. In the primaries, I voted for Dennis Kucinich and then went to my District Caucas to submit proposals for things that would go into the Texas Democratic Party platform.

While there, I put my name in for election as a Delegate to the State Convention. I was elected Delegate.

The Delegates are the ones who vote on Party Platform and it is from among the Delegates that Electors (or, the Electorate) are chosen. I was nominated to be an Elector, but did not get elected. :)

How does enforcing decency give any one political party an advantage?
Well, for one thing it gives the government room to expand their definition of "indecency" quite a bit.

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act

Even more insidious were laws passed that allowed companies to own monopolies of media outlets in different areas.

Even more insidious were laws passed that allowed companies to own monopolies of media outlets in different areas.
I agree that a monopoly of anything is bad, especially the media. However, I watch the news, I read newspapers, and I definately see the vast majority as left leaning. You can't deny the obvious hatred that Dan Rather displayed to the Republican party. He was so swayed by the left that he went out of his way to broadcast a fake news story on President Bush in order to try to affect the election. What about the recent comments by Ted Turner?

The Delegates are the ones who vote on Party Platform and it is from among the Delegates that Electors (or, the Electorate) are chosen. I was nominated to be an Elector, but did not get elected. :)
Cool, so if you were elected as an elector, you would have gone to Washington DC to elect the president in December?

How does enforcing decency give any one political party an advantage?

By nature of what it is. It is censorship. It is also forcing a small group of people's definition of "decent" on the entire nation. In some cases, just one man's opinion.

On October 30, 1973 WBAI FM in New York City, a listener-sponsored station, aired George Carlin's legendary routine Filthy Words, otherwise known as the Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on the Public Airwaves. The FCC only got one complaint. Some pussy was in his car with his son and suddenly became paralyzed, unable to move his hand to the radio dial to turn the offensive material off. He decided to complain to the FCC like a whiny **** and the Pacifica Foundation, the owner of the radio station, received a fine and a warning for their horrible transgressions against mankind.

It is the anti-thesis of all that is socially progressive. The Republicons want to tell you how to live, what to watch on TV, what to listen to on the radio, and eventually will seize control of the internet. Can you imagine getting a 250,000 dollar fine from the FCC for having the word "fuck" on your website?

We, the progressives, the left, the liberals, want to make sure you have every option at your disposal. If you don't want your children seeing something on TV, we grant you full license to change stations or turn off the TV.

Cool, so if you were elected as an elector, you would have gone to Washington DC to elect the president in December?

Yep! Sure would have. Being a Delegate is the best way to ensure your vote counts.

Oh! Part of that process is choosing who gets the Party nomination. If you're a Delegate to your State convention, you can be elected to go to the National convention, where the Party chooses which of the primary candidates gets its nomination.

I would not have been able to make it to Boston for the National convention, so I opted not to put my name in the hat for National Delegate. I will, however, most likely become a National Delegate and (hopefully) an Elector in 2008.

I agree that a monopoly of anything is bad, especially the media. However, I watch the news, I read newspapers, and I definately see the vast majority as left leaning. You can't deny the obvious hatred that Dan Rather displayed to the Republican party. He was so swayed by the left that he went out of his way to broadcast a fake news story on President Bush in order to try to affect the election. What about the recent comments by Ted Turner?

Dan Rather admitted he was wrong. I have no idea what Ted Turner said, but he doesn't run CNN and hasn't for years.

Do you think Brit Hume is going to admit to any wrong-doing in regards to misquoting Franklin Delano Roosevelt in regards to Social Security? Do you think there will be a scandal anywhere near the fanatacism of the CBS affair?Do you really think that Rather quoting forged documents takes anything away from the fact that Bush skipped serving in the Air National Guard? It seems that somehow, the hard reporting about Bush got pushed aside when we became more afraid about reporting than about challenging the administration. So to answer your question, the CBS incident really just proves my point.

It is the anti-thesis of all that is socially progressive. The Republicons want to tell you how to live, what to watch on TV, what to listen to on the radio, and eventually will seize control of the internet. Can you imagine getting a 250,000 dollar fine from the FCC for having the word "fuck" on your website?
Ah yes, the "party of small government".

Dan Rather admitted he was wrong. I have no idea what Ted Turner said, but he doesn't run CNN and hasn't for years.

Do you think Brit Hume is going to admit to any wrong-doing in regards to misquoting Franklin Delano Roosevelt in regards to Social Security? Do you really think that Rather quoting forged documents takes anything away from the fact that Bush skipped serving in the Air National Guard? It seems that somehow, the hard reporting about Bush got pushed aside when we became more afraid about reporting than about challenging the administration. So to answer your question, the CBS incident really just proves my point.
Dan Rather only admitted he was wrong when he was forced to. Even then it took him weeks to do so. NPR is funded with tax dollars, and does nothing but spout the leftist viewpoint. Do you know why it has to be funded with tax dollars? Because if it depended on advertising revenue it would go under, just like Al Frankens failed attempt. Conservative talk radio is alive and well because people want to hear it, and advertisers pay to air their commercials on it. Talk radio is the only media outlet that the Republicans have, which is why the Dems were working hard to restrict it.

I would not have been able to make it to Boston for the National convention, so I opted not to put my name in the hat for National Delegate. I will, however, most likely become a National Delegate and (hopefully) an Elector in 2008.
That's great. It heartens me to know that there are still progressive Democrats in the US, who are not Republican-lite ass-lickers.

Ah yes, the "party of small government".

Bah ... the Republicons have believed in interfering with people's day to day lives since Lincoln. They have never been the party of small government, they just like to make people think they are.

Anyone with a 6th grade knowledge of history can refute that, though.

Talk radio is the only media outlet that the Republicans have, which is why the Dems were working hard to restrict it.
FOX?

EDIT: I think we've really got off-topic here. Can we get back to Howard Dean?

FOX?
ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC?

FOX?

EDIT: I think we've really got off-topic here. Can we get back to Howard Dean?
Your right. This should be in a separate thread. Sorry.

NPR is funded with tax dollars, and does nothing but spout the leftist viewpoint.

Ummmm ... no ... NPR is listener supported radio. A mere 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government. National Public Radio (NPR) is a private, not-for-profit corporation that sells programming to member radio stations; together they are a loosely organized public radio network in the United States. NPR was created in 1970, following the passage of the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967 which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and also led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service.

The government created them, then weaned them off the government teat in the early 1980s.

I also defy you to show me one instance of NPR's news shows - All Things Considered and Morning Edition - pandering only to the leftist point of view.

Dan Rather only admitted he was wrong when he was forced to. Even then it took him weeks to do so. NPR is funded with tax dollars, and does nothing but spout the leftist viewpoint. Do you know why it has to be funded with tax dollars? Because if it depended on advertising revenue it would go under, just like Al Frankens failed attempt. Conservative talk radio is alive and well because people want to hear it, and advertisers pay to air their commercials on it. Talk radio is the only media outlet that the Republicans have, which is why the Dems were working hard to restrict it.

My friend you are regrettably living in a dream world.

Look who owns the major media outlets: Newscorp (Fox), Viacom, Disney, NBC, etc. I see no left wing slant there. Who owns the bulk of the radio stations? Clear Channel. No left wing slant there. I don't listen to NPR, but PBS, the bane of right-wingers in the past, clearly has been putting more right wingers on than left lately (can you say Tucker Carlson?). As to Al Franken, he is on Air America, has been adding stations every month, and been beating the king of right wingers Rush Limbaugh in many of those markets, including New York, the largest market other than LA, in the 35-55 demographic. And they just added LA this month. As to talk radio being the only outlet??? Apparantly you don't get out much. Have you heard of FOX News? MSNBC? Even CNN these days is afraid to report because they will lose access if they are too tough on Bush.

You have got to be kidding me. Can it be true: with all the power the right has the only thing left is a feighned victim status? You own everything....EVERYTHING....in the political process and you still want to claim we run things here on the left????

Please.

You have got to be kidding me. Can it be true: with all the power the right has the only thing left is a feighned victim status? You own everything....EVERYTHING....in the political process and you still want to claim we run things here on the left????

Please.
I'm sure you see that this is an attempt to downplay how much Republicans have in order to encourage people and media outlets to give them even more coverage to "even the balance". Soon enough they'll have a large majority of the media spouting pure Republican propaganda.

I think that the Democrates will die out, and there will be 3 parties that will grow from it. 1. Libertarians 2. Republicans 3. Green party Yes most of these parties are small but they will grow. ie:
democrates + republicans = Libertarian
Green

democrate voters will ether become Republicans or Green and modern republicans will become libertarins. But there will be some that stay their own party.

I think that the Democrates will die out, and there will be 3 parties that will grow from it. 1. Libertarians 2. Republicans 3. Green party Yes most of these parties are small but they will grow. ie:
democrates + republicans = Libertarian
Green

democrate voters will ether become Republicans or Green and modern republicans will become libertarins. But there will be some that stay their own party.
I think that if the two parties change anytime soon, the Democrats will be replaced by Libertarians. The Republicans will move to the left on economics to compensate. You can already see it. Bush is fiscally liberal, but socially authoritarian. Moderate and libertarian Republicans are becoming unsatisfied with this.

I think that the Democrates will die out, and there will be 3 parties that will grow from it. 1. Libertarians 2. Republicans 3. Green party Yes most of these parties are small but they will grow. ie:
democrates + republicans = Libertarian
Green

democrate voters will ether become Republicans or Green and modern republicans will become libertarins. But there will be some that stay their own party.

Good one man, keeping dreaming.

Some of us are Democrats because we chose to be.

Libertarians are so like Republicans (and almost always vote for them) that iots funny you sat that. If Libertarians at least all voted for their party maybe their party would gain ground.

But last election most of them voted for Bush not Badernik telling me that I'm right little difference bewteen Libertarians and Republicans when you get to the important issues.
Sure, minor issues like drugs, gay marriage, or abortion would cause disagreements but everything else is republican.

What does Green have to offer us democrats?

My friend you are regrettably living in a dream world.
<snip>
As to Al Franken, he is on Air America, has been adding stations every month, and been beating the king of right wingers Rush Limbaugh in many of those markets, including New York, the largest market other than LA, in the 35-55 demographic. And they just added LA this month. As to talk radio being the only outlet???

Al is only doing well in heavily urban areas that went blue anyway.
Please consult the county by county map (instead of the state by state map) that shows that most of the rural and suburban areas of the US went red - in fact most by a margin of 2 to 1.

The only thing that got the Democrats back within a few percentage points of parity was the huge population centers - areas where Rush doesn't do well in any case.

New York never struck me as a market for Rush.

If Al Franken wants to change things, he has to be popular in areas across rural American and suburban America. But to do that, he's going to have to stop calling people stupid - it doesn't earn you any ratings points to say that Christians are stupid, especially if the people who are potential converts to your political ideology happen to be Christian.

It also doesn't sit well to call people gun nuts, or any other label that Al seems to think is funny. To put it mildly, the principal difference between Rush and Al is that Al thinks he's funny - Al thinks he's making us laugh at people with conservative beliefs.

Well, you won't convert any conservatives that way. It certainly doesn't hurt for Al to have his own radio station - I'm sure it makes him feel good to proclaim that people who aren't Democrats are complete idiots.

But it won't win him anything at the polls. If someone should have learned a lesson by the last county by county breakdown, it's that the Democrats have only the deeply urban areas left as a constituency. If they lose any more minority support (as the Hispanics seem to be fleeing them), they'll go under as a party.

I'm waiting for African-Americans to wake up and realize that the party most responsible for destroying the black family structure, for destroying black neighborhoods, and for destroying any motivation that two generations of black Americans might have had for getting up on their feet - just at the moment in history when they did rise to their feet - was the Democratic Party and their Great Society programs. Welfare, public housing, and the support programs such as "midnight basketball" have done more to destroy a people than any parade of Klansmen have ever done.

When they wake up, the Democratic Party will cease to exist.

I agree that a monopoly of anything is bad, especially the media. However, I watch the news, I read newspapers, and I definately see the vast majority as left leaning. You can't deny the obvious hatred that Dan Rather displayed to the Republican party. He was so swayed by the left that he went out of his way to broadcast a fake news story on President Bush in order to try to affect the election. What about the recent comments by Ted Turner?

That is because your views are positioned even to the right of the right leaning news media. When they became the RIGHT WING news media, then you'll see they're leaning to the right. What I see in Dan Rather's news is not hatred, but drive for the "big story" overwhelmed his journalistic standard. We can't rule out the chance that the entire episode was a plant by the Republicans to discredit any criticism on Bush's record, can we?

Demorats are the party of imorality. They are all queers druggies abortionists and comunists. The USA has chosen the Republican party. The party of values. Go away godless democras.

That is because your views are positioned even to the right of the right leaning news media. When they became the RIGHT WING news media, then you'll see they're leaning to the right. What I see in Dan Rather's news is not hatred, but drive for the "big story" overwhelmed his journalistic standard. We can't rule out the chance that the entire episode was a plant by the Republicans to discredit any criticism on Bush's record, can we?

No, my distaste came long ago for Dan.

During the lead up to the first Gulf War, he, more than any other news anchor, was predicting failure - and at least five thousand US dead on the first day of an attack on Iraqi trenches filled with flaming oil.

I remember in the aftermath he looked like a complete ass to me - an ass without a shred of journalistic integrity. He clung to the idea that it would be a debacle until it was over.

He did one last story at the time that I remember - when he went to the beach at night in Kuwait, and held a belt of machinegun ammunition that he said, " was ready to be used against American troops coming ashore". He was trying really hard to convince the audience that his original theory would have, should have been correct.

The worst was on the last election night. Despite mathematical analyis on several different networks which showed that there weren't enough uncounted votes left to call the election for Kerry (even if they had all gone his way), or even enough disputed votes, Dan kept saying that "the situation in Ohio continues to be in doubt". This is despite the fact that he called states like Pennsylvania for Kerry with substantially greater uncounted votes in play.

I see. He's a journalist with integrity because he wants to give every last benefit of the doubt to Democrats who wanted us to lose the Gulf War. And every last benefit of a non-existent doubt to Democrats who wanted to elect Kerry.

Demorats are the party of imorality. They are all queers druggies abortionists and comunists. The USA has chosen the Republican party. The party of values. Go away godless democras.
Looks like your state could use some of the extra funding for education. Good luck getting that from a republican.

Looks like your state could use some of the extra funding for education. Good luck getting that from a republican.
It's government "education" that's the problem. Vouchers, my man, that's the answer.

It's government "education" that's the problem. Vouchers, my man, that's the answer.
Screw that. Vouchers would only concentrate the very poor and those who's parents don't give a crap in lousy schools. Better schools for all is the answer.

Screw that. Vouchers would only concentrate the very poor and those who's parents don't give a crap in lousy schools. Better schools for all is the answer.
This is a different topic, but weakly related, so let's just pursue it until someone squawks.

We have spend gazillions of dollars on education. We still need to spend more. Only a crazy person keeps doing the same thing over and over, trying to get the outcome to change.

We either need to bring back education to the schools, instead of the social experimentation that we see now, or start freeing the schools from the burden of government supervision.

This is a different topic, but weakly related, so let's just pursue it until someone squawks.

We have spend gazillions of dollars on education. We still need to spend more. Only a crazy person keeps doing the same thing over and over, trying to get the outcome to change.

We either need to bring back education to the schools, instead of the social experimentation that we see now, or start freeing the schools from the burden of government supervision.
I agree to bringing back education to the schools. The curriculum in public schools is very watered down. Plus there is no real reward for good students and penalty for bad students. We need a school system that expects alot from the students, and doesn't let them pass, participate in extracurricular activities, and otherwise limits their privelages if they don't meet those high expectations.

Looks like your state could use some of the extra funding for education. Good luck getting that from a republican.
Republicans, at least on a federal level, have always pushed for more and more education funding, both in Congress and in the White House. The Deparment of Education's budget in 2000 was $35,721 million. In 2004, it was $62,816 million.

Budget Office (http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.)

Kerry lost because the Republicans were able to portray him as a spineless flip-flopper who would run from any fight. Nobody can pin that on Dr. Dean....

(I should probably read the entire thread as point has probably been made...)

I'm reading all these threads making it sound like Dean is running for something. It's virtually 180 degrees the other way... Dean's effectively just been pushed aside to make sure that he doesn't run for anything any time soon!

He is chairman for the party. He's a fund raiser. He's a cheerleader. He will make speeches to encourage the left-ist party base... But he's not a candidate and he's not a policy maker anymore. I bet he's going to be far less relevent than people seem to think.

Republicans, at least on a federal level, have always pushed for more and more education funding, both in Congress and in the White House. The Deparment of Education's budget in 2000 was $35,721 million. In 2004, it was $62,816 million.

Budget Office (http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.)
I was under the impression that NEA and other teacher's groups backed Dems becuase they tended to increase funding for education, and republicans tended to ask for cuts. Although it's true that Bush has pumped money into the "no child left behind" thing.

I agree to bringing back education to the schools. The curriculum in public schools is very watered down. Plus there is no real reward for good students and penalty for bad students. We need a school system that expects alot from the students, and doesn't let them pass, participate in extracurricular activities, and otherwise limits their privelages if they don't meet those high expectations.
Problem is that we don't have much leverage over the school board that decides to teach "ebonics", or decides that 4*6=25 is close enough. We have even less influence over what the federal government requires. When they start requiring things that take teachers away from teaching and turn them into bureaucrats, then it's too much regulation.

Vouchers are one way to show our displeasure with the way things are going. Name another way that is so direct.

I was under the impression that NEA and other teacher's groups backed Dems becuase they tended to increase funding for education, and republicans tended to ask for cuts. Although it's true that Bush has pumped money into the "no child left behind" thing.
NEA and other unions do what unions do best. They exist to protect teachers jobs. They have no interest in education beyond that fact.

Problem is that we don't have much leverage over the school board that decides to teach "ebonics", or decides that 4*6=25 is close enough. We have even less influence over what the federal government requires. When they start requiring things that take teachers away from teaching and turn them into bureaucrats, then it's too much regulation.

Vouchers are one way to show our displeasure with the way things are going. Name another way that is so direct.
Federally mandated curricula and standardized testing. Students who fail the tests get kept back. Schools that consistently fail their students get mass layoffs. Plus competetive salaries for educators so the best and brightest aren't lost to other professions. Not too popular among many liberals, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

I agree to bringing back education to the schools. The curriculum in public schools is very watered down. Plus there is no real reward for good students and penalty for bad students. We need a school system that expects alot from the students, and doesn't let them pass, participate in extracurricular activities, and otherwise limits their privelages if they don't meet those high expectations.
Ideally, that is how it should be. In the real world, schools are so afraid of retaliation from the parents who put more effort into harassing the school than properly parenting their child. Parents today just want to dump their kid on the school for eight hours and leave it at that. They make no effort to ensure their child is doing his homework, studying etc... To make the school system work again, the parents must start taking an active role. The teachers can only do so much.

Federally mandated curricula and standardized testing. Students who fail the tests get kept back. Schools that consistently fail their students get mass layoffs. Plus competetive salaries for educators so the best and brightest aren't lost to other professions. Not too popular among many liberals, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
Good alternative. What happens to the students in the schools with the large layoffs, assuming that there aren't enough new hires to replace the old hands?

Competitive salaries are a good idea, although I think a lot of teachers would be happy if they were just allowed to teach. The numerous standarized tests that are already in place are already requiring additional effort just to meet the standards. Plus, a test that is drawn by a company in California isn't always going to represent the educational needs of students in Georgia.

We, my wife and I, went over a Georgia history test that came from one of those California companies. The names and events were extremely obscure to even life-long and well-educated Georgians. So national standards may have their place, but the evaluations need to be local.

Good alternative. What happens to the students in the schools with the large layoffs, assuming that there aren't enough new hires to replace the old hands? That's where the high salaries for educators come in. If the job pays well there will be an abundance of people looking to land it.

Competitive salaries are a good idea, although I think a lot of teachers would be happy if they were just allowed to teach. The numerous standarized tests that are already in place are already requiring additional effort just to meet the standards. Plus, a test that is drawn by a company in California isn't always going to represent the educational needs of students in Georgia. Some subjects don't change regardless of location. Math, science, history, grammar, and reading comprehension for example.

We, my wife and I, went over a Georgia history test that came from one of those California companies. The names and events were extremely obscure to even life-long and well-educated Georgians. So national standards may have their place, but the evaluations need to be local.
I meant US and World history, not local history.

Some subjects don't change regardless of location. Math, science, history, grammar, and reading comprehension for example.

We have plenty of standardized tests already. But you do bring up accountability and that is currently lacking. Education has just become a real mess in the last thirty years? About the time it became bad to be judgemental, right? My wife was accused by her principal of being rigid and judgemental. We laugh about that all the time because the incident that provoked that critique was when she told a kid his project was late and she wouldn't grade it.

I meant US and World history, not local history.
That was a poorly prefaced example that show just what kind mess we can get into when we let the federal government dictate to us. There will most certainly be nationally drawn tests on the local history of Between, Georgia, if we start allowing it.

That's where the high salaries for educators come in. If the job pays well there will be an abundance of people looking to land it.
Okay, a lot of the laid-off teachers are going to be hacks. That's why the school sucked in the first place. But, the new teachers are going to be inexperienced and just replacing a bunch of hacks with a bunch of green graduates isn't going to make the system better. What's my point?...Oh, yeah...we need to provide bonuses and possibly hazardous duty pay as an incentive to get competent and experienced teachers to help fill the void.

So, we tend to agree that just more money isn't going to help anything. You truly do have the liberal position that in order to professionalize, we must federalize...We need to work on that.

Okay, a lot of the laid-off teachers are going to be hacks. That's why the school sucked in the first place. But, the new teachers are going to be inexperienced and just replacing a bunch of hacks with a bunch of green graduates isn't going to make the system better. What's my point?...Oh, yeah...we need to provide bonuses and possibly hazardous duty pay as an incentive to get competent and experienced teachers to help fill the void.

So, we tend to agree that just more money isn't going to help anything. You truly do have the liberal position that in order to professionalize, we must federalize...We need to work on that.
Check out my political compass score. Yeah, I'm a liberal. At least we both agree that standards must be raised.

Problem is that we don't have much leverage over the school board that decides to teach "ebonics", or decides that 4*6=25 is close enough. We have even less influence over what the federal government requires. When they start requiring things that take teachers away from teaching and turn them into bureaucrats, then it's too much regulation.

Vouchers are one way to show our displeasure with the way things are going. Name another way that is so direct.

Drop bombs on schools. It's more direct and has the same net effect. Taking away education.

The logic behind vouchers goes something like this. "Private schools tend to have higher GPA's than public schools nationwide, so public school students should get put into them to bring up the nation's GPA."

Problem is private schools don't keep their GPA's up by helping to better educate the underperforming students, they do it by kicking them out thereby removing underperforming students from the average.

All the studies on programs that require the government to pay for public school students to go to private schools show that the private schools work even less well than struggling underfunded public schools.

Demorats are the party of imorality. They are all queers druggies abortionists and communists. The USA has chosen the Republican party. The party of values. Go away godless democras.
The only gods worshipped by Republicans are money and power. Not that Democrats are much different, but at least they don't pretend to be "the party of God".

PS. You should know that Jesus was the original communist. See Acts.

Vouchers are one way to show our displeasure with the way things are going. Name another way that is so direct.
Oh come on now, this is really off-topic.

As to Al Franken, he is on Air America, has been adding stations every month, and been beating the king of right wingers Rush Limbaugh in many of those markets, including New York, the largest market other than LA, in the 35-55 demographic. And they just added LA this month.

He He. I think it's funny that several of their shows have, for months, been calling right-wing slanted media outlets "whores."

Then comes that Talon News guy who, despite having no press credentials, is given a press pass to the White House. And it turns out that he's an actual whore.

Even by those who hate them the most, it is impossible to satirize the Neo-Con right wing. Any horrible thing you can make up about them as hyperbole will invariable turn out to be the literal truth.

Demorats are the party of imorality. They are all queers druggies abortionists and comunists. The USA has chosen the Republican party. The party of values. Go away godless democras.
Please cease flaming and trolling immediately. Continued violation of the terms of service will not be tolerated.

Dean will lead a populist uprising in the Democratic party, and drive it further left. That is not always a good thing. It will alienate some in the party who are generally socially conservative, like the teamsters, rural Democrats, blacks, Hispanics, and possibly the substantial percentage of pro-life Democrats. He shouldn't even bother wooing the moderates.
The Democrats also need a charismatic politician, like Reagan was for the Republicans. Clinton was good, but he failed to prevent the Gingrich Revolution. Hillary is far too polarizing to make a lasting impact if she was elected president. And all the rest of the Democrats are either too dry, too uncreative, or not likable at all.

Dean will lead a populist uprising in the Democratic party, and drive it further left. That is not always a good thing. It will alienate some in the party who are generally socially conservative, like the teamsters, rural Democrats, blacks, Hispanics, and possibly the substantial percentage of pro-life Democrats. He shouldn't even bother wooing the moderates.

The Democrats also need a charismatic politician, like Reagan was for the Republicans. Clinton was good, but he failed to prevent the Gingrich Revolution. Hillary is far too polarizing to make a lasting impact if she was elected president. And all the rest of the Democrats are either too dry, too uncreative, or not likable at all.
True, Dean is a social liberal, but perhaps you overestimate the number of conservative Democrats? Even if they don't like social liberalism, Dean will keep them happy with his fiscal conservatism. Besides, do you think that the socially conservative Democrats will like the Republicans enough to defect? I doubt it.

Dean is a charismatic politician. Reagan was an extreme conservative (or was seen as one in the late 1970s) yet he was very popular. That shows that people don't want their party to be a watered-down version of the opposition. Reagan refused to be a watered-down Democrat. Dean refuses to be a watered-down Republican. It's a winner.

Can we please stop talking about the Clintons? They're so 1990s, and no-one likes them any more.

True, Dean is a social liberal, but perhaps you overestimate the number of conservative Democrats? Even if they don't like social liberalism, Dean will keep them happy with his fiscal conservatism. Besides, do you think that the socially conservative Democrats will like the Republicans enough to defect? I doubt it.

Dean is a charismatic politician. Reagan was an extreme conservative (or was seen as one in the late 1970s) yet he was very popular. That shows that people don't want their party to be a watered-down version of the opposition. Reagan refused to be a watered-down Democrat. Dean refuses to be a watered-down Republican. It's a winner.

Can we please stop talking about the Clintons? They're so 1990s, and no-one likes them any more.

I still like Bill and Hillary, Hilliary for 2008! (barring she doesn't get reelected each time for senate as she said). So Only way to stop Hillary ticket is to get her elected to Senate each time.

Oh come on now, this is really off-topic.
Like I said, it was weakly related to political opinion and we'd stop when someone squawked. I just heard you.