NationStates Jolt Archive

Because the Democrats have now lost two elections in a row, although they were close they lost them nonetheless (I won't get into "Bush stole 2000" that's not the point of this thread), the Democratic party has become visibly weaker. The most prominent candidate for 2008 for the Dems is Hillary Clinton. Everyone is asking whether or not she will run, and if she does run, it will spell certain disaster for the Democratic Party. Not because she's a woman, but because she is appealing to Christian and evangelical values more and more.

Through scare tactics, the Republicans have effectively silenced any democratic opposition. You've heard the rhetoric that we face a "new threat of terrorism" and that "some in Washington" don't CARE about our safety, they're only interested in politics, and we are to immediately associate these "terrorist sympathizers" with the Democratic party. Now that the public believes the Democratic party is as big a threat if not a bigger threat to American lives than the "thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us," the public is so much more willing to accept perpetual war and authoritative control. This tactic has also been applied to other partisan issues such as abortion and gay rights, both are virtually directly related to Christianity. With anti-liberal-rhetoric-spewing machines such as Anne Coulter, Bill O' Reilly and his other pals at FOX News, the Democratic party has been effectivly suppressed and it must either take on Republican platforms or be obliterated by conservative aggression.

Over the 48 and some odd months Bush has been in office, the Democratic party has become weaker and weaker, to the point we are seeing now. If we don't act now, the Democratic party will be crushed, and the moderates will become Republican, and we will be forever ruled by one party. One party to determine America's policies. One party, with no opposition, no restraint for rational thinking, to control the world's most powerful military. One corrupt party with majority control over all three branches of government to slowly crush people's freedoms. If you don't think this has, is or will happen, just look at the passage of the USA PATRIOT act, or the reelection of Bush, this time it was actually somewhat ligitimate.

To the Republican party, I say "well done."
You have effectively smashed liberal dissent.
You have gained control of all three branches of government, nullifying that pesky "checks and balances system."
You have convinced the masses to accept perpetual war for your own profit.
You have blurred the line between God and Law more effectively than any thing in the past.
Well done.

Remember:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- Thomas Jefferson

You have blurred the line between God and Law more effectively than any thing in the past.
I've gotta call you out on that one. Remember the Middle Ages and such? Executions for heresy?
Bush isn't drawing and quartering heretics.

I love how we have so many intellegent political observers here.

I've gotta call you out on that one. Remember the Middle Ages and such? Executions for heresy?
Bush isn't drawing and quartering heretics.

Not yet at least :rolleyes:

Losing two elections means death? So the republicans died during the clinton era? Dems died during regan? Republicans during jfk/lbj? Reps during the FDR/truman stretch?

Please. The republicans have won two presidential elections, and only one of them was a majority win. As long as the democrats put up some decent canidates in 2012(as in not hillary), then they are set. Well, the democrats or McCain. Im happy either way.

Who gives a shit... Nobody cares about the U.S. it's too much of a cesspoll now anyways.

But how do you really feel?

If you didn't care, then why did you comment?

You have effectively smashed liberal dissent.
Yes, liberal dissent.
Yet the libertarians seem to keep on going

Yes, liberal dissent.
Yet the libertarians seem to keep on going
Probably because we're not in the Washington inner circle.
I also think this is exaggerated. It only shows the current trend in America.

If you didn't care, then why did you comment?
Because I do care... I'd like to see some clear Left wing reforms for the U.S. but as it is Bush's right siders have basically removed any shred of past Leftist legislations. If this happens every time Republicans are elected then nothing will ever change. That is what I expect fully they would probably come back more right than ever like we have seen with Bush in regards with past Presidents like Reagan

Bush legitemately lost the first election, and won the second election by the smallest margin of any wartime president. The idea that the Dems are permanently out is a bridge too far at this point.

That being said, the Dems have spent the last four elections ignoring the propaganda war being waged against them. As a result, you have otherwise smart people who legitemately think that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for communism, atheism, or just about any other kind of negative ism you can dredge up, even though in all cases those associations are highly inaccurate. More needs to be done to convince people 1) that the Dems really aren't the heir apparent to Kruschev or Marx, and 2) that the Republicans are not the party of the people, no matter how much swagger and accent their Connecticut Yankee millionaire leader might pretend.

Look. I am a democrat, but I disagree with you on a lot here. Hillary Clinton will not spell the end of the deomcratic party, because, she will not have enough support among her own party to even be elected. also, she, in my mind, acts as a moderate for political reason.

If the party does fall apart , the country will not fall into one party rule, liberals and moderates who disagree with the republicans will form a new party, which could attract more independants, and rival the republicans.

The main reason in my mind for the democrats loss of power is that there are two many devision in the party to get all of us all behind one candidate. The republicans rally behind their candidate more and there for get more votes. My evidence: liberal third party candidates attracts many votes from the far left and left or the party, so for instance in 2000, many of florida's votes that would have gone to Gore went to Nader, spelling defeat for Gore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achtung 45
"You have blurred the line between God and Law more effectively than any thing in the past. "


I've gotta call you out on that one. Remember the Middle Ages and such, with state mandated religion and all that? Executions for heresy?
Bush isn't drawing and quartering heretics.

I agree it just means the country will be based on a differant platform. it won't ever get that radical

Losing two elections means death? So the republicans died during the clinton era? Dems died during regan? Republicans during jfk/lbj? Reps during the FDR/truman stretch?

Please. The republicans have won two presidential elections, and only one of them was a majority win. As long as the democrats put up some decent canidates in 2012(as in not hillary), then they are set. Well, the democrats or McCain. Im happy either way.
Good point

The Democrats need to master the art of sound bite politics, that would be a step toward improvement.

I see two problems facing dems. The first,as E.J. Dionne says, is that they've spent so much time defending against unjustified, partisan out-the-nose attacks from the Republcans and telling everyone who they AREN'T, that they haven't had time to clarify who they ARE. The second problem is that the Republican party, the party of the alleged "moral ground" have stooped to a moral valley through their posterpeople whom you cited. The dems won't compromise their values, because the conservatives will hypocritically attack them if not because they don't want to compromise their own values. on principal the republicans have gotten away with so much this past decade it's disgusting

The Republicans are not drunk with power YET. Look at what happened after Lincoln died. The Republican Party controlled everything and were terribly corrupt.

Personally I prefer to have the majority of Congress from the opposite party of the President. I believe the more squabbling and arguing that go on the less gets done. The less that gets done means the more they leave me alone. I despised Clinton but loved the Clinton years. Not much going on at all.

I've gotta call you out on that one. Remember the Middle Ages and such? Executions for heresy?
Bush isn't drawing and quartering heretics.
I originally worded it as to span just "American history" but thought it was implied. I guess I was wrong.

Next election. I want to see Hilary run against Rice.

"Uh. Women related to Clinton? Or Black women........HMMM."

The Democrats' problem is that verbally, the Republicans have been defining the parameters of almost every political debate for the past two decades.

The Democrats' problem is that verbally, the Republicans have been defining the parameters of almost every political debate for the past two decades.
So in a word, they lack charisma. They allow their image to be hijacked.

Losing two elections means death? So the republicans died during the clinton era? Dems died during regan? Republicans during jfk/lbj? Reps during the FDR/truman stretch?

In case you thought otherwise, I never claimed that because the Democrats lost "two" elections, they are dead. I guess I'll reiterate my main point, that Democrats are taking more and more Republican platforms because the Republicans have effectively smashed Democratic dissent thus they will die unless they pull of a win in 2008 or 2012.

During those eras, the parties were not nearly as seperates as they are now, so that is actually an unfair comparison anyway.

So in a word, they lack charisma. They allow their image to be hijacked.
Yes. They have allowed their image to be defined not by themselves, but by the Republican Party. The Reps have many people thinking that the Demcrats stand first and foremost for three things:

1. Aborting babies.
2. 100% tax rates.
3. Surrender to all foreign enemies.

The reports of the death of us Democrats have been greatly exaggerated. ;)

Yes. They have allowed their image to be defined not by themselves, but by the Republican Party. The Reps have many people thinking that the Demcrats stand first and foremost for three things:

1. Aborting babies.
2. 100% tax rates.
3. Surrender to all foreign enemies.

Are you implying that is not the Democratic platform? :eek:

I'm pretty sure we put those in there. If someone took them out, I'm gonna be mad! :mad:

Yes. They have allowed their image to be defined not by themselves, but by the Republican Party. The Reps have many people thinking that the Demcrats stand first and foremost for three things:

1. Aborting babies.
2. 100% tax rates.
3. Surrender to all foreign enemies.
Politics is manipulation and exploitation in order fulfill your interests. I would say teh Republicans are doing a damn good job by that definition.
If the Democrats can't take it back, then they're royally fucked.

What we (The Dems) need to is set out on the next election and figure out what we want to do. We have the ability to win elections, we can win back the senate and the house in two years if we really, really try. We need to bring our ideas out and in to the open and campaign hard. When they try to throw mud at us we stand up and make them look small. We pull what Clinton did and sling the mud ten times harder and we don't take anything sitting down.

We also need to prove where we stand when it comes to war. When it comes to any department in the government it does not matter HOW MUCH money is spent as to HOW it is spent. I see no reason to sling mud at us dems for cutting departments as long as we don't wast the money like Bush and his Republicans.

Because the Democrats have now lost two elections in a row, although they were close they lost them nonetheless (I won't get into "Bush stole 2000" that's not the point of this thread), the Democratic party has become visibly weaker. The most prominent candidate for 2008 for the Dems is Hillary Clinton. Everyone is asking whether or not she will run, and if she does run, it will spell certain disaster for the Democratic Party. Not because she's a woman, but because she is appealing to Christian and evangelical values more and more.

Through scare tactics, the Republicans have effectively silenced any democratic opposition. You've heard the rhetoric that we face a "new threat of terrorism" and that "some in Washington" don't CARE about our safety, they're only interested in politics, and we are to immediately associate these "terrorist sympathizers" with the Democratic party. Now that the public believes the Democratic party is as big a threat if not a bigger threat to American lives than the "thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us," the public is so much more willing to accept perpetual war and authoritative control. This tactic has also been applied to other partisan issues such as abortion and gay rights, both are virtually directly related to Christianity. With anti-liberal-rhetoric-spewing machines such as Anne Coulter, Bill O' Reilly and his other pals at FOX News, the Democratic party has been effectivly suppressed and it must either take on Republican platforms or be obliterated by conservative aggression.

Over the 48 and some odd months Bush has been in office, the Democratic party has become weaker and weaker, to the point we are seeing now. If we don't act now, the Democratic party will be crushed, and the moderates will become Republican, and we will be forever ruled by one party. One party to determine America's policies. One party, with no opposition, no restraint for rational thinking, to control the world's most powerful military. One corrupt party with majority control over all three branches of government to slowly crush people's freedoms. If you don't think this has, is or will happen, just look at the passage of the USA PATRIOT act, or the reelection of Bush, this time it was actually somewhat ligitimate.

To the Republican party, I say "well done."
You have effectively smashed liberal dissent.
You have gained control of all three branches of government, nullifying that pesky "checks and balances system."
You have convinced the masses to accept perpetual war for your own profit.
You have blurred the line between God and Law more effectively than any thing in the past.
Well done.

Remember:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- Thomas Jefferson

1960-Democrat
1964 Democrat
1968 Republican
1972 Republican
1976 Democrat
1980 Republican
1984 Republican
1988 Republican
1992 Democrat
1996 Democrat
2000 Republican
2004 Republican

Please tell me again how "two defeats in a row" signify death?

I'm willing to place money that the Democrats will take 2008. (Though I would love to see an LP win...)

Yes, liberal dissent.
Yet the libertarians seem to keep on going
Libertarians are only a force on the internet. I might as well argue that my UK Green Party are ready to take on Labour.

I've gotta call you out on that one. Remember the Middle Ages and such? Executions for heresy?
Bush isn't drawing and quartering heretics....yet...

edit - oh, rats...too late to be original...

The Republicans are only winning by a small margin (won't talk about the 1st Bush "win" more than this mention). And that small margin is based on votes they receive because of two things:

1. Fear of terrorism - the "Patriot" Act and it's ilk garner them these. And this at only the small cost of taking fairly decent sized chunks out of personal privacy and rights guaranteed by the constitution and enjoyed for about 225 years. We (the voting US public) are trading away these for the right to have Republican majorities in the Senate and House, supporting a moronic Republican President. seems like a fair trade

2. Dragging Fundamentalist Christianity into the Government - I have nothing against those who choose and follow fundamental christianity as their religous belief. Or, against those who choose and follow any other religion that doesn't require or cause hurt to other people as their religious belief. BUT - what we have now is fundamental christian activists working diligently - with the help of the Republicans who are counting on these votes - to drag their personal religious beliefs into OUR government (YOURS and MINE) over the separation of church and state established by the US constitution. again, a small price to pay to ensure our Goverment stays in the hands of the Republicans.

I want to know what became of my generation? When we were young we were constantly out in the streets protesting the crap the government was pulling. Where the hell are we now? Just because we're 50 or 60 doesn't mean we have to be politically dead. WAKE UP! Don't tell me we didn't change things starting in the 60's. And don't tell me we can't do it now.

I really don't think major news outlets had anything to do with the collapse of the Democrats. They pretty much imploded all by themselves.

What we (The Dems) need to is set out on the next election and figure out what we want to do. We have the ability to win elections, we can win back the senate and the house in two years if we really, really try. We need to bring our ideas out and in to the open and campaign hard. When they try to throw mud at us we stand up and make them look small. We pull what Clinton did and sling the mud ten times harder and we don't take anything sitting down.

We also need to prove where we stand when it comes to war. When it comes to any department in the government it does not matter HOW MUCH money is spent as to HOW it is spent. I see no reason to sling mud at us dems for cutting departments as long as we don't wast the money like Bush and his Republicans.

What revolutionary ideas do the Democrats have? They don't have any inspiring ideas, not one. That aside, the media has never let Democrats take anything 'sitting down.'
As for spending, Bush is doing what FDR did, spending money to revive the economy. During a recession, the government is supossed to spend money.

1960-Democrat
1964 Democrat
1968 Republican
1972 Republican
1976 Democrat
1980 Republican
1984 Republican
1988 Republican
1992 Democrat
1996 Democrat
2000 Republican
2004 Republican

Please tell me again how "two defeats in a row" signify death?

I'm willing to place money that the Democrats will take 2008. (Though I would love to see an LP win...)

Thank you.

As I said, The reports of the death of the Democrats have been greatly exaggerated. :)

What revolutionary ideas do the Democrats have? They don't have any inspiring ideas, not one. That aside, the media has never let Democrats take anything 'sitting down.'
As for spending, Bush is doing what FDR did, spending money to revive the economy. During a recession, the government is supossed to spend money.




Yes they are suppose to spend money. But the diffrence is that they are spending money that we don't have on things we do not need. Do you know what a pork-barrel project is? It's a project that the federal government creates to help an individual state. A lot of these projects should be done on the state level and not on the federal level. I mean when we have money to spend on these and we are not in trillions of dollars worth of debt, knock yourself out and spend the extra money on pork barrel projects until then stop wasting money on state projects.

I don't know where you have been in this last election because Kerry let himself get kicked around like a red headed step child. He let the Swift Boat Veterans for the truth kill him. I was looking at his naval reports and he could have went back and destroyed him. There was even several reports written by the highest ranking veteran for the truth actually praising him! Now years later the same guy is saying "Kerry You Suck". Then Kerry did nothing at all about it. When you save a guy in the water and he comes out and tells the story and someone comes in and says no it happened this way, then take the story from the guy in the water. He should know how many builts are falling down around him. Not the guys in the other boats.

You are wrong, the Democrates have had lots of ideas. JFK said "We will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade", we did it, but that's beside the point. We need to fix the misconseptions about what we stand for. The republicans have total revised what we stand for in a bad way.

Thank you.

As I said, The reports of the death of the Democrats have been greatly exaggerated. :)

My friend once found about 30 dead cats in the basement under the gym. He carried one around in a plastic bag and it stunk up the whole room.

I guess you, along with some others, conjured up the idea that I explicitly said that two consecutive defeats mean death. You also failed to read my clarification of this earlier in the thread, so I'll say once more. The seperation between parties in 20th century has never been as deep as it is now, so allusions to the past is irrelevant. That isn't even my main point, which is the Democrats are accepting more and more Republican platforms for 2008 and 2012 hence my reference to Hillary appealing to Christian rights groups. That is the death of the Democrats.

My friend once found about 30 dead cats in the basement under the gym. He carried one around in a plastic bag and it stunk up the whole room.

I guess you, along with some others, conjured up the idea that I explicitly said that two consecutive defeats mean death. You also failed to read my clarification of this earlier in the thread, so I'll say once more. The seperation between parties in 20th century has never been as deep as it is now, so allusions to the past is irrelevant. That isn't even my main point, which is the Democrats are accepting more and more Republican platforms for 2008 and 2012 hence my reference to Hillary appealing to Christian rights groups. That is the death of the Democrats.If that is the death of the Democrats, the Republicans have already died.

And both statements may be valid.

What's really dying in the US (and I say this as a US citizen) is anything remotely resembling Statesmanship. The number of politicians who are concerned about anything other than getting elected / re-elected - regardless of which party they belong to - is diminishing every day. Less and less do any of our elected representatives concern themselves with what they truly believe, or what their constituents believe. Instead, more and more concern themselves solely with what the polls say. Whatever the flavor of the moment is, that's what they support. And this is not only on the national level, but at state level as well.

I wish I had a suggestion to "fix" this. Senators at least have 6 years before the next election - Representatives only 2. President/Governor 4 (of course, 2nd term presidents do not have this problem - except insofar as they want to/are convinced to help their party). At the same time, media and pollsters are able to generate new poll/"statistical" information over night - or quicker. And the voting public - well, on several occasions recently in the US we've elected dead people to office, or people who have been convicted of a crime.

So...Democrat, Republican, Insert-Party-Name-of-your-choice-here, Conservative, Liberal, Insert-Political-Leaning-of-your-choice-here - what's the difference if all they're doing is taking a quick look at which side of every issue is ahead in the polls, and then jumping on that band-wagon?

What we really need in this country are a few more Statesmen and a hell of a lot less politicians.

My friend once found about 30 dead cats in the basement under the gym. He carried one around in a plastic bag and it stunk up the whole room.

I guess you, along with some others, conjured up the idea that I explicitly said that two consecutive defeats mean death. You also failed to read my clarification of this earlier in the thread, so I'll say once more. The seperation between parties in 20th century has never been as deep as it is now, so allusions to the past is irrelevant. That isn't even my main point, which is the Democrats are accepting more and more Republican platforms for 2008 and 2012 hence my reference to Hillary appealing to Christian rights groups. That is the death of the Democrats.

Actually, you may be right-but not the way you think.
What the Dems are doing in adopting (or removing planks from their own previous platforms on) traditionally Republican issues, is known as crass political pandering. Let me give you an easily checked example: while it isn't in the Dem platform, find me four Democrats that Don't support European style Gun-Control, or better yet, four that would actually oppose such a programme.

It's possible, but the search would be long and hard in the first case, and the second would net no solid results.

The Democratic Party used up a lot of its moral capital in the early 1990's-enough that most of the party Moderates switched to the other side of the Aisle after the House Banking Scandal, Waco, and Ruby Ridge.

The problem the Democratic Party has, is the loss of a moral compass, and the substitution of europhilia for ideas (Europhilia in the sense that the party's platform looks like someone desperately wanting to be just like continental Europe.)

This creates the "Surrender to all Foreign Enemies" image, especially with the UN's loss of credibility after Lebanon, Somalia, and more recently Darfur (and the whole Oil-for-Food scandal). The Electorate just doesn't Trust them anymore.

Further, the Dems abandoned their strength on trade policys, resulting in a betrayal of rank-and-file Union members. Sure, the Labour Bosses are still in the Dem camp, but the % of Union workers (outside Government) who vote Republican has risen from around 5% to somewhere near 30%, higher in the Construction Trades, manufacturing, and Aerospace.
See, before a Union makes sense, you need to have a workplace to organize, and the Dems went "Free Trade" hand-in-hand with the Republicans in the late 1980's, and have stayed there. With an average tax-rate that's somewhere over 15% (before you count Social Security), that isn't indexed to inflation, it's a tough sell to convince most people-who-actually-work that they are being unfair when they don't want to be taxed even more, or that they should give up their Cars, guns, etc. to make a Paradise that they don't believe in.

Both parties screw the working man, but the Republicans are at least honest about it, and they'll leave alone things most working people tend to value.

Then, there's the Failure of Education. the Education field is a Democrat-dominated area, and has been consistently putting out lower and lower quality product every year for the last forty. A high-school graduate in 1965 had the equivalent education of an Associates Degree holder today-if he came from a BAD school.

Good schools were closer to a Bachelor's.

This powers the School-Choice movement, which the goddamned REPUBLICANS embraced, and the Democrats (whose mantra often claims to be in favour of choices) rejected.
I work with people who pull ten-hour-shifts six days a week to send their kids to Catholic School because the educrats have done such a shoddy job. Being able to choose where your money is spent is something most people who actually WORK are in favour of. Paying property taxes to fund schools and paying for private-sector education for your little hellspawn is a hell of a strain on a blue-collar person with a base-pay of $9 an hour.

Crime: we've had a war on drugs since 1980 or so (formally, that is). Like the War on Crime and the War on Poverty, it has netted no success.
People worry about Crime. The Democrats have effectively shown that many of their 'solutions' don't solve anything. (How's the Crime in Chicago? Right.)
This hooks up with Gun-Control, because people have finally figured out that they can't rely on publically-funded protection except in the broadest and weakest sense.

Defense: Enough Voters either lived through, or paid attention to those living through, the Carter and Clinton drawdowns, the USS Cole incident, Mogadishu in '93, the Yugoslavia deployments, and stories about "Stress Cards" and softened training (along with anecdotes about units having to scrounge and steal parts and equipment to be operational in a peacetime posture) have coupled with the Democratic embrace of Sixties hippie rhetoric and internationalist ideals to create a vivid, and I would guess accurate, image of the Democrats as favouring surrender and appeasement. The current 'Antiwar' movement further advertises this. The lack of a Henry Jackson or John Kennedy democrat just emphasizes this. In the Over-twenty-five crowd, this is a BAD thing.
Base Closures nationwide through the nineties didn't help matters, since along with the closures came unemployment.

The Environment: Grand Staircase Escalante, etc. demonstrates a definite "Coastal Bias" in Dem politics. The largest growing voter base (and the biggest base of support for Republican National Candidates) is in the area that used to be termed "Flyover Country"-an area where more than 80% of the land is under Federal jurisdiction, places where court decisions in the 9th Circuit have effectively taken the water rights from one state, and transferred them to another. Resentment of Federal behaviours is widespread here, and with good cause. You can't stand on someone's neck forever and expect them not to despise you and everything you stand for. The Southwest, and mountain states have not been well-served by Democratic Policies over the last fifty years.

Religion: Most people see Faith in a higher power as a sign that there are limits to what someone will do or say to gain. The Democratic Party has effectively demonstrated that it has no limits here, now with an increasingly cynical and abused electorate, this isn't the image you want to put out.


Social Security: isn't a new issue-many people were aware of the coming failure in the 1980s, and even Clinton promised a "Solution". I've got about 20 years of IOU's in my SS account, most written by Democratically-dominated Congresses. (I've had jobs since age 12 that required IRS filings. I do my own taxes...)
Most voters have more. While neither party has the stomach to truly reform the system, the Dems put out more of an image of being slave to constituencies than the Republicans do, and more people are less confident in the Federal ability to handle that responsibility as opposed to themselves.

Social Welfare: Government is Brute Force at its core. For a large number of Americans, this became broadly apparent when a bunch of people were burned out in Central Texas by Feds who decided to pretend to be commandoes instead of knocking on the front door to serve the warrant.
Most people will be charitable-if they can. It's hard as hell to be charitable when you're struggling. Being compelled at gunpoint to give over to someone who will waste it tends to rub one the precise wrong way.
Paying taxes is not an "Option". Try not paying, see how long before you go to jail-and the worst part is, the Feds won't generally go after the Billionaires who hide it offshore, they're going to go after someone who can't afford the Lawyers to defend themselves.
Tripping over a dollar to grab a penny.

It comes down to a choice between someone defining a construction worker as "The Rich" because he and his wife both work their asses off for a yearly income of 70 grand, then soaking them. This does nothing to improve the image of the American Left in the eyes of the people they've been screwing for years.
The Republicans, at least, don't pretend to be in your corner while they go about their business, and on an individual basis, every tax-cut helps. All politics are local, and to put it crudely, the Republicans promise to reduce the assraping, while the Democrats are merely offering a reach-around.

Losing two elections means death? So the republicans died during the clinton era? Dems died during regan? Republicans during jfk/lbj? Reps during the FDR/truman stretch?

Please. The republicans have won two presidential elections, and only one of them was a majority win. As long as the democrats put up some decent canidates in 2012(as in not hillary), then they are set. Well, the democrats or McCain. Im happy either way.

yah, McCain could end up being one of the most popular presidents in US history, because he will pander to both the left and the right.

yah, McCain could end up being one of the most popular presidents in US history, because he will pander to both the left and the right.Do you remember where this man spent a number of years of his life? I don't think he'll "pander" to anybody. You can agree, or disagree, with his stance on various issues. But he takes one, and it's NOT because he's pandering. This, at least, is a Statesman.

I do NOT agree with everything McCain stands for. I do agree with some of his points of view.

Defense:........the Democratic embrace of Sixties hippie rhetoric and internationalist ideals to create a vivid, and I would guess accurate, image of the Democrats as favouring surrender and
appeasement.

The current 'Antiwar' movement further advertises this. The lack of a Henry Jackson or John Kennedy democrat just emphasizes this. In the Over-twenty-five crowd, this is a BAD thing.
Internationalism was not invented by hippies. Neoconservatism is left-wing internationalist, so why aren't you going after Republicans for their embrace of that?

Anti-war does not equal Democrat. The majority of Democrats in the US Gov voted for the war in Iraq.

There have only been 12 years of Democrats in the White house since 1968 (I use LBJ as a watershed. Post 'Nam America is very different from pre-Nam).

If the Dems *don't* win the 2012 election (at the latest), they're going to become a secondary party.

And I'm not happy about that. Whenever either party gets to strong, bad things happen. :(

Internationalism was not invented by hippies. Neoconservatism is left-wing internationalist, so why aren't you going after Republicans for their embrace of that?

Anti-war does not equal Democrat. The majority of Democrats in the US Gov voted for the war in Iraq.

1. I would, but the Republicans never pretended anything else. When both parties are left-wing Internationalist, there's no debate, the Dems shot themselves in the foot by switching to that side of the equation, pushing "Free Trade" instead of "Fair Trade". Combined with Democrat policies on Business and Environmental issues, it's the two parties conspiring to dismantle what little industrial base we have left- since the Dems are the ones claiming to be friends of Labor, this is a much, much, deeper betrayal. Everyone has always known the GOP as the party of Management.



2. not all Democrats are Anti-War, but few-if-any anti-war/anti-military people will ever vote Republican. The Soros/Dean wing of the Democratic party is the portion currently in-charge.

I am just observing this thread, but I will post this:

Can we not use the term "anti-war"? It implies that the other side, whichever that may be, is pro-war. I can't believe that anyone is twisted enough to be pro-war. Not in any respectable governments anyways.

I am just observing this thread, but I will post this:

Can we not use the term "anti-war"? It implies that the other side, whichever that may be, is pro-war. I can't believe that anyone is twisted enough to be pro-war. Not in any respectable governments anyways.

For the purposes of the discussion, it's the appropriate term-why? because it's the self-identifier used by the Appeasement Apologists, and to have a discussion, both sides need to know who they're talking about (or to).

I've tended to resent the American Leftists' appropriation of the term "Liberal" or "Progressive". But it's been misappropriated for so long that to converse with one, you have to use words he'll acknowledge.

1. I would, but the Republicans never pretended anything else. When both parties are left-wing Internationalist, there's no debate, the Dems shot themselves in the foot by switching to that side of the equation, pushing "Free Trade" instead of "Fair Trade". Combined with Democrat policies on Business and Environmental issues, it's the two parties conspiring to dismantle what little industrial base we have left- since the Dems are the ones claiming to be friends of Labor, this is a much, much, deeper betrayal. Everyone has always known the GOP as the party of Management.

2. not all Democrats are Anti-War, but few-if-any anti-war/anti-military people will ever vote Republican. The Soros/Dean wing of the Democratic party is the portion currently in-charge.
1. Isn't the Republicans' position on trade just as shockingly anti-worker as the Democrats'? If yes, why do people vote for Republicans when they think Democrats are too right-wing?

2. If the Dean wing of the Democratic party is in charge, then why wasn't Dean voted by Democrats to be their candidate in 2004?

Because the Democrats have now lost two elections in a row, although they were close they lost them nonetheless (I won't get into "Bush stole 2000" that's not the point of this thread), the Democratic party has become visibly weaker. The most prominent candidate for 2008 for the Dems is Hillary Clinton. Everyone is asking whether or not she will run, and if she does run, it will spell certain disaster for the Democratic Party. Not because she's a woman, but because she is appealing to Christian and evangelical values more and more.

Through scare tactics, the Republicans have effectively silenced any democratic opposition. You've heard the rhetoric that we face a "new threat of terrorism" and that "some in Washington" don't CARE about our safety, they're only interested in politics, and we are to immediately associate these "terrorist sympathizers" with the Democratic party. Now that the public believes the Democratic party is as big a threat if not a bigger threat to American lives than the "thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us," the public is so much more willing to accept perpetual war and authoritative control. This tactic has also been applied to other partisan issues such as abortion and gay rights, both are virtually directly related to Christianity. With anti-liberal-rhetoric-spewing machines such as Anne Coulter, Bill O' Reilly and his other pals at FOX News, the Democratic party has been effectivly suppressed and it must either take on Republican platforms or be obliterated by conservative aggression.

Over the 48 and some odd months Bush has been in office, the Democratic party has become weaker and weaker, to the point we are seeing now. If we don't act now, the Democratic party will be crushed, and the moderates will become Republican, and we will be forever ruled by one party. One party to determine America's policies. One party, with no opposition, no restraint for rational thinking, to control the world's most powerful military. One corrupt party with majority control over all three branches of government to slowly crush people's freedoms. If you don't think this has, is or will happen, just look at the passage of the USA PATRIOT act, or the reelection of Bush, this time it was actually somewhat ligitimate.

To the Republican party, I say "well done."
You have effectively smashed liberal dissent.
You have gained control of all three branches of government, nullifying that pesky "checks and balances system."
You have convinced the masses to accept perpetual war for your own profit.
You have blurred the line between God and Law more effectively than any thing in the past.
Well done.

Remember:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -- Thomas Jefferson

>First of all, Hillary Clinton will bring the end of the Democratic party, not because she apeals to Christians more now, but because she's a NUT! Second, the war on terrorism is to save your, and everyone elses life in the world from terrorists! Plus, it does it matter why we're killing insane morons, bent on terror and the destruction of the world? Not really. I don't care what you Democrats say the war on terror is for, we are doing it to save you. Plus, what's your beef with God? Huh? God loves you, and you'll never forget it, and even if you have a beef with Him, He doesn't have one with you. Just repent of your sin, and believe Jesus is God's son, who died and rose again for you, and ask Jesus into your heart, and ask for a personal relationship with Him, and He will create a place in Heaven for you to live with Him, forever.
E-mail me @ wibberbunk@aol.com or IM me at on my screenname: Wibberbunk

Perhaps it would be best if the Democrat party split. I mean, look at all the people they're trying to fit under their umbrella... how much do Jesse Jackson's people and the rainbow coalition have in common with white suburbanites, let alone rural gun owners.

Mutate into two parties, let's suppose the "liberal democrats" and the "conservative democrats". The conservative d.'s would be in a good position to fight for the political center of America, with the strong possibility of drawing votes from moderate Republicans who find the far right disturbing and the current liberal Democrats disquieting. There could be a significant republican defection under the right circumstances.

For the purposes of the discussion, it's the appropriate term-why? because it's the self-identifier used by the Appeasement Apologists, and to have a discussion, both sides need to know who they're talking about (or to).

I've tended to resent the American Leftists' appropriation of the term "Liberal" or "Progressive". But it's been misappropriated for so long that to converse with one, you have to use words he'll acknowledge.

Well that seems rather condescending. I believe that the people posting on this thread are intelligent enough to understand who you are talking to or about.

In any case, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" should not offend you. Those terms describe what the majority of the Democratic Party and other similar left-wing parties are all about. It is no different from Republicans being called "conservative".

In any case, I must ask. Do you believe that the Republicans are "pro-war"?

Cadillac-Gage You nailed it on the head.

Education: In the school system, a lot of places where they are lacking are in Special Services. Special Services is what kids use when they are handicapped due to a not so sever mental disability (ADD, ADHD ect). This field was at its peak in the mid 80s and right now it’s at its worst point ever. Nothing is getting done and there are big fights all around, these kids need help leveling the playing field to succeed and it’s not being done. A lot of people say “These kids aren’t smart”, they are and they just need a little bit more help then the others. The only part where Cadillac-Gage is wrong is that it’s now more conservative then liberal for instance the “No Child Left Behind” act was screwed in North Carolina because they don’t have summer school because it costs too much now. When the bills got higher they cut it out of the budget, because of this more children are being left behind then ever in our state.


Crime: We allowed Assault weapons back out on the street. The dems went along with it, now the weapons that the police officers use are out on the street with increasing number and now our officers are being outgunned with the same rifles and weapons that they use. Guns and drugs are coming from Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil up to Flordia as the Alliance of Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil fight it out with the traffickers the US government stands back and does nothing even thou most of these illegal narcotics find their way in to the American market. Wouldn't we want to at least throw them some token funding?

Jobs: Here in North Carolina it is Cheaper to import our prison uniforms from Indonesia then it is for our Prisoners to make them. When we treat our prisoners better then Indonesia treats their workers there is a massive problem. When we save around three hundred dollars instead of buying them from our own state’s textile industry there is a problem. At least if we buy them from our state the money will stay in our economy. This is a mainly Democrat run state even thou we vote conservatively in Federal elections.

Defense: I have said this hundreds of times before, it is not HOW MUCH money we spend rather HOW we spend it.

Well that seems rather condescending. I believe that the people posting on this thread are intelligent enough to understand who you are talking to or about.

In any case, the terms "liberal" and "progressive" should not offend you. Those terms describe what the majority of the Democratic Party and other similar left-wing parties are all about. It is no different from Republicans being called "conservative".

In any case, I must ask. Do you believe that the Republicans are "pro-war"?If they aren't, and they're in power, then how do you explain that we happened to get into this war? Tinkerbell? Of course, not all Republicans are pro-war. But enough of the ones that are in power apparently are.

>First of all, Hillary Clinton will bring the end of the Democratic party, not because she apeals to Christians more now, but because she's a NUT! Second, the war on terrorism is to save your, and everyone elses life in the world from terrorists! Plus, it does it matter why we're killing insane morons, bent on terror and the destruction of the world? Not really. I don't care what you Democrats say the war on terror is for, we are doing it to save you. Plus, what's your beef with God? Huh? God loves you, and you'll never forget it, and even if you have a beef with Him, He doesn't have one with you. Just repent of your sin, and believe Jesus is God's son, who died and rose again for you, and ask Jesus into your heart, and ask for a personal relationship with Him, and He will create a place in Heaven for you to live with Him, forever.
E-mail me @ wibberbunk@aol.com or IM me at on my screenname: Wibberbunk
I find it amusing that someone calls for "lots of killing" in the same post as he says "God loves you."

If you plan to respond to this, don't address me as a Democrat, because I'm not one.

.

The main reason in my mind for the democrats loss of power is that there are two many devision in the party to get all of us all behind one candidate. The republicans rally behind their candidate more and there for get more votes. My evidence: liberal third party candidates attracts many votes from the far left and left or the party, so for instance in 2000, many of florida's votes that would have gone to Gore went to Nader, spelling defeat for Gore.



How is this differant from Perot stealing votes from Bush I leading to a relative unknown(but politically able) Bill Clinton winning the election. Hell, the only reason Bill Clinton was even on the ticket was because many better known democrats didnt want to run against a president who had just won a war(bet they were kicking themselves after that election).

Thank you.

As I said, The reports of the death of the Democrats have been greatly exaggerated. :)

Death? no. Forced evolution? Maybe.

In many ways, the Dems have won the fight they starting fighting long ago(even if the results are or are not due to their policies(this is another thread for sure))

1) poverty. What we call the poor today in America are hardly poor by the definitions used when many social programs came into effect. All that has changed is to redefine poverty(and the wealthy) so that large sections of government(and politicians) can still justify their extistance.

This is defeating the Dems

Example: The billing manager in my Dad's office and her husband(union electrician). She is a of hispanic descent, high school grad, no college. Learned medical billing, working from a young age and has decent experience. Her husband is a white guy, dont know education and is a union electrcian (6 hour work day). Both on second marriages. Supporting 4 children in house and maybe 1 not in house. Husband pays child support and alimony to his previous wife she receives nothing from her previous marriage. Strong work ethic with the both of them(as in she will come in on holidays if needed and he has done work for us at less than going rates) plus they are great people.

Between the two of them, they pull in maybe 120K. They both both commute 1 1/2 - 2 hours to work everyday because they cannot afford to live near the city(she drives, he takes the train). They support a large family with this money. But the dems consider them rich. They are/were traditionarily dems too. When someone calls them rich, and the tax cuts they received are called "tax cuts for the rich", I want to laugh.

Great way for a political group to alienate its voters. These are two hard working people with ZERO extra money and the NY politicians are calling them the evil rich? You gotta wonder who they are going to vote for next time around

2) Civil Rights.

Hey, this fight has been won as far as legistlation goes. God(or the ACLU) help someone who even appears to discriminate because of race or religion or sexual preferance. Its at the stage where laws can no longer bring the fight further. To quote law and order, "We are at the hearts and mind stage". Politicians/judges cant fix that, only people can. And it isnt fixed by edict, rather, its fixed by people developing understanding on their own terms..not because you or I or a judge says so.

Unfortunately for the Dems, they are still trying to fight the fights from the sixties, they havent realized that we are in a whole new century now. Once the old guard is gone, things will change though I imagine. The class/race warfare stuff really has to go though. It old and outdated.

the Democratic party has become weaker and weaker, to the point we are seeing now. If we don't act now, the Democratic party will be crushed,

Don't worry, the rightwing, as is it's standard operating proceedure, is over reaching. The PNAC agenda will never be realized in full, simply because it costs too much; it is a recipe for draining the treasury dry and throwing us back into a nationwide depression.

But, the beauty is, the rightwing hasn't figured that out yet....so just as FDR came along in the nick of time to save this country from the misguided bumbling of Hoover, so shall a brilliant new Democrat come along at some point in the future, during our lowest low, and save us from the scourge of the neo-cons.

And then we will enjoy another 40 or so years of mostly Democratic leadership.....until people once again start to forget what the Great Depression was like, and start trying to make the same tired rightwing mistakes...over and bloody over again ><

You have effectively smashed liberal dissent.
You have gained control of all three branches of government, nullifying that pesky "checks and balances system."
[/I]

I love how you equate electing a president and having a majority in Congress with some sort of destruction of the democratic system. You deserve a cookie. Those evil Republicans are destroying our democratic system of checks and balances by.. uh.. convincing the majority to vote for them...... diabolical!

Perhaps what we are witnessing right now is the start of a new political alignment. Sort of like when the Whig party came around to face the big 2 parties.

Maybe we will see a new middle party emerge that isn't right wing or left wing, maybe not even centrist. I doubt it will be the Libertarian party or any sort of populist party either. May be something we can't even comprehend yet.

I, for one, am hoping that with the mass-Republicanization of America, that the Republican party will smash, just as the Democratic Party, IMO, is. We need new ideas. We've been playing the same ideas for 40 years now.

I'm a softcore libertarian, so I don't agree with the Libertarian Party, and much less any other one.

Here's what I see.... The Republican party, continuing not to please the religious right enough, back the Constitution Party (very anti-gay, pro-gun, religion in schools, etc). The Republican Party loses some of their congressmen (1 or 2) to this party. The Republican Party, in shock, breaks out in big fights... More members join the Republican Liberty Caucus than ever before... We see the start of a new Republican ideal. Go back to the ways of the Republican Party of Ford, Rockefeller, and Goldwater. Some join the LP, and are quickly voted out of office.

The Democrats, in the meantime, are in a bit of trouble. The Blue Dogs join the Republican Party, but not the new one that is forming. The liberal Democrats do two things... Some join the Greens, but to no avail. It's a failure. Voted out of office by their states. The centrist wing of the party stays where they are for the most part, as some join the Democratic Freedom Caucus, with many of them in talks with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Could that be a new party? Maybe.

Don't worry, the rightwing, as is it's standard operating proceedure, is over reaching. The PNAC agenda will never be realized in full, simply because it costs too much; it is a recipe for draining the treasury dry and throwing us back into a nationwide depression.

Too bad the federal budget doesn't mean anything to Republicans, because we are already at a point where we would need to spend all of the tax money on simply paying off interest of the 7.something trillion dollar debt.

But, the beauty is, the rightwing hasn't figured that out yet....so just as FDR came along in the nick of time to save this country from the misguided bumbling of Hoover, so shall a brilliant new Democrat come along at some point in the future, during our lowest low, and save us from the scourge of the neo-cons.

Along with the first part, you bring up another interesting observation of history. Here (http://readythinkvote.com/vote_deficit.html) is the deficit of the past three Presidents (including Bush II). This seems to be the trend throughout the good part of the 20th century as well: the Republicans spend and spend and spend, creating a huge debt the Democrats must pay off, but the only way to do that is raise taxes, so the Republicans accuse the Dems of raising taxes. Another brick in the wall of the slow death of the Democratic party.

And then we will enjoy another 40 or so years of mostly Democratic leadership.....until people once again start to forget what the Great Depression was like, and start trying to make the same tired rightwing mistakes...over and bloody over again ><

I can only hope the Republicans will lose in 2008, but unless the Dems get their act together or people realize what the Republicans are doing to them, it doesn't seem like that will happen.

I love how you equate electing a president and having a majority in Congress with some sort of destruction of the democratic system. You deserve a cookie. Those evil Republicans are destroying our democratic system of checks and balances by.. uh.. convincing the majority to vote for them...... diabolical!
Isn't America retarded? The Republicans have mastered the art of manipulating the public but I'm not going to get into that right now. The "democratic system" traditionally is kept in balance by an even distribution of power throughout the three branches of government. See, there is the judical branch, the legislative branch and the executive branch. You already know more about the government than the President! (see below quotes). If the Republicans can create any law they want, send it to the Prez, and the judical says it is "constitutional" then there is no stopping the tyranny we may face. The same would be true if the Dems had total control of all three branches but that won't be happening anytime soon.

"We'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are."
-- There's so much wreckage to work through here... But probably the worst is Dubya's addition of a 4th branch of government, the "administrative branch", and this isn't the first time he's done that, Chicago, Illinois, Sep. 30, 2003

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
-- Dubya confusing the executive and the judicial branches of government, just weeks before becoming President, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000

"I was disappointed that the Congress did not respond to the $3.5 billion we asked for. They not only reduced the budget that we asked for, they earmarked a lot of the money. That's a disappointment, a disappointment when the executive branch gets micromanaged by the legislative branch."
-- What Dubya refers to as "micromanaging" is actually better known as the "power of the purse", which is part of the American form of democracy, and apparently not a part that Dubya likes, Washington, D.C., Feb. 24, 2003