NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone knows that nothing last forever. With the DeLay scandal unfolding (linking some senior committee members to similar scandals), the inability to deal with the Democrats over judge selection and filibustering, the majority of the nation dissaproving of the way the party is handling issues such as the War in Iraq, social security, and combating terrorism, AND with the President's approval ratings at an all-time low (53% of the country do not think he is performing up to par, while over 60% feel he botched the war in Iraq), is the Republican party about to experience a serious backlash in '06/'08 elections? We've seen a reversal of roles time and time again, but has time run up for the GOP?

Not yet.

Notice how Bush's percentage of votes went up in 2004 compared to the 2000 election? Right now we have a bunch of "patriots" preaching that, if you don't vote Bush, you're a terrorist. That's basically what I've heard.

And you can't rely on the people to vote out DeLay regarding his scandal. The Liberals in Canada have stolen billions from us while they've been in power and yet the people in Ontario still vote them into office. For those of you who don't kinow, no party in Canada can form a government without a good number of seats in Ontario. I get the feeling it'll be the same with DeLay. I never heard a thing about this aside from what's in Doonsberry. This is in Alberta, where Amiercan news dominates the Canadian news. How much publicity do you think this is getting in other parts of the U.S.?

Sorry but experience in my country has told me that the Republicans will be in power for a while yet. Eventually they'll be toasted but for now, expect blue to stay in as America's color.

Yay!!!

Notice how Bush's percentage of votes went up in 2004 compared to the 2000 election? Right now we have a bunch of "patriots" preaching that, if you don't vote Bush, you're a terrorist. That's basically what I've heard.
Oh, that's not true and you know it. If you don't vote Bush, you're a pinko commie. ;)

And you can't rely on the people to vote out DeLay regarding his scandal. The Liberals in Canada have stolen billions from us while they've been in power and yet the people in Ontario still vote them into office. For those of you who don't kinow, no party in Canada can form a government without a good number of seats in Ontario. I get the feeling it'll be the same with DeLay. I never heard a thing about this aside from what's in Doonsberry. This is in Alberta, where Amiercan news dominates the Canadian news. How much publicity do you think this is getting in other parts of the U.S.?
I wouldn't support DeLay, he gets on my nerves. I doubt he'd get elected, especially over Hillary.

Sorry but experience in my country has told me that the Republicans will be in power for a while yet. Eventually they'll be toasted but for now, expect blue to stay in as America's color.
You mean... erm... red?

<<You mean... erm... red?>>

No, blue from all the liberals telling people how bad he is. (Blue air, blue in the face, either round here).

I agree wiv Micheal Moore in Stupid White Men...... Bush needs 2 b out and soon!!!! He only got in on false pretensis anyway.

Everyone knows that nothing last forever. With the DeLay scandal unfolding (linking some senior committee members to similar scandals), the inability to deal with the Democrats over judge selection and filibustering, the majority of the nation dissaproving of the way the party is handling issues such as the War in Iraq, social security, and combating terrorism, AND with the President's approval ratings at an all-time low (53% of the country do not think he is performing up to par, while over 60% feel he botched the war in Iraq), is the Republican party about to experience a serious backlash in '06/'08 elections? We've seen a reversal of roles time and time again, but has time run up for the GOP?

No. No one gives a hoot what DeLay did. Not enough to change any elections.

And if Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq near the end of his term (as he is slated to do) and he declares victory, then whoever is running as the Republican candidate for President will win in a landslide.

The main problem is not one of ideas. Democrats and Republicans are very close, and have a great desire to pool in the center in order to attract voters.

Karl Rove said this himself. He said the only way to win an election is to have a massive grass roots effort equally spread across all voting districts. If you see the county by county Republican/Democrat votes for the last presidential election, you see a map of Karl Rove's grass roots network. Democrats failed to put one together except in the highly populated urban areas - but as we know, the President is elected by the Electoral College - so just winning high population cities is a strategy doomed to failure.

Democrats have no one they can pony up to parade around as a man or woman who has the balls to protect the country. The closest thing they have is Hillary, who has moved so far to the center (and right) that some of her recent comments on homeland security sound more right wing than John Ashcroft.

I agree wiv Micheal Moore

You lose.

You lose.

erm y? care to explain?

erm y? care to explain?
No. If you deserved to live, you would understand.

No. No one gives a hoot what DeLay did. Not enough to change any elections.

Don't be sure about that. More than a few Republicans that hold office in Blue-collar Democrat districts are more than a little nervous. Their approval ratings on the question of ethics have dropped and some like Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) are preparing for inquiries by the House ethics comittee.

Democrats have no one they can pony up to parade around as a man or woman who has the balls to protect the country. The closest thing they have is Hillary, who has moved so far to the center (and right) that some of her recent comments on homeland security sound more right wing than John Ashcroft.

Hilary's decision to now "pitch righty" may be just what will appeal to voters. She's demonstrated that she can negotiate and reach across party lines on some policies. With America's chronic case of amnesia, comparisons to Ashcroft will be few and far between. She'll prove a much stronger candidate than many expect and the Republican party will turn out an average, at best, candidate.

No. If you deserved to live, you would understand.

Then shut up coz u obviously have no argument. now go away and come back when u have sumthing constructive 2 say.

As a right wing evil conservative, it continually irritates me that when the Republican Party gets the majority they get gun shy. Too much comprimise. A majority of American voters put these guys in power in 2004 and they are not holding up their end. Too soft on the left.

Go ahead and tell John McCain, Olympia Snow and the rest of the liberal Republicans to get out of the party and step back to the minority position where they'll fight.

Democrats have no one they can pony up to parade around as a man or woman who has the balls to protect the country. The closest thing they have is Hillary, who has moved so far to the center (and right) that some of her recent comments on homeland security sound more right wing than John Ashcroft.

Hillary's movement towards the center is bullshit. It's completely intentional to paint herself as someone that can compromise, so that she seems more moderate than she truly is when she finally runs like she has claimed she won't. It's a smart move, it's also not representative of what she would truly do as President, and it will probably work and make it even more difficult for a Republican to take her commie ass down. I hate that bitch. :headbang:

Then shut up coz u obviously have no argument. now go away and come back when u have sumthing constructive 2 say.


Pssst...far will get you, good grammar will, young jedi.

Then shut up coz u obviously have no argument. now go away and come back when u have sumthing constructive 2 say.

I agree wiv Micheal Moore in Stupid White Men...... Bush needs 2 b out and soon!!!! He only got in on false pretensis anyway.

What an argument! :rolleyes:

I rest my case.

I'd love to believe that the dominance of the right was ending -- but living in a traditionally blue state and continually being bombarded by people I'd never expect to be socially conservative aligning themselves with the right, I fear that they're staying in power a long time.

Maybe I do need to find out who needs chefs and accountants...

Pssst...far will get you, good grammar will, young jedi.

You should have said, "Take you far, good grammar will, young jedi..." Don't you know anything about Yoda speech? :D

will ppl stop telling me how to write/spell/etc. I know I'm no good at any of that but I still get my point across now LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! :mad: :upyours: :mad: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :mad:

What an argument! :rolleyes:

I rest my case.


sorry but ur's wasn't much better was it. so tell me y I lose.

will ppl stop telling me how to write/spell/etc. I know I'm no good at any of that but I still get my point across now LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! :mad: :upyours: :mad: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :mad:

Wow... every posting faux pas, cobbled together in one complete package.

Going to the dark side, you are...

will ppl stop telling me how to write/spell/etc. I know I'm no good at any of that but I still get my point across now LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! :mad: :upyours: :mad: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :mad:

LOL! What point was that, exactly? That you actually agree with that pinko fucker Michael Moore? That you don't even realize that almost everything that comes out of his mouth is, intentionally or unintentionally, stupid and incorrect?

"I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., what happened!?"

"The base was attacked by a giant socialist weasel."

Wow... every posting faux pas, cobbled together in one complete package.

Going to the dark side, you are...

look I'm not gonna say it again. leave me alone and let's get back on topic shall we. this is getting me very very very very angry.

Congress:
The GOP has been in control of Congress for 6 years.
The DEMs controlled it for 40 before that.

The GOP hegemony *probably* nowhere near over... if one goes back through US history, a level of control is usually kept for a generation or so... if they hold it as long as the DEMs did, that would put us at 2038...

Presidency:
There have only been 12 years of Dem control since 1973. (Post-Viet Nam era)
There will have been 24 years of GOP control.

That's not so good... If the DEMs don't win in 2008 or 2012, they're doomed to never do anything about...

The Supreme Court:
Carter chose no judges, and Clinton only chose 2 of the 9. (Ginsburg & Breyer).

Hillary's movement towards the center is bullshit. It's completely intentional to paint herself as someone that can compromise, so that she seems more moderate than she truly is when she finally runs like she has claimed she won't.

But that is the same thing every presidential candidate has done and will continue to do. The fact is a person is in a candidate position because they have very leftist/right-wing views that their party agrees with. Once they get out of the primary, they have to tone it down for the more moderate masses. Nobody does exactly what THEY personally want when they are elected to the presidency. They work to please us, or at least try to some of the time. If presidents acted on only their personal views, everyone would be protestant-christian during this administration.

Guys, lay off of Zeladonii! He/she is using IM speek. Even I can see that this person is using it so back off of him/her.

As for this thread, no it isn't. If the Democrats continue on the current road they are on, they won't have to worry about a filibuster because the Republicans will get the 60 seat majority.

They also need to get rid of Dean as DNC chair. He's hurting his pary by the way he talks.

Presidency:
There have only been 12 years of Dem control since 1973. (Post-Viet Nam era)
There will have been 24 years of GOP control.

Well, if you go back further, you got Nixon for 4 or 5 years, then you got Lyndon, and Kennedy for a total of 8, then Eisenhower for 8, then Truman and Roosevelt for a total of 20, so it becomes about 36 years GOP 40 years Dem, so it depends which way you look at it.

That's not so good... If the DEMs don't win in 2008 or 2012, they're doomed to never do anything about...

The Supreme Court:
Carter chose no judges, and Clinton only chose 2 of the 9. (Ginsburg & Breyer).
LOL, yeah, there are some judges trying desperately not to die right now, eh?

Nothing has changed in the leadership of the democratic party. People will continue to vote Republican at a cost to themselves until this changes. The votes democrats lost were the very hardest of all to regain because they belonged to individuals that put the country before their own best interest. They were the base of the democratic party, the middle class working stiff. The republicans did little to gain their vote, other than to hold some of the same basic values, while the democratic party after being taken over by a small group of socialists did much to drive them out. The democratic party is still in total chaos and unable to mount even a single unifying message that would draw them back. Americans do not appreciate their tatics, their message, their lack of integrity, honesty or ethics. Least of all, whether or not they are religous, they absolutely despise the attacks being mounted against those that are. What appears to be real on the left and right coasts is not the case everywhere in between.

But that is the same thing every presidential candidate has done and will continue to do. The fact is a person is in a candidate position because they have very leftist/right-wing views that their party agrees with. Once they get out of the primary, they have to tone it down for the more moderate masses. Nobody does exactly what THEY personally want when they are elected to the presidency. They work to please us, or at least try to some of the time. If presidents acted on only their personal views, everyone would be protestant-christian during this administration.

My point is that Presidents like that don't really work to please us, they work to seem like their goal is to please us. If you really want to know what a President is about, you look at what they were doing ten years before they decided to run. And Presidents don't always really do what Hillary is doing right now, in fact, I think the Clinton administration is the one that really started this stuff, what with polls to see how people felt so that he could say what most of his party wanted to hear. It's now an accepted campaign strategy... someone wanna check me on whether Clinton's administration was the first to do it? I could be wrong.

My point is that Presidents like that don't really work to please us, they work to seem like their goal is to please us. If you really want to know what a President is about, you look at what they were doing ten years before they decided to run.
Wow, aren't you supposed to be supporting the Republicans? 10 years before Bush II was Prez he and his brother Marvin Bush were doing cocaine at Camp David while daddy was Prez. And not just once either.

Wow, aren't you supposed to be supporting the Republicans? 10 years before Bush II was Prez he and his brother Marvin Bush were doing cocaine at Camp David while daddy was Prez. And not just once either.

Touché, Achtung, touché. But, for one, I don't automatically support the Republicans, I'm pretty centrist, I'm just a pushy and arrogant one so I come across as more right wing than I actually am. Also, I'm talking politically, not personally.

Liverbreath']Nothing has changed in the leadership of the democratic party.

Accurate! It won't change till the Conservative Democrats oust the Liberal democrats from their positions of power. If not the Conservatives, the moderates. Maybe both of them together can take care of the Liberal Democrats and toss them out of power.

People will continue to vote Republican at a cost to themselves until this changes. The votes democrats lost were the very hardest of all to regain because they belonged to individuals that put the country before their own best interest.

A cost to ourselves? Maybe we just dont trust the democrats? Have you heard them speak lately? Their chair stated that we republicans haven't worked an honest day in our life. I know for a fact that my parents have and I know I am. Where is he getting his information from? Certainly not from the public.

They were the base of the democratic party, the middle class working stiff. The republicans did little to gain their vote, other than to hold some of the same basic values, while the democratic party after being taken over by a small group of socialists did much to drive them out.

Actually, I think it pretty much was an even split. However, people are getting fed up with Unions for stalling. People want to retake their country from the path it was on and Family Values are coming back. Thank God that morals is starting to win out again. Maybe if we can get enough people that believe that, then maybe we can start to fix this country.

The democratic party is still in total chaos and unable to mount even a single unifying message that would draw them back.

100% accurate. Kudos for recognizing this! *hands you a cookie*

Americans do not appreciate their tatics, their message, their lack of integrity, honesty or ethics.

Have a 2nd Cookie :)

Least of all, whether or not they are religous, they absolutely despise the attacks being mounted against those that are. What appears to be real on the left and right coasts is not the case everywhere in between.

I can agree with this but attacks on those that are religious need to stop and it needs to stop now.

Touché, Achtung, touché. But, for one, I don't automatically support the Republicans, I'm pretty centrist, I'm just a pushy and arrogant one so I come across as more right wing than I actually am. Also, I'm talking politically, not personally.
Well that clears some things up, I guess.

Well, if you go back further, you got Nixon for 4 or 5 years, then you got Lyndon, and Kennedy for a total of 8, then Eisenhower for 8, then Truman and Roosevelt for a total of 20, so it becomes about 36 years GOP 40 years Dem, so it depends which way you look at it.

Um, right. And we could go back to the civil war, too. My point is that 32 years is a reasonable trend. (It also happens to be how long I've been alive). post-Viet Nam War America is pretty distinct and different than pre-Viet Nam.

The point is, though, that the DEM's Presidential heyday has been over for some time now.

LOL, yeah, there are some judges trying desperately not to die right now, eh?

Yep. That's why Bush will be chosing perhaps THREE judges, probably starting early 2006. Rhenquist is dying and O'Connor is looking to retire, too.
And since Ginsberg is only three years younger than O'Connor, I don't see her lasting until 2017 if the DEMs don't win one of the next two elections...

Sorry, Corneliu, but are you living in Bizarro World or something? Almost everything you two say in here is the exact mirror opposite of reality.


I can agree with this but attacks on those that are religious need to stop and it needs to stop now.

"The religious" are the ones IN power, thus *they* are the ones doing the attacking, duh. How is it possible, 10 years after the 'republican revolution', for you to think the religious right is somehow 'oppressed'? THEY RUN EVERYTHING!

Americans do not appreciate their tatics, their message, their lack of integrity, honesty or ethics

All of the massive honesty/integrity/ethics issues of the past 5 years have been squarely centered around Republican malfeasance (again, who is in power?), so what on earth are you talking about? Enron, Iraq, DeLay.. how could the democrats hope to compete with that? And as the original poster pointed out, Americans by a majority don't seem terribly happy with the republicans' message, tactics, lack of integrity, honesty or ethics lately either.

A cost to ourselves? Maybe we just dont trust the democrats? Have you heard them speak lately? Their chair stated that we republicans haven't worked an honest day in our life. I know for a fact that my parents have and I know I am. Where is he getting his information from? Certainly not from the public.

I believe he was referring to Republican politicians, not ordinary voters.

Actually, I think it pretty much was an even split. However, people are getting fed up with Unions for stalling. People want to retake their country from the path it was on and Family Values are coming back. Thank God that morals is starting to win out again. Maybe if we can get enough people that believe that, then maybe we can start to fix this country.

What on earth does that family values tripe (which, if you were smart, you'd realize was a very warmed-over, 15 year old republican campaign slogan that has little to do with their core agenda) have to do with the unions? Seriously, I'm asking. Red-staters and their sympathizers occasionally grumble about how liberals/blue staters "don't understand the realities of red-state america" or such and such. Here's your chance to explain. How does an unspecified disappointment with unions translate to support for a social conservative agenda, and how does that agenda in turn 'fix' what the unions have messed up?

Actually, I think it pretty much was an even split. However, people are getting fed up with Unions for stalling. People want to retake their country from the path it was on and Family Values are coming back. Thank God that morals is starting to win out again. Maybe if we can get enough people that believe that, then maybe we can start to fix this country.

I can agree with this but attacks on those that are religious need to stop and it needs to stop now.
Family Values such as those demonstrated by the leader of this country and his family? Like snorting coke, excessive drinking, adultery, many, many divorces and an incredible level of secrecy? And what exactly is wrong with this country anyway? Why does it need fixing? Could it be because our leader is a nutcase? Stop trying to pretend that you're an "oppressed minority" because it's the Christian rights groups that have all the power. It's the Christian rights groups that are forcing their values and morals on people who don't want them. It's the Christian rights groups who are spreading their ideals in the holy name of God by using violence and un-moralistic tactics. If anything, it's the "Family Values" that are tearing this country apart. I don't want my life to be restricted by something I don't even believe in, and that is what the Christians rights groups are trying to do.

Notice how Bush's percentage of votes went up in 2004 compared to the 2000 election?
I love bringing up that point. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes in EVERY single demographic except among lesbians. He even gained votes among gay men.

But, some Republicans are going to see an extreme backlash against them from within the party grassroots when 2006 rolls around -- specifically, the "Subversive Seven" (McCain, Voinovich, etc.). Republicans are PISSED about the judicial compromise and I'll be surprised if ANY of that seven are re-elected after that debacle.

Also, those against strengthening our borders are going to feel a backlash from within the party.

Um, right. And we could go back to the civil war, too. My point is that 32 years is a reasonable trend. (It also happens to be how long I've been alive). post-Viet Nam War America is pretty distinct and different than pre-Viet Nam.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but you used 46 years for control of Congress, and then only 32 for President, so it was kind of wierd.

Yep. That's why Bush will be chosing perhaps THREE judges, probably starting early 2006. Rhenquist is dying and O'Connor is looking to retire, too.
And since Ginsberg is only three years younger than O'Connor, I don't see her lasting until 2017 if the DEMs don't win one of the next two elections...
We can only hope. :D

In terms of direct political power, the Republicans have little to fear in the next two cycles or so. There is no way that the House will return to Democratic control before 2010 - when the next round of Congressional redistricting will begin. As a result of redistricting, there are very few competitive House seats, and slowly but surely those Democrats in majority Republican districts, and vice versa, are being replaced with members who are more representative of their districts.

In terms of the Senate, there is really only one open seat where there's a conceiveable chance that the party that controls it may lose it - that's Mark Dayton's seat in Minnesota. But even that's a stretch. Maryland, Vermont and Tennessee are the only open seats as of now, and there shouldn't be a shift there.

The Democratic party is suffering from a lack of a uniform message. The main issue is that the Democrats still have both liberal and conservative wings - while they've done all they can to push conservatives out, there still remains a number of Blue Dogs and moderates. Dean and others play to the liberal activist base of the party - but by doing so, they alienate the moderate and conservative elements in their own party and in the general electorate that they need to get elected nationally. The reason why Republicans have tended to win elections is because of Lyndon Johnson - Johnson broke the age old tradition that Southerners could never be elected President, and he did so by delivering the South to the Republican party through his embracing of Civil Rights causes for his own personal benefit. At that point, Johnson made it almost impossible for anyone NOT from the South to be elected President - the South is a solid Republican, conservative stronghold now. Republicans obviously are in plentitude there, and Democrats, like Clinton, who are liberal but have some moderate and conservative tendencies are able to woo voters there that would never vote for a "Yankee" liberal like Kerry or Dukakis, even though they may or may not be as politically left as some southern Democrats.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have almost fallen into the trap of the party in the majority - they are gorging on budget power, and unlike Democrats, they refuse to raise taxes to support government spending - they simple spend. That's going to cause some serious interparty fighting in the future, between the deficit hawks and those who want their fair share of the pork that the Republicans were kept from during 50 years of Democratic Congressional dominance.

Both parties have their problems, but structurally, the Democrats are not in any kind of a position to do well nationally. That isn't to say, however, that nominating someone with national name recognition, like Hilary Clinton, couldn't pull off an upset in 2008. Republicans are aching to take Hilary on in 2008 - which is frightening, because that's exactly the position Democrats had in 1980 on Ronald Reagan.

And if Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq near the end of his term (as he is slated to do)
I seriously hope he does not do that.

Crud, seeing the title got Karma stuck in my head.

Seriously, I really hope the Republicans get knocked off their high horse, and think it will happen once americans realize who they truely represent, rich industrialists and stuborn religous consevatives

As a right wing evil conservative, it continually irritates me that when the Republican Party gets the majority they get gun shy. Too much comprimise. A majority of American voters put these guys in power in 2004 and they are not holding up their end. Too soft on the left.

Go ahead and tell John McCain, Olympia Snow and the rest of the liberal Republicans to get out of the party and step back to the minority position where they'll fight.
What, do you want the Republicans to go Pinochet on the left, and set up heavily armed police units to hunt down socialists???

If you force liberal Republicans out that means that your tenuous majority is even smaller.

Accurate! It won't change till the Conservative Democrats oust the Liberal democrats from their positions of power. If not the Conservatives, the moderates. Maybe both of them together can take care of the Liberal Democrats and toss them out of power.
I love how Republicans say "all Democrats need to do to win more votes is... become more like us!" :D

Thank God that morals is starting to win out again. Maybe if we can get enough people that believe that, then maybe we can start to fix this country.
I can't believe you say this with a straight face. The Reps are easily just as immoral as Demorats.

I agree wiv Micheal Moore in Stupid White Men...... Bush needs 2 b out and soon!!!! He only got in on false pretensis anyway.

*Shakes head* That man only does things to make a tonne of money, i don't see him giving to charity. As for what he says about his fellow americans when out of the country :rolleyes: (he says it about ALL americans)

(i'm not american)

I love bringing up that point. Compared to the 2000 election, Bush gained votes in EVERY single demographic except among lesbians. He even gained votes among gay men.
True, but don't forget that in general a lot more people voted in the 2004 election. It was the biggest turnout in history. It would be much more informative to see how the percentages changed, as opposed to just numbers.

I think that if Democrats keep the message they have recently cultivated, they will fade into the sunset. Without a doubt.

Here's how I see it: Republicans aren't always right. There are a great many things they're wrong about. But they believe they're on the right track. And many of their constituents - the much-maligned "religious right" - hold the same belief about their lifestyle and values, as a religion should be. Now, I'm sure the Democrats have many things they believe they're right about too, and there are some things there I agree with - social justice, for example, and civil rights, and so forth. But so much of the Democratic message is not one of self-promotion, but of conservative-bashing, that there is just no moral authority in the party whatsoever. Just look at Howard Dean, who calls Republicans sleazy, racist, and evil, and who maligns all people of faith. Just look at the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and so on, who mount direct attacks on people's lifestyles and beliefs by seeking to remove religion and morality from society. As long as the Democratic party is the party of "no," it will never win an election of any importance. A Republican can be wrong - but a Democrat must be willing to step in and actually be constructive. If America as a society is not moving forward, it's not because of the Republicans.

I think that if Democrats keep the message they have recently cultivated, they will fade into the sunset. Without a doubt.

Here's how I see it: Republicans aren't always right. There are a great many things they're wrong about. But they believe they're on the right track. And many of their constituents - the much-maligned "religious right" - hold the same belief about their lifestyle and values, as a religion should be. Now, I'm sure the Democrats have many things they believe they're right about too, and there are some things there I agree with - social justice, for example, and civil rights, and so forth. But so much of the Democratic message is not one of self-promotion, but of conservative-bashing, that there is just no moral authority in the party whatsoever. Just look at Howard Dean, who calls Republicans sleazy, racist, and evil, and who maligns all people of faith. Just look at the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and so on, who mount direct attacks on people's lifestyles and beliefs by seeking to remove religion and morality from society. As long as the Democratic party is the party of "no," it will never win an election of any importance. A Republican can be wrong - but a Democrat must be willing to step in and actually be constructive. If America as a society is not moving forward, it's not because of the Republicans.

This has got to be the best post I've seen all night :)

*hands the poster a cookie*

Keep up the good work!

The dominance of the Republican party is not at an end yet. It is, however, beginning to reach critical mass.

Republicans today, fairly simply put, are a party unified by a shared sense of victim status and outrage. They aren't sure what they're being victimized by, aside from something vaguely liberal and probably originating in California or New England, and what they are outraged at changes day by day, and that outrage has little or nothing to do with objective facts of the matter, but by God, they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it any more.

The problem, however, and one that is gradually becoming more and more apparent as time goes by, is that their solution is merely perpetuating the problem. Farmers are unnerved by the price trap the modern agricultural economy has placed them into, but they respond by electing people who only intensify that price trap with their economic policies. Suburban dads are worried about stagnating wages, but they respond by electing into office people who have problems with the principle of a minimum wage, much less are willing to raise it. Suburban moms are worried about terrorism, but they respond by electing people who do little to actually protect the country from terrorist attack, because that might require a few dollars more in taxes.

Why the disconnect? The reason is twofold. On the one hand, Republicans have managed to cast themselves as the party of family values, morality, and everything that seems safe, secure, and loving in a terrifyingly uncertain world. Now, Republicans are actually a party by and for the interests of those who want to rob said farmers and suburbanites blind, but its the image that's most important, not the substance. The suburbanites vote for Christianity, but they get the Patriot Act. They vote for family values, but they get environmental deregulation. They vote to keep smut away from their kids, but they get another round of tax benefits for Con-Agra and Tyson Foods.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party is a party without any kind of ideology except a vague commitment to pragmatism and a definate commitment to neoliberalism, which only compounds their failure because neoliberalism is the cause of people's angst. The Democratic Party in essence sold out the working class because, hey, the Dems will always be marginally better for working class voters than those snotty Republicans. We aren't going to actually give you a living wage, because we could never get contributions from Big Business if we did that, but we will be at least willing to throw you the tablescraps, whereas the Republicans will just kick you in the head.

As such, because the Democratic Party agrees with the Republicans on economic matters in spite of what their own party members demand, and because in social matters the Dems will never be able to match the outrage the Republicans have generated in their base, they will not win. In order to change that, they need a dynamic personality to undo the damage that the DINO's have done to the party. If Dems are seriously talking about Hillary Clinton in '08, it is to be perfectly frank, crystal f-in' clear that the Dems haven't found that person yet.

The dominance of the Republican party is not at an end yet. It is, however, beginning to reach critical mass.

Republicans today, fairly simply put, are a party unified by a shared sense of victim status and outrage. They aren't sure what they're being victimized by, aside from something vaguely liberal and probably originating in California or New England, and what they are outraged at changes day by day, and that outrage has little or nothing to do with objective facts of the matter, but by God, they are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it any more.

The problem, however, and one that is gradually becoming more and more apparent as time goes by, is that their solution is merely perpetuating the problem. Farmers are unnerved by the price trap the modern agricultural economy has placed them into, but they respond by electing people who only intensify that price trap with their economic policies. Suburban dads are worried about stagnating wages, but they respond by electing into office people who have problems with the principle of a minimum wage, much less are willing to raise it. Suburban moms are worried about terrorism, but they respond by electing people who do little to actually protect the country from terrorist attack, because that might require a few dollars more in taxes.

Why the disconnect? The reason is twofold. On the one hand, Republicans have managed to cast themselves as the party of family values, morality, and everything that seems safe, secure, and loving in a terrifyingly uncertain world. Now, Republicans are actually a party by and for the interests of those who want to rob said farmers and suburbanites blind, but its the image that's most important, not the substance. The suburbanites vote for Christianity, but they get the Patriot Act. They vote for family values, but they get environmental deregulation. They vote to keep smut away from their kids, but they get another round of tax benefits for Con-Agra and Tyson Foods.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party is a party without any kind of ideology except a vague commitment to pragmatism and a definate commitment to neoliberalism, which only compounds their failure because neoliberalism is the cause of people's angst. The Democratic Party in essence sold out the working class because, hey, the Dems will always be marginally better for working class voters than those snotty Republicans. We aren't going to actually give you a living wage, because we could never get contributions from Big Business if we did that, but we will be at least willing to throw you the tablescraps, whereas the Republicans will just kick you in the head.

As such, because the Democratic Party agrees with the Republicans on economic matters in spite of what their own party members demand, and because in social matters the Dems will never be able to match the outrage the Republicans have generated in their base, they will not win. In order to change that, they need a dynamic personality to undo the damage that the DINO's have done to the party. If Dems are seriously talking about Hillary Clinton in '08, it is to be perfectly frank, crystal f-in' clear that the Dems haven't found that person yet.


There we go.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but you used 46 years for control of Congress, and then only 32 for President, so it was kind of wierd.

40... if I took the White House back another 8 years, Ike is Pres and the DEMs look even worse...

We can only hope. :D

Er? You want a court nominated by one party??

Er? You want a court nominated by one party??

FDR tried this and it failed utterly.

FDR tried this and it failed utterly.

FDR wanted to add 3 more chairs to the court. As it stands, the GOP may just be able to fill all of them legitimately by default!

FDR wanted to add 3 more chairs to the court. As it stands, the GOP may just be able to fill all of them legitimately by default!

He still tried to stack the courts though so it isn't limited to one party or another. Both parties are guilty of it.

But so much of the Democratic message is not one of self-promotion, but of conservative-bashing, that there is just no moral authority in the party whatsoever.
I don't see how the Democrat's propaganda is any more negative than Republican propaganda. If anything, a flaw of the Dems is that they are unwilling to fight fire with fire.

look at the ACLU and Planned Parenthood and so on, who mount direct attacks on people's lifestyles and beliefs by seeking to remove religion and morality from society.
The ACLU actually defend people who are attacked by theocrats bent on shaping society to their religious ideals.

As such, because the Democratic Party agrees with the Republicans on economic matters in spite of what their own party members demand, and because in social matters the Dems will never be able to match the outrage the Republicans have generated in their base, they will not win.
I agree. The Democrats should return to democratic socialism. Move to the left!

I don't see how the Democrat's propaganda is any more negative than Republican propaganda. If anything, a flaw of the Dems is that they are unwilling to fight fire with fire.
Man, have you heard Howard Dean over the last couple weeks? That's not fighting fire with fire. The guy is like a nuclear bomb with a mouth!

Personally, I hope Howard Dean stay chairman of the DNC, as he is slowly but surely alienating even moderates within his own party. Every time he opens his mouth, he makes the Republicans look like Mother Teresa.

The ACLU actually defend people who are attacked by theocrats bent on shaping society to their religious ideals.
Also, how is suing to take a tiny cross off a city seal that's been there for decades constitute "defend[ing] people who are attacked by theocrats bent on shaping society to their religious ideals"? :confused:

He still tried to stack the courts though so it isn't limited to one party or another. Both parties are guilty of it.

Absolutely, both parties are equally guilty of that. My point simply was that if the DEMs don't win one of the next two Presidentials that the court will be 100% GOP nominations by 2016.

Getteth thou backeth to the fronteth pageth.