Democratic Party R.I.P.

Originally posted by Darth CHUNKS > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > And I think we can both agree that many people who voted for Kerry would have preferred to vote for somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs...we can probably even both agree that many Bush voters would have preferred the same thing-- somebody who more closely reflected their own beliefs.

Fair Enough.

FOUR years for another freaking NO album!!!!??? Are you kidding!!!?? Ain't you being a bit optimistic!?

Hopeful.;)

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> Sorry, gotta run to catch public transit, but interesting points; I'll give a response tomorrow.

.....just a little extra. This is from a post a democraticunderground.

Here's another problem: I believe that party elites are disproportionately drawn from the first two groups: Left-liberals and center-left libertarians. I know lots of Democrats here in Washington, DC, and they are almost all relatively affluent professional types from the Northeast or West Coast who don't have any life experience at all interacting with regular people from middle America.

Power and money attracts talent-- i.e., relatively affluent professional types-- whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans. Intelligent, successful people go to Washington because they have the ability to succeed there. Not to mention the money it takes to get there. But let's not forget that it's the smart, successful types who gravitate from the midwest to the Northeast and the West Coast to begin with. Perhaps there are liberals in Washington who have no life experience "interacting with regular people from middle America." Not living in Washington, I can only guess. That said, I rather doubt that Bush has any life experience himself "interacting with regular people from middle America" beyond the campaign trail.

In fact, their opinion of them could almost be described as contemptuous. At a minimum, I think it could be called condescending. We think that we are doing "those people" a favor by supporting policies which will help them, and quite frankly we feel a little offended that they aren't thanking us for looking out for them.

Anecdotal.

You really expect us to read that??? Look, Kerry lost to a moron because Kerry is a flip flopping war traitor who the majority of the electorate does not trust. Run Kerry against the candidate from the Female Circumcision Party and he would still lose. Shit, he failed to carry the State of his running mate. Even worse, the trend of de-Democrating Washington DC continued, a trend started 2 years after Clinton took office.

Start by asking yourself why your party failed to win over the voting population. Do not blame those that voted for Bush. Blame Al Gore for losing Tennesee. Had he won his home State Florida would have been irrelevent and Gore would have been POTUS.

Don't forget that Gore lost Clinton's home state as well!

The Democratic Party isn't dead...it's just resting. The Democratic Party prefers resting on it's back :p

Originally posted by twist You really expect us to read that???

No, not when Americans can get their opinions pre-packaged from Fox. Reading's too hard.

Look, Kerry lost to a moron because Kerry is a flip flopping war traitor who the majority of the electorate does not trust.

I'll restate my earlier challenge: "By the way, anybody care to claim that Bush hasn't 'flip-flopped'?"

And here's another challenge for you to ponder:

1. What exactly did Kerry do that made him a "war traitor"?

2. If Kerry is a "war traitor," why wasn't he tried for treason?

Run Kerry against the candidate from the Female Circumcision Party and he would still lose. Shit, he failed to carry the State of his running mate. Even worse, the trend of de-Democrating Washington DC continued, a trend started 2 years after Clinton took office.Start by asking yourself why your party failed to win over the voting population. Do not blame those that voted for Bush. Blame Al Gore for losing Tennesee. Had he won his home State Florida would have been irrelevent and Gore would have been POTUS.

I'm not a Democrat, so it's not "my party." Even so, Kerry won over 48% of the voting population, assuming no election fraud from Karl Rove-- not a very sound assumption. So 48%-- not enough to win, but not the landslide rejection you're implying. If Kerry had won with 51% of the vote, the Republicans would be calling it such a razor thin margin that Kerry has no clear mandate, and that he would therefore need to govern in a bipartisan manner.

Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes. He even said that he committed some himself. Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers. When confronted about this he avoided the issue. When others brought it up (Swift Boat folks) he sought a nazi approach--intimidation (lawsuits) and censorship.

Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

But the issue is why have the Demos been losing power since 1996???

Originally posted by twist Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes. He even said that he committed some himself. Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers.Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

To be fair to Kerry, I think the Republicans had him by the balls about his Vietnam record and he couldn't mount a sufficent offence. But again, claiming war atrocities when it's possible he didn't actually see any (I don't know the definite on that, and I doubt we ever will) probably didn't help him. There are still people who believe Vietnam was a right war, and that even whatever atrocities committed were minimal at best. I'd be willing to bet that Vietnam was chock-full of atrocities on both sides, so to say that Kerry "lied" to give comfort to the enemy is ludicrous. He may have just been trying to let people know that these things were going on.

I think the fact that they were able to paint a decorated war veteran as a "coward" is a disgrace. No matter what you feel about Kerry the man, he served in an unpopular war gallantly. I'm just so pissed that Vietnam revisionists are trying to deny the truth about the war when they attack Kerry. In the Hannitized version of the war, we never suffered any major setbacks and were on the cusp of victory when those damn hippies stopped it all. If you believe that, I've got some ocean front property in Idaho I'd like to sell ya...

What I find funniest was that 70% of Bush voters, at least according to one study, believed that his stance was actually the opposite of what he stated his stance to be, as far as things like the International Criminal Court(they believed he was for it, while he's repeatedly come out against it), the Kyoto Treaty(same paradox), etc.. And they believed that WMDs had been found in Iraq, even as the government's own study has now verified they weren't there...and they believed that Al Qaida and Saddam were in some sort of conspiracy. It's just mindboggling how "off" that all is. I mean, it's one thing for them to fall for the propaganda, but to believe that Bush's stances are directly opposite of his stated stance...how the hell does that work? ...and basing a vote on such misconceptions is just scary.

But screw the Democrats too...political parties are crap, and they all have a stake in subverting democratic processes in their favour. Bush's "mandate" will disappear soon as all the votes are actually counted too, he won, but he didn't win by THAT much.

Originally posted by twist Kerry came back from the war, set up an anti-war group and had them lie about war crimes.

Vietnam Veterans against the War was organized in New York 1967, while Kerry was on duty on the USS Gridley off Southeast Asia, and before he had even been to Vietnam. Therefore, it would have been impossible for Kerry to have come "back from the war, set up an anti-war group" as you have stated. Twist, your facts are wrong.

As for your charge that Kerry "had them lie about war crimes," you've made this charge more than once, without any sort of substantiation to show that the testimony presesnted at the Winter Soldier Investigation was false. What evidence is there that (A) Kerry had veterans lie about war crimes, and (B) that specific testimony by a specific veteran was a lie?

He even said that he committed some himself.

Where?

Noble purpose but wrong means. this makes him a traitor. Selling out his fellow soldiers.

Kerry on "selling out his fellow soldiers":

"I think they are expressing, some of these troops, solidarity with us, right now by wearing black arm bands and Vietnam Veterans Against the War buttons. They want to come out and I think they are looking at the people who want to try to get them out as a help.

However, I do recognize there are some men who are in the military for life. The job in the military is to fight wars. When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense, and I am sure that these men feel they are being stabbed in the back."

Twist, disagreeing with the policies of the President of the United States does not constitute treason. Speaking out against the President's policies is protected by the First Amendment, and when the President is wrong, it may be the highest duty of a citizen to speak out. Speaking out against the Presidents policies is not the same thing as "selling out" the troops, and the fact that some citizens support the President does not mean that speaking out is therefore treason.

Sure Bush may have flip flopped from time to time but not to the extent of Kerry. Kerry was just unbelievable.

Bush the Flip-Flopper.

I suppose I'll catch now for pointing out that Bush has a mandate.

heheh, that was good....

And thanks for posting those other links, I'm pretty sick of the Right saying Kerry's "flip flops" are a reason to keep the Flipflopper In Chief.

I do have to credit Rove though, he appears to be capable of a pretty profound form of misdirection. For the life of me, I can figure out how people swallow it.

Kerry sold out his fellow soldiers by the lies he used in his anti-war campaign. That is why many consider him a traitor. Not a traitor in the sense of someone selling China secrets from the CIA, but the betrayal of many who were drafted and sent to a shithole.

Intention good, means wrong.

And yes, in a healthy democracy one should be able to speak out against the POTUS. As much bitching about Bush in the last 4 years I think the US is safe. You have another 4 to enjoy the complaining. Notice that he did not try to stop F911 despite many inconsistencies and non-truths? Yet when the Swift boat folks tried to air their movie Kerry and Co sent out lawyers.

Can you point out a lie? I keep hearing this, but as far as I'm aware, he was reporting on atrocities he had heard some were committing over there, many of which are very well known these days. I'm not sure how pointing out unjust rules of engagement makes one a "traitor". I guess some people like shooting messengers that disagree with their party....which strikes me as what we were supposedly fighting against there.

Edit: As far as F911, the only thing I'm really aware of that was untrue in that was that someone edited a newspaper story title with the wrong date for the screen. Everything else is a matter of public record. And really, Bush may not have tried overtly to stop it from being released, but certainly the Right tried very hard to do so.

Bush did, however, try to prevent the 9/11 Commission from forming, which I think is *slightly* more important than someone making a movie. Then, after public displeasure, he proposed forming a commission... headed by Henry Kissinger, a man who is well known for lying to cover things up..but again, people complained, so things were changed yet again. Three different positions on the same issue...now THAT's resolve!

Oh well, all I can say is that job numbers last month were better than expected, US productivity continues to be growing at a good rate, and the trade deficit has been slightly reduced thanks to our administration's liking for a weak dollar.

Originally posted by twist Kerry sold out his fellow soldiers by the lies he used in his anti-war campaign. That is why many consider him a traitor. Not a traitor in the sense of someone selling China secrets from the CIA, but the betrayal of many who were drafted and sent to a shithole.Intention good, means wrong. And yes, in a healthy democracy one should be able to speak out against the POTUS. As much bitching about Bush in the last 4 years I think the US is safe. You have another 4 to enjoy the complaining. Notice that he did not try to stop F911 despite many inconsistencies and non-truths? Yet when the Swift boat folks tried to air their movie Kerry and Co sent out lawyers.

I'll take your failure to respond (yet again) to:

As for your charge that Kerry "had them lie about war crimes," you've made this charge more than once, without any sort of substantiation to show that the testimony presesnted at the Winter Soldier Investigation was false. What evidence is there that (A) Kerry had veterans lie about war crimes, and (B) that specific testimony by a specific veteran was a lie?

as a tacit admission that there is no evidence that Kerry lied, and that it is, in fact, a baseless accusation. Thank you for proving my point.

If this has any success (which probably has a .01% chance), then all Democratic presidential candidates are fucked from here on out. http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1884138p-9812954c.html

I'd be all for it, as long as every state plays by the same rules.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr I'd be all for it, as long as every state plays by the same rules.

No no no, we couldn't have that! Karl Rove would only want it in the blue states. That would only be fair.

I'm thinking of throwing my weight behind the Repub nominee in '08. I mean full-out, joining-the-party-and-volunteering-to-call-people-and-get-out-the-vote for the Republican nominee. I figure I'm 0-for-2 in my presidential voting record...

So I might was well try and fuck up the GOP, instead of dooming my own guy every time I vote

GOP IN '08!

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I'm thinking of throwing my weight behind the Repub nominee in '08. I mean full-out, joining-the-party-and-volunteering-to-call-people-and-get-out-the-vote for the Republican nominee. I figure I'm 0-for-2 in my presidential voting record...So I might was well try and fuck up the GOP, instead of dooming my own guy every time I vote GOP IN '08!

Bush fucked himself over so many times that I don't think you can fuck with his and the GOP's success.

CRACKIES!!!

We have got to let this thread go!!!

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS CRACKIES!!! We have got to let this thread go!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! :p Oh well maybe I will. BTW, would people prefer me to post articles/blogs from Ann Coulter or Michelle Maglalang (aka Michelle Malkin)?