PDA

View Full Version : What Is WRONG With The Democratic Party?


Mr. Kotter
07-25-2007, 06:40 PM
:spock: Unbelievable. Okay, not really... :banghead:

They are killing themselves. I've been saying it for years; this is exactly the kind of thing that I mean. :shake:

And other Dems around here will be wondering HOW their party got beat, yet again---they'll be in utter "shock"---in 16 months when Hillary or Obama lose to Fred, Mitt, or Rudy.

Remember this well; THIS is why.... :shake:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_el_pr/snubbing_moderates&printer=1;_ylt=AoiPRjInqh0ISZgXkDRpuxph24cA

Democratic hopefuls snub party moderates

By RON FOURNIER
1 hour, 35 minutes ago

Bill Clinton will be there. So will 300 officeholders from more than 45 states. But one thing will be missing when Democrats gather in Tennessee this weekend to discuss how to appeal to moderate, independent-minded voters in 2008: the Democratic presidential field.

Not a single one of the eight presidential candidates plans to attend the Democratic Leadership Council's summer meeting, a snub that says less about the centrist DLC than it does about a nomination process that rewards candidates who pander to their parties' hardened cores while ignoring everybody else.

"They have tunnel vision," DLC founder Al From said of his fellow Democrats.

From said he has nothing against Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, or the other seven Democratic presidential candidates. He even understands why they won't attend the DLC meeting.

But that doesn't make him worry any less about the future of his party.

"Presidents are elected in the middle and they are elected by being bigger than their party. Neither parties' activists alone can elect somebody president," From said in a telephone interview from his Washington office. "Democrats have a long history of nominating people, including people who have lost badly. The challenge for Democrats is to nominate somebody who can win the election."

From and his moderate brethren believe that process begins this weekend in Nashville at the DLC's annual "National Conversation." It is billed as a one-of-a-kind forum for the party's rising stars to help shape the ideas and ideology behind a successful 2008 election cycle. The DLC also is launching a new Web site (http://www.ideasprimary.com) to promote the policies of centrist Democrats, such as:

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's push for electronic medical records.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' education reforms.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's homeland security and anti-crime initiatives.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer's cutting-edge energy plans.

These governors hail from different parts of the Democratic ideology spectrum, but they have one thing in common: They are in office because they appealed to voters who hold no firm allegiance to either party.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, political operatives convinced themselves that there were a dwindling few of these so-called swing voters, and that the only way to win elections was playing to "the base" the most dedicated Republicans and Democrats. They were wrong. The political middle is as significant as ever, with voters in a mood to swing due to their frustration with both major parties.

That raises a challenge for Republican and Democratic presidential candidates: How do they win their parties' nomination without appearing hostage to the kind of base politics that turns off swing voters?

The DLC would like to help the Democratic candidates, but none are listening. While no Democratic presidential hopeful wants to be associated with the centrist group, most of the candidates will be in Chicago on Aug. 4 to attend a convention of liberal bloggers.

"They are looking only at the liberal activists in Iowa," From said of the candidates.

It's standard procedure for Democratic candidates to distance themselves from the DLC during nomination fights, only to turn to the centrist group for help during the general election when moderate voters are key. Former President Clinton was an exception when he put himself on the national stage with an address to the DLC in 1991.

His wife, a leading Democratic candidate this year, attended last summer's DLC meeting. The group is not so important to her now, but she'll undoubtedly renew her ties to the DLC if she wins the nomination.

"It's sort of like you play on one end of field to win the nomination," From said, "but if you want to win the game, you've got to play on both ends."

He said Bush's low approval ratings give Democrats a chance to build a lasting majority in the 2008 election, but only if a Democrat wins the White House and governs effectively.

"There's more to it than trying to take advantage of the fact that Bush is down," From said. "The challenge is not just to talk to interest groups but to get beyond them and have a message that connects with the general electorate."

That is not happening, not in either party. Democratic candidates are moving to the left, Republicans to the right, as they target partisan voters.

"Candidates have their own interests. I don't blame them in a sense" for blowing off the DLC meeting, From said. "They have to get the nomination, and we're not one of the interest groups parading out there in Iowa and New Hampshire."

ChiefaRoo
07-25-2007, 10:28 PM
Doesn't surprise me.

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 10:30 PM
Doesn't the Republicans do the same thing in their primary? Ignore the center and concentrate on the far-right and Christian conservatives.

Anyway this is why I don't like 2-party systems because there is no room for the majority of Americans who are Centrists\Moderates.

ChiefaRoo
07-25-2007, 10:40 PM
Doesn't the Republicans do the same thing in their primary? Ignore the center and concentrate on the far-right and Christian conservatives.

Anyway this is why I don't like 2-party systems because there is no room for the majority of Americans who are Centrists\Moderates.

Not to the same extreme. In this case the Dems. are refusing to meet with themselves. Wake up!

Adept Havelock
07-25-2007, 10:41 PM
Anyway this is why I don't like 2-party systems because there is no room for the majority of Americans who are Centrists\Moderates.

I agree. With both parties, it's pander to the nutjobs and extremists in the primary, and run to the middle for the general election.

I wouldn't mind a nice, inefficent system of 4 to 6 major parties, where you have to compromise and form a coalition to get anything done. I think it would also go a long way to keeping the government from being able to screw over the people. If nothing else, they'll be so busy fighting amongst themselves they won't have time to f**k over the average citizen.

For those that suggest such a system dangerous to national security, I'll simply state it doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on Israel's ability to defend itself.

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 10:44 PM
Not to the same extreme. In this case the Dems. are refusing to meet with themselves. Wake up!

From reading the article it seems it is common practice to ignore this group. Clinton was the only one to meet with them and that was in 91.

I am not saying it is right I just think that in primaries both sides have to play to their extremes because that is who controls the parties unfortuntely.

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 10:44 PM
I agree. With both parties, it's pander to the nutjobs and extremists in the primary, and run to the middle for the general election.

I wouldn't mind a nice, inefficent system of 4 to 6 major parties, where you have to compromise and form a coalition to get anything done. I think it would also go a long way to keeping the government from being able to screw over the people.

For those that suggest such a system dangerous to national security, I'll simply state it doesn't seem to have had a negative impact on Israel's ability to defend itself.

I agree though I don't understand why this would be dangerous to national security maybe you could explain further pretty please.

ChiefaRoo
07-25-2007, 10:46 PM
From reading the article it seems it is common practice to ignore this group. Clinton was the only one to meet with them and that was in 91.

I am not saying it is right I just think that in primaries both sides have to play to their extremes because that is who controls the parties unfortuntely.

Dam you're dumb.

Adept Havelock
07-25-2007, 10:47 PM
I agree though I don't understand why this would be dangerous to national security maybe you could explain further pretty please.


I call it the "vozhd" or strongman theory. There are those that believe in times of war we need a single person to rally around in order to succeed. That the compromise and dissent that goes with such a system weakens the states ability to defend itself. Israel seems to have disproven this, as IMO there are few places on this world as contrary as the Knesset.

There are also those that would state the other party (whichever they aren't a member of) aren't like the Israeli parties, that they can't be trusted to defend the nation. Ironically, many parties in Israel make the same claim of their oppositions inablity to protect their country. IMO it just proves wherever you are, Politics bears a striking resemblance to bulls**t.

Taco John
07-25-2007, 10:47 PM
You had to swear an oath of allegiance to Bush in order to be let into his campaign rallies during the last election. How many threads would anyone imagine Kotter started about this phenomenon? Who do you think he voted for?

BucEyedPea
07-25-2007, 10:49 PM
I don't know if the "majority" of American people are "moderate".

I always thought, from reading and otherwise, that it's 30% and 30% for the partisans on either side with the remaining in the middle. And even some of those tend to still lean a certain way more than the other.

I also have a problem with the word "moderate"....since that doesn't represent a balance of freedom for individuals versus the group ( govt). Moderate today is still left of center.

That being said, means the Dem party has really moved pretty far left.

Mr. Kotter
07-25-2007, 10:51 PM
You had to swear an oath of allegiance to Bush in order to be let into his campaign rallies during the last election. How many threads would anyone imagine Kotter started about this phenomenon? Who do you think he voted for?

I denounced it. I thought it was stupid.

However, he was an unopposed incumbent.

And then there is a matter of Hecklers vs. Party Moderates, which you can choose to ignore if you wish.

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 10:52 PM
Dam you're dumb.

:rolleyes:

Can't you read retard.

It's standard procedure for Democratic candidates to distance themselves from the DLC during nomination fights, only to turn to the centrist group for help during the general election when moderate voters are key. Former President Clinton was an exception when he put himself on the national stage with an address to the DLC in 1991.

ChiefaRoo
07-25-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't know if the "majority" of American people are "moderate".

I always thought, from reading and otherwise, that it's 30% and 30% for the partisans on either side with the remaining in the middle. And even some of those tend to still lean a certain way more than the other.

I also have a problem with the word "moderate"....since that doesn't represent a balance of freedom for individuals versus the group ( govt). Moderate today is still left of center.

Most people live their life conservatively but they like to think of themselves as moderate because it feels good.

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 10:53 PM
I call it the "vozhd" or strongman theory. There are those that believe in times of war we need a single person to rally around in order to succeed. That the compromise and dissent that goes with such a system weakens the states ability to defend itself. Israel seems to have disproven this, as IMO there are few places on this world as contrary as the Knesset.

There are also those that would state the other party (whichever they aren't a member of) aren't like the Israeli parties, that they can't be trusted to defend the nation. Ironically, many parties in Israel make the same claim of their oppositions inablity to protect their country. IMO it just proves wherever you are, Politics bears a striking resemblance to bulls**t.

Thanks Adept.

PunkinDrublic
07-25-2007, 10:53 PM
ROFL

BucEyedPea
07-25-2007, 10:56 PM
Most people live their life conservatively but they like to think of themselves as moderate because it feels good.
I can agree with that, especially the last part.

So many people claim to be moderate, then they open their mouths. They just want to appear reasonable and level headed. Most of it is a matter of opinion anyway.

As for living conservatively, that's true with a lot of Mass liberals having been born and raised there. They talk the talk. I even have a cousin, a lawyer, totally left-wing Dem who extolls the virtues of Italian communism frequently...but she quit her job and stayed at home and is the epitome of what you'd think a conservative Pub mom would be. I can't get over it!

She still hates Bush though.

banyon
07-25-2007, 11:04 PM
Kotter, you do realize the the DLC was the primary guiding force behind Clinton's presidency, right?

So you want more candidates that follow their ideas?

dirk digler
07-25-2007, 11:10 PM
I can agree with that, especially the last part.

So many people claim to be moderate, then they open their mouths. They just want to appear reasonable and level headed. Most of it is a matter of opinion anyway.



IMHO I think it depends on the issue. I believe that a majority of Americans when it comes to National Security\Foreign Policy are Conservative and when it comes to Domestic policies most people are liberal so they balance each other out.

So whatever issue is the top issue at the time they will vote that way hence why Bush won in 04. If there were not any war or terrorist activities in 04 and if the major issues was the economy or healthcare, or SS, Kerry would have killed Bush.

Not that would have been a good thing but probably at least a tiny bit better than what we got now.

Mr. Kotter
07-25-2007, 11:35 PM
Kotter, you do realize the the DLC was the primary guiding force behind Clinton's presidency, right?

So you want more candidates that follow their ideas?

Yes. Of course I do.

Boy, WTF have you been? :spock:

Long story, made short....I worked (zealously and enthusiastically) on our county and state's Clinton for President campaign in 1992 (I actually was one of the charter members on the bandwagon going back to September of 1991.) I bought what he was selling; and I believed him. When he won, I was convinced he was gonna be my generation's JFK. His first year conversion to the politics of Hillary....was my first hint something was amiss. Bottom-line, he's the quintessential politician of our day: bar none. So much promise and potential, and he pissed it down his leg...over his inability to keep it in his pants. For a chubby, plain girl who is young enough to be his daughter. The perjury and obstruction of justice, and the overall pattern of stonewalling .... sickened and disillusioned me. It's why I scoff/laugh at Bush critics--he's no worse than most. However, I stuck with Clinton through the entire Republican investigations UNTIL the "smoking gun" (blue dress)....showed up. In the end, it turned out he was just like most folks in politics. A fraud.

Needless to say, I've been able to see politics much more clearly since those days.

Pitt Gorilla
07-25-2007, 11:49 PM
How many of the Republican candidates claimed to not believe in evolution?

Saggysack
07-26-2007, 02:32 AM
What Is WRONG With The Democratic Party?

That you are in it?

nlm

bkkcoh
07-26-2007, 07:15 AM
They need to be more a party of ideas instead of opposition. They had the presidency wrapped up in 2004 if they would have run on ideas instead of against Bush. Both parties used to be a party of their people, but they have each lost it to the fringes of each respective party.

BucEyedPea
07-26-2007, 09:06 AM
IMHO I think it depends on the issue. I believe that a majority of Americans when it comes to National Security\Foreign Policy are Conservative and when it comes to Domestic policies most people are liberal so they balance each other out.

So whatever issue is the top issue at the time they will vote that way hence why Bush won in 04. If there were not any war or terrorist activities in 04 and if the major issues was the economy or healthcare, or SS, Kerry would have killed Bush.

Not that would have been a good thing but probably at least a tiny bit better than what we got now.
I think it depends on how a national security issue is framed for the "people" as a majority to be conservative on it. What does that mean to be conservative on national security anyway? Most want to be safe. I don't think that's necessarily conservative...I think it depends on how that's framed and the issues and facts regarding defense.

Fact is most of the people don't want war or start wars, that's done by govts (even RR said this)....who often trump up threats for other reasons. For instance Iraq most were for it, but now that nothing rings true about the original reasons they aren't. Most people in the world just want to get along.


A moderate is someone who isn't ideologically aligned and who has mixed views. Enough so they don't fall on either side of the spectrum clearly, including what this country was founded on: Taking care of oneself and not having the govt do it.

As for healthcare, I don't think most like the current results. That does not mean the cure they demand is right or agreed on by the majority. Collective thought agreement is more often wrong.

Radar Chief
07-26-2007, 10:02 AM
Long story, made short....I worked (zealously and enthusiastically) on our county and state's Clinton for President campaign in 1992 (I actually was one of the charter members on the bandwagon going back to September of 1991.) I bought what he was selling; and I believed him.

Oh! So it's YOUR fault! :cuss:











ROFL

jettio
07-26-2007, 11:10 AM
Yes. Of course I do.

Boy, WTF have you been? :spock:

Long story, made short....I worked (zealously and enthusiastically) on our county and state's Clinton for President campaign in 1992 (I actually was one of the charter members on the bandwagon going back to September of 1991.) I bought what he was selling; and I believed him. When he won, I was convinced he was gonna be my generation's JFK. His first year conversion to the politics of Hillary....was my first hint something was amiss. Bottom-line, he's the quintessential politician of our day: bar none. So much promise and potential, and he pissed it down his leg...over his inability to keep it in his pants. For a chubby, plain girl who is young enough to be his daughter. The perjury and obstruction of justice, and the overall pattern of stonewalling .... sickened and disillusioned me. It's why I scoff/laugh at Bush critics--he's no worse than most. However, I stuck with Clinton through the entire Republican investigations UNTIL the "smoking gun" (blue dress)....showed up. In the end, it turned out he was just like most folks in politics. A fraud.

Needless to say, I've been able to see politics much more clearly since those days.

From what I hear, JFK was not allergic to extra pussy.

I doubt the DLC opposed very many of Clinton's policy decisions, and it seems the biggest lesson learned from the Whitewater waste of time was that the GOP congress let the Independent Counsel statute expire.

There is no way anyone with any common sense would think better of the GOP after the way they bickered over stupid stuff during the prosperous nineties for no reason other than to gain power. If you switched over to the GOP because of that, it just reveals the sad fact that their stategy works on dimwits.

If you "scoff or laugh at B*sh's critics" because he is "no worse than most," then you ought to sample reality a little more often.

Nobody expected B*sh & Cheney to be as incompetent and dishonorable as they have been, Nobody.

patteeu
07-26-2007, 11:16 AM
Damn, I hit the maximum word limit on that post and I'm not typing it all again. :p

Mr. Kotter
07-26-2007, 12:00 PM
From what I hear, JFK was not allergic to extra pussy.

I doubt the DLC opposed very many of Clinton's policy decisions, and it seems the biggest lesson learned from the Whitewater waste of time was that the GOP congress let the Independent Counsel statute expire.

There is no way anyone with any common sense would think better of the GOP after the way they bickered over stupid stuff during the prosperous nineties for no reason other than to gain power. If you switched over to the GOP because of that, it just reveals the sad fact that their stategy works on dimwits.

If you "scoff or laugh at B*sh's critics" because he is "no worse than most," then you ought to sample reality a little more often.

Nobody expected B*sh & Cheney to be as incompetent and dishonorable as they have been, Nobody.

You are right about JFK. Having lived through Watergate, the growth of the media, and the 70s and 80s, though....Clinton was the real dimwit, here--to not realize that changing times and standards for conduct required him to exercise a little bit of self control.

Of course the DLC agreed with Clinton. He was the FACE of the DLC. I agreed, and still agree with both. The problem was Bill's DLC act was an opportunistic manipulation, and more rhetoric than substance. He talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

FWIW, I haven't "switched" parties....at least not yet. I've just realized there is no place for moderates or conservatives in the Democratic party. Not even the DLC is welcome, apparently. That's what galls me.

Finally, I'm not saying the GOP is necessarily better than the Dems, when it comes to the graft, corruption, and lies....they aren't. However, their view on the issues that really matter, and that the feds can really influence....is just preferable, at least philosophically: smaller government, less taxes, and an emphasis on security and defense.

Speaking of dimwits who lack common sense.....the real dimwits are folks like you who think the Dems are "better" and offer a better plan. Purely and simply they don't. At least not at the moment. That point will be driven home, yet again, when....inexplicably to folks like you....the Republicans likely win the WH again in 2008. And Democrats will then engage in gut wrenching soul searching for a few months wondering, "What happened?" Talk about dimwits.

:)

dirk digler
07-26-2007, 12:28 PM
I think it depends on how a national security issue is framed for the "people" as a majority to be conservative on it. What does that mean to be conservative on national security anyway? Most want to be safe. I don't think that's necessarily conservative...I think it depends on how that's framed and the issues and facts regarding defense.




I think most people first want to be safe, they want a big,strong military, and they want a strong intelligence service. Those are "conservative" principles IMO because liberals don't want a big strong military or a strong intelligence service hence the reason why they try to cut spending on those every time they are in charge.

Pitt Gorilla
07-26-2007, 12:57 PM
Speaking of dimwits who lack common sense.....the real dimwits are folks like you who think the Dems are "better" and offer a better plan. Purely and simply they don't. At least not at the moment. That point will be driven home, yet again, when....inexplicably to folks like you....the Republicans likely win the WH again in 2008. And Democrats will then engage in gut wrenching soul searching for a few months wondering, "What happened?" Talk about dimwits.

:)You calling jettio a "dimwit" makes me chuckle.

With a Democratic congress, why wouldn't people want a Republican president? I won't vote for Romney, but I could handle most of the others. We've seen what happens recently when one party controls both branches.
:shake:

StcChief
07-26-2007, 01:06 PM
What's RIGHT with Democrat party ?

noa
07-26-2007, 01:28 PM
What's RIGHT with Democrat party ?

I see what you did there

Mr. Kotter
07-26-2007, 01:39 PM
You calling jettio a "dimwit" makes me chuckle.

With a Democratic congress, why wouldn't people want a Republican president? I won't vote for Romney, but I could handle most of the others. We've seen what happens recently when one party controls both branches.
:shake:

I answer in kind, remember? He called me a dimwit....so I fired back. ;)

And, despite your pathetic implication, I know better. If I'm a dimwit....the net must cover about 98-99 percent of the population....at least according the Stanford-Binet.

Therefore, he should consider himself in good company.

Of course, perhaps you are in the 1-2% that scored higher. :shrug:







I sincerely doubt it though.... ;)

go bowe
07-26-2007, 01:56 PM
* * *

Speaking of dimwits who lack common sense.....the real dimwits are folks like you . . . and Democrats will then engage in gut wrenching soul searching for a few months wondering, "What happened?" Talk about dimwits.

:)oooh, ooooh!

can i be a dimwit too?

please?

Mr. Kotter
07-26-2007, 02:11 PM
oooh, ooooh!

can i be a dimwit too?

please?

Do you think the Dems will win? If so, here's your official acceptance into jettio's dimwit club..... ;)


:p

go bowe
07-26-2007, 02:29 PM
Do you think the Dems will win? If so, here's your official acceptance into jettio's dimwit club..... ;)


:pdon't you DARE lump me in with jettio on any subect, at any time, at any place! %(/

i don't call YOU names, now do i?

well, maby i do sometimes...

Mr. Kotter
07-26-2007, 02:32 PM
don't you DARE lump me in with jettio on any subect, at any time, at any place! %(/

i don't call YOU names, now do i?

well, maby i do sometimes...

Sorry. That was pretty low....my bad.


LMAO

go bowe
07-26-2007, 02:40 PM
show some respect for an old man... :p

go bowe
07-26-2007, 02:42 PM
so how's rob?

hope everything is going well for you...

jettio
07-26-2007, 04:44 PM
You are right about JFK. Having lived through Watergate, the growth of the media, and the 70s and 80s, though....Clinton was the real dimwit, here--to not realize that changing times and standards for conduct required him to exercise a little bit of self control.

Of course the DLC agreed with Clinton. He was the FACE of the DLC. I agreed, and still agree with both. The problem was Bill's DLC act was an opportunistic manipulation, and more rhetoric than substance. He talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

FWIW, I haven't "switched" parties....at least not yet. I've just realized there is no place for moderates or conservatives in the Democratic party. Not even the DLC is welcome, apparently. That's what galls me.

Finally, I'm not saying the GOP is necessarily better than the Dems, when it comes to the graft, corruption, and lies....they aren't. However, their view on the issues that really matter, and that the feds can really influence....is just preferable, at least philosophically: smaller government, less taxes, and an emphasis on security and defense.

Speaking of dimwits who lack common sense.....the real dimwits are folks like you who think the Dems are "better" and offer a better plan. Purely and simply they don't. At least not at the moment. That point will be driven home, yet again, when....inexplicably to folks like you....the Republicans likely win the WH again in 2008. And Democrats will then engage in gut wrenching soul searching for a few months wondering, "What happened?" Talk about dimwits.

:)

Your rant reminded me that one of your Chiefs Planet alter-egos was "Monica Lewinsky." No wonder that Blue Dress has got you so worked up in that earlier post.

The Clintons are genuine centrists, anyone that pays attention knows that.

You must have slept through the 2006 election because the House and Senatorial Campaign Committees and Harold Dean made sure to run Centrist, Moderate, or Conservative candidates in districts where the Democrat had to be one or the other to have a chance.

Since I joined Chiefs Planet in 2002, I have not been pro-Democrat as much as I have been anti-dishonorable incompetent lying sack of Raiduhs .

In regards the next election, looks like the Democratic nominee is likely to be either the first major party woman nominee or the first major party black nominee. The Republicans might nominate a likable white guy that could barely win. If that happens that really would not be much of a surprise.