Democrats Suck

[dryad]

I was about to go off on a long rebuttal to klenke's advocating of Lieberman. I wanted to say that Lieberman isn't a real Democrat, that the only reason he's a Democrat is because he's Jewish, that he's a Torah-thumping self-righteous finger wagger just like the Christian fundies, etc etc.

 

But then I realized, wait, no, klenke's right. Maybe a pseudo-Republican is exactly what Democrats need. Someone cynical enough to roll around in the muck and beat the repubs at their own game. Somebody who can convince the folks in the red states that he hates commies, ragheads, fags and abortion just as much as they do, for example. But still be enough of a Democrat to not actually do anything about this stuff once he gets elected. Maybe appealing to people's base fears and hatreds is the only way to win an election these days.

 

But hey what do I know? I'm just a latte-sipping brie-cheese-eating REM-listening compact-car-driving Seattle liberal thoroughly out of touch with the mainstream.

[scott_harpell]

I was about to go off on a long rebuttal to klenke's advocating of Lieberman. I wanted to say that Lieberman isn't a real Democrat, that the only reason he's a Democrat is because he's Jewish, that he's a Torah-thumping self-righteous finger wagger just like the Christian fundies, etc etc.

 

But then I realized, wait, no, klenke's right. Maybe a pseudo-Republican is exactly what Democrats need. Someone cynical enough to roll around in the muck and beat the repubs at their own game. Somebody who can convince the folks in the red states that he hates commies, ragheads, fags and abortion just as much as they do, for example. But still be enough of a Democrat to not actually do anything about this stuff once he gets elected. Maybe appealing to people's base fears and hatreds is the only way to win an election these days.

 

But hey what do I know? I'm just a latte-sipping brie-cheese-eating REM-listening compact-car-driving Seattle liberal thoroughly out of touch with the mainstream.

 

Isn't the idea of an election to get the person who best represents the citizens of the country? This is very comedic though. Keep it comming guys.

[slothrop]

No, the last thing we need is someone who stoops to the level of hardcore hatemongers. There is a middle ground to be found, but it does not involve pandering with hateful slogans. People are afraid, of terrorism, endless war, economic problems, etc. They turn to religion, but for some reason, they find their personal relationship with God to be lacking the power to assuage their fears, so they try to put God in government.

 

This is absolutely the wrong way for the country to go. Someone with a progressive outlook has to turn this fear and weakness into a positive force.

[scott_harpell]

I agree. I think there are few people that were really happy with their choices the other night and they are idiots. The thing I wonder about the Democratic party is that if its only real ideal is being "progressive" where can it go? It has to stop somewhere. It reminds me of Marx's prediction of the fall of capitolism. I think both will happen someday. You can only streamline/progress so far and then what do you have?

[slothrop]

I don't think progress will ever stop, since the world is always changing. There will always be issues that need to be addressed along the way, and progressives are the force for change. Conservatives are, by definition, the force of the status quo. There is too much work to be done every day, far more than can successfully be completed. Corruption, misuse of power, oppression, and hate have always been here and always will, since they're the dark side of human nature. Progressives fight against those things, so they must always be there, too.

[j_b]

imo kerry lost because he didn't hammer on a few issues that could be reduced to sound bites: 1) the economy whereas people are definitely worse off than they were 4 years ago and there is little prospect of things improving for a while and 2) the war in iraq because he was compromised by his vote on the matter and 3) over the last 30years conservatives have poured billions of dollars in think tanks, media, etc ... to frame the debate in their own terms. short of countering the propaganda we are subject to every day in the media, progressives won't go anywhere. kerry had a reasonable discourse but it wasn't focused enough to prevent the fear-mongering about terror and gays from taking hold.

 

the dems didn't advocate gay marriage, have advocated affirmative action since the 60's and for all intent and purpose are less progressive on "moral" issues than the upcoming generations.

[scott_harpell]

I think in theory you are right, but in practice the Democratic party gets mired in the politics on the hill and becomes inefective. I seriosly doubt that the progressive for progressive's sake legislation apparent in affirmative action is helping any. I think that both conservativism and liberalism are good at the ore but bastardizations because of politics corrupt the good nature of the ideas.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

I think in theory you are right, but in practice the Democratic party gets mired in the politics on the hill and becomes inefective.

 

If you think Republicans are somehow above politics and bullshit backscratching political maneuvers, etc., you're delusional.

 

Wake up, dumbfuck.

[scott_harpell]

I think in theory you are right, but in practice the Democratic party gets mired in the politics on the hill and becomes inefective.

 

If you think Republicans are somehow above politics and bullshit backscratching political maneuvers, etc., you're delusional.

 

Wake up, dumbfuck.

 

Read dumbfuck! Never said that did I? Wake up from your partisan slumber!

[JayB]

I usually try and avoid political discourse here, but I'll make an exception this time. If the Dem's actually want to beat GW, the GOP, and the Christian Right they should pull their head out of their collective asses and find a candidate who is not an effete east coast liberal. We need someone who can do some damage in the south, lower midwest, and rangeland west.

Someone like Kerry has a snowballs chance in hell of winning any of those states and relying on the outside chance of winning the swing states is ignorantly optimistic at best.

 

Dems need counteract the GOP's pull to the right by finding the center and staying there instead of taking the bait and moving to the left, like the GOP wants them to do. When they do, they won't be able to turn the far right but they'll have a much better shot at the swing states and can gnaw away at the south and the inland west.

 

And now the Dems are talking about Hillary Clinton in 08? Did we learn anything at all from the last two presidential elections? Apparantly not.

 

Bingo. Bill Clinton fit the bill perfectly.

 

If the Dems actually want to start winning national elections, they should subject the candidates to the "beer and fried chicken" test. Sit them down at a dinner ostensibly designed to discuss policy issues, and bring in some Kentucky Buckets and sixers of Bud.

 

Anyone who is a vegetarian or recoils at the idea of consuming fast food should be escorted off of the premises. Anyone that spreads a napkin on their lap, dissects the fried chicken with their cutlery instead of eating it with their hands, and pours their beer into a glass instead of drinking it right from the can should be disqualified immediately. Those remaining have will carry the coasts no matter what, and they actually have a chance of carrying some of the states where Republicans traditionally win by a narrow majority.

 

I would also suggest listening to today's episode of "To The Point" on NPR for some remedial instruction on these matters.

 

Until the Democrats can find someone with a carriage and demeanor that resonates with voters in the Red States, they can count on losing them every time. However, I hope that the Democrats follow the prescriptions laid out here by the true believers, who seem to be of the opinion that appealing to values that resonate with middle America and common decency are antithetical to one another.

 

Dean/Chomsky 08!!!!!!!!!

[scott_harpell]

I want Bill back!

[selkirk]

Does it really boil down to something that simple?

Do most democrats as fundamental requirement want some intelligent and articulate, and moderate republicans/middle america want someone they can identify with?

[JayB]

I don't think its an either or issue, actually, nor do I think that those two qualities are mutually exclusive. But if the Dems persist in believing that they are, then they will persistently lose national elections. End of story.

[selkirk]

No it's definitely not an either/or issue. But those are entrance requirements for the vote. If the candiate doesn't come across as intelligent and thoughtful, he won't get the democratic vote, and if doesn't come across as approachable, and as a "common" man (regardless of his background, because there is no way Bush is "common") the republicans won't vote for him. Which is why Clinton did so phenomenally, he was bright and articulate, while still being someone people could identify with, appeal for both sides. Kerry, was two much the Wealthy Massachusets Intellectual, and Bush not enough of a thoughtful intellectual for either of them to pull votes from the other party. And once again were a nation divided.

[HappyCamper]

Pardon the minor digression - JayB mentions Dean in '08. It kind of makes me wonder how that one would have turned out in '04. Dean was most definitely not Kerry in has ideas and demeanor. Sure, some people found him "scary", but I bet his message would have resonated better with Americans in swing states than with Kerry's message.

 

Not saying I support Dean - I just think the race would have been a real fireworks show. He would not have been afraid to speak his mind even if it got him in trouble or it created bad "spin". It might have even befuddled the Rove-ian way of thinking. They seemed to have hooked Kerry because for every simple attack they threw at him - he seemed to want to fully explain his answer, which is great if you are writing bills in the Senate - but it doesn't get you elected. Dean would have likely just thrown back an emphatic rebuttal that was pretty concise and - brutally honest. Almost like the former governor of Colorado in the 80's - forget his name. Mind you Rove would have switched tactics and called him "unstable" like they did with McCain - but the fight would have made for a good campaign season.

 

Anyway - its probably an indictment of my character that I wanted more fireworks out of this election.

 

Further digression/post-script: Love him or hate him, it was pretty funny to watch Bubba piss the ever-loving-hell out of Republicans. Damn, they hated him more than Demo's hate Bush. Someone said it above or in another line of postings - watch for Democrats trying to pin a Whitewater on Bush. The Valerie Pflame incident seems to have potential legs - will Rove do a perp walk?

[scott_harpell]

The other problem I have with the taking down of the 10 commandments is they have been replaced by other religions' litterature. In my last year of public school, teachers were not allowed to put up christmas posters but were allowed to observe hollidays like rammadan and even chaunikah. You tell me if that isn't a reason that would make Christians want to fight for their rights and concede nothing.

[specialed]

Very good point.

[selkirk]

Granted that's bullshit. Celebrate none or celebrate all, celebrating half is .

[j_b]

Dean would have likely just thrown back an emphatic rebuttal that was pretty concise and - brutally honest. Almost like the former governor of Colorado in the 80's - forget his name. Mind you Rove would have switched tactics and called him "unstable" like they did with McCain - but the fight would have made for a good campaign season.

 

they were afraid of dean which is why the "librul media" canned him at the first opportunity he gave them. dems bought the propaganda that he was unelectable and went for the guy with proper demeanor who appeared electable. but dean would have stayed on message with the state of the economy and tax cuts for the upper 1% and he would have gone all out on the iraq issue. he would have energized the dem base like nobody else and way earlier than kerry who basically pandered to the center right until september.

[chucK]

Dean is a much better choice in hindsight, than he was at the time. I doubt many here believed that Iraq was going to turn into the current quagmire.

 

Dean was a one-issue guy basically. If Iraq would have stabilized he would have lost in a landslide. Hell, he probably would have lost in a landslide anyway.

[minx]

i am a republican...or at least i'm no different than most republican voters. the poles seem to indicate that despite the fact many of them thought Kerry would do a better job on the economy they felt bush was stronger on morals. they voted for bush.

 

today i thought about why i voted for kerry. he was the lesser of 2 evils. he definitely didn't inspire me to vote FOR him. i voted AGAINST bush. why? because of my moral positions. i didn't vote b/c of either candidates economic policy, health care plan or the war in Iraq. i voted b/c i am anti-big brother can violate my civil rights, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-anybody who wants to can get married, anti-10 commandments in the classroom, etc.

 

i voted my morals not policy. this sucks. politicians should be in place to handle matters of domestic and foreign policy concerning economics and other practical matters such as transportation, health care and education. they should not be elected based on how they think i should live my life. the fact that i based my vote almost soley on that depresses me.

[JayB]

I think that if the Dems had been able to construct a Franken-Candidate with Lieberman's convictions and Edward's charisma and rhetorical skills the election would have gone their way.

[HappyCamper]

Perhaps wrong thread for this but....

 

A thig that is perplexing about Kerry - the man was a former prosecutor. Albeit not a career prosecutor, but even the ones fresh in the hunt develop a killer fight instinct right away. Any decent prosecutor with some experience becomes pretty good at pitching their argument to the people (aka the jury) and will not yield a point without a fight. Tenacious bastards the lot of them. I'd have figured that if a former proscutor was in the debate you'd be wiping the blood spatters off of Bob Schieffer. Guess not.

 

Dunno, maybe he wasn't a good prosecutor or maybe years in the senate softened his edge. I'd have voted for McCoy the DA from "Law and Order's". Sure, it's really the actor, then again look at Reagan, Fred Thompson and the Terminator. Sam Waterston in '08!

[j_b]

who cares if such a franken-candidate could have won if for all intent and purpose it is to apply conservative policy. the goal is not to create unanimity but reasonable policy. it'd certainly would have been good for 3rd party alternatives.

 

so minx, assume for a moment that both candidates fit your morals equally but otherwise are similar to bush and kerry as far as policy is concerned. who would you have picked?

 

chuck: for once we disagree on everything you just said.

[selkirk]

May have been a prosecutor, but he wasn't someone people could identify with. As a prosecutor he has to convince people of his points, not lead them. Looking at the polls, people thought Kerry would do a better job on a most of the domestic issues and some of the foreign policy ones, and voted for Bush base on morality and because they could identify.