Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

Once again you're making exactly the same mistake the Anti War Left made over Vietnam

I don't listen to pro-war hacks like you.

Al is not a partisan hack.  He's making a valid point.  We nominated such a candidate in 1972.  Look how well that turned out.

Nixon would have lost if voters had known about his Watergate involvement or having South Korea walk out of the peace talks.

It took much longer for the public to turn against the Vietnam war. The current war might already be more unpopular. Anyways, it's very relevant that Al seems to support this war, so of course he's not going to agree with the 61% of Americans who disapprove of Bush on the war. Al wants that 61% to be ignored. Hopefully the Democratic party tells people like Al to go  themselves.

Al and I are not saying that 61% of those people be ignored.  You need to understand how the right-wing propaganda machine works.  You come out as militantly anti-war and dovish, they will call you "un-American"  and "anti-military."  In the '70s people began to equate the dove perspective with the hippy counterculture, and began to liken the elections to a battle between hippies and the establishment.  I was against the war, but if we're there now I damn will support the troops. 

I don't want Democrats to be considered wimps anymore.  Frankly, I'm tired of it.  If we move towards the center on some social issues and stop trying to relive the Great Scoiety than maybe we can start winning again.  But we need some people in the party to be more flexible and open to change than to be so damn stubborn.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to tell us to fuc& ourselves, please do so instead of leaving a space between the words.

Let's see, you can either do nothing and lose elections because you stand for absolutely nothing, or you can things, and have the right-wingers attack you. You seem to be advocating the first. I advocate the second.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm NOT saying we should stand for nothing.  We need to DEVELOP new alternatives to Republican ideas.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND?  That's what this is all about.  We've lost touch with the electorate because they THINK we stand for nothing.  That's the problem.  A moderate candidate CAN stand for something.  We just need to offer up new alternatives.

I don't know how to drag you out of this dream-world.  We wouldn't have this problem losing elections if the party stopped trying to be more liberal socially.  America is not as liberal as the rest of the world.  The majority of Americans are not as liberal as Californians.  You MUST understand this if you want to win.

What do you mean by "moderate"? The "moderates" gave us this war. Time for the liberals to tap into the 61% who disapproves of Bush on the war. I hope "moderate" doesn't mean pro-war? What exactly do you mean by "moderate"? If you look at Kerry, you'll realize he's fairly moderate.

I understand that America isn't all that liberal, but if we move to the right, that's certainly not going to help things. We have to build up the left and not demonize them. The Republicans were in much worse shape than us in 1964, and now they have right-wingers controling the country. Ignoring the the liberals, and running bland pro-war "moderates" will only lead to the untimely death of the Democratic party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're blind if you don't see how their coverage is biased in favor of Republicans. Why does exactly how their poll ended up matter?

If you are comparing their coverage agains the coverage of the other news organizations, yes, it was very biased.  However, if you will note, the other news organizations (outside of C-Span) were heavily biased towards the Democrats.  It's all relative.  Looking at Fox's coverage, they were the closest to being "fair" to both sides.

Not the stupid liberal media myth. Why didn't the media point out that the Unfit for Command people were a bunch of scumbag liars, and instead reported non-stop on their allegations,  if the media was so damn liberal? Huh? You lose.

That's funny.  Both Fox and CNN both covered the inconsistancies in their statements.  hehehe . . . care to try again?

They certainly didn't spend much of the time covering them. If the media wasn't conservatively biased, they would have ignored these clowns or just spent a little time pointing out how they had no evidence. Kerry finally released all of his military records (he released far more during the 2004 campaign than Bush), and we see conclusively that they were wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

The people who own the media don't. And TV tends to be far more conservative than some small town indie newspapers. If you weight everyone in the media business by their influence, you'll see that it's still conservatively biased. Your 3 out of 4 figure sounds a bit out of date or wrong, anyways.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

These moderates often chase a "center" that is constantly moving rightwards (as the Republicans move right). This has given them the perception as being spineless, unprincipled politicians. The better thing to do would be to hold their ground and show more backbone. You don't see Republicans ever chasing the center, they consistently move further rightward. Moving rightward with them is not a good idea.

True, but there is a real center which gets ignored by the DNC.  It's either liberal or populist, and not "center."  And those of us in the center get turned off by partisan rhetoric and tune out of the political process.  If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

Umm, Kerry spent a lot of the 2004 campaign reaching out to moderates, whom he did quite well with. The only problem is that there's more conservatives than liberals, thanks to the ineptitude of the Democratic party in fighting the idelogical wars. Bush really just concentrated on turning out the religious right.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We shouldn't ignore the South at all, we just shouldn't pander to them if it means going against our core values.

Well if the national Democrats had been bothered to campaign on the Democratic party's core values (as opposed to affluent liberal leftists core values...) it wouldn't be in the trouble it's in down in Dixie.

The problem is that the core values of the Democratic Party right now ARE the affuent liberal leftists'.

What? The Democratic party has done plenty of non-liberal things lately. Quite a lot of Democrats voted for the war and the bankruptcy bill.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alright, again. http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/bushversuskerry.asp

Are you trying to argue that the fact that most of the media said that Kerry won the first debate is proof that they're liberally biased. Bush got housed in that debate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You want a topic to argue over bias?  How about talk radio?

Talk radio doesn't pretend to be unbiased. The objection is not to liberal networks, but rather the concealment.

Free speech must not be infringed, either way.

FoxNews pretends to be unbiased. You are probably one of the few who agrees with that unpopular FCC ruling allowing increased media consolation. Even the NRA opposes it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alright, again. http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/bushversuskerry.asp

Are you trying to argue that the fact that most of the media said that Kerry won the first debate is proof that they're liberally biased. Bush got housed in that debate.

That's how they handled all the debates.

Why don't you look at how they handled the debates in 2000, and get back to me. How many articles were there on Gore's sigh?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FoxNews pretends to be unbiased.

And as I posted earlier, they are slightly left leaning, so yes, I suppose it's a bit dishonest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHhAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man, the A18 version of reality is really something!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

more security

Debateable. The war has helped to recruit thousands of new terrorists.

57% say it's made us less safe
34% say it's made us more safe
6% say no difference
3% no opinion

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yay!  Al's back!  Maybe he can talk some sense into jfern and his idea of "bland moderates."

You probably think an exciting "moderate" is someone who builds a $231 million bridge to nowhere.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't listen to pro-war hacks like you.

So instead of responding to my point ya just resort to mindless (and, as I've pointed out to you sooooooo many times, innacurate) insults. And you wonder why the national Democrats being associated with people like you is an electoral albatross?

I feel like explaining my point anyway; in the late '60's and early '70's most Americans wanted to end the war in Vietnam and strongly disapproved of the way it was handled. The Anti War Left (who had seized control of the national Democrats) decided that this meant they shared there position on Vietnam... something that could not have been more wrong. The Anti War Left was opposed to the war because they viewed it as immoral, as imperialist etc. They either thought that Ho Chi Minh was a hero or had a neutral opinion of him. They were almost all from comfortable backgrounds, when to college etc. As a result of that very few were sent to Vietnam.
The American mainstream was upset about the causalties (which disproportionatly fell upon blacks and the white working class) and the mishandling of the war. They did not like their dead relatives being described as tools of imperialism or whatever by some counter-culture (and boy did/does the mainstream hate that) hippies who had avoided the same war that there relatives had died in purely due to an accident of birth.
The Anti War Left was able to take control of the national Democrats in 1972 and picked McGovern as Presidential candidate. He articulated the moral outrage of the Anti War left about Vietnam. He got crushed like a bug especially in working class areas.

1972 wasn't so bad, the Senate was 56-42 Democratic, and the House 242-192 Democratic afterwards. Nixon wasn't the one who had started the war, and he was pretty liberal on economic issues. Comparing Nixon to Bush is an insult to Nixon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Not make silly arguments. Do you support the war? Because the others do, and don't seem to realize that most Americans don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was making fun of the fact that you support a bridge that costs $5 million per person, while telling me I'm too liberal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

Once again you're making exactly the same mistake the Anti War Left made over Vietnam

Never a truer statement said, Al

Dave

You guys are only offering this "advice" people you're pro-war. Time for the Democratic party to ignore you warmongers and listen to the 61% who disapprove of Bush on the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You guys are only offering this "advice" people you're pro-war. Time for the Democratic party to ignore you warmongers and listen to the 61% who disapprove of Bush on the war.

Did you actually read the little piece on the Left's mistakes over Vietnam or not?

We understand the importance of framing now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern,

Yes, I support the war. Saddam had to go. I look at it this way. We either remove him or Islamic radicals would remove him (it was only a matter of time).

So if the terrorists are threatening to remove Bush, we should remove Bush?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And after he used them, we kept selling him more weapons. Rumsfeld went over to shake his hand. The question was not whether Saddam ever had WMD (which he bought from us, BTW), but whether he had them in 2003. He had admitted to having them in the past.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Al Qaeda is going to invade Iraq just so that they can steal their lack of WMD? Unless you bought into Bush's propaganda efforts it was clear that there was no evidence that they still existed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you hear about the Baghdad mayor being taken out? That doesn't seem like that much of a democracy.

Anyways, you know damn well that we didn't invade Iraq just to make it be a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't 1972 for a number of reasons. Two important ones are that Nixon didn't start the war, and he was far more liberal than Bush on economic issues. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush isn't running for re-election. Nixon didn't start the war, but Eisenhower did.

Yeah, well, in this case the Republican party started the war. That wasn't true for Nam.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, well it's one that we shouldn't comprimise on. I figure the two big issues are going to be Iraq and Republican curroption. Maybe something like like Universal Healthcare, or Republican failure on the war on terror.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doing things you don't like does not qualify as corruption.

Americans support staying in Iraq until the job is done. Most also approve of the intitial decision to go to war.

Eisenhower was a Republican, and the Vietnam War can be easily traced back to him.

Umm, there's plenty of Republican curroption if you would just open your eyes. Of course, you think that inside trading should be legal, so maybe you just don't care about curroption.

As for your claim that the war started under Eisenhower, if that's true, we'd better watch out since we've had far more deaths in these 29 months than under the 1st 29 months of the Vietnam War. What were there, 2 American deaths during that period?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm, there's plenty of Republican curroption if you would just open your eyes. Of course, you think that inside trading should be legal, so maybe you just don't care about curroption.

Please produce quotes of me saying insider trading should be legal.

My bad, it was Richius.

Anyways, what do you think of all of the Halliburton scandals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.
[/quote

Are you saying that all of this huge cultural gap you're talking about comes down to minor abortion restrictions? Partial birth abortion is illegal, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger. What more do you need?

Or, if you're saying it's gay marriage, remember that both Kerry and Bush were against gay marriage, but pro-civil union. The only difference was that Kerry opposed Bush's Massachusetts marriage license revoking Constitutional Amendemnt. I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.