A Message to All Republicans Here...yes, I'm back for the next 24 hours only...

[dazzleman]

MarkDel - Stay around a while.  I always enjoyed reading your posts.

[Akno21]

The idea that we should give up our freedom in order to win the war on terror, whose goal is to spread freedom, is prepostorous. Now, if you talk to any anti-war person, they will likely tell you they support the troops. It is possible to be against the war, but not against the brave men and women fighting it.

I will criticize Bush's decisions, and if Kerry had been elected, I would hope Republicans would criticize him as well. Stifling opposition does not help matters. We cannot simultaniosuly say we stand for freedom, yet restrict the freedoms we hold so dear.

[J. J.]

Wow, throwing f**k you around is so mature...

Really, this is such immature behavior. I can't believe people take their relationships with others so seriously on a message board.

Sheliak, you must excuse DefectiveInfest, as he's entered the Bizarro Universe.

[freedomburns]

Wow, throwing f**k you around is so mature...

Really, this is such immature behavior. I can't believe people take their relationships with others so seriously on a message board.

Sheliak, you must excuse DefectiveInfest, as he's entered the Bizarro Universe.

I think you missed the point JJ.  She is complaining about seeing such immature behavior on the message boards.  She's complaining about the kind of stuff that you regularly engage in and just hypocritically did again right here.

[J. J.]

Wow, throwing f**k you around is so mature...

Really, this is such immature behavior. I can't believe people take their relationships with others so seriously on a message board.

Sheliak, you must excuse DefectiveInfest, as he's entered the Bizarro Universe.

I think you missed the point JJ.  She is complaining about seeing such immature behavior on the message boards.  She's complaining about the kind of stuff that you regularly engage in and just hypocritically did again right here.

I respond, Freedumbburnout, to about several differnt things this way.  Bad language, incorrect facts, stereotyping, excessive posting of new topics that is designed to provoke members, of either side, and not provoke debate.  In this particular case, I respond to bad language.

Keep it clean, keep it honest, and as I've pointed out, you will be treated with respect by me.  If not, don't mess with North Phila.

[Ben.]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

[MarkDel]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

Ben,

Well said. Believe me, I was NEVER referring to you when I talked about some posters on this forum. In fact, I have often mentioned you as an example of the way decent people on both sides can have legitmate disagreements and still treat each other with respect. It used to be that with MOST people in this nation, but the Left has gone haywire the past several years, and it's not just a few crazies, but a strong, vocal minority of the Party who has increased their influence in a big way the past four years.

[angus]

hey mark, what do ya call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?

[Ben.]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

Ben,

Well said. Believe me, I was NEVER referring to you when I talked about some posters on this forum. In fact, I have often mentioned you as an example of the way decent people on both sides can have legitmate disagreements and still treat each other with respect. It used to be that with MOST people in this nation, but the Left has gone haywire the past several years, and it's not just a few crazies, but a strong, vocal minority of the Party who has increased their influence in a big way the past four years.

Thanks Mark, then again what would you expect from a Blue-Dawg, Kerry losing didn't hurt as much as John, Carson and Knowles losing, for me at least.

[Nym90]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

Ben,

Well said. Believe me, I was NEVER referring to you when I talked about some posters on this forum. In fact, I have often mentioned you as an example of the way decent people on both sides can have legitmate disagreements and still treat each other with respect. It used to be that with MOST people in this nation, but the Left has gone haywire the past several years, and it's not just a few crazies, but a strong, vocal minority of the Party who has increased their influence in a big way the past four years.

Thanks Mark, then again what would you expect from a Blue-Dawg, Kerry losing didn't hurt as much as John, Carson and Knowles losing, for me at least.

Good point. Even conservative Democrats lost in a lot of these Senate races. Our Senate losses, at least, can't be blamed on being too liberal.

[Ben.]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

Ben,

Well said. Believe me, I was NEVER referring to you when I talked about some posters on this forum. In fact, I have often mentioned you as an example of the way decent people on both sides can have legitmate disagreements and still treat each other with respect. It used to be that with MOST people in this nation, but the Left has gone haywire the past several years, and it's not just a few crazies, but a strong, vocal minority of the Party who has increased their influence in a big way the past four years.

Thanks Mark, then again what would you expect from a Blue-Dawg, Kerry losing didn't hurt as much as John, Carson and Knowles losing, for me at least.

Good point. Even conservative Democrats lost in a lot of these Senate races. Our Senate losses, at least, can't be blamed on being too liberal.

I don’t think its that simple I think its because conservative candidates where hurt by association with a party that many moderate and conservative voters in the south saw as too liberal and as a result they suffered just as candidates like Coburn and Murkowski where greatly helped by being associated with a conservative candidate in Bush.

So the Democrats being perceived as “too liberal” even when they are not (in the case of the likes of John, Carson and Knowles) is still a problem. In Short in the South many conservative democratic candidates lost because they where associated with a party that nationally was “too liberal” and was headed by a liberal ticket.           

[MarkDel]

Ben,

Of course you are 100% correct. Moderate to conservative Democrats (Carson, John, etc...) in the South have to carry the national Democratic Party around their necks in any race. One of the big rallying cries of Republicans in the South has been to tell Conservative Democrats that if they vote in a Democratic rep, no matter how Conservative they might be, that rep's first vote will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or Senator Tom Daschle. This is a VERY effective and impactful statement.

On an interesting note, I have been fascinated by the last few responses from you and Nym. Here we have two Democrats who are really not all that far apart on substantive policy beliefs, yet you reach two incredibly diverse conclusions about what actually took place in the South.

In my opinion, you have a classic example of the difference between a legitimate centrist Democrat (you) who is open to positive AND negative views of your party, and Nym, who despite his seemingly moderate views would march off the cliff, drinking his cool-aid, with the Left Wing of your party.

[Nym90]

Ben,

Of course you are 100% correct. Moderate to conservative Democrats (Carson, John, etc...) in the South have to carry the national Democratic Party around their necks in any race. One of the big rallying cries of Republicans in the South has been to tell Conservative Democrats that if they vote in a Democratic rep, no matter how Conservative they might be, that rep's first vote will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or Senator Tom Daschle. This is a VERY effective and impactful statement.

On an interesting note, I have been fascinated by the last few responses from you and Nym. Here we have two Democrats who are really not all that far apart on substantive policy beliefs, yet you reach two incredibly diverse conclusions about what actually took place in the South.

In my opinion, you have a classic example of the difference between a legitimate centrist Democrat (you) who is open to positive AND negative views of your party, and Nym, who despite his seemingly moderate views would march off the cliff, drinking his cool-aid, with the Left Wing of your party.

Actually, I have posted in other areas that the Dems need to moderate their cultural and foreign policy stances. So no, I don't fit your characterization at all.

I was merely pointing out that in Senate races, the problem wasn't that Democratic candidates for the Senate were too liberal. Is that a true statement or a false statement? If Chris John is too liberal for Louisiana, and Brad Carson is too liberal for Oklahoma, then we really are in more trouble in this nation than I thought....

I was implying that I agree with Ben, and that the problem wasn't candidates for the Senate that were too liberal, but rather endemic of a national problem of perception. I guess I should have been more clear about that.

I will agree that Kerry was too liberal (although the degree to which he was was distorted, but in politics, perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter how liberal he actually was, only how he was perceived), though he still came pretty close to winning despite having zero charisma, so I don't believe that a liberal can't win. However, it is certainly more difficult for a liberal to win, and easier for a moderate.

Even more important than ideology, however, was the perception that Kerry doesn't stand for anything. If he had appeared more principled, he would have probably won, despite his views. I think that a principled liberal could be respected for it and still get votes from moderates, especially if they were charismatic enough to explain what liberalism REALLY means.

A principled moderate is even better, however. Someone who was moderate and had strong principles and was charismatic would be the perfect candidate.

So the bottom line is that ideology matters, but it isn't everything. It's only one of several factors that swing voters look at when deciding how to vote.

The same goes for the GOP, too. A moderate is a better choice than a conservative, all else being equal, but a principled conservative can get votes from moderates who respect their honesty and the fact that they have strong principles, even if they disagree with many of them.

[M]

In fact, I wonder if the evolution of a true GOP Solid South would actually bring a degree of moderation. If, for example, in an Oklahoma where only the GOP primary mattered and the Dems were virtually nonexistant, a Carson would not smash a Coburn; and so forth.

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

Well, your last post here was extremely sensible. However, I am mainly referring to your slavish defense of the extreme Left Wing of your party in past commentary.

Until you recognize that people like Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, and to a lesser extent Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi, are a CANCER in your party then you will never learn the lessons you need to learn in order to bring your party back to the glory days of FDR and JFK.

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

[MarkDel]

hey mark, what do ya call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?

Angus,

The answer to that question is "a good start" or "I hope it's a LARGE bus"

[Gabu]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

[The Duke]

Ben,

Of course you are 100% correct. Moderate to conservative Democrats (Carson, John, etc...) in the South have to carry the national Democratic Party around their necks in any race. One of the big rallying cries of Republicans in the South has been to tell Conservative Democrats that if they vote in a Democratic rep, no matter how Conservative they might be, that rep's first vote will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or Senator Tom Daschle. This is a VERY effective and impactful statement.

On an interesting note, I have been fascinated by the last few responses from you and Nym. Here we have two Democrats who are really not all that far apart on substantive policy beliefs, yet you reach two incredibly diverse conclusions about what actually took place in the South.

In my opinion, you have a classic example of the difference between a legitimate centrist Democrat (you) who is open to positive AND negative views of your party, and Nym, who despite his seemingly moderate views would march off the cliff, drinking his cool-aid, with the Left Wing of your party.

I know what you mean.  I was almost rooting for Carson in Oklahoma, but in the end it was just an almost, since it would have meant Majority Leader Daschle Reid.

[Nym90]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

[The Duke]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

You've aready started to lose your base.  Hispanics, blacks, union members, jews, women and the elderly.  What do they have in common?  All groups that Bush improved with in 2004 over 2000.  You are hemmoraging your base because your party advocates cultural values that these people find abhorrent.  Moving rightward on social issues may irritate the educated professionals who are the Democrats fastest growing contingent, but it will save you the groups that still make up the bulk of your voters.  It's only the white, educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, scientists, academicians, teachers, and highly educated government employees) who agree with the far left on social issues.

I've got a story for you guys.  A female friend of mine (no, not like that) was cleaning up her apartment last night and I was over there and she has some flower vases sitting around taking up space.  She doesn't have much free time, but she'd like some flowers for the vase.  So today, I got buy some nice flowers for her apartment and bring them over.  Her and her roomate are there, and one of the friends, a loony lefter, who lives in their apartment complex.

The loony lefter asks me if I'm happy about the election, knowing I'm a Republican.  I say, "Of course".  She snidely asks if I think she should have her right to choose taken away.  I snippily, and quickly respond, "Yes."  She then asks my friend (who I just got flowers for without being prompted by anyone to do that) "How she can be friends with someone who doesn't support women's rights."  Loony asks if I'm unhappy about prop 71 passing (the stem cell bond in CA).  I say I'm happy about it, because I support stem cell research.  She points out, in a condescending fashion, that she wouldn't think I'd support stem cell research because it isn't "Christ like."  She has no idea what my religious beliefs are, and dutifully pointed out that I am not a Christian nor am I justifying my abortion or stem cell views on any kind of religious basis.  I oppose abortion because it devalues the individual and support stem cell research because none of the embryos involved will ever be allowed to fully develop anyway, and opposiing this research is akin to oposing organ donor programs.

Loony seemed not to care that my old boss, Congressman Duke Cunningham, is a very pro-life Republican and is one of the best advocates for stem cell research in the House, nor does she care that Orrin Hatch, another pro-life Republican is one of the Senate's top spokespeople for this research.  Nor does she care that George Bush, not Bill Clinton, was the first President to approve federal funds for stem cell research.

She claims that there is no secular justification for being pro-life, and that it is all religious extremism, even though my very existence proves her point wrong.  She then leaves the room.

So, in short.  Don't be friends with pro-lifers because they hate women, the only justification for being pro-life is radical Christian fundamentalism (any orthodox Jews in the house?), and supporting stem cell research is incompatible with being pro-life (someone should tell the President that, I guess).

Do any Democrats wonder why we shallacked you on Tuesday?  The level of vitriol and condescention rubs people in middle America wrong.  Most Democrats detest middle America.  Well, on Tuesday, middle America let the Democrats know the feeling is mutual.

[Gabu]

Do any Democrats wonder why we shallacked you on Tuesday?  The level of vitriol and condescention rubs people in middle America wrong.  Most Democrats detest middle America.  Well, on Tuesday, middle America let the Democrats know the feeling is mutual.

I don't hate middle America.  I don't know of anyone who does.  I'm a middle class citizen myself.  Maybe some Democrats hate middle America; I don't know.  I'm not them and I can't force them to behave otherwise.  Their opinions are their own.  They certainly don't speak for me, but I don't want to censor them or something just to get ahead.

I try my best to ease tensions, act humbly, talk rationally, and foster unity among people; I don't know what more I could do.

[Nym90]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

You've aready started to lose your base.  Hispanics, blacks, union members, jews, women and the elderly.  What do they have in common?  All groups that Bush improved with in 2004 over 2000.  You are hemmoraging your base because your party advocates cultural values that these people find abhorrent.  Moving rightward on social issues may irritate the educated professionals who are the Democrats fastest growing contingent, but it will save you the groups that still make up the bulk of your voters.  It's only the white, educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, scientists, academicians, teachers, and highly educated government employees) who agree with the far left on social issues.

I've got a story for you guys.  A female friend of mine (no, not like that) was cleaning up her apartment last night and I was over there and she has some flower vases sitting around taking up space.  She doesn't have much free time, but she'd like some flowers for the vase.  So today, I got buy some nice flowers for her apartment and bring them over.  Her and her roomate are there, and one of the friends, a loony lefter, who lives in their apartment complex.

The loony lefter asks me if I'm happy about the election, knowing I'm a Republican.  I say, "Of course".  She snidely asks if I think she should have her right to choose taken away.  I snippily, and quickly respond, "Yes."  She then asks my friend (who I just got flowers for without being prompted by anyone to do that) "How she can be friends with someone who doesn't support women's rights."  Loony asks if I'm unhappy about prop 71 passing (the stem cell bond in CA).  I say I'm happy about it, because I support stem cell research.  She points out, in a condescending fashion, that she wouldn't think I'd support stem cell research because it isn't "Christ like."  She has no idea what my religious beliefs are, and dutifully pointed out that I am not a Christian nor am I justifying my abortion or stem cell views on any kind of religious basis.  I oppose abortion because it devalues the individual and support stem cell research because none of the embryos involved will ever be allowed to fully develop anyway, and opposiing this research is akin to oposing organ donor programs.

Loony seemed not to care that my old boss, Congressman Duke Cunningham, is a very pro-life Republican and is one of the best advocates for stem cell research in the House, nor does she care that Orrin Hatch, another pro-life Republican is one of the Senate's top spokespeople for this research.  Nor does she care that George Bush, not Bill Clinton, was the first President to approve federal funds for stem cell research.

She claims that there is no secular justification for being pro-life, and that it is all religious extremism, even though my very existence proves her point wrong.  She then leaves the room.

So, in short.  Don't be friends with pro-lifers because they hate women, the only justification for being pro-life is radical Christian fundamentalism (any orthodox Jews in the house?), and supporting stem cell research is incompatible with being pro-life (someone should tell the President that, I guess).

Do any Democrats wonder why we shallacked you on Tuesday?  The level of vitriol and condescention rubs people in middle America wrong.  Most Democrats detest middle America.  Well, on Tuesday, middle America let the Democrats know the feeling is mutual.

I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience. I agree that we need to moderate those stances, and I helped explain why.

You are completely wrong that most Democrats detest middle America, however. Heck, I am pretty much the personification of middle America myself in a lot of ways in my personal life, and I live in middle America. That's totally false; people like myself, Gabu, Beet, Lunar, Ben and the like are the true heart and soul of the party, but we've allowed ourselves to be defined by our extremists. That girl does not in any way, shape, or form represent the REAL Democratic party. But the misperception is as much our fault as it is anyone else's. The buck stops here; I'm not going to go blaming everyone else for our party's inaccurate view in the eyes of middle America. I believe that the morally right thing to do is to take responsibility for the misperception and do all that we can do to defeat it without caving on our core principles, which we most certainly do not have to do because our core values are American values.

The Republicans had the same problem in the early 90's. The GOP was in more desperate straits after the 1992 election than the Dems are now; their Presidential candidate got 37% of the vote and 168 EVs, and they held only 43 seats in the Senate and 176 in the House. They managed to turn around the misperception that they were suffering from; if we can do the same, we can make a comeback too.

[Ben.]

I was implying that I agree with Ben, and that the problem wasn't candidates for the Senate that were too liberal, but rather endemic of a national problem of perception. I guess I should have been more clear about that.

I will agree that Kerry was too liberal (although the degree to which he was was distorted, but in politics, perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter how liberal he actually was, only how he was perceived), though he still came pretty close to winning despite having zero charisma, so I don't believe that a liberal can't win. However, it is certainly more difficult for a liberal to win, and easier for a moderate.

Agreed.

[The Duke]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

I'm from middle America, and I sure as hell don't. The people you hear me trashing most are upper class yuppies who live in the cancerous pit that is suburbia.