Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[MODU]

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.

Just curious, how have Republicans listened to people in the center?

Less taxes, more security, trying to make progress towards resolving Social Security, large funding for alternative energy, etc.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[A18]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[A18]

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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥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!

[A18]

I was citing a study, based on the number of positive and negative stories for Bush and Kerry.

[Virginian87]

Screw FoxNews and CNN.  I watch NBC Nightly News for news or MSNBC for talk.  I have neither seen nor detected bias on either.  I understand the Tiffany network had the Bush services problem with Dan Rather, but I don't really watch CBS anyway.

[TheresNoMoney]

Less taxes

Scraps for the middle class and huge cuts for the wealthy, leading to largest deficit in history and financial crisis in state governments (where many states have had to increase taxes as a result)

more security

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

trying to make progress towards resolving Social Security

I think you mean dismantle Social Security.

large funding for alternative energy, etc.

What types of alternative energy? The energy bill was mainly a way to give away billions to large oil companies and did nothing to help decrease demand.

[○∙◄☻¥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

[Virginian87]

[

trying to make progress towards resolving Social Security

I think you mean dismantle Social Security.

large funding for alternative energy, etc.

What types of alternative energy? The energy bill was mainly a way to give away billions to large oil companies and did nothing to help decrease demand.

These are both true.  Their "privatization" and "personal accounts" will only dismantle Social Security.  Republicans are not offering any real solutions to the energy crisis because ExxonMobil and Chevron's stocks are at record levels.  President Bush may mention some forms of energy conservation and alternative energy, but he's not showing any initiative.  The Department of the Interior with Gale Norton is a joke when it comes to environmental issues.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Virginian87]

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

[A18]

The deficit as a percentage of GDP was higher as recently as 1992. Cut out the extra 1% for new defense spending, and it's actually about the same as it was 10 years ago. The more relevant number is national debt as a percentage of GDP, which our current deficits do not substantially affect.

All the Bush tax cut says is that the federal government will never collect more than a third of your income. The earned income tax credit was increased, which arguably amounts to welfare, and everyone got some rate reduction.

Lower federal revenues caused crisis in state budgeting? What, are you saying they didn't get enough pork? Surely the increase in education spending and those billions of dollars of transportation pork were enough.

Anyway, if they aren't getting enough federal handouts, all they have to do is raise taxes. They can easily just tax away exactly what the fed no longer is.

Since 57% of young people support personal accounts, here's hoping Social Security is 'dismantled' in the near future.

I actually agree that the energy bill was pretty worthless.

[Virginian87]

Since 57% of young people support personal accounts, here's hoping Social Security is 'dismantled' in the near future.

Where did you get those statistics?

I actually agree that the energy bill was pretty worthless.

I'm glad you do.

[A18]

Edit: you might have to be logged in to see the image. Here are the raw Gallup numbers.

Support for Private Investment Accounts by Age
18-29:  57% Favor, 39% Oppose
30-49:  51% Favor, 46% Oppose
50-64:  35% Favor, 63% Oppose
65+:     29% Favor, 67% Oppose

[MODU]

Less taxes

Scraps for the middle class and huge cuts for the wealthy, leading to largest deficit in history and financial crisis in state governments (where many states have had to increase taxes as a result)

Not tax cuts, I said less taxes.  I pay less in local and federal taxes, though I pay more in state taxes, and that's only after Warner hijacked the assembly and made the pass a tax increase that wasn't necessary.[qute]

more security

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it is debatable, but that doesn't mean I don't feel more safe now that we have stepped up security.  A perfect example is a guy being arrested in Oklahoma this week for trying to carry an IED aboard a plane.  Would that have been caught without the increase in national security?  Possibly, but I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you mean dismantle Social Security.
[/quote]

No, I mean resolving it.  Instead of trying to push it off or put a bandaid on it, we are now finally taking a serious look at it's purpose and how to make it worth while.  Personally, I won't need Social Security, so I wish they would put in a provision to allow people to opt out.  Also, the private accounts were voluntary, and the proposal limited it to 3% (something that is often forgotten in the debate), so it won't have dismantled the program.  What is required is changes to make it a need-based system, rather than an automatic entitlement plan.  Just like paying for insurance, you don't get money back if you don't have an accident.  The same should be with Social Security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What types of alternative energy? The energy bill was mainly a way to give away billions to large oil companies and did nothing to help decrease demand.
[/quote]

Yet, it also set aside funding for continuing research into alternative energy.  Also, the $388Bill funding bill for hydrogen research was signed years ago which was separate from the recent energy bill.

[Giant Saguaro]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

[Virginian87]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to tell these liberals like jfern who won't listen to reason.

[KEmperor]

This thread should be moved to the Presidental Election 2004 board, and sticked as an example.

[Giant Saguaro]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to tell these liberals like jfern who won't listen to reason.

When I run across the really hardcore types I've gotten to where I *usually* just explain my position and then keep going. They're up to their eyeballs in cultural theory and other similar stuff, so to reason with them is like arguing with Ted Kennedy from your living room while he's on C-Span giving a speech.

[J. J.]

Screw FoxNews and CNN.  I watch NBC Nightly News for news or MSNBC for talk.  I have neither seen nor detected bias on either.  I understand the Tiffany network had the Bush services problem with Dan Rather, but I don't really watch CBS anyway.

I disagree about MSNBC.  Mathews was a staffer for Tip O'Niell; Scarborough was a Republican Congressman and part of the Gingrich Revolution.  The thing is, the don't pretent to be unbiased.  They say, basically, "I'm coming at this story from my ideological stance."  Ron Reagan, Jr., is a flaming liberal.  Okay, that's their ideology and they are upfront about it.  I like that!!!  I know their biases.

I've though, briefly, about not using a colored avatar.  If you take a look at my comments on Schiavo, the Washington Governor's Race, or the Mayor of Philiadelphia, you could not assume that I am a Republican.  However, in real life, I tend to vote Republican and contribute to GOP candidates.  I don't see that it would be right to try to hide that.

I see both Fox and CBS as trying to claim they are unbiased when they are.

[Virginian87]

Screw FoxNews and CNN.  I watch NBC Nightly News for news or MSNBC for talk.  I have neither seen nor detected bias on either.  I understand the Tiffany network had the Bush services problem with Dan Rather, but I don't really watch CBS anyway.

I disagree about MSNBC.  Mathews was a staffer for Tip O'Niell; Scarborough was a Republican Congressman and part of the Gingrich Revolution.  The thing is, the don't pretent to be unbiased.  They say, basically, "I'm coming at this story from my ideological stance."  Ron Reagan, Jr., is a flaming liberal.  Okay, that's their ideology and they are upfront about it.  I like that!!!  I know their biases.

I've though, briefly, about not using a colored avatar.  If you take a look at my comments on Schiavo, the Washington Governor's Race, or the Mayor of Philiadelphia, you could not assume that I am a Republican.  However, in real life, I tend to vote Republican and contribute to GOP candidates.  I don't see that it would be right to try to hide that.

I see both Fox and CBS as trying to claim they are unbiased when they are.

Good for you.  It's good to see a Republican who can admit what is obvious.  We need more people like you on the forum.  You should read the heated argument over the past five pages when it was jfern vs. Al and me.

[J. J.]

Good for you.  It's good to see a Republican who can admit what is obvious.  We need more people like you on the forum.  You should read the heated argument over the past five pages when it was jfern vs. Al and me.

Don't tell that to Jfern. :-) I have read the arguments.


I've gone to reasonably great lengths to note some of the liberal Demorcats on this site that respect.  I respect well thought out, factual arguments and the people who make them.

[○∙◄☻¥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.