Will there ever be a Democratic landslide again?

[Michael Z]

Opebo - When did you switch to the Democrats? Sorry, I've been away for a while.

A few weeks ago.  I've always been a Republican voter based on a lesser of two evils analysis, and have always had grave reservations about the party's social positions.  I had an epiphany during the anti-gay constitutional referendum amendment here in Missouri, in addition to some other issues.  I realized that the GOP is controlled by the Christian right, and my freedoms are greatly threatened by their agenda.  I wouldn't want to be in the same party as people like that.   The slight impositions Democrats might make on me economically seem like nothing by comparison.

That's interesting. I personally never understood the GOP's popularity, since many of its ideals (particularly those stemming from the religious right, as well the Straussian/neo-conservative wing of the party) seem to tread on the very notions of individual freedom and liberty which the United States was based on. But that's a more general thought.

[??????????]

Opebo - When did you switch to the Democrats? Sorry, I've been away for a while.

A few weeks ago.  I've always been a Republican voter based on a lesser of two evils analysis, and have always had grave reservations about the party's social positions.  I had an epiphany during the anti-gay constitutional referendum amendment here in Missouri, in addition to some other issues.  I realized that the GOP is controlled by the Christian right, and my freedoms are greatly threatened by their agenda.  I wouldn't want to be in the same party as people like that.   The slight impositions Democrats might make on me economically seem like nothing by comparison.

That's interesting. I personally never understood the GOP's popularity, since many of its ideals (particularly those stemming from the religious right, as well the Straussian/neo-conservative wing of the party) seem to tread on the very notions of individual freedom and liberty which the United States was based on. But that's a more general thought.

I'm a conservative, and I hate freedom.

[CollectiveInterest]

You're about to see the most crushing defeat of an incumbent since 1980.

Republicans are gonna be speechless.

[??????????]

You're about to see the most crushing defeat of an incumbent since 1980.

Republicans are gonna be speechless.

Yes! The polls all indicate that!

[Gabu]

Opebo - When did you switch to the Democrats? Sorry, I've been away for a while.

A few weeks ago.  I've always been a Republican voter based on a lesser of two evils analysis, and have always had grave reservations about the party's social positions.  I had an epiphany during the anti-gay constitutional referendum amendment here in Missouri, in addition to some other issues.  I realized that the GOP is controlled by the Christian right, and my freedoms are greatly threatened by their agenda.  I wouldn't want to be in the same party as people like that.   The slight impositions Democrats might make on me economically seem like nothing by comparison.

That's interesting. I personally never understood the GOP's popularity, since many of its ideals (particularly those stemming from the religious right, as well the Straussian/neo-conservative wing of the party) seem to tread on the very notions of individual freedom and liberty which the United States was based on. But that's a more general thought.

I'm a conservative, and I hate freedom.

What?  I protest.  You can't hate freedom; that's our job.

[??????????]

Opebo - When did you switch to the Democrats? Sorry, I've been away for a while.

A few weeks ago.  I've always been a Republican voter based on a lesser of two evils analysis, and have always had grave reservations about the party's social positions.  I had an epiphany during the anti-gay constitutional referendum amendment here in Missouri, in addition to some other issues.  I realized that the GOP is controlled by the Christian right, and my freedoms are greatly threatened by their agenda.  I wouldn't want to be in the same party as people like that.   The slight impositions Democrats might make on me economically seem like nothing by comparison.

That's interesting. I personally never understood the GOP's popularity, since many of its ideals (particularly those stemming from the religious right, as well the Straussian/neo-conservative wing of the party) seem to tread on the very notions of individual freedom and liberty which the United States was based on. But that's a more general thought.

I'm a conservative, and I hate freedom.

What?  I protest.  You can't hate freedom; that's our job.

How about a hatefest?

[Ben.]

Zell Miller is NOT a Democrat

I'd challenge you to debate him on that.  I think you're confusing Democrat and Liberal.  In that case, Zell Miller is not a liberal, but he most certainly is a Democrat.

Good point… I’ve been on this site for darn near two years (?) and I’m a democrat but I’m not a liberal, I’m pro-life and pro-war… pretty much on a par with Evan Bayh only a little bit more to the left economically. 


As for Zell, I’m not sure what happened to Zell he was one of Clinton’s biggest supporters back in 1992 and gave a great speech at the 1992 convention… but I think having had so little contact with the liberal wing of the party he was genuinely shocked and reacted against it when he became a senator.

[Michael Z]

You're about to see the most crushing defeat of an incumbent since 1980.

Republicans are gonna be speechless.

Yes! The polls all indicate that!

Tch. Don't you know the polls are part of the big conservative conspiracy against freedom? 

[swampdude]

Yes, I can see John Edwards winning the entire eastern half of the country. 

How do you figure this if his inclusion on the ticket is not even bringing  a blip on the North Carolina radar screen?

[Prospero]

If the Democrats would adopt supply-side economics and tone down their left wing social and domestic policies, they would never lose an election.

[A18]

Why are you voting for Kerry?

[Prospero]

Why are you voting for Kerry?

Because of the Iraq War.  I was on the Bush bandwagon early in 1999 before most Republicans were.  I'm not a moderate, wishy-washy Republican.  But I cannot in good conscience vote for him.  I agreed with him on Afghanistan as that had to be done. 

He said that the war against terrorism would be a different kind of war, one fought in the shadows.  But I saw nothing more than a conventional war in Iraq that has become a 4th generation guerilla war.  And even if Iraq becomes a successful beacon of democracy (which is unlikely), so what?  That's one Muslim country out of many?  If Bush's plan is correct in reducing the risks of terror, we would have to do to the entire Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia, what we did in Iraq.  The Iraq war was even more pointless in that Iraq was one of the most Westernized Muslim countries and Saddam wanted to be our ally.

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem is Islam and its inability to produce a functioning well-balanced society.  It is a religion filled with inherent problems that are only made worse in a modern industrialized globalized world.  The fact that we don't have a leader who is willing to address this problem is very distressing.  But occupying Muslim countries isn't the answer.

I believe Kerry understands the world better than Bush.  Strengthening the position of pro-Western Muslims while simultaneously being firm on Islamic terrorists, and enticing Muslim governments to cooperate with the US will require a certain degree of finesse and nuance, traits Bush doesn't have.  Maybe, just maybe, Kerry can make things better.  If he does, then that's good for him.  If not, then perhaps a higher quality conservative candidate can win in 2008.  But this group of Republicans has lost the right to govern.

[A18]

If Kerry were in power, Saddam Hussein would have nuclear weapons today.

He opposed Reagan left and right during the Cold War. He voted for a unilateral nuclear freeze. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, John Kerry voted against the First Gulf War.

[Prospero]

Saddam having nuclear weapons by now is something that is is extremely unlikely.  Are we to go to war with every country that aspires to develop nuclear weapons?  The only way to make nuclear weapons obsolete is by building a missile defense system that is reliable.  That way countries won't even bother trying to make them.  Furthermore, the bigger risk doesn't come from governments and their possession of WMD.  9/11 was done by individuals based in Florida who employed box cutters. 

I'm aware that Kerry opposed Reagan during the Cold War.  But so did the right wing, particularly the neocons, oppose Reagan when he decided that Gorbachev was someone that could be dealt with.  George Will called him a "useful idiot".  Reagan has the reputation of being a rigid ideologue, but he was flexible.  The Cold War is over, those were different problems.  I'm not going to justify or defend Kerry's Cold War policies, as he is a Leftist, and is hardly and ideal candidate.  But he couldn't be much worse than GW Bush, who is so hated and distrusted that even leaders who want to help the US are hard pressed to do so because of domestic pressures.  And that is dangerous to America.

[A18]

A regime like Hussein's could very easily pass a nuke on to Al Qaeda to be used in an American city.

Saddam Hussein would almost certainly having nuclear weapons by now. The reason he didn't get them is because we've been containing him for ten years since the first Gulf War ended. (You know, the one Kerry was against)

It is more dangerous to chose our leaders based on world opinion than it is to have rigid ideologues hate us.

[Prospero]

A regime like Hussein's could very easily pass a nuke on to Al Qaeda to be used in an American city.

Saddam Hussein would almost certainly having nuclear weapons by now. The reason he didn't get them is because we've been containing him for ten years since the first Gulf War ended. (You know, the one Kerry was against)

It is more dangerous to chose our leaders based on world opinion than it is to have rigid ideologues hate us.

So could a regime like Kadhafi's have done something like that.  There's someone who actually did commit terrorism against the US, yet he's not considered a bad guy anymore.  Amazing.  Iran is closer to developing nukes than Iraq was, yet we're not very eager to go to war with it.  There was never a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.  Saddam was never involved in terrorism against America.  Why was he an OK guy from 1979 onward but when he goes into Kuwait he's suddenly a crazy monster?  He had some legitimate gripes against Kuwait, as it was slant drilling under the border.  And Saddam thought that our ambassador April Glaspie had given him a green light to go it.  So Kerry voting against the 1991 war was his greatest moment.

In an effort to prevent all sorts of theoreticals, such and such might happen, this could happen, we are making a mess.

[A18]

Clinton signed into law the death of the Hussein regime in 1998. A sworn enemy of the United States for 10 years is the next natural step in the War on Terror.

Read the 9/11 report. It's been proven that there was a Hussein / Al Qaeda connection. They didn't work together on a terrorist plot. They DID communicate with each other. That's a threat.

What mess?

[??????????]

Philip,

As the election draws nearer we will have these Democratic operatives coming on the boards claiming to be a Republican to try and sway fence sitters. Don't buy into it.

[raggage]

Philip,

As the election draws nearer we will have these Democratic operatives coming on the boards claiming to be a Republican to try and sway fence sitters. Don't buy into it.

Damn. He found us out.

[No more McShame]

A regime like Hussein's could very easily pass a nuke on to Al Qaeda to be used in an American city.

Saddam Hussein would almost certainly having nuclear weapons by now. The reason he didn't get them is because we've been containing him for ten years since the first Gulf War ended. (You know, the one Kerry was against)

It is more dangerous to chose our leaders based on world opinion than it is to have rigid ideologues hate us.

So could a regime like Kadhafi's have done something like that.  There's someone who actually did commit terrorism against the US, yet he's not considered a bad guy anymore.  Amazing.  Iran is closer to developing nukes than Iraq was, yet we're not very eager to go to war with it.  There was never a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.  Saddam was never involved in terrorism against America.  Why was he an OK guy from 1979 onward but when he goes into Kuwait he's suddenly a crazy monster?  He had some legitimate gripes against Kuwait, as it was slant drilling under the border.  And Saddam thought that our ambassador April Glaspie had given him a green light to go it.  So Kerry voting against the 1991 war was his greatest moment.

In an effort to prevent all sorts of theoreticals, such and such might happen, this could happen, we are making a mess.

Quadafi gave up his weapons to us knowing that Bush was keeping his eye on him.  I'm sure he knows how to reacquire in case of a Kerry victory.

[A18]

Collective was last active Today at 06:08:19 PM

Hmm...

[A18]

You're about to see the most crushing defeat of an incumbent since 1980.

Republicans are gonna be speechless.

Gee. I sure am speechless.

[J. J.]

If the Democrats would adopt supply-side economics and tone down their left wing social and domestic policies, they would never lose an election.

Here, here!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats would adopt supply-side economics and tone down their left wing social and domestic policies, they would never lose an election.

Here, here!

Yeah, they would. They'd get their asses kicked by the new third party.

[J. J.]

If the Democrats would adopt supply-side economics and tone down their left wing social and domestic policies, they would never lose an election.

Here, here!

Yeah, they would. They'd get their asses kicked by the new third party.

In case you have not noticed, the Loony Left makes up a minority of the Democratic (and losing) party.