main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

How to Fix a Sinking Political Party (or how to save the Democrat Party)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TripleB, Nov 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I'm just going to echo JF's statement here.

    The Paladin uses automated fire control, and can target something within 9ft from about 18 miles away.

    Accuracy isn't a problem, its the blast radius within built up areas.

    As to why people don't leave, because its their home. Where are they going to go? It's a phenomenon that is experienced in every conflict.
     
  2. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Most civilians have left Fallujah. However, the problem is that these mortar attacks happen all over the country, including Baghdad.
     
  3. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    JediXen,

    I'm not talking about what Bush can do to run a better campaign, I'm talking about what Democrats can do to run a better campaign. Try as they might, they can't ignore the conservative base of this country, many of which use to be conservative Democrats, that they've completely alienated when they tried to humiliate them with references such as "stupid bible bashing christian fundies" and other such lovely terms. That's the reason for this thread. To give some idea how they sunk their own boat. People aren't even paying attention to the debates on TV or the newspaper criticisms, they paid attention to what Kerry said and did, and what Gore said and did before him, and Clinton before him.
     
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Most civilians have left Fallujah. However, the problem is that these mortar attacks happen all over the country, including Baghdad.

    Yes, but you are combining two concepts that are only margainally related.

    However, such a discussion probably belongs on the Iraqi thread.
     
  5. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Try as they might, they can't ignore the conservative base of this country, many of which use to be conservative Democrats

    There are just about as many liberals as conservatives, when 48% of the country votes for the liberal its an indication that the country is about evenly divided. If the Democrats abandon the liberal stance for the conservative one, then the Republicans will pick up the liberal stance to get their votes. This is what happened around the mid-1960s. Even the great Republican Icon, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat but went Republican with that parties "southern strategy".

    Thats right the Republicans were the ones who really abandoned their base in an effort to reach out to the racists of the south in the 1960s and 70s. Today's Republican Party is no longer that of Nelson Rockefeller.

    they've completely alienated when they tried to humiliate them with references such as "stupid bible bashing christian fundies" and other such lovely terms.

    You keep saying this but can you Post Proof. I want to see articles in black and white from leading Democrats in the party saying they were bible thumping Christian fundies.

    That's the reason for this thread. To give some idea how they sunk their own boat.

    And what Im saying is it this stuff your talking about works so well for the Republicans, its hard to explain to the Democrats why it doesnt work for them too.

     
  6. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    My larger point on Iraq was that the Democrats have an opportunity to show leadership, to work with Congressional Republicans and the President to develop a resolution that will reflect a bipartisan plan for an exit strategy, one that the whole country can get behind.

    I'd like to see the Democrats in Congress take responsbility for this war, since of course they authorized it.

    But will they do it? No. They will assume like many of us do that 2 and 4 years from now the situation is Iraq will look much as it does now, if not worse. Consequently, they want to keep their hands off it...let it continue to be "Bush's baby" Let it build momentum so that it will again be a campaign issue.

    But that's a mistake in my view. The Democrats, and the American people need to come to terms with the fact that ALL OF US authorized this stupid war, and then we ratified it again by reelecting Bush. Now we have to work together to solve the problem.
     
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I certainly can't argue with that..
     
  8. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    JediXen,

    I'll try to be a bit more succinct. I understand why the democratic party is frustrated. They've convinced themselves, all these years, that the conservatives and christians in their party were willing to sell out their values and belief systems for the financial promise of social programs and benefits.

    I think what happened was, as Jabbadabbado mentioned earlier, when the outsourcing of american jobs began in earnest during the Clinton years, people had nothing else left to look forward to because even the Democrats had nothing left to buy their loyalty with. All they had left was their faith, their values. And when they took a good look at the gulf between the democratic platform and their own value systems, they realized the gulf was too big. So they started trickling over to the Republican side. The first christian groups that changed sides, were referred to by supporters of the Democratic party, as ignorant, in books, in newspaper columns, and so on. They were called neo-nazis, bigots, fundamentalist wackos, etc. All this did was further alienate the christians who were still lingering on the democratic side.

    Then for the final push, reports started popping up all over the country and most especially in places like California, where other typical democrats such as the Gay Activist groups and the democratic politicians who supported them, had decided to force christian business owners, christian institutions, etc (Boy Scouts, Catholic Hospitals, etc) to surrender their freedom of religion for the gay person's freedom of whatever he/she happened to want at that moment, such as a drag queen wanting a job in a christian bookstore, a leadership position on a intervarsity christian council, or a administrative job in a Catholic Hospital, or a co-ed room on the campus of a private Jewish university for a pair of lesbians. Then they further asked them to give up their Freedom of Conscience and Association, by forcing them to take "Tolerance" training classes, believing they could intimidate or otherwise harrass christians into ignoring the part of their religious texts that refer to homosexuality in a dim light.

    All christians were bundled into the same group of intolerant, hate-filled, extremists. And a good portion of those had been typically democratic. It was a sad moment in american history when the democrats decided that one group of americans had more rights than the other.

    This is where the problem has arisen. I can't give you exact quotes for any given politician that might have called christians "stupid bible bashing fundies." I admit that may have been merely implied by their policies, whereas their supporters may have been the only ones to actually give the implications a voice.
     
  9. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    People forget too that liberal political ideology in America also has its historical roots in American protestant Christian values. The Sermon on the Mount was viewed by early 20th century progressives as the founding document for social justice, the welfare state, etc.

    Christian progressives at one time were a real voice for faith-based political activism. But they capitulated to the evangelical political movement in the 1980s and have been silent ever since.
     
  10. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Jabba,

    They didn't capitulate. The democratic party decided they didn't want anything to do with a group of people who believed in christianity. "God is dead," and "Long live the Socialists."

    Addendum: "Jesus was a metaphor" "Abortion is not murder" "Partial Birth Abortion is not Murder" (Kerry voted for it 6 times as a matter of public record)

    They don't want to associate with christians any more. Their policies are definitive proof.
     
  11. Jedi_Xen

    Jedi_Xen Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 26, 2001
    All christians were bundled into the same group of intolerant, hate-filled, extremists. And a good portion of those had been typically democratic. It was a sad moment in american history when the democrats decided that one group of americans had more rights than the other.

    Again PPOR
     
  12. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    The Case of the Intervarsity Christian Club that was forced to cease and desist their formation because they refused to an application for leadership in the club from a gay applicant. They took it to court:

    Hsu v. Rosyln University
    http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/may96/95-7311.html

    Here are some examples of bills that have passed the California State Legislature and been signed by Governor Gray Davis:

    AB196: This bill can impose fines up to $150,000 fines against businesses, including Bible bookstores, if they refuse to hire transsexuals and drag queens.
    AB1475: This bill removed the ?religious exemption? that protected religious health care providers, such as Catholic hospitals, from being subjected to ?anti-discrimination? laws that included sexual orientation. The bill states it would ?make the provisions of the act prohibiting harassment (which is defined in the bill as refusing to hire or employ a practicing homosexual, or to fire someone because of their sexual orientation) if the hospital accepts patients who are not adherents of the religion. Thus, if a Catholic hospital accepts a non-Catholic patient, they are immediately subject to anti-discrimination laws. This is incrementalism and you can see where this is heading. The next logical step is to extend this bill to include churches and state that if non-adherents enter into a church building, then the church is subject to anti-discrimination laws.

    SB225: This bill required that schools with interscholastic sports teams adopt non-discrimination policies supporting "sexual orientation" and "perceived gender" or face the prospect of being banned from the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) or other interscholastic sports programs. In a nutshell, schools, both public and private, must have a non-discrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation, in place or otherwise they cannot compete in interscholastic sports. As written, a religious-based school that refuses to abandon its convictions may have to explain its "religious tenets" to a judge who will ultimately decide the case.

     
  13. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Indeed, the Democratic party is losing it's ability to relate to grassroots America.

    The reason Kerry lost this election was that their strategy was basically The 4TH Film by Michael Moore: KILL BUSH VOL 2.

    That offended the Southern part of the US and they let Team Kerry know it.
     
  14. darth_paul

    darth_paul Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2000
    Undomiel - Other businesses and organizations weere already subject to those sorts of anti-discrimination laws. I don't believe in that type of law to begin with; I think a private business not accepting government funding or employed by the government should be free to hire or serve as it pleases. However, since that is not the law, I think it would be supremely unfair to treat religious organizations differently.

    -Paul
     
  15. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Democrats did not demonize Christians. They reached out to them. But Bush's fear mongering was too powerful. The lesson for democrats is, more than half the people will respond to piousness and fear mongering.

    Kerry and the democrats were very kind to the christians. They said wonderful, loving, glowing, warm things to them.

    Bush, on the other hand, played upon their weaknesses, bringing out the worst in them in order to win. He made Kerry out to be the sum of all christian fears. This was a lie.
     
  16. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    And is your above post supposed to represent an example of "loving, warm, and glowing" speech?

    Come on, your post drips with hositility and single mindedness.

    It just doesn't seem that way to you, because you personally agree with it. This is no different than what you are railing against.

    Instead of always dividing things up by sides, how about you actually try and discuss the issues?
     
  17. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    DarthPaul,

    Well I happen to believe when the word "private" is involved, it should be up to the owner of that "private" establishment, be that a business, a school or a club. If it's a religious establishment, it should be protected under freedom of religion and freedom of association. You can't make people accept you by forcing your way in the door.
     
  18. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Democrats did not demonize Christians. They reached out to them.

    [face_laugh] As a Christian, I can tell you with authority that Kerry offered me NOTHING, except maybe for me to be forced to recognize gay marriage as legit.



    But Bush's fear mongering was too powerful. The lesson for democrats is, more than half the people will respond to piousness and fear mongering.

    Draft
    January Surprise
    Suppresion of black vote


    Please give me at least three lies that Bush ogave to America to counterbalance thes eby Kerry.

    Kerry and the democrats were very kind to the christians. They said wonderful, loving, glowing, warm things to them.

    Which means absolutely nothing.

    Bush, on the other hand, played upon their weaknesses, bringing out the worst in them in order to win. He made Kerry out to be the sum of all christian fears. This was a lie.

    No it wasn't. Michael Moore called Kerry "the #1 liberal in the Senate." He would seek out to caryy the ACLU hatred toward Christians.
     
  19. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    And is your above post supposed to represent an example of "loving, warm, and glowing" speech?

    Come on, your post drips with hositility and single mindedness.

    It just doesn't seem that way to you, because you personally agree with it. This is no different than what you are railing against.

    Instead of always dividing things up by sides, how about you actually try and discuss the issues?


    Exposing Bush as a bad person is not equivalent of attacking Christians. Bush manipulated them into thinking it was the same thing. I feel sorry for those he has manipulated. I don't spite you, I feel bad that Bush made Kerry look like someone he was not, while Kerry was actually exposing more about Bush than you realize.
     
  20. Cyprusg

    Cyprusg Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 16, 2002
    The frustrating thing for many military members who are in or have been in, the Iraq war, is the fact the Democrats have used them to bolster their image, but could care less that in their efforts to do so, they are leaving out half the story, telling half truths and trying to demonize the military members by associating them with the same image they erected to demonize the Vietnam vets.

    I'm sorry but that's absolutely stupid. Politicians are people too, and many of those that were most vocal against the war in Iraq had long military careers. I think your post shows how well the Bush administration won the battle of perceptions, but that's all it is, PERCEPTION, a perception that's completely void of logic and common sense.

    I've seen nothing but an outcry by Democrats and Republicans to support our troops. It was Democrats that were most vocal in Congress to get our troops the proper vests, it's Democrats in Congress that are most vocal about getting better armor on Humvees.

    Yes, in an attempt to bring attention to the crimes against Iraqi citizens by our soldiers, many have APPEARED to demonize our soldiers in the process. But should people not care, should they not be vocal when 100,000 Iraqis die? It's all about their intentions, and I think 99.99% have the utmost respect for our soldiers but also don't want to see unneeded harm come to the people of Iraq. Yes, there are SOME (such a small number it's not even worth getting in a fuss over) that can't seperate the soldiers from the government policies, but they most certainly do not represent the Democratic party.
     
  21. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Bush manipulated them into thinking it was the same thing.

    Proof?


    I feel sorry for those he has manipulated. I don't spite you, I feel bad that Bush made Kerry look like someone he was not, while Kerry was actually exposing more about Bush than you realize.

    Proof?
     
  22. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Cyprus,

    And I could say the same for you. You've been lead to believe that if the Democrats make a big deal out of the fact there was no armor on the humvee, and made a big show of their concern for our military members, that this means it was completely out of genuine concern for the military members and not for the oneupmanship it suggested when it was plastered all over the newspapers.
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I think you are missing my point.

    The focus of my post wasn't what you thought about Bush, it is that you are still dividing those who don't agree with you into camps.

    Let me give you an example:

    What if I change your original post around?

    "The GOP did not demonize Democrats. They reached out to them. But Kerry's fear mongering was too powerful. The lesson for republicans is, more than half the people will respond to self-centeredness and fear mongering.

    Bush and the GOP were very kind to the socialists. They said wonderful, loving, glowing, warm things to them.

    Kerry, on the other hand, played upon their weaknesses, bringing out the worst in them in order to win. He made Bush out to be the sum of all secular fears. This was a lie."

    Is the above any more, or any less accurate, than what you posted?

    Your folly comes into play because you can't, or won't acknowledge any other view than your own.

    It's obvious when you use phrases like "I don't spite you" or inidcating that Bush lied, while Kerry was simply exposing the truth..

    Everyone has differing opnions. Recognizing these differences is the key, and working toward understanding.

    However, nothing is served by "showing pity" to those who have differing views than your own.


     
  24. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    As a Christian, I can tell you with authority that Kerry offered me NOTHING, except maybe for me to be forced to recognize gay marriage as legit.

    Kerry offered you the right to retain marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but did not offer protection against gay civil unions. Bush said the same thing right before election day.

    Kerry offered to protect the nation with more vigor than that of Bush, but to be smarter about how we use our resources, avoiding another Iraq quagmire and instead killing terrorists and eliminating nukes in other countries.




    Draft
    January Surprise
    Suppresion of black vote


    Those are actual concerns that we should consider. Bush brought up phantom concerns.

    Please give me at least three lies that Bush ogave to America to counterbalance these by Kerry.

    Kerry will not protect the nation.
    Kerry will raise your taxes (to middle class).
    Kerry is against providing armor to the troops.

    Which means absolutely nothing.
    Yes it does, it means they listened to Moore and Bush alone rather than Kerry in deciding their vote.


    No it wasn't. Michael Moore called Kerry "the #1 liberal in the Senate." He would seek out to caryy the ACLU hatred toward Christians.


    You lost me. Kerry, hatred toward Christians? You really must have been duped.
     
  25. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    People think the Democratic party is dead?

    It's not dead. It may have taken a hit but it's not going down. Just because it's in the minority doesn't mean it's going away, and as long as New England exists I can promise you that.

    One thing for sure this election made clear. With the Republicans dominating Congress and the White House, a Democratic period of domination is not far around the corner. It may be several years but don't be surprised when the Democrats start taking it back and eventually end up the majority again. That's what history has shown, and it could start with Hillary Clinton as early as 2008.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.