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. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    In 1980 when Reagan was elected, there were 24 Southern democratic senators and 4 republican senators.

    Today, there are 6 democraticsenators and 22 republican senators.

    The south has also gained as many electoral votes in that time as the total electoral count as OHIO.

    Dems want to stay a minority party....continue to lose the south, midwest, and west.

    Crix
    and it could start with Hillary Clinton as early as 2008.

    [face_laugh]

    WHAT?!

    The south, southwest, and mountain west are growing......and they're growing more conservative.

    The LAST THING the party needs is to nominate another lib.

    What the party needs is more Evan Bayhs, John Breauxs, and Tim Pennys, and Joe Liebermans.

    OMG, I can't believe you actually typed that. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    What's wrong with admitting it's a possibility?

    Being close minded is not a positive trait.
     
  3. Undomiel

    Undomiel Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 17, 2002
    Well my first reaction was, I thought Kerry would win it. I was prepared to be relieved, as it seemed the liberals were getting so wacked out of shape about Bush, that 4 more years might end with riots in the streets. I didn't think it a good thing for people to be THAT afraid of their president.
     
  4. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    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.


    Come on. Spin it all you want, but you know he wouldn;t sign an FMA, and you know[/]i the judges he would appoint.






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

    Do you realize how silly that sounds??


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


    1. Voting for a nuclear freeze during the Cold War is very, very telling about your zeal to protect the nation.

    2. Kerry has already raised taxes (or voted to anyway).

    3. I'll give you that one.


    Yes it does, it means they listened to Moore and Bush alone rather than Kerry in deciding their vote.

    Kerry's fault for having Moore represent the DNC.




    You lost me. Kerry, hatred toward Christians? You really must have been duped.

    You're right. Me and 51% of the nation. :)
     
  5. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    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?


    Yes, I think it is less accurate than what I posted. While I do acknowledge your point of view, it would be far more disrespectful for me to patronize you than to tell you what I think is the truth.

    First of all, "socialists" are not the opposite of christians, and they do not make up the base of democratic voters. There's one thing right there that makes no sense.

    Also, Bush did NOT reach out to the secular community at all, nor did he say anything warm toward anyone who is pro life. This was a big gamble on Bush's part, and resulted in a low win percentage. Kerry on the other hand, agreed with Christian morals, and was very vocal about his advocation of them. But disagreed with legislating them based on religion. The reason is because he wants to keep the USA the USA, where you are allowed to practice religion or NOT practice religion freely.

    Kerry pointed out how Bush has failed in the last 4 years. Bush scared people into thinking Kerry WOULD fail if elected. There is evidence for one, but not the other.
     
  6. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Kerry pointed out how Bush has failed in the last 4 years. Bush scared people into thinking Kerry WOULD fail if elected. There is evidence for one, but not the other.

    Your talking points are inspiring, but your proof is somewhere else.
     
  7. JMZ

    JMZ Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 14, 2003
    The Democratic Party doesn't need saving. The GOP appeals to conservatives, those with hard religious beliefs and those who were raised to follow in their family's footsteps. I guarantee gay marriage played a huge part in Bush's re-election. The Dems appeal to liberals and people who were not raised to think like everyone else and have a mind of their own.

    It's only my opinion.
     
  8. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Crix
    Being close minded is not a positive trait.

    Which makes me wonder where you were during the 8 years of the Whitewaters,McDougals, and shrillness of Hillary.

    Bill got in trouble for some oral in the Oval.

    Hillary's hijinks are more problematic.

    Plus, she mobilizes her opposition as much as her supporters.

    You want a greater republican turnout? Nominate Hillary.

    ;)
     
  9. Vezner

    Vezner Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2001
    What the party needs is more Evan Bayhs, John Breauxs, and Tim Pennys, and Joe Liebermans.

    You know, honestly, if the Dems had made Joe Lieberman their candidate, I would quite possibly have voted for him. I have great respect for Lieberman and other Dems like him.
     
  10. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    Shane

    You're basing this on today. I'm talking about in four years, which admit it or not is going to be different place and society then now.

    Especially after another wonderful round of mini golf with the President!
     
  11. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Come on. Spin it all you want, but you know he wouldn;t sign an FMA, and you know the judges he would appoint.

    I don't believe he would have signed the FMA, but he would have let states decide, and allowed Civil Unions instead, just like Bush is going to.


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

    Do you realize how silly that sounds??


    Then let me restate. Bush exaggerated about Kerry more than Kerry needed to exaggerate about Bush. With Bush, there's overwhelming evidence against him, with Kerry, its just circumstancial.


    1. Voting for a nuclear freeze during the Cold War is very, very telling about your zeal to protect the nation.

    Compare that to going to war based on a disproven assumption.

    2. Kerry has already raised taxes (or voted to anyway).

    But he did it during a neocon controlled government, in order to balance the wild spending of GWB.

    Kerry's fault for having Moore represent the DNC.

    Wrong, Kerry allowed Moore to do his own thing. Democrats allow free speech.


    You lost me. Kerry, hatred toward Christians? You really must have been duped.

    You're right. Me and 51% of the nation.


    I think you're actually in the minority even in your own party on that one.

    KK EDIT: Fixing markup/spacing
     
  12. Vezner

    Vezner Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Wrong, Kerry allowed Moore to do his own thing. Democrats allow free speech.

    Unless it's from a Christian that wants the Nativity Scene/Cross to be seen alongside the Star of David and other religious simbols displayed in public places during Christmas or other times of the year. I fully remember the crap that happened in Florida last year and in other places around the nation. All were caused by liberal leaders who are not allowing conservatives the same freedoms of speech that they themselves accuse the Republicans of "taking away".

    Or heaven forbid a conservative makes the statement that he/she thinks homosexuality is wrong. If you say such a thing around a Dem they will do whatever it takes to shut you up.

    I've been to some liberal colleges and I've seen the way most of the conservatives have to keep their opinions to themselves because the liberals persecute them for their beliefs. College professors have been known to give openly conservative students a hard time because of their beliefs. I've even seen some students who were publicly humiliated by their professors because they dared to openly express a differing point of view in class.

    Yeah, you liberals are real fair and balanced in the freedoms that you fight for. In all actuality you ought to make your slogan "free speech for all as long as we agree with you".

    :rolleyes:
     
  13. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    I'm sorry but I really don't feel sorry for you for having to respect the rights of Gays. As for taking down crosses and such, I agree with you it goes too far sometimes. But such things must be looked at case by case and not generalized. Sometimes non-religious kids are forced to worship things their parents don't want them to worship.
     
  14. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    Free speech is one thing. I haven't met a liberal yet who has a problem discussing the issue in depth.

    Hate and bigotry are something else entirely.
     
  15. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Unless it's from a Christian that wants the Nativity Scene/Cross to be seen alongside the Star of David and other religious simbols displayed in public places during Christmas or other times of the year. I fully remember the crap that happened in Florida last year and in other places around the nation. All were caused by liberal leaders who are not allowing conservatives the same freedoms of speech that they themselves accuse the Republicans of "taking away"..


    Christmas trees and nativity scenes should definitely be allowed wherever the community wants them. I agree it is total bullsh@#! I am even liberal and this stuff makes me upset. Rest assured, the majority of liberal democrats don't at ALL mind if such things are displayed. Those suits are courtroom farces to 95 percent of the population.

    But kids shouldn't HAVE to say "under god" if they don't want.

    Kerry wasn't about to be THAT kind of liberal. Those are fringe liberals. Did Bush tell you he would do that?
     
  16. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Free speech is one thing. I haven't met a liberal yet who has a problem discussing the issue in depth.

    Hate and bigotry are something else entirely.


    Who decides what is what?

    Free Speech means protection even for speech that you disagree with. That would include "hate and bigotry".

    Else, what is the difference between that and a conservative who wishes to outlaw a form of speech that they believe is wrong (for example, pornography)?

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  17. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    I think ALL free speech is OK. If someone makes threats, that's not only speech, but a declaration of intent to harm. In that way, legal action can be taken. But if someone "hates fags" that's not a direct threat on anyone.
     
  18. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    Had to make it into a head case, didn't you Kimball :p

    I'd love to dive into it in depth but I'm running late for a very important date.

    In short, I think when it infringes upon the rights of others...that is part of the fine line between free speech and hate/bigotry.
     
  19. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    I don't believe he would have signed the FMA, but he would have let states decide, and allowed Civil Unions instead, just like Bush is going to.

    Ok, how does that prove that he still isn't exhibitng animosity twoards Christians?

    Then let me restate. Bush exaggerated about Kerry more than Kerry needed to exaggerate about Bush. With Bush, there's overwhelming evidence against him, with Kerry, its just circumstancial.

    :rolleyes: I really want proof of that.

    Compare that to going to war based on a disproven assumption.

    Which was shared by almost everyone. Whats your point?

    But he did it during a neocon controlled government, in order to balance the wild spending of GWB.

    Again, can you prove that?

    Wrong, Kerry allowed Moore to do his own thing. Democrats allow free speech.

    Inviting Moore to the Convention is saying to the world "This man embodies are ideals."

    I think you're actually in the minority even in your own party on that one.

    I don't think so.

    (just fixed the spacing, so it doesn't extend so far down the page.)
     
  20. Cyprusg

    Cyprusg Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 16, 2002
    And I could say the same for you.

    You could but you'd be wrong.

    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.

    So what about the Republicans that were just as vocal as Democrats? Or were Republicans genuine but not the Democrats? Your attitude is completely irrational. I have a general distrust for politicians, I think politicians can be the worst of people, but at the same time imagine how bad of a person a politician would be to make a fuss about our troops not getting the proper equipment PURELY for political reasons. Yes, I'm sure there were political motives involved, that's just the nature of politics, you highlight your opponent's faults. But I can say with 100% certainty that those that were vocal about our troops not getting enough equipment do have concern for our troops.
     
  21. Cyprusg

    Cyprusg Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Unless it's from a Christian that wants the Nativity Scene/Cross to be seen alongside the Star of David and other religious simbols displayed in public places during Christmas or other times of the year. I fully remember the crap that happened in Florida last year and in other places around the nation. All were caused by liberal leaders who are not allowing conservatives the same freedoms of speech that they themselves accuse the Republicans of "taking away".

    Well you see, there is a thing called seperation of church and state. YOU can have a nativity scene all you want, but a courthouse or any government office can not.

    Or heaven forbid a conservative makes the statement that he/she thinks homosexuality is wrong. If you say such a thing around a Dem they will do whatever it takes to shut you up.

    PPOR.

    I've been to some liberal colleges and I've seen the way most of the conservatives have to keep their opinions to themselves because the liberals persecute them for their beliefs. College professors have been known to give openly conservative students a hard time because of their beliefs. I've even seen some students who were publicly humiliated by their professors because they dared to openly express a differing point of view in class.

    Like the way I have to keep my being an atheist private because of christian ignorance? Heck, we don't even have one single atheist in Congress because there is no way the american people would elect an atheist. It works both ways Vezner.

    In short, I think when it infringes upon the rights of others...that is part of the fine line between free speech and hate/bigotry.

    I'm sorry Crix, but your attitude is no different than many of the conservative's attitudes. Free speech is free speech, it doesn't mean "free speech for everything I personally agree". Yes, that encompasses hatred and bigotry as well.
     
  22. Darth_OlsenTwins

    Darth_OlsenTwins Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    I posted this elsewhere:

    In my very humble opinion as a conservative onlooker, the problem with the democrats this election was their messenger. I still can't believe that with all the talk about the electoral map after 2000, the Democrats decided to choose a Massachussetts liberal Democrat as their candidate.

    Not only that, but he also happened to be the richest member in Congress. This goes to what I was saying earlier about the Democratic Party myth of championing the working class and championing minority interests. John Kerry has never been working class at any time of his life. He has no clue as to what it means to be working class and underpriveleged. It may seem that he was the perfect champion according to the more academic types, but how can you convince me, as someone coming from a Detroit working class family, that John Kerry knows at all what it means to be me? How can John Kerry convince me, as someone who grew up richer than I will ever be, that he knows my interests, my beliefs, my hopes and dreams?

    John Kerry has no connections to my life or the lives of many of those in red states. According to them, he didn't share the same values on any level.

    Bill Clinton could, but he was someone who truly rose from humble beginnings.

    Jimmy Carter could, but he also was a small town good 'ol boy.

    John Kerry grew up as a priveleged youth, even spending time sailing with John F Kennedy.

    The Democrats usually have a broadly appealing message. John Kerry, however, decided to also run on the "anybody but Bush" ticket, which I always said was a mistake from day one. But beyond that, John Kerry could never champion the needs of the working class because he will never understand the working class.

    The same goes for Middle America. John Kerry doesn't understand it. But for all the lamenting about George Bush's lack of intelligence, he recognizes his differences and has found ways to sell himself, despite being from the same background.

    A Catholic man of faith who supports abortion.

    A champion of the poor who has more wealth than some small towns.

    A man of the working class who has never struggled with paying any bill except for that of his presidential campaign.

    An environmentalist who owns multiple SUV's.

    John Kerry just couldn't sell it.
     
  23. appleseed

    appleseed Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2002
    The fact is that there are two Americas. There's the blue America of the Northeast and the West Coast, which is also where the majority of the nation's best education is, where the majority of the money comes from, and where most of the culture comes from. Then there's the red (neck) America, the states of the old Confederacy and the Old West. There's a few border states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida (even though it's in the deep South). These two Americas have entirely different values and priorities. To me it's a shame that a great legitimate state like New York has to foot the bill so that Jim Bob sitting on the steps of his trailer in Georgia, picking his tooth while reflecting on how much he hates blacks and gays (while calling himself a Christian)-but there's no easy solution for that problem. I mean, the blue states just can't kick the red (neck) states out and let them reform the CSA. And if the Democrats have to turn themselves into Republicans to get elected, then what's the point in all of that?

    The best chance in the immediate future for people with a more moderate to liberal agenda is for a more moderate Republican to win the nomination in 2008-someone like McCain. Hiliary has no chance at all to get elected. The Democrats are on the verge of becoming the political equlivant of the Washington Generals-the team that plays the Globetrotters but aren't actually competetion. They're just part of the show. If the Democrats don't get it together, the only reason the party will continue to exist will be for the Republicans to have someone to beat.

    The Democrats need to sack everyone who has been running their party and hire someone who understands propoganda and media control like Karl Rove and FOX News does. They've got to invest in hate news and radio like the right has. They've got to quit being so soft and actually fight back. And that will take years to do if they manage to do it. The GOP didn't rise to power by playing fair or nice. The Democrats can either follow their example or they can become the Washington Generals.
     
  24. somethingfamiliar

    somethingfamiliar Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 20, 2003
    but how can you convince me, as someone coming from a Detroit working class family, that John Kerry knows at all what it means to be me? How can John Kerry convince me, as someone who grew up richer than I will ever be, that he knows my interests, my beliefs, my hopes and dreams?

    If we knew how Bush was able to do the same, we'd be onto something!
    ________________________________________________________

    We have got to present our message simply. Again, it's about defining our brand clearly. One of the points where I cringed was when a young woman, her eyes welling up with tears, asked Kerry about abortion near the end of the second debate. I thought Kerry's answer was beautiful as a honest personal statement, but I cringed because I knew it was not presented in a brand-conscious way.

    Here's the question and how he begins his answer:

    DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

    KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

    First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.


    Now, think of that part of his reply in terms of branding. He spent half his commercial praising the worth of the competing brand:

    DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed drinking Pepsi is reprehensible and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support drinking Pepsi, what would you say to that person?

    KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

    First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about Coca-Cola and its consumption. I'm a Coca-Cola drinker, raised a Coca-Cola drinker. I was a Coca-Cola employee. Coca-Cola has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.


    And BAM! He's already lost them because he's admitted that he likes Coke.

    In my opinion, to gain a vote on that question, you've really got to make the reply Pepsi-centric - Pepsi, the choice of a new generation - not "Coke is my personal preference and I'd like to educate people about the merits of Coke, but I think you should be allowed to have Pepsi if you really want it."



     
  25. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    A Catholic man of faith who supports abortion.

    A champion of the poor who has more wealth than some small towns.

    A man of the working class who has never struggled with paying any bill except for that of his presidential campaign.

    An environmentalist who owns multiple SUV's.

    John Kerry just couldn't sell it.


    Why do you not put Bush under the same microscope? Seriously, is it his accent? Is it his wild claims? I think you just don't like what Kerry was selling, regardless of how he was selling it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.