Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderPost by w.h.y.Why have we allowed the cons to get away with demonizing the word
'liberal' and all the wonderful things that it stands for?
If it weren't for liberals we'd still be living in feudal Europe.
If it weren't for liberals the United States of America would not
exist.
If it weren't for liberals the right-wingers would not enjoy most of
the freedoms and human rights and protections they do today.
If it weren't for liberals we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
If we let the cons have their way we'd be living in a Christian
theocracy closely resembling Islamic fascist Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It's time we took the word back and made it our own and used it as a
badge of honor. Throw it back in the cons' faces and proudly
proclaim: I AM A LIBERAL BECAUSE EVERY GOOD THING YOU AND I ENJOY IN
THIS WORLD HAS COME ABOUT THANKS TO LIBERALS!!!
Liberalism conceded middle America to the Republicans when they embraced
several divisive issues.
1) GUN CONTROL. The Democratic Party really screwed up when they made this
an integral part of their party platform. This is an issue which motivates
voters almost like no other. To be fair, there are Democrats who do not
support that issue. Those Democrats also usually get the endorsement of
the NRA. However, those Democrats are few and far between. It's a loser of
an issue, and the Democrats would be well advised to ditch it.
2) ABORTION. There are huge numbers of people who find the practice
abhorrent. I understand the politics on both sides, but supporting a
"right to choose" will always be viewed by some people as wanting to kill
babies. I don't see it that way, but it's an issue which turns off lots of
voters.
3) GAY RIGHTS. The Democratic party cannot afford to be seen as the
anti-normalcy party. As shown by voting trends, most Americans, given a
choice, do not support gay marriage.
Confusion heaped on befuddlement follows.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderThe Democratic party has issues they can win on. The Bush administration
is weak on the war,
As opposed to the dems who don't want to fight any war any time.
Wars are generally very bad. A lot of things get destroyed and a lot of
people get killed. They're also extremely expensive. If you can keep
the parties contained and talking eventually conditions will change and
the idea of war will fade. That's exactly what we did with the
Communist states, Liberals and Conservatives together, in a consistent
effort to contain them but avoid war. That's what responsible,
intelligent people do. Neo-cons (read: stupid), however, pride
themselves on their simplicity and predilection for action. As a
result, neo-cons tend to push us into comic-opera wars against easily
defeatable enemies without thinking about the consequences. With
Grenada, Panama, and the Fisrt Gulf War there were no consequences.
Iraq, which was a totally ridiculous war generated by lies and
stupidity, is a completely different story. In Iraq, We gloriously
vanquished a third world country with a dispirited, third-rate
military, but we went too far and are now stuck with an endless and
extremely expensive police action.
Post by SyVyN11Are you kidding, except for the first quarter of the Bush administration the
econmey has been going gang busters, unemployment is lower now than this
time in the Clinton administration (and yet libs are screaming that there
are bread lines all over the USA). All because tax cuts increased what
has been recived by the IRS.
The country is in a huge deficit. Unemployment declined steadily during
the Clinton administration and has risen since (Quit comparing this
time to that time, it makes no sense. Clinton left with the economy at
virtually full employment. Under Bush, unemploymet increased, and Bush
has never caught-up. ) There's no miracle of managment involved. One
expects unemployment to decline during a period of deficit; it's basic
Kenseynian economics. In the long run, however, the debt has to be
paid. In the case of this administration, it's a particularly bad
situation. In the past, we always could shrug off the debt with the
idea that it's money we owe ourselves. Today, however, it's money we
others, especially the Chinese. Economically, the Bushies have pushed
us into huge debts with Communist China, an economic and military rival
that has no compunctions against dealing with our blood enemies, Iran
and North Korea.
Post by SyVyN11Post by Gooseriderand illegal immigration.
Thing is they aren't serious about it! Like anytime during the Clinton
administration, they would lay platatudes all over, but when it can time to
deliver, they reneged on their word and hope people didn't notice.
Uh... perhaps you could provide an example of what occurred during the
Clinton administration. By the way, Sport, Bush is rounding out his
5th year as president. Have things gotten better or worse since the
Bush Junta took over? Funny, I don't remember any grand parades of
illegal immigrants when Clinton was president.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderIf they play their cards right they can pick up some house seats on those
issues.
we call these people 'idiots!'
Who? The House? Yes, it's been run by fools and idiots since 1994.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderUnfortunately, lots of Democrats just marched along with Bush and voted
for the war in Iraq, and voted for the Patriot Act.
The american people never voted for the Patriot Act! get your facts
straight. All the PA did was realign all existing terror laws under one
blanket, it was a useful weapon in the War against Islamic Terror. But
dems demonized it, John Ashcroft and Bush, because Dems aren't serious about
fighting terrorism.
No, the Patriot Act did nothing to help "fight the war." (What war, by
the way?) It was a half-assed effort at best, and the half it had was
uncomfortable to anyone who thinks liberty and privacy are blessings.
The Patriot Act, however, is not the signal effort of the Bush
administration's rather pathetic and stupid attempts to shore-up
domestic security. The first was the creation of the ridiculous Office
of Homeland Security, a bureacratic conglamorate that never even got
within a hundred miles of doing what was necessary -- creating a
clearing house for intelligence that would allow for better monitoring
and control of potential terrorist activities through a meaningful
sharing of information. Instead, we got a large bureaucracy that in
total is much less competent that any of its parts. It's also headed by
a political hack and utter wierd-o, Michael Chertoff, whose only
qualification for the job was his work on Bush's re-election campaign.
Oh, yes, he's a lawyer, too. As if lawyers were trained to manage
anything.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderThey are also not making any moves toward addressing the illegal
immigration issue, which is dumb. The people who are affected most by
illegal immigration are the ones who vote Democratic.
Here's the dirty little secret, the dems know that ILLEGALS will vote for
the candidate who will give them more stuff. In a San Deigo race a few
months ago the sitting congress woman screamed that people should help
register illegals voters. She lost.
Illegals don't vote. They can't register and they can't vote. Period.
They're not citizens. The "sitting Congressman" in the race you're
trying vainly to remember was Duke Cunningham, a Republican who went to
prison for taking bribes. His seat opened whan he was convicted, which
is why they were having an election for the rump of his term. His
district is heavily Republican. Nevertheless, Francine Busby, a School
Board member, who was outspent by Republicans two-to-one, came within
5% of taking the seat. It was loss for Democrats but a damning victory
to Republicans who normally took the seat by 20-25%. As for her
comments on illegals and voting, it was a slip of the tongue. She NEVER
endorsed registering illegals. She immediately corrected herself but
the Pugs wouldn't drop the issue and tried everything they could to
exploit it. Being a Republican and, I suppose, a supporter of Bush, you
must be used to slips of the tongue, blurred speech and general
incomprehensibility by now.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderLots of poor working class people are having to compete with cheap illegal
immigrant labor, and they could surely be motivated to vote for a Democrat
who had a plan to solve the problem. Unfortunately, neither party wants to
risk offending Hispanic voters.
Dems don't care about working class, they want power.
The history of the Democratic Party from the late 19th Century until
now has shown a deep concern for the working class, the middle class
and the poor. Rural Electrification, the TVA, the whole system of
supporting farm loans and home mortgages by providing banks that would
make secondary markets for the financial instruments, Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, Medicare and Medicaid, the Small Business
Administration, the social safety net were all inventions of the
Democrats. In addition, they've championed ecological issues, medical
research, social and health issues, and a myriad of things. Sure, they
need to be in power to do all this, and, sure, some are crooks, and
some insincere, and some are confused, and some are stupid. But in the
end, it's the Democrats who have taken up the challenge of progress and
who have stood in the way of exploitative corporate interests,
profiteers, and hate mongers, who have championed working people,
constructed fair laws that allowed them to unionize, and who have
worked to eradicate the worst ravages of poverty.
The Republicans?? They're the anti-Democrats.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderI'm afraid the presidency will remain in the hands of the Republicans,
because the losers the Democrats want to run have no chance.
We agree, all the dems have is 'we hate bush' and as of this november, that
dog just won't hunt any more. Bush will not run for a third term. And
they can't find a new boogeyman!
I know it comforts you to believe this nonsense -- and it's what the
talking heads on Fox and what Rush wants you to believe -- but it's not
true. The Democrats have a very viable platform, much more so than the
Pugs, who can do little but drool and mutter "stay the course." Run
one your Pug champions and see what happens. Virtually all of them are
dirty in one way or anyother. If a Democratic Congress takes over in
November (which might very well happen) and the hearings on Pug bribery
and influence peddling begin, when the ethical breeches of men like
Frisk and Hastert become clear, you'll be luck if the party doesn't
change its name and pretend never to have heard of Republicans.
Post by SyVyN11Post by GooseriderDoes anybody think Hilary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hell of
winning the south, midwest, and Rocky Mountain states?Al Gore? John Kerry?
John Edwards?
No, No, No, No!
Gore, Kerry and Edwards have more than a fighting chance of taking the
presidency. The Rocky Mountain States are inconsequential. If the
Northeast, the West Coast and a few midwesten states go for them,
they'll have it. Forget Florida. Without a Bush as Governor and a
political whore as Attorney General, It'll go Democratic. As a matter
of fact, if Bush's rating continue to tumble, his coattails might drag
down whatever Pug would run enough to be Hillary in the White House.
Post by SyVyN11But it will be fun to watch these four attack each other for a few months in
the primary season.
It'll be fun watching the Pugs eat their own after the Democrats take
the Congress (and maybe the Senate) in 2006.
Wexford