Going Bush Lite didn't work this time.... Isn't it time to take a stand?

Who shook it up for the primaries?
Sharpton had the best and most succinct comments for the battle against Bush.
Kucinich said what we all felt.


Hell, I'm surprised they didn't put Lieberman in.

The machine didn't let a real voice for the people in and we, the sheep that we are followed the ram over the cliff.

Me? I'm tired of the ring in my nose and the power base that assures Dem or Repug, Corporate America will be served.

We are a nation of lemmings and I'm tired of it.

Money talks and the masses don't matter in this age of media control. It's time to take back America and I don't know how.

</end rant>

"It's time to take back America and I don't know how."

I say we move to Canada, raise an army, and invade North Dakota.

It may not be much of a plan, but it's the best i've come up wiuth so far. beats "quelling doubts".

whalerider55

Glad you enjoyed the election results so much.

If you honestly think John Kerry is "Bush lite" then you do need a new country to run to.

It also sounds that I me be a little different than your "love it or leave it" paradigm.

like "bush*-lite"

The people who don't like the bush-lite label also run screaming from the L word.

determined to make people *think* he was Bush-lite. That's not going to sell.

stole the election, and we will be getting it back soon.

Don't let yet another wuzzy excuse get you turned around. Because it was stolen, there was FRAUD committed, and people WILL be going to jail for this.

And he's in the Commie Hall of Fame® in Hanoi!

This is proof positive we must run a centrist like Zell Miller!

;)

in part because he was PORTRAYED as a liberal... there were cons out there saying that Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator from Mass.

Bush won because he was PORTRAYED as a moderate.

Two lies.

So, next election, let's make them tell the truth once. We'll nominate an honest to god far left winger, and let them portray him as what he is, while they run as a centrist and win the election in 2008...

Same thing that happened to Dukakis, same thing Kerry promised he wouldn't let them do. He didnt go after Bush's flip-flops, didn't go after the swift vets, pulled the McCain Ad (one of the most powerful ads his campaign had..showing McCain going after bush for trying to misrepresent his military service) didnt go after bush's negligence before 9/11, didn't even stand up for his home state when bush bashed it. Too bad, because I really liked Kerry, but I don't know what he was thinking.

I admit that it's probably wrong to turn around and keep throwing these recriminations back and forth. But in all seriousness, Bob Shrum is now 0 for 8 and he was basically running the Kerry campaign for most of the time.

PLEASE, send him to a blissful retirement - for all our sakes!

*Oh, the McCain ad - they planned on running it, but McCain personally asked Kerry to stop.

to hit the highway.

yet Shrum's politics are closer to the average DUer's than, say, Kerry's own are, and certainly more than the liberal icon, Howard Dean's, are.

Shrum would look a lot better if Kerry hadn't had to contend with the dead weight of 30 years of Democratic hostility to the military.

Of course, Shrum himself is part of that tradition, so maybe he deserves to be bashed. :shrug:

It's his incompetence as a campaign strategist. He's a decent ad man and he's a fine strategist for a senate race. But his track record in presidential races is bad. And I don't think it's entirely coincidental. Most of the advice he gave to Kerry was bad - i.e., he told Kerry to play down Iraq and talk about economy, told him to fudge Iraq and play it safe, told him not to attack the SBVT, told Kerry never to go negative, was obsessed with focus-group polling, etc. He never could come up with any theme but "fighting for Us" - the same theme he's been running with for two decades. It was thoroughly asinine "strategery" - any fool could tell it wasn't working, and I wish Kerry had listened to his gut.

On the other hand, Shrum helped run Kerry's debate training. So that's a plus, and it's a possibility that Kerry wouldn't have done as well. However, my guess is that Kerry would have done well with any debate coach, and Kerry's a pretty talented debater as it is.

ad! I couldn't belive when Kerry pulled it! Was probably the best ad they had. So McCain "asked" and Kerry withdrew it?? God help us. 2 weeks later McCain joined the bash Kerry fest at the RNC convention. Not a smart move by Kerry, to say the least.

Bush threw the shit and the media made it stick. This was one of the most frustrating election I have ever seen with the Bush lying his ass off and the media echoing his shit the entire time.

I said here before the election that a Kerry win would be an amazing accomplishment with the way the media misbehaved since August.

so....you think he lost because he acted like a Republican? THINK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only true Republican Lite choices were Lieberman, Graham, and Gephardt.

No matter what Deaniacs And Kucinichites say

Would have been business as usual.

I'll admit I'm farther left than the average dem, but I really don't think Kerry lit a fire under anyone. "The most liberal member of the Senate" was the meme created by Rush et.al.

Moderates will just keep us going down the same road we're on now. We need a change, my friend.

No one is.

Notice the poster didn't mention DK's abortion position, or some of Sharpton's less liberal positions.

You are aware, I trust, that you are echoing a Boosh talking point here?

Kerry was rated the most liberal last year, and the rating was skewed by his absence for a number of votes. Lifetime, he was something like 14th.

Edited to make an errant "i" an "e."

and that is what is so funny. if Bush was successful in turning out the "guns, god, gays" crowd with this guy...just imagine if someone like Kucinich or Dean were more embraced by the mainstream DEMS.

They would paint him the worst kind of socialist/communist and it would be over before it started.

My point is that apart from the really liberal activists...no one viewed him as a Republican Lite.

Yeah, I've got some snakeoil to sell ya too.

peanut butter but it's still peanut butter.

He was a liberal once upon a time.

Or do they mean something when YOU use them?

moderates and right wingers as possible by pandering to purile instincts and simply accepting that he had the anti-bush base so he'd play both sides...

Bush lite fit in the field.

:)

for the same reason the TheoCons think it's OK only when THEY do it...."Because we're right"

I'm not ragging you because your opinion's different from mine.

I still voted for Kerry and would again in the same situation. I just feel that we lost a lot of fire with the moderate face.

implying you can read my mind might be one way you can use to try and distract.

But maybe someday you'll explain why it's OK for only you to label people while criticizing others who do the same thing. Maybe, but I doubt it.

you are trying to say here via your keyboard. How did I imply I could read your mind? If I did, I'm sorry.

And I don't think it's OK for "only (me)to label people while criticizing others who do the same thing." So I really can't explain what you want me to explain. I used the "Bush Lite" nomer because it consolodated a lot of minutia into and easy to type phrase.

PLEASE chill out, have a drink, a valium, a blunt, a nice jog around the block. Whatever makes you feel good. We have differences but we (I believe) are on the same side.

I should not take it personally. If you can't read my mind, then how can you know how I'm "taking" it?

I used the "Bush Lite" nomer because it consolodated a lot of minutia into and easy to type phrase.

While at the same time, criticizing others for "consolidating a lot of minutia into and easy to type phrase". It's called "labelling", even when you offer a euphemism for your own behavior.

PLEASE chill out, have a drink, a valium, a blunt, a nice jog around the block. Whatever makes you feel good.

THIS is what makes me feel good.

We have differences but we (I believe) are on the same side.

Nope. People who have to resort to making accusations about my need to "chill out" are definitely NOT on my side. If you were really concerned about my emotional state, you would have asked and not assumed.

NONY NONY POOH POOH!

I'll bet that shows you! And if you question my logic and judgement again, I will baffle you with TWO mooning Barts!

Maybe you should chill out.

I will baffle you with TWO mooning Barts!

You don't scare me. I'll moon you with TWO baffling Farts!!

Not the Monty Python links! Anything but that!

The second most progressive candidate next to Kucinich was Bush-lite? What makes him Bush-lite? Did you pay attention to the campaign or watched the debates? Are Kerry and Bush anything alike?

I don't think so but maybe I'm the one smoking crack... :-)

No.

Did he campaign on a Bush lite platform and mouth bush lite positions - yes. Two examples: gay marriage - he's opposed, just not so opposed as to advocate amending the constitution; Terrorism/Iraq: Going to finish what we started in Iraq (now that we're already there) and hunt the terrorists down and kill them.

From the subject line I was going to ask what you were smoking - but I see you have answered that question :)

we could be saying president Kerry. I don't see a need for a drastic change at all.

And he would have been light years beyond what we have now, but, I feel that the DNC buckled to the right in this election.

The Democratic Party must decide if it is going to fully embrace the following issues:

1. Universal Single Payer Health Care
2. Equal rights for homosexuals (marriage, etc.)
3. Election and campaign finance reform (Instant runoff voting, etc.)
4. Reduction of the military defense budget
5. Living wage

Unfortunately, although Kerry may have supported these issues, he did not make strong and well defined stances on them during the campaign (especially 3 and 4). There were many voters who voted for Bush simply because he was more explicit in the issues he supported. The Democratic party must decide if they are going to fully embrace these issues and make them an integral party of their party platform and pursue them aggressively.

:toast:

Even reptiles like to get stoned. We do need to change the message to one every man understands, we need to take the language back and use it in a way that people see that it's in their interest to give democrats a chance.
There are millions of people who don't vote, the reptiles like this just fine, we need to find a way to break through to them. They're not rightwing ditto spanks and they are'nt in a church three times a week.
They're mostly working men and women who don't see anyone addressing their needs, and you know what? They're right.

And I'm tired of holding mine while reading your Scott Lee impersonation...

Better to kill a goose and talk about Gawd. We wouldn't want anyone to think that Democrats might be libruls and actually stand for something.

I mean, honestly. We seem to be buying into the false meme that we lost by a landslide.

We must try to appeal to everybody all the time. That's the only way to win.

Fucking Chuck Hegel is Bush-lite.

None of the candidates running for the Dem nom in 2004 was Bush-lite.

Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton were given EVERY chance to win the party nomination this year. They did not. Deal with it and look forward.

and who should true blues have gravitated toward? That's right.

Next up: Lieberman, Miller, Bayh, Vilesmack, and McCain in the 2008 democratic primary.

:puke: