I was shocked my Dem friend said he'd vote for Bush if the election were

held tomorrow. I knew he was more of a moderate than I am, and I was rebuking him for not investigating the Democratic contenders, and he came out with a statement I couldn't believe a guy with a master's degree who has voted Democratic could make. He said that Bush has been consistent in his foreign policy, with Iraq. That if Gore were in, we wouldn't have Saddam. And implied essentially that no Democrat could be trusted to do the right thing against terrorists. I naturally argued with him, but to no avail.

If a guy like this, who voted for Gore, can be so blind to what has been going on with Bush -- and this is a guy who does read more than the funnies in the newspaper -- what kind of chance do we have?

There's a whole SITE of Repubs for Dean, are there any sites of commited Dems for Chimp ?

I trust you set him straight?

but does your friend have no regard for domestic issues?

The out of control spending?
The jobless recovery?
Tax cuts for the rich?
Reversal of health and environmental protections?
The contempt for the judiciary?

I'm not ready to concede the value of Bush's "consistent" (amusing term:)) foreign policy by a long shot, but a lot of what I'm hearing is more about concern for what's wrong at home.

Bush is vulnerable. He didn't win the first time, he won't win this time.

Rain down upon your friends head all of the evil things that shrubco are up to. And forcefully. It's strange how passion will sway people.

Your friend must be the kind of guy who a Clark candidacy might work on, but the others....

out there who are like your friend. It's going to be a tough battle to win the election. Right now, in my newspaper - Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Dem candidates and the issues they raise is on page 6.

People will become more aware of the differences between Bush and our candidate as time progresses.

stupid white male disease.

not having Saddam, because Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place since he had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has been consistent about Iraq. He was determined to finish the job Poppy didn't and wanted to make his buddies rich. Fighting for our freedom in Iraq is pure bullshit propaganda.

Gore would have Osama by now instead of using our forces occupying a country we have no business being in.

Thank you

9/11 would probably not have happened because Gore would not have instituted "Operation Ignore".

Wow. Think of how many humans might still be alive, the world over, but for that one Supreme Court vote.

Good God.

Scary that one SCOTUS vote means more than the votes of thousands of citizen votes.

SCOTUS looms large in November, although I sincerely hate to see it politicized.

the WTC would still be standing tall.

911 would never have happened if the elected candidate was sitting in the oval office.

Hate to break it to you.

and many of them vote

now think he's a dork. :)

Personally, I think foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Sure he's consistent. Remind him of all the deaths. Then tell him to survey his family and look for cannon fodder in its midst because Bush needs more blood for oil.

Hugs, honey

Jeffery Dahlmer was consistent.

Nixon was consistent.

Consistently wrong or evil or derranged.

What's their point?!!

Are they "right"?

Do they lie?

Are we better off now than we were just 2 1/2 years ago?

...which should give you a clue to his intelligence.

They are so effective at getting them out there that they seep into everybody's brain... Clinton lost a chance when Sudan offered to hand over Osama... Gore sold missile technology to China for campaign donations... Gore is a liar who invented the internet...the economic downturn is a hangover from the excesses of the Clinton years...

Tell him about that - Read Al Franken's "Lying Liars" book for more info...

Hitler as vice-chancellor in 1933 (albeit this was a small minority) because they wanted order due to their fear of the communists (the latter being involved in violent battles with brown shirts) gaining control of the weakened Weimar republic. These particular Jews, being concerned Germans, also worried about the devastating depression for several years. Hitler promised to immediately rebuild the economy and hence the country. There was no mention of arrests and concentration camps. His rants in Mein Kampf seemed too fantastic to be taken seriously.

Also to be considered is that Hitler won his position with a plurality, something like less than 30% of the vote because of all the candidates on the poll. He didn't exactly win on a mandate like * didn't.

Many of my blue color friends...Hard working, lifetime Democratic union members, many of them feel this way. Of course this is Indiana, which is hardcore Repuke...

But still, these guys are not stupid, they're not idiots as many above me on this thread would describe them...They're just not political junkies like us on DU.

And I don't know what to think...I do know 9-11 made a HUGE impression apon them.

:toast:

You say that 9-11 made a huge impression on these people. Shrub is misleading them into believing that invading Iraq and capturing Saddam is somehow vindicating those killed on 9-11. Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with it.

In the meantime, he is allowing the situation in Afghanistan to spin out of control, heroin production is going strong, and Al Queda is busily recruiting new members, and planning more attacks.

Going into Iraq was a diversion, and did nothing but throw up a huge smokescreen, allowing Bush and his cronies to bankrupt our country, roll back civil liberties, and invade a country in order to take over it's resources.

about the election, and I made the seemingly rhetorical question

"Bush may be popular, but are there any people who voted for Gore last time that will vote for Bush next time?"

My assumed answer was "no way," but my wife's quick response was, "oh lots. At the scrapbooking party, that's what we were talking about, and a lot of the women were going to vote for Bush next time."

Surprised me.

And just as unfortunate is the fact that these people are called idiots and non-Democrats here. Which simply isn't true.

www.doyouknow.org for starters, and tell them to educate themselves. If they are union, many of the unions have excellent websites telling members exactly how Bush has screwed them and their families over.

The internet is a glorious thing -- use it.

Just kidding about the friend part but not the other. No Democrat could ever even think about voting for that low life Rep that is squatting in our White House.

If Gore was in the White House, we wouldn't have gone after Saddam because he didn't have anything to do with 911. (quite possibly we wouldn't have had 911 either)

how could he be so easily fooled?

Repeat "the Big Lie" often enough and people will believe it.

Back when the college where I worked was undergoing a huge remodeling and construction program, I noticed that the construction workers invariably had some right wing talkshow on the radio. The signs on their trucks proclaimed them to be union members, but they were getting hours of right wing propaganda every day.

I mentioned this incident shortly after it happened, but two years ago at Christmas, my stepfather invited an old friend of his over for dinner. All of a sudden, out of the blue, a propos of nothing, this man said, "You know, I think Bush has really grown into his role as president since 9/11."

Not coincidentally, this was precisely the time period during which all the TV pundits were saying exactly the same thing.

What the Dems need to do, every one of them from presidential candidates down to candidates for dog catcher, is agree on their own talking points, repeating at every opportunity that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, that the war is a cash cow for Bush's buddies, that he is throwing away the lives of America's youth in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that his actions have created more hatred for America in the Arab world. Every Democrat who appears on local or national TV needs to make at least one of these statements.

Pretty soon there will be competing talking points in people's heads, and the ones who aren't hopelessly brainwashed will be forced to actually think.

just wish it would happen, instead of us eating our own...

It's true guys, Bush's puppet masters are the best at propaganda...and until we can combat it, we will not win the next election and who knows what will happen to this country that we love...denying that people love Bush because of 9-11 is denying reality...I hate it as much as you do, but we have to get a consistent message and work our butts off to get it out to people...

A constitent policy of ignoring the rest of the world and only doing what we want...having 85% of the world hating us is consistent...but what its being consistent with is going bite us hard...if there is anything we should have learned over the last 2.5 years, blowback is a bitch!!

We must attack Bush on foreign policy, we must, its imperative because so many think that Bush is doing well on foreign policy when in reality it is the exact opposite...and whistle asses like Gephardt and Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards aren't gonna cut it...

I wouldn't worry about it, the Gore-voters-for-Bush phenomenon is no doubt as rare as C-J Disease.

On the other hand, there will be plenty of Bush voters that can't help but notice how bad Bush sucks, plus Nader voters like me, plus non voters, who will go against Bush.

would support a Republican for President. Two of the ex-Bush voters I know are more rabidly anti-Bush than I am!

There is no way this person is actually reading the news from an objective source. Period. Anyone who reads real news would never consider voting for Bush for one second.

If he is truly "reading more than the funnies" in objective sources he is reading the funnies and the Sports section.

We here on DU are not ignorant fools opposed to George W. Bush because of ideas we concoct from thin air. We follow the news, use our brains, and base our political positions on morality and compassion.

I don't see how an informed person could assign those virtues to Bush: consistent in foreign policy, doing the right thing against terrorists, etc.

The only thing I can think of to explain that thinking is that he got hired as a propagandist for the RW. :shrug:

Well said.

But we can relate to the suffering of other humans; and Republicans never, ever care about suffering until THEY are personally affected.

It was not Saddam who blew up the WTC. Your friend is like so many others in this country...brainwashed. They fall victim to non-critical thinking. Saddam was the US "red herring" You make a problem so you can solve it and then claim victory even thought the problem you solved was not the real problem.

bright. Tell him to turn off his propaganda machine and start to learn something.

I agree with your friend, although I wouldn't vote for Bush, however, I will not vote for Dean either. The far leftists have made the Democratic party all but unelectible in large parts of the country. Here in Virginia, Democrats running for office can't even put their party name on their campaign signs. They know that it's the kiss of death.

I find myself actually hoping that we nominate a leftist that will get us killed in the general election.

The only solution is to take our lumps for our foolishness and get creamed in 2004, then take back the center again. If we do that we can win in 2008. If not, the Democrats will begin that long spiral down, becoming an insignificant far left political party.

The reason the 2000 election was close enough for bushco to steal is that Gore was too center and didn't inspire the base to get out and vote.

Democrats need to avoid falling for the 'we must have the center' ploy. That's what hurt us in 2000. The 'us-too-but-not-as-much' attitude hurt us in 2002.

If we ignore our base and pander to the center, we will lose. Lieberman is wrong.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"and I'm not so sure that I disagree with them"

Well there is your problem right there. Hang around here a little longer, odds are you can fix that problem. There is still hope for you, I can feel it.

Thanks for responding to the throwaway line at the end, how about replying to the substance?

"Far leftists are smug and self-important to the point of thinking that regular people just aren't as smart as they are."

"Far leftists ridicule normal people, ie, southerners, or anyone else not on their "protected" list. Yeah, that's a good way to win elections."

"Far leftists are in the uncomfoprtable position of almost hoping for the worst for this country so they can get elected."

As to being persuaded to become a far leftist, I've already been to college...

Is someone with a chip on their shoulder who has an ax to grind with liberals.

Odd on a site for Democrats but not unheard of.
Far leftists are in the uncomfortable position of watching the worst happen to our country, we don't have to hope for it or maybe you just started paying attention?

Far leftists and southerners? I see people from the south post everyday that unless we elect a southerner they wont support the party, who has the problem?

Also most leftist I know ARE regular people. Maybe you know a lot of leftist who ARE smarter than you? I don't know? But the fact someone is smart should not make you afraid of them.

I usually listen to people with well developed opinions instead of holding a grudge. I find it ultimately makes me smarter for my trouble. Differnet strokes I guess?

If your solution to a problem of perceptions is to court the center, agree with shrub on his war crusades, and rubber-stamp his tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, then the Democrats will own that center at the cost of their entire base. Good luck winning elections when two thirds of the Dems won't even vote at all.

The ONLY way to win at this point is to present a sound, fiscally responsible, internationally acceptible platform of rebuilding economic infrastructure (e.g. manufacturing sector) and consensus-based foreign policy. Unilateralism and further supply-siding might just win back some of the squishy center, but it will alienate the base and do nothing to establish a favorable difference between the Democratic candidates and what we have right now.

now.

The right wing is so fascist now, there is no more room on the right for them to move. Everyone else but the fascist right wing is "leftist" by comparison. So we continue to "move to the right". Your "center" is already to far to the "right".]

I agree, we must move the party back to the "center".

- to the "left" of where it is now.

then you've never met a real leftist.

You're falling for rightwing propaganda. I bet you can't even define what you mean by "too left."

The worst part is that we're reduced to countering arguements with speculation on what Gore would've done or who would've invaded Iraq when.

Actually, I'm not so sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. He and President Clinton did believe that Saddam had WMDs back in 1998, so I think that he might've gone in. I also think that he would've been fairly aggressive in the war on terror. I don't know if he would've captured Mr. Bin Laden, because it's alot harder to capture someone who's on the run than a head of state. Look at the racist guy Eric Rudolph who is the bomber from the Atlanta Olympics.

What I've seen from the Democratic Party except for maybe Carol Mosley Braun has been pretty disappointing. Nobody seems to have any spine and they seem to be campaigning based on polls. They turn against whoever the front runner is and attack Bush as a reaction when he has some good news come out. And that's no way to operate. I think that alot of the members here at DU would be able to run a better campaign than most of the Democrats are doing now.

But Bush might be peaking too soon. And once we get through a couple of caucuses, we should start to narrow out the field. Then we can get a better picture of what the platform for the Dems will be. I can't wait til someone is picked as the nominee...so be glad your friend is saying that he would today and not will in November. There's alot more to come from the Democrats!

invaded Afghanistan. I think we'd still be increasing sanctions on the Taliban at the UN.

The Afghan invasion was an incredibly risky scheme. We had no ports to use, no friendly countries surrounding it, the risk of a fundamentalist take-over in Pakistan if we forced Mushareff to help us, and at any time our supply lines could be cut. Also, even our possible allies in Afghanistan would despise having foreign troops in their country, and their history is fighting foreignors for generations until they kicked them out regardless of the cost.

Nope, I'm pretty sure that Gore would have weighed the risks, and not committed us to Afghanistan. We would have lobbed some missiles at Osama's camps and pressured the UN to clamp down on the Taliban.

I don't think people realize how risky the invasion of Afghanistan was. Vietnam without the coastilines.

Maybe we could have stuck flowers in the barrels of the Taliban's guns...

We should have invaded based on their treatment of women alone. How can we whine about human rights and then wimp out because something is "risky"?

Well, daisies don't cost that much...

I saw one get shot into Homer Simpson's head once! :)

I still have to believe that Al Gore would've gone into Afghanistan. And Iraq, only after UN approval...which I believe would've been more accomodating to him. He would've probably waited at least another year for Iraq. But I don't think that Saddam Hussein would've been cooperative with the inspectors and would still be shooting at planes in the no-fly zone.

But to shoot missles into the desert again wouldn't have worked...which he would know because we tried it after bombings in Kenya and Al Qaeda was still in Afghanistan after 2001.

Give Al some credit. He would do what would be best for our defense. Maybe he would've taken a little more time to build up coalitions, but he would've done what it takes.

I think that Gore would have had much more success at building a coalition. Bush the First didn't such do a bad job of it once Margaret Thatcher stopped him from going "all wobbly", because he had experience at international diplomacy. Gore had experience there as well.

Should we invade again?

The constitution is in negotiation, although I predict that it will be far friendlier to women than before.

Got a serious argument?

tell me about the negotiations, is the disenfranchisement of women on the table?

Musharraf has been at risk from the get go. As for the rest, you're talking about logitical problems to be solved and they were solved...easily. LOL. Who and how were they going to cut supply lines?


Bush wouldn't have went in if he had his druthers. He wanted to go to Iraq first.

He would have done whatever he had to do to catch the perps, unlike Bush. It is probably moot because 9-11 was all about Bush.

What his statement proves is that Americans are terribly short-sided. We know very little about how we nurtured Saddam, how he has nothing to do with 9-11, and that by having him only proves that we were wrong in supporting him for so long. If your friend were to stop and think about what will be the fall out of these horrible actions of killing more innocent people and a torn and tattered people, who knew we were the reason saddam was there in the first place, he might understand that war does not solve anything. It only brings more uncertainty and at what cost. It's rather scary that we believe we can fix problems that have been around for centuries and especially with our hate and force.

except for destruction of men, machines and morale (hmmmm a new title for a History Channel series). Diplomacy is what solves things. The Iraq war was a failure in diplomacy (including the Gulf War in 1991).

But Afghanistan needed to happen. The War on Terror is necessary. But war can't just be about bombs and guns. There has to be some diplomacy. I don't know how to negotiate with terrorists...and I think that we shouldn't (kill them as you can). But we could've negotiated more with the Taliban...a better understanding of the cultures and languages of the middle east and southern Asia is key.

Hopefully, we'll invest in better intelligence and diplomatic human resources for these regions in order to better negotiate resolutions to diplomatic issues and better interdict security threats.

What would you have done, protested at the Bundestag? Gone on a hunger strike until Hitler got your message?

Would you have written the Japanese a stern note telling them how much Pearl Harbor hurt your feeeeeeeeeeeeelings?

We're the world's only superpower, no matter how much the far left regrets it. Sometimes we've got to BE a superpower. I don't agree wih a lot of things Bush has done, but I'm sure glad that the pacifists are not in power.

In many ways we're still the good guys.

What are you talking about?

The choice is not between Bush and "pacifists." That's ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

Have you BEEN on this forum?

We are all here to get a dem elected, which one of them is against war for any reason?

Listen, my brother fought in Vietnam, my father and uncle in wars and so did both my grandfathers. Don't try to confuse the issues. War in this day and age will bring nothing but total destruction.

My dear friend. I never said that War is not necessary. But it alone does not solve things. If not coupled with effective diplomacy and long term economic, civil planning...it will only revive the conditions conducive to war once again.

War is brutal, dehumanizing and expensive. But is it necessary? Absolutely. Is it alone a solution? No.

Now with terrorists...killing them might be the only way to go and no negotiations may be warranted. But there still needs to be some work in the regions that fostered that terrorism in order to move forward.

I had something else to add...but brain-fart. It was something very poignant too! :(

We had ample reasons to "go in".

The repukes at the time were mostly supporting the NAZI's then - FDR had a horrible time with the repuke congress to commit to supporting England in her time of need - look up "Lend Lease".

Bunkerboy's actions are based on LIES! All of 'em!

If what has transpired TODAY was given as the reason to attack Iraq THEN, there is no way in this universe that he would have received the green lite to attack. None!

"Saddam's a bad guy - let's attack without provocation!"

No way!

with the US. They had to declare war thanks to blunder of making a pact with the Japanese.

But we were actually already against Germany by virtue of the supplies we were sending to Great Britain and the USSR.

And there have been quite a few tinfoil theories on how we knew that Japan was going to attack on 12/7 and did nothing. Also how Japan had no choice to go to war with us and we dropped the ball on the diplomacy front.

I don't agree with it and I agree with the fact that WWII was WAY different than going into Iraq. Just pointing out some of the stuff that's been bantied about.

was for someone to assissinate Hitler--or challenge him to a duel , one on one.

They, those who were aware of his abosolute insanity, did try to assissinate him and failed.

I am convinced that a leader who is so obviously crazy and insane, needs to be dealt with individually. This will save many, many lives, I think.

to handle foreign policy.

We "nurtured" Saddam to keep Iran & Iraq at a stalemate - to prevent either one from over-running the MiddleEast. Not the best solution, but the only one - same reason we allied ourselves with Stalin to take down Hitler.

Saddam may/may not have been directly involved in 9-11. The point was to take down a nation-state that harbored terrorists (he did) before Saddam could pass off WMDs to Islamic Jihad. Its the same logic as knocking off the drug supplier before you go after the dealers.

And yes, War can solve problems. Believe it or not, there are some problems out there that can only be solved with force (see UN, 10 years of "talks" that enabled Saddam).

Trust the guy who sneakily lied in the State of the Union? Dems never did that. Bush did.

Trust the guy who for no reason threatened North Korea and who is now forcing the United States to eat its shoes both in NK and in Communist China.

Bush and all his backers are idiots.

on national security issues by mainstream Americans. To argue otherwise is to be naive. I think that Bush handled both prewar diplomacy and postwar strategy very badly, but America sees him as trying to stand up for America. America wants a strong America, and the Republicans have claimed that ground right now, in the minds of most Americans.

I think a Democrat can be for the working man, against tax breaks for the wealthy, for the envoironment AND be strong on national defense.

When we find one of those maybe we'll win an election...

...are those people with absolutely no knowledge of American History. For instance, how many think FDR (WWII), Truman (dropped the nukes on Japan, signed into being the CIA and NATO), JFK (The Cuban Missile Crisis), and LBJ (Vietnam) were "wimps on national security issues"? And just because Carter and Clinton (Kosovo) chose the path of negotiation before going to war, that's no reason to call them "wimps", either.

To argue otherwise is to either be totally ignorant of history, and/or completely incapable of critical thinking.

Additionally, Clinton's Administration not only tried to kill OBL, but they fully briefed the NeoCon Junta before it took power on the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The NeoCons supposedly ignored it, but I think they did it on purpose.

Maybe if we find a few more Democrats that take pride in what Democrats have done as lawfully-elected Presidents in the past maybe then we'll win an election.

you don't have to be a wizard to figure that out. I don't think you have any idea what a mainstream American is? Are you even an American yourself? It does not seem like you understand what Americans think like. We were taught that we lived in a just country, that we are the good guys, that the constitution was sacred. We were taught Hitler was bad. Now our Government is doing what it once condemed?

I am a red neck from OKla. Does that give me enough Joe Six Pack points to be a regular American?

I find the Democrats to be very strong on Defense. Sometimes even over the top like Bush. Only a fool thinks that attacking Iraq made us safer or makes up for 9-11. Seriously what kind of moron responds to being sucker punched by starting a fight with someone who had nothing to do with punching him?


Sorry I am a regular guy without an phd and I am not so stupid to buy what you are selling.

Are we getting Freeped today? What's the matter, the Cowboys aren't playing the early game there Bubba?

it kind of looks like we are getting freeped today.:eyes:

You say "We 'nurtured' Saddam to keep Iran & Iraq a stalemate.
First of all who is "we"? To me, "we" is the Reagan, Republican/Neoconservative Administration in the 1980's that handed this jerk weapons to help wage war against Iran.
It is the same administration that nurtured Osama Bin Laden and the rest of his thugs in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets. How is it that the Democrats are so bad at foreign policy/national security when the so-called threats of the 90s and this century have been created and nurtured by a Republican administration. It is clear to me that Republican foreign policy is good at perceiving very short term (and occasionally paranoid) security threats while having no skill at all at developing a long-range foreign policy that actually thinks about the future, not "well, it'll work itself out after we're pelted with sweets and flowers in the ticker-tape parade".

Now, you say "Saddam may/may not have been directly involved in 9-11". Where is the uncertainty coming from? Despite all of this administration's innuendo about the connection between these two guys, there has not been one credible link found to link them together. The meeting between the Iraqi agent and Mohammed Atta in Prague never happened: the FBI has hotel, car rental receipts, etc., showing that Atta was in Florida at the time that this meeting was supposed to have taken place.

As for Saddam harbouring terrorists, well, there have been allegations made. But, most of these airline hijackers were also in the US, taking aviation lessons. Does this mean that the US was harbouring and protecting them as well?

Like the Reagan Administration, this Junta is putting short-ranged (and dangerously deluded) security interests ahead of creating a consistent, forsighted foreign policy - and in the process, they are creating a heck of a lot more Saddams, Osamas and others.

and welcome to DU!

:hi:

I don't know what TV u been watching but things don't look so hot in Iraq since we invaded. They don't seem to be getting any better either. I was not worried about Saddam. I am worried about all our maimed troops however and the debt my grandchildren will work off for the crusade.

Ergo, it is not.

I agree, I think this "dem for Bush" is apocryphal, and it's fascinating how this thread has come to the attention of a lot of new DUers. :-)

Not only was he, or his regime, not a threat to the US but now the proverbial "can of worms" has been cracked open.

Hussein didn't have shit to do with the WTC murders or Osama's merry band of psychotics.

What Bush has accomplished now though is the greatest thing to happen for the people that think like Osama.

Bummer.

...Poster has NO responses to any of the replies
...only 58 posts to the nick
... and uses a smart friend (with a Master's) as a strawman to attack the Gore/democrats over WHAT? a usual GOP attack line regarding foreign policy
"I naturally argued with him, but to no avail. " !!! yeah right, :eyes:

You guys are really gullible...

I'm not going to feel stupid because I replied to the post and the other posters.

It's not like we're actually impacting foreign/domestic policy here on DU. And if someone's fake post gets us to discuss real issues...well, what's the harm?

Some DUers get bored and might create strawman pukes to throw some chum in the water?

Anyway it's a dumb post if this person seriously could not get his friends shit straight

Yep Yep..Sorry to say..

Some moderates still understand the wrong of B*sh (hey, what's the story behind the "*"?). Heck, they could say that the far left is the problem with the democratic party. Things have become so darned polarized lately (and part if it I blame on the war with the candidates) that it's spread to the ranks within our party.

Moderates, Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Greens all have different agendas. But overall, we do want more for the masses we do want safety in our country (without invasions), we want a better environment for our posterity, we want freedom of speech and we want jobs fair wages and easy access to medical care.

If we starting saying that one group is more entitled to this party than another...then we totally destroy one of the prime tennents of the party...unity!

anything to the left of Atilla the Hun is considered "far left".

The problem with the current Democratic party is that they're trying so hard to move to the "center"(really the right", and rolling over and appeasing the Republicans in the hope that the Republicans won't be mean to them.

Please don't make the mistake of equating to views expressed on DU with the official platform of the Democratic party. We are not official representatives of the party, only ordinary Democrats who tend to be much more liberal or leftist than the actual party.

In my opinion, the only way for the Democrats to start winning again is by articulating a clear agenda that strongly differentiates them from the Republicans, and presents people with a genuine choice. They also need to stop being afraid of not being "moderate" enough.

The Republicans havn't gotten where they are today by trying to be centrist and moderate and accommodating. There's no reason to think that the Democrats will do well with that strategy either.

You're a Clark man. Are you expecting him to move left of center? And we are looking at a more moderate Republican party...look at Arnold in California. Talk of amnesty for undocumented aliens. Now Pat Buchannon would be more right-wing to me. Bush is conservative and uses war freely. Buchannon is straight up racist, isolationist and would send out stormtroopers to round up mexicans.

He wouldn't however, have gone to war in Iraq (can't believe I agree with him on anything!).

Second, I believe his platform is actually on the more progressive end of things, while he retains a centrist demeanor that makes him appear less threatening to more conservative types. I also support him because he stands up against the Republicans and doesn't show any fear, doesn't apologize for the progressive stands that he takes, and I think that's what the Democratic party needs right now. That is why Dean is my second choice.

Thirdly, if you want to discuss the relative merits of the candidates, this is not the right place for it. I will be happy to discuss this matter with you in the appropriate forum. Thank you for your time miss.

I still am leaning towards Dean myself...for whatever that's worth. I'm pretty much going to go with whomever wins the candidacy. Clark interests me, but I dunno.

"miss" Guess I deserved that. But it still hurts. ;)

You think that you can win without moderates? Ginmme a break. Seriously?

I'm not kidding, seriously?

and gore still out-polled the moron, what's the panic?

if you call it that (I think it's a good thing) is that Gore AND the party was WAY more centrist in 2000. Pertaining to foreign affairs, the only thing said by the far left nowadays is "uh, I guess we shpould let the U.N. handle it...", and that's not exactly going to resonate with mainstream voters in 2004.

It's real easy to sit here with people who believe exactly like you. You don't get a very realistic picture of how regular people feel.

We keep getting mixed messages from the far right- on one hand they say that the UN is "irrelevant"- but then Bush turns around and asks them for support??? Huh?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901969641.html?from=storyrhs

"US President George W Bush vowed today to "spend what is necessary" to succeed in Iraq's reconstruction and urged the United Nations to assume a broader role in the problem-plagued post-war effort"

You try to smear DEMS by saying :far left nowadays is "uh, I guess we shpould let the U.N. handle it..."

But the reality is that Democrats will not lie to the people like Bush did and say the UN is irrelevant, while still asking them for money & support. DEMS know that we are going to need the support from other countries- Bush's coalition is disapointing- they could not even help us w/ the $87 Billion Bush needed...Most of them are countries that signed on but contribute little..

But it's all about PERCEPTION, and the Republicans are successfully painting the Democrats as being wimps on national defense. No far left - perceived candidate is going to be able to successfully counter that perception.

Furthermore, the left is not going to change America's mind about that perception. The left can wish all it wants, but it is NOT going to happen.

As long as the Democratic candidate is perceived that way, that candidate will NOT win.

...National Democrats have always been strong on foriegn policy-but the media does try to paint DEMS as weak despite the numerous Republican failures in FP...

...it's the Republican FP that created every single instance of "blow-back" this country has suffered- be it Reagan's funding of Bin Laden & Saddam, or Bush Sr's funding of cocaine lords like Noreaga...

BUT- that's ancient history-it's up to the DEM candidate to highlight his strenghts and point out where Bush has lied and made mistakes concerning his own FP...

With the conservative stranglehold on the media, this will be a hard row hoe- but I think a good DEM like Clark or Kerry is up to it...

That is if you were actually interested in how to fight this lie.

Next time try not spreading the lie and addressing it in the correct context.

Maybe you are not but I am.

what is this "regular people" business- are all Democrats "ivory tower" academics now or somthing???

Last time I checked, millions of "regular people" are not happy with Bush...

if the election were held tomorrow. Because Bush showed he cannot be trusted and went to Iraq on a false premise. It's a varied world, isn't it ?

Ok...Ok...so the thread could be BS. But it still prompted some good dialogue amongst us.

I keep hearing about these "lifelong Democrats" who suddenly believe that the most conservative Republican ever is "doing a good job."

Anyone who says "no Democrat can be trusted..." was never a Democrat to begin with, and apparently does not know Democrats...

I keep heaing about these mysterious, legendary converts, but I never meet them...

didn't you get the memo from 6degreesofseperation.com?

...people in the grocery line, etc,- never met one of these "life long Democrat" Bush supporters...

It has everything you need to know, with excerpts from, but not limited to:

Stupid White Men
It's Still the Economy, Stupid
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Robert Byrd's "This Chamber is Silent!" speech from before the war

...and things from Molly Ivins, Al Franken, and Paul Krugman, to name a few.

Could actually be part of why his friend would vote for Bush.

What is your point?

Criticising Bush will make people vote for him- is that the point? I dont get it- you say that Byrds speech and some Liberal books turn people to Bush- can you elaborate?

I've read Al Franken's book- it's not shrill, but light and humorous, actually- and it's 100% accurate- all it does is document Bush lies.

Is this supposed to be more of this "Bush hater" stuff or somthing?...

My point is that if this person is willing to vote for Bush after being a democrat all of his life, then perhaps the books above which are for the most part anti-war, anti-bush, etc. are not necessarily the way to go.

Mainly the Moore book. Franken is Ok, I've read some of his stuff over the holidays and yeah...it ain't bad. But Michael Moore wouldn't be one who I'd use.

Wait a minute. Now I reread your post and I don't necessarily understand the last part.

Now I'm going to ice down my chest where there's a bruise from your finger jabs ;)

you know "Bush hater" stuff- like your statement "anti-war, anti-bush, etc. are not necessarily the way to go."

In other words, Democrats who criticise bush on the issues that they disagree on, are "Bush haters" and turn off voters, assuming they actually read these books, which they do not.

I'm not sure what you and some in the media would have them do- be "nice" to him? Negative campaigning WORKS- all studies show this to be true-it always works for Repugs. They key is to have a balance and to tell the truth...

And no one is poking your chest- expect DUers do ask you to qualify your statements when they resemble media talking points...

But I still stand by my opinion. If you want to pull the prove it with facts thing out on everything you don't agree with, then just agree to disagree with me.

I like to post opinions. I never said negative campaigning doesn't work. I would recommend these books to someone who was on the fence and was never exposed to such information (except maybe Moore). As far as my opinion on the guy who said if the election were to be held today he'd vote for Bush (and if he's a friend of mine) I would wait things out. Chances are he would've already been exposed to this information. If not, then I might.

But we're still early on in the process and there are some things that will work themselves out in the next couple of months.

Talking points? Ok. Can't you just say that you don't agree with me instead of trying to impose some agenda to what I'm saying? Then again, you've got the right to say what's on your mind.

The whole "saying bad things (even if true) about Bush is a bad idea" talking points that the media keeps drumming...

I dont believe i asked you to pull out any facts or anything- your opinion is yours and that is fine by me...

I will ask you this: If telling the truth about Bush and going negative turns people off to DEMS, then what approach would work?

Should Byrd have not given passionate speeches on why Iraq is a bad idea? (He was right- there are no WMDs)

What kind of books should Mike Moore & Fraken write, that would work better??

Should we try the 2002 "I agree with Bush" approach again?

Part of criticising DEM & Liberal tactics also involves presenting an alternative- so- what is your alternative for DEMS?

I'm all ears, but this business of not exposing Bush when he lies or screws up is nonsense...

If you're trying to get me to expand my horizons by doing a project on the works of these guys...then please don't waste your time there. I have no desire to bash or second guess the works Moore, Franken, etc.

Now if you'll excuse me...the crappy Raiders are playing the crappy Chargers and we don't normally get Raider games on TV in the afternoon...so now I move on to more pleasant pursuits...

You suggest DEMS should tone it down, so I ask you for specific examples- all you have given me is very vague criticisms of Democrats- but criticisms none the less

If you had a point, you might have some constructive criticism instead of vaugue comments...

I think that DEMS should attack Bush where he has lied and made mistakes, balanced with positive things about DEMS as well...

No puke can beat him. They are soooo afraid of Al. It's too funny because he is such a little whimpy guy.

If I have seen the statement that no Gore voters will vote for Bush once, Ive seen it a thousand times.

Its just simply not true. Most people in America do not share the vitriolic hate for Bush that is central on this website. Politics is not the center of most people's lives.

I happen to know a good handful of Gore voters who tell me they plan on voting for Bush. I try to tell them what a horrible failure that he has been, but it is to no avail for some people, they have sucked up the propaganda and taken it in.

To so many average people on the street, the capture of Saddam means alot, why I do not know. Even people I know who dont plan to vote for Bush, think its just great that Saddam was captured, and basically concede the election.

If you really think we have all the Gore voters and all the Gore states locked up beyond a shadow of a doubt, I really think that you are mistaken.

If this is true, then why would they lock on to one candidate or the other?

These "fence sitter" voters could vote DEM just as easily as Bush- it will depend on the candidate, who will not be Gore.

I dont think viewing 2004 with "Gore voters" as a starting point is even accurate- we will have a completly different candidate w/ a different set of issues and circumstances...

As far as "life long" Liberals or DEMS converting- I dont see it. An apolitical "fence-sitter" who happened to vote for Gore on election day, perhaps this is who you are talking about- but those types change their minds depending on what is on TV news, so they are not locked in either...

But so many people on this board contend that literally no people who voted for Gore could ever vote for Bush in 2004, and this is just not the case. It will depend on the candidate since a good portion of the electorate doesnt make up their mind until they get into the voting booth.

n/t

....to the half dozen new DU-ers on this thread! I never saw so many in one place!

Hope y'all have a good experience here.

your concern. What have ya in common? Or are you just fishing, LOL!

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

You say you argued with the guy expressing a traditionally conservative viewpoint, but you did not state what your argument was.