Republican advice for Democrats

Does anyone else get really annoyed when they hear a Republican saying things like, "You know, it'd be a really horrible move for Democrats to name Dean their chairman..." (Not a real quote, just using this as an example to illustrate the point)

Okay, let me get this straight: we're trying to take their power, and yet they want to give us advice on how to best take it from them? Yeah, bullshit. It's all total bullshit.

The worst part is that some idiots in our party (and even some here at DU) actually listen to them.

If we had listened to them we would have had Lieberman.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

From everything I've heard from the Republicans I know, they think it would be great (for them) if we elected Howard Dean our Party Chair. Perhaps they underestimate Dean.

His lips are moving.

It's no one's quote.

The same Vash the Stampede on HCBF, ebassist??

This is the only place i use this name. Sorry!!

then why play victim? If you don't have an actual quote for this type of post then it makes no sense.

This reminds me of people who fall over when a car is @ a stop light saying that the car hit them.

nothing to see here....move along....

Which, if you're trying to tell me that you've NEVER seen or heard a Republican trying to tell the Democrats what they're doing wrong, then I'm telling you that you've got your fucking head in the sand.

I don't get your fucking point?

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

help me to understand instead of being snotty?

If it hasn't actually happend what's the point? If we haven't had any examples of this actually occuring then what's the point?

I really am trying to understand.

Quote: "This thread wasn't even based on anything realistic. n/t"

they are AFRAID of Dean, and think that if they squawk enough, we'll listen to them (as we did in the past!)

NOPE, AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. The tide has turned and if they AREN'T afraid of DEAN they SHOULD be!

...and I think they know it. They aren't going to get any stronger than they are right now, while dems are making grass-roots gains. Meanwhile they've promised so much to their core base and to the radical fringe (abortion esp.) that they can't deliver on that their coalition of the hating is starting to fatigue.

Watch for the dems to retake the senate in '06. If we don't do it, it will be close. Watch the House, too, for big gains.

to have Dean as chair.
They want to be able to point to the scream over and over again.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am getting tired of hearing about how "no one could do it better than Dean." That's horseshit.

I would be fine with Dean as chair, but there are also other fine candidates as well.

Novak (R-Media) is one such Republican. In this article he is claiming that unnamed big money contributors (D-Israel) are going to cut off funding of the Democratic party if Dean is elected Chair.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak31.html


This threat fails to hold much water when you consider that big money contributions to the DNC were down over 30% this last election cycle while big money contributions to the RNC increased and, yet, for the first time in decades the DNC collected more money than the RNC because small money contributions came in at nearly double the total of large money contributions. In fact, small money contributions alone for the DNC nearly matched contributions to the RNC from all sources! This should nail the coffin shut on the Clinton formula for Democratic success.

Okay, the fact that the party failed miserably under Clinton's guidance should have already nailed that coffin shut. But these politicos seem to be awfully stuck on the notion that elections are won by the individual who gets the most money as opposed to the individual who gets the most votes.

might say. For example, the Dem Convention, where not a single criticism of Bush was voiced. Or for example, Kerry's position on Iraq, where he NEVER ONCE challenged the notion that we went into Iraq because of 'WMD.'

When the GOP says "jump," the Dems usually respond "How high, sir?"

criticism of bush*. Take the time to watch President Carter's speech and see if THAT doesn't knock the kool-aid out of your hand.

Carter was not running for prez- Kerry was.

I agree witht he premise that DEMS fear what the GOP/media will say about them-so they hold back.

The DEMS seem to forget that the GOP/media will say what-ever they want about us no matter what we do- so we may as well be blunt.

anything? I was merely pointing out that the claim of "not one criticism of bush* at the DNC" is full of shit. President Carter's speech is just ONE example. Watch them ALL, they hit bush* relentlessly.

As for Dems holding back, I agree with that, they could take off the proverbial pink tutu and speak the hell up a lot more than they do, but I also realize bush*s "librul media filter" is pretty damn effective at filtering LIBERALS!

As for Kerry and WMD's, he did speak out about that too. In fact search John Kerry and WMD and after the first 20 or so sites that have the "If bush* lied then so did all these Dems" e-mail that misses the point but made the right-winger rounds. After that crap there are plenty of repuke/rw-er sites that are simply up-in-arms about how Kerry is constantly saying bush* lied about WMD's, etc. How did repukes get the message but our side did not?

For every time the GOP/media said "flip-flopper"- Kerry should have countered with somthing like this:

"Bush lied about the WMDs- where are they? I may have changed my mind as the situation changed, but I will never forge evidence and lie to get us into a war."

Look- I'm with ya- but there is some VERY valid criticism concerning the DEMS...

And we cant blame the media filter for everything either- no media outlet ever stopped Kerry or Edwards from going on an interview show and saying "Bush has been lying to us." They would have swiftboated Kerry either way- so he should have just been blunt and 100% truthful.

I'm with ya my friend- but we need to to stop making excuses and start making improvments.

towards the "solution" let's make sure we have a complete grasp of the "problem". And accepting and REPEATING right-wing talking points is not making it easier to uncover the "problem".

NOTE: I did NOT say YOU accepted and repeated RWTP, just that it happens a lot here, and when it does, it should be called and the person brought back to reality.


Cheers,

Now let's go get them bush* bastards!

I'm with you- but if:

"Kerry was weak in his responses to the Swiftboat attacks" or

"It was tough for swing voters to contrast Bush & Kerry's position on Iraq"

are characterized as "RW talking points" then I'll have to agree with them.

not necessarily RWTP, but "Kerry's whole campaign was based on fear of what GOP might say" and "Not a single criticism of bush* at the DNC", certainly are.

Valid criticisms are fine, it's the hyperbole I can do without.

...and kick some ass too!

Onward DEMS!

Look out pukes, the rhythym is gonna gitcha!

Once you guys get the neocons and the rabid dominionists our of your party and start acting like Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt again, then I might take your advice seriously :)

that the purpose of the Democratic Party is NOT to keep the Republicans happy.

:shrug: