Democrats Criticize Dean Attacks on GOP

[GTKeeper]

For the Dems to get anywhere, they need to start offering REAL solutions to the problems at hand. Just yelling and saying 'the GOP is wrong blah blah blah, there are problems in the country blah blah blah'

Everyone knows we have problems in our country. The dems need to step up to the plate and actually start offering real solutions. The reason Kerry lost is simple, during the debates he would say "this administration did this wrong this administration did that wrong" more than "I will do this, I will do that"

The Dems are starting to whine and its getting irritating to see in the news a whining contest.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I have a hypothetical question for you Republicans. If you guys had the minority party and no real chance at winning the next election, would you bother trying to appease the Democrats? Or would you hope that your party say what it wants to without pandering to Democrats?

If a party was to plan on throwing in the towel early, then rather than trying to tick people off, they should look and plan for what they need to do in order to eventually become a winner not a whiner. If the past indicates that you can not communicate your message, then playing the same song over and over is not going to help.

Without such reflection, they will consign themselves to be the minority party with no credibility

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If a party was to plan on throwing in the towel early, then rather than trying to tick people off, they should look and plan for what they need to do in order to eventually become a winner not a whiner. If the past indicates that you can not communicate your message, then playing the same song over and over is not going to help.

Without such reflection, they will consign themselves to be the minority party with no credibility

You didnt' answer my hypothetical. It's a hypothetical. If you are going to answer it, accept the premises as true for the sake of the hypothetical. If someone has a hypothetical that is, "would you eat a purple apple?" you don't come back and say, "I am against purple apples." Your options are to say, "yes, no, I don't know."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If a party was to plan on throwing in the towel early, then rather than trying to tick people off, they should look and plan for what they need to do in order to eventually become a winner not a whiner. If the past indicates that you can not communicate your message, then playing the same song over and over is not going to help.

Without such reflection, they will consign themselves to be the minority party with no credibility

You didnt' answer my hypothetical. It's a hypothetical. If you are going to answer it, accept the premises as true for the sake of the hypothetical. If someone has a hypothetical that is, "would you eat a purple apple?" you don't come back and say, "I am against purple apples." Your options are to say, "yes, no, I don't know."

One problem is that I am not a Republican.

Therefore I can not answer it as such.

Taking your situation as a recipe for any party that is in such a disarray, then my answer should indicate some of what they would need to do to become a viable option.

After Bush Senior was stomped on by Clinton, the Republicans re-evaluate what they did wrong and were able to recover. They did not accept that they would stay a minority status even after Clinton won a second term.

The Dems did the same thing when Regan had office; looked around at what they had and figured out how to deliver the message that they wanted people to hear.

The Dems may need to take a page from that type of playbook; Evaluate what has gone wrong and figure out how to correct the problem.

For any minorioty party, pot shots will not work - issues are what will make the difference

For the Dems, Bush is not a viable Congressional issue in 06 and neither he or Cheney will be on the ticket for 08.

Therefore the Dems will have to attack on issues rather than incumbent's record.
I would like to think that your hypo is for 06 and not 08.

If it is for 08, then the Dems would be consigning themselves to be a minority gadfly for at least a generation; that will be as long as it takes to develop new leaders.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I have a hypothetical question for you Republicans. If you guys had the minority party and no real chance at winning the next election, would you bother trying to appease the Democrats? Or would you hope that your party say what it wants to without pandering to Democrats?

I would hope that my party would take a good hard look at it's policies and stances to figure out why they aren't in-line with what the voters want. I'd also want my party to constantly offer differing opinions or alternatives instead of throwing a fit and just saying "no".

Unfortunately for the democrat's party - their leaders don't seem to want to look inward - they just want to whine and stonewall. They seen unwilling to offer alternatives to proposals they don't like - they just whine.

It's interesting that you seem to want to concede the next election though, info. I have no doubt you are right about them not having a chance - but why so pessimistic? Call your party leaders and demand they get back in touch with voters instead of just saying no.

CsG

at least you came right out and said you were simply talking about the democrats instead of actually answering the question....

reading is FUNduhMENTAL...

Note the first paragraph - I was not talking about the democrats - I said "my party" which certainly isn't the democrats. The other two paragraphs were bringing his hypothetical back to the actual current situation we have.

CsG

without any of the juvenile BS you like to put into your posts I'll respond - you said "my party" but it's obvious you were thinking "democrats." reading between the lines is often more important than the literal meaning.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If a party was to plan on throwing in the towel early, then rather than trying to tick people off, they should look and plan for what they need to do in order to eventually become a winner not a whiner. If the past indicates that you can not communicate your message, then playing the same song over and over is not going to help.

Without such reflection, they will consign themselves to be the minority party with no credibility

You didnt' answer my hypothetical. It's a hypothetical. If you are going to answer it, accept the premises as true for the sake of the hypothetical. If someone has a hypothetical that is, "would you eat a purple apple?" you don't come back and say, "I am against purple apples." Your options are to say, "yes, no, I don't know."

One problem is that I am not a Republican.

Therefore I can not answer it as such.

Taking your situation as a recipe for any party that is in such a disarray, then my answer should indicate some of what they would need to do to become a viable option.

After Bush Senior was stomped on by Clinton, the Republicans re-evaluate what they did wrong and were able to recover. They did not accept that they would stay a minority status even after Clinton won a second term.

Bush Sr was stomped and Bush Jr. won by the slimest of margins.

The Dems did the same thing when Regan had office; looked around at what they had and figured out how to deliver the message that they wanted people to hear.

Reagan won both of his elections and Bush Sr only had one term. I think he lost on his record.

The Dems may need to take a page from that type of playbook; Evaluate what has gone wrong and figure out how to correct the problem.

For any minorioty party, pot shots will not work - issues are what will make the difference

Clinton wasn't a long shot??

For the Dems, Bush is not a viable Congressional issue in 06 and neither he or Cheney will be on the ticket for 08.

Therefore the Dems will have to attack on issues rather than incumbent's record.
I would like to think that your hypo is for 06 and not 08.

If it is for 08, then the Dems would be consigning themselves to be a minority gadfly for at least a generation; that will be as long as it takes to develop new leaders.

New leaders can pop out of the woodwork anytime. Clinton and Bush Jr both seemed to come from nowhere. WHo knows who could pop up next? As I've said before, both of the last 2 presidential elections were very close. We have new voters coming of age every year. ANything can happen.

New voters surge in 9 states

 

[Moonbeam]

Be rational and reasonable and give us your positions says the Republican as he stabs you in the back, winning election after election.

Republicans are evil wrapped in God and need to be destroyed without mercy as the devil spawn they are.

They need to be stoned to death at the ballot box.

The took our great country and made it the gulag of our time.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
New leaders can pop out of the woodwork anytime. Clinton and Bush Jr both seemed to come from nowhere. WHo knows who could pop up next? As I've said before, both of the last 2 presidential elections were very close. We have new voters coming of age every year. ANything can happen.

New voters surge in 9 states

I don't know who will pop up next but I can't imagine any candidate who could turn the tide. If you have someone specific to consider, then fine. Otherwise, it seems like wishful thinking.

How many new voters are coming up every year and how many of them will actually vote? Are there enough actual voters that will vote Democrat that would overcome the last election's margin?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
New leaders can pop out of the woodwork anytime. Clinton and Bush Jr both seemed to come from nowhere. WHo knows who could pop up next? As I've said before, both of the last 2 presidential elections were very close. We have new voters coming of age every year. ANything can happen.

New voters surge in 9 states

I don't know who will pop up next but I can't imagine any candidate who could turn the tide. If you have someone specific to consider, then fine. Otherwise, it seems like wishful thinking.

How many new voters are coming up every year and how many of them will actually vote? Are there enough actual voters that will vote Democrat that would overcome the last election's margin?

I've been trying to find some current info on that, no luck yet. I think the Dem's need someone fairly young to attract the new voters. Maybe John Edwards??

Nation Reelects George Bush by Three Million Votes After Longest General Election Campaign in History

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I've been trying to find some current info on that, no luck yet. I think the Dem's need someone fairly young to attract the new voters. Maybe John Edwards??

Like I said in my post, I think someone like John Edwards (or the General) are the best shots on past performance. However, I don't think they could do enough to turn those 3 million votes.

Nation Reelects George Bush by Three Million Votes After Longest General Election Campaign in History [/quote]

I'm thinking there aren't going to be 3 million more new Democrats than Republicans who actually vote next election

 

[1EZduzit]

In the last election the new voters favored Kerry, despite all the lies spread about him. The Rep's did a better job of getting out theie new voters though.

Nationwide, new voters clearly benefited John Kerry. Kerry received 54 percent of the vote to President Bush?s 45 percent. This continues a trend that began under Bill Clinton, in which the Democratic candidate has secured a greater proportion of this group.

In states where the advantage for Kerry among new voters was greater than 15 points, Mr. Bush lost the state.

New Voters Crash The Party

We need to educate and get the new voters out. All the Dems need is 1 good state. I laugh out loud at the righties who try and undermine the Dem's and tewll them how to run their own party. They are delusional IMO.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I have a hypothetical question for you Republicans. If you guys had the minority party and no real chance at winning the next election, would you bother trying to appease the Democrats? Or would you hope that your party say what it wants to without pandering to Democrats?

I would hope that my party would take a good hard look at it's policies and stances to figure out why they aren't in-line with what the voters want. I'd also want my party to constantly offer differing opinions or alternatives instead of throwing a fit and just saying "no".

Unfortunately for the democrat's party - their leaders don't seem to want to look inward - they just want to whine and stonewall. They seen unwilling to offer alternatives to proposals they don't like - they just whine.

It's interesting that you seem to want to concede the next election though, info. I have no doubt you are right about them not having a chance - but why so pessimistic? Call your party leaders and demand they get back in touch with voters instead of just saying no.

CsG

at least you came right out and said you were simply talking about the democrats instead of actually answering the question....

reading is FUNduhMENTAL...

Note the first paragraph - I was not talking about the democrats - I said "my party" which certainly isn't the democrats. The other two paragraphs were bringing his hypothetical back to the actual current situation we have.

CsG

without any of the juvenile BS you like to put into your posts I'll respond - you said "my party" but it's obvious you were thinking "democrats." reading between the lines is often more important than the literal meaning.

Ah, so you project your assumptions onto what I post and then claim it's what I meant? :roll:
I've posted similar things in the past - but hey, keep twisting if you wish...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So Cad, if you wouldn't want your party to shed core values and you recognized they had no chance of winning, wouldn't you prefer the representatives to just speak their mind and not worry about offending those that they disagree with?

We are talking party here - not individual representatives. Individual candidates should be honest about their positions - however a collection of individuals(a party) can't state they have 1400 (nuanced) stances on a subject and have a clear "message". The party finds it's core beliefs - the rest is icing. The problem with the current dems(and the old Reps) is that they didn't have a clear set of core beliefs. They seem(ed) to want to have have everything - thus losing definition.

If a party has a clear set of core beliefs and the voters constantly reject them, that party will fade away and a new/different one will rise up in it's place to "challenge".

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
In the last election the new voters favored Kerry, despite all the lies spread about him. The Rep's did a better job of getting out theie new voters though.

Nationwide, new voters clearly benefited John Kerry. Kerry received 54 percent of the vote to President Bush?s 45 percent. This continues a trend that began under Bill Clinton, in which the Democratic candidate has secured a greater proportion of this group.

In states where the advantage for Kerry among new voters was greater than 15 points, Mr. Bush lost the state.

New Voters Crash The Party

We need to educate and get the new voters out. All the Dems need is 1 good state. I laugh out loud at the righties who try and undermine the Dem's and tewll them how to run their own party. They are delusional IMO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd need a giant amount of new voters to catch up 3 million votes even if you had a 10% advantage among new voters.

 

[1EZduzit]

Well, it's the best idea I can come up with. Remember, all it would have taken in 2000 was one small state. The electoral college voted 271 Bush and 267 Gore. If gore would have carried one small state such as SD, ND, or WY, each with 3 electoral votes the tally would have been 268 for Bush and 270 for Gore.

In 2004 it was 286 for Bush and 252 for Kerry. That would have taken 18 electoral votes to change, probably 2 states, but not insurmountable. Remember we were in a war in 2004 and people don't like to change leadership during a war. They were worried about another terrorist attack.

Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

I hope you're right, I just have my doubts. My view is that if people weren't outraged with 2004 Republicans, they won't be outraged by anything.

Like I said above, my suggestion is for Dems to try to change their views enough to grab who le segments of voters. (Either the religious voters, or the fiscal conservative voters who I think the Republicans have let down). Yes, this involves giving up SOME positions, but I'd rather have some, than none.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: Tom
I'm probably too old to be right, but I don't think the Democrats can succeed by using the tactics of hate, or even if they could that isn't what I want my party to represent.

In the realm of things I think we should do,
1. come up with a reasonable version of a flat tax
2. a public education policy that focuses on students, instead of teacher unions
3. portray ourselves as what we are, the real conservative party, ie, that conserves freedom, justice for all, conserve the land, and our heritage.

In the tradition of Jefferson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.

I'd vote for that party. Too bad it doesn't exist.

 

[AntiEverything]

Oh, and for those who don't understand, Dean was referring to voters and their ability or inability to stand in long lines to vote:

While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." Dean said later his comments did not refer to hard-working Americans, but rather to the failure of Republican leadership to address working-class concerns.

Regardless of his backpeddling, sounds to me like he was saying that any Republican voters have never earned an honest living.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

I hope you're right, I just have my doubts. My view is that if people weren't outraged with 2004 Republicans, they won't be outraged by anything.

Like I said above, my suggestion is for Dems to try to change their views enough to grab who le segments of voters. (Either the religious voters, or the fiscal conservative voters who I think the Republicans have let down). Yes, this involves giving up SOME positions, but I'd rather have some, than none.

New voters is just one group. I think the fiscal conservatives would be another group to target. Another thing i would like the Dem's to try and change is the public's perception of their stance on gun control. It amazes me how many voters I know that won't vote for a gun control advocate. I know that a lot of the Dem's won't like that idea, but what are they going to do? Vote Republican?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Well, it's the best idea I can come up with. Remember, all it would have taken in 2000 was one small state. The electoral college voted 271 Bush and 267 Gore. If gore would have carried one small state such as SD, ND, or WY, each with 3 electoral votes the tally would have been 268 for Bush and 270 for Gore.

In 2004 it was 286 for Bush and 252 for Kerry. That would have taken 18 electoral votes to change, probably 2 states, but not insurmountable. Remember we were in a war in 2004 and people don't like to change leadership during a war. They were worried about another terrorist attack.

Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

They will have to locate 2-3 issues that fall within their party's generally stated current plank on which they can contrast themselves with the Republicans.

On each of those issues they will have to present viable alternatives that are spelled out in detail on how the issue will be addressed and what the results are. No FUD.

Those items will have to stand up to Republican attacks and be able to be differentiated from Republican ideas.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
Oh, and for those who don't understand, Dean was referring to voters and their ability or inability to stand in long lines to vote

He was? Link?

While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." Dean said later his comments did not refer to hard-working Americans, but rather to the failure of Republican leadership to address working-class concerns.

Regardless of his backpeddling, sounds to me like he was saying that any Republican voters have never earned an honest living.[/quote]

Why do you think that? He didn't use the word ANY so that's your erroneous spin. He said a lot of them. Also, it's reasonable to think he was talking about Republican politicians. After all, politicians rarely refer to voters of the other side as party members. They use the term Americans and they try to paint everyone as a potential supporter.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
most politicians have never made an honest living. dean at least had a real career before becoming a politico. he's a rarity in that regard. of course, frist was also an MD in a prior life.

I went looking.

the 108th congress has

8 medical doctors which includes a psychiatrist
3 dentist
2 veterinarian
1 optometrist
3 nurses
1 phamacist
3 psychologist

you can find it here
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf

it has other facts too, who's the oldest/youngest, education level etc

there is a former pro football player and pro baseball player in congress though I have no idea who or i'm drawing blanks right now

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dean is a courageous visionary who must be stopped.

ROFLMAO

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Last Rezort

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Dean is a courageous visionary who must be stopped.

ROFLMAO

I picked it up from the first post here.

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
"courageous visionary"... yeah ok. :thumbsdown:

IMHO it's exactly this type of unnecessary elitist rhetoric that cost Dems the margin of moderates that would have given them 2004.

Agreed :thumbsup: