Democrats Have Bad Case of the Blues

[MidasKnight]

AP Story

By TOM RAUM

WASHINGTON (AP) - After losing back-to-back presidential elections, Democratic leaders are trying to figure out how to make the party more relevant to mainstream Americans and keep it from slipping into perpetual minority-party status.

 

[TMPadmin]

They said the same thing after the last three elections!

 

[Red Dawn]

Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

Mainstream Americans are not " Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas " IMO. The Democratic party has leaned to far left for most of us moderates. I know many here feel President Bush is " Far Right " but if I choose between " Far left " or " Far Right " for President ..... I'll take the " Right " turn.

 

[StageLeft]

The party needs to run on something that isn't simply _not_ being republican. Also, the attitudes are often too juvenile and babyish. Liberals are getting increasingly known as whiny bitches, and it pushes people away from their ranks. There are nuts on both ends of the spectrum, but the truly hateful extremists on this board seem to generally be liberals, and it seems that way in the media too (michael mooron is not helping the party, for instance).

Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

That's what I'm talking about Instead of questioning why the democrats lost, and wondering how to make the party better, ya'll just insult those who won, kind of like if a sprinter loses a match; instead of vowing to train harder next time he says that the other guy had better shoes. It's not an attitude that's going to contribute very well to winning elections in the future, because as much as people like negativity at times, too much of it is simply annoying.

 

[gsaldivar]

lollerskates

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The party needs to run on something that isn't simply _not_ being republican. Also, the attitudes are often too juvenile and babyish. Liberals are getting increasingly known as whiny bitches, and it pushes people away from their ranks. There are nuts on both ends of the spectrum, but the truly hateful extremists on this board seem to generally be liberals, and it seems that way in the media too (michael mooron is not helping the party, for instance).

Excellent reply there Skoorb and very true as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

That's what I'm talking about Instead of questioning why the democrats lost, and wondering how to make the party better, ya'll just insult those who won, kind of like if a sprinter loses a match; instead of vowing to train harder next time he says that the other guy had better shoes. It's not an attitude that's going to contribute very well to winning elections in the future, because as much as people like negativity at times, too much of it is simply annoying.

Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

Mainstream Americans are not " Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas " IMO. The Democratic party has leaned to far left for most of us moderates. I know many here feel President Bush is " Far Right " but if I choose between " Far left " or " Far Right " for President ..... I'll take the " Right " turn.

Yes.. Dems need to find a middle ground. I agree.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

That's what I'm talking about Instead of questioning why the democrats lost, and wondering how to make the party better, ya'll just insult those who won, kind of like if a sprinter loses a match; instead of vowing to train harder next time he says that the other guy had better shoes. It's not an attitude that's going to contribute very well to winning elections in the future, because as much as people like negativity at times, too much of it is simply annoying.

Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.

:thumbsup:

 

[assemblage]

So that's why NPR had a "blues music is doing great even after 100 years" section in their raido program this morning.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

That's what I'm talking about Instead of questioning why the democrats lost, and wondering how to make the party better, ya'll just insult those who won, kind of like if a sprinter loses a match; instead of vowing to train harder next time he says that the other guy had better shoes. It's not an attitude that's going to contribute very well to winning elections in the future, because as much as people like negativity at times, too much of it is simply annoying.

Since I'm an Independent why should I care if the Democrats win. If the Republicans would have run someone like John McCain instead of that thick tongued muddle minded hand puppet of the Christian Right I would have voted for the Republican over Kerry. If the Democrats cuddle up to the Ridiculous...err..the Religious Right to win the next election you can be assured that I will not vote for their candidate. If that means I will be on the losing side then so be it.

But you clearly wanted Kerry to win, and brush aside his loss as merely a conglomeration of christian nut jobs teaming together and voting in their brainless republican puppet. Surely you don't really think it's that black and white. The republicans could have had a better candidate, and undeniably so could the democrats. Kerry was a bad one, and it cost them the election.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
AP Story

By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - After losing back-to-back presidential elections, Democratic leaders are trying to figure out how to make the party more relevant to mainstream Americans and keep it from slipping into perpetual minority-party status.

For 2008, the presumptive leading presidential candidates are New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Northeastern centrist and one of the most polarizing figures in American politics

Um... WTF?

 

[GrGr]

Poor democrats. How to get flatearthers and creationists to think rationally. Even the Gods are helpless in the face of stupidity and the poor democrats are merely human.


"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
link

This election proved the point, don't you agree?

Fear of terrorism, aggressive warfare, religious and political dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity (damn whiny liberals who always complicate everything).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
[

But you clearly wanted Kerry to win, and brush aside his loss as merely a conglomeration of christian nut jobs teaming together and voting in their brainless republican puppet. Surely you don't really think it's that black and white. The republicans could have had a better candidate, and undeniably so could the democrats. Kerry was a bad one, and it cost them the election.

[/quote]
Actually I wanted the Dub to lose and Kerry was the only viable candidate who could have beat him (he almost did) After the BS the Dub and his handlers pulled to garner the support of the American public to support his ill advised and ill planned excellent adventure in Iraq I'm amazed that there are those who would still trust him at the helm of our nation. Then you look at those who supported him and it becomes clear why they did, they don't care about the truth as long as the lies told to them is what they wanted to hear.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Poor democrats. How to get flatearthers and creationists to think rationally. Even the Gods are helpless in the face of stupidity and the poor democrats are merely human.


"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
link

This election proved the point, don't you agree?

Fear of terrorism, aggressive warfare, religious and political dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity (damn whiny liberals who always complicate everything).

The article also made the following points:
--------
The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."
---------
This tells me that while the authors have some insight into the Conservative mindset, they diagnose by the external symptoms, they don't grasp a deeper fundamental. The defining characteristic of a conservative, in my opinion, is a lack of capacity for introspection. Black and white exist for a Conservative because the eye that sees the self is blind. The qualities that arise out of self knowledge are invisible to them. This is how the manage to use and hear and read language without any understanding.

Conservatives aren't stupid or ignorant. They lack a capacity for wisdom. Their self opacity makes them fools.

So what some might call having a bad case of the blues could also be called grief that America has manifested itself via the election of fools. It is deeply deeply tragic in one dimension. And only those with sufficient self insight to have a little wisdom can see.

You cannot give foolish people wisdom. They have to want it and they have to earn it. You can only stand and watch them go over the cliff taking everything with them.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I'm an Independant and I don't mind being in the minority especially if it means I don't have to be assoicated with Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas.

Mainstream Americans are not " Fund A Mental Case Evangelistas " IMO. The Democratic party has leaned to far left for most of us moderates. I know many here feel President Bush is " Far Right " but if I choose between " Far left " or " Far Right " for President ..... I'll take the " Right " turn.

Are you really sure the democrats have jumped far to the Left, Or could it Be that the Republicans have Jumped so far to the Right that the center seems marxist.

 

[MidasKnight]

I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

please explain how they have jumped "so far to the Left"

please state major policy's that Backup your argument.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

On what postitions has the Democratic Part moved left on in the past 10 years?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GrGr
Poor democrats. How to get flatearthers and creationists to think rationally. Even the Gods are helpless in the face of stupidity and the poor democrats are merely human.


"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
link

This election proved the point, don't you agree?

Fear of terrorism, aggressive warfare, religious and political dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity (damn whiny liberals who always complicate everything).

The article also made the following points:
--------
The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."
---------
This tells me that while the authors have some insight into the Conservative mindset, they diagnose by the external symptoms, they don't grasp a deeper fundamental. The defining characteristic of a conservative, in my opinion, is a lack of capacity for introspection. Black and white exist for a Conservative because the eye that sees the self is blind. The qualities that arise out of self knowledge are invisible to them. This is how the manage to use and hear and read language without any understanding.

Conservatives aren't stupid or ignorant. They lack a capacity for wisdom. Their self opacity makes them fools.

So what some might call having a bad case of the blues could also be called grief that America has manifested itself via the election of fools. It is deeply deeply tragic in one dimension. And only those with sufficient self insight to have a little wisdom can see.

You cannot give foolish people wisdom. They have to want it and they have to earn it. You can only stand and watch them go over the cliff taking everything with them.

Bush is on record as saying (to paraphrase) "I don't do introspection".

M: "So what some might call having a bad case of the blues could also be called grief that America has manifested itself via the election of fools. It is deeply deeply tragic in one dimension. And only those with sufficient self insight to have a little wisdom can see.

You cannot give foolish people wisdom. They have to want it and they have to earn it. You can only stand and watch them go over the cliff taking everything with them."

I am deeply saddened by this election. The 'stupidity' charge was not ment literally but to point out that it is impossible to argue with people that simply do not want to hear your arguments and who therefore reject them out of hand, much like creationists and flatearthers do (the self opacous). They reject facts because the facts do not match their world view and nothing must be allowed to change their world view.

It is almost inconceivable to me that the majority of the American people chose to reward and promote an Imperial Warlord and anoint him Theocratic President of the USA.

This is completely contrary to the principles of the US itself and the ulitmate hypocrisy. The majority have betrayed their ignorance, or flaunted their contempt for, the very idea of the USA as envisioned by the founding fathers. The US was created to break free from the Tyranny of a Global Empire and now it wants to rule a similar Global Empire with the US cast in the role of Tyrant. (Can there be a 'Good' Tyrant?)

"It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."

Benjamin Franklin

Now what was the cause of the founding fathers again? What where they fighting against? And what were they fighting for?

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

On what postitions has the Democratic Part moved left on in the past 10 years?

Gay marraige did not exist 10 years ago. It singlehandedly lost the election IMO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

On what postitions has the Democratic Part moved left on in the past 10 years?

Gay marraige did not exist 10 years ago. It singlehandedly lost the election IMO.

I agree. If the Republicans didn't use that issue to scare Ma and Pa Kettle I seriously doubt that Evangelistas like them would have voted in the numbers they did. It was a brilliant ploy by Karl Rove, one that should be studied by all who are going to make a career in politics.

 

[Pliablemoose]

What I think is funny as hell is that the DNC leadership (or what's left of it after the spanking @ the polls) is as we speak reshaping positions, but liberal/Democrat posters in P&N are holding fast, screaming about voter fraud, etc...

Do you-all even pay attention to what the Democratic leadership is doing?

The Democratic party is evolving, and they just got a huge message.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: MidasKnight
I did not say Democrats. I said the Democratic Party.

On what postitions has the Democratic Part moved left on in the past 10 years?

Gay marraige did not exist 10 years ago. It singlehandedly lost the election IMO.

And? What's so left about the Democrats postition on gay marrige? You're right about that losing the election for them, but that doesn't mean that their position is liberal.