DNC makes it's choice public

[CADsortaGUY]

and chooses to be the party of opposition.

No(before people start whining), I don't think they have to bend over and drop trou - but this certainly isn't showing that they will work with Bush(despite the claim of the second sentence).

Coming out and saying we won't won't won't most certainly isn't what I wouldn't suggest for any party that saw widespread defeat like the Democrats did this past election.

CsG

 

[NJDevil]

What do you expect them to say? They won't compromise their beliefs on SS and Taxes anymore than you can expect a conservative to support big government or a different tax policy.

I think it's a fair message that demonstrates that while they are willing to compromise, they are not going to do so on the issues that they believe strongly in. I expect the republicans would do the same if Kerry had won, and I would never expect them to support tax increases or cut funding for vouchers.

 

[SuperTool]

Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
What do you expect them to say? They won't compromise their beliefs on SS and Taxes anymore than you can expect a conservative to support big government or a different tax policy.

Conservatives in the GOP do support big government

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

 

[nageov3t]

IMO, the big problem is that Bush has repeatedly shown that he's not willing to compromise.

in his mind, compromise = the opposition does exactly what he wants them to do, without requiring him to make any consessions.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

Bush doesn't need the Democrats to support his failed policies. The GOP controls all branches of government. Let them be responsible for the mess.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

Bush doesn't need the Democrats to support his failed policies. The GOP controls all branches of government. Let them be responsible for the mess.

ever though why GOP controls all branches of government??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481
IMO, the big problem is that Bush has repeatedly shown that he's not willing to compromise.

in his mind, compromise = the opposition does exactly what he wants them to do, without requiring him to make any consessions.

And reality shows that the opposite is the case. The democrats try this "compromise" BS because they want him to do what they say - and if he doesn't - then they whine about him not "compromising". It's a joke. He brings them in - he gets stabbed in the back. I sometimes wish Bush would tell them to go "Cheney" themselves, but he won't do it and so he'll get stabbed in the back by them again and again - with them whining about "compromise" all the way along.

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

Bush doesn't need the Democrats to support his failed policies. The GOP controls all branches of government. Let them be responsible for the mess.

ever though why GOP controls all branches of government??

Good markteing.
What is of interest to me is that the Democrats don't sign off on GOP's failed policies, and let GOP have all of the blame when the time comes.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

Bush doesn't need the Democrats to support his failed policies. The GOP controls all branches of government. Let them be responsible for the mess.

ever though why GOP controls all branches of government??

Good markteing.
What is of interest to me is that the Democrats don't sign off on GOP's failed policies, and let GOP have all of the blame when the time comes.

marketing only goes so far. the liberal groups did so much advertising this past election, with the moveon's of the world. among other groups

the people were turned off by this. in the end, the people felt that Bush would protect them more. I know you definately dont agree with that, but thats how many Americans feel

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
What do you expect them to say? They won't compromise their beliefs on SS and Taxes anymore than you can expect a conservative to support big government or a different tax policy.

I think it's a fair message that demonstrates that while they are willing to compromise, they are not going to do so on the issues that they believe strongly in. I expect the republicans would do the same if Kerry had won, and I would never expect them to support tax increases or cut funding for vouchers.

:thumbsup:

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bad bad DNC, not "working with Bush" to destroy Social Security, rack up huge deficits, and overturn women's rights. Bad!!!

Maybe you should run for DNC Chairmen. You seem to know all their talking points.

Bush doesn't need the Democrats to support his failed policies. The GOP controls all branches of government. Let them be responsible for the mess.

ever though why GOP controls all branches of government??

Good markteing.
What is of interest to me is that the Democrats don't sign off on GOP's failed policies, and let GOP have all of the blame when the time comes.

marketing only goes so far. the liberal groups did so much advertising this past election, with the moveon's of the world. among other groups

the people were turned off by this. in the end, the people felt that Bush would protect them more. I know you definately dont agree with that, but thats how many Americans feel

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?
My point is that the democrats don't need to have a hand in this mess the Republicans are creating. Let the GOP self destruct.
Democrats don't have anything to gain by supporting the GOP policies. If they are good, the GOP will take all the credit, if they are bad, as we saw in the last election, the GOP will say they voted for it too.

 

[PatboyX]

i thought the dems were supposed to be the "loyal opposition"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: raildogg
marketing only goes so far. the liberal groups did so much advertising this past election, with the moveon's of the world. among other groups

the people were turned off by this. in the end,

No more so than they were turned off by the incessant smears coming from Bush and his agents (e.g., Swift Boat Liars for Bush).

the people felt that Bush would protect them more. I know you definately dont agree with that, but thats how many Americans feel

Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it. It was wholesale deception by the party of "values" ... and it worked because Americans have become ignorant and apathetic. They veg out in front of the idiot boxes, letting the propaganda wash over them without ever raising an eyebrow at all the absurd crap they're being fed. They've ceded their brains to the people who want to sell them.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
IMO, the big problem is that Bush has repeatedly shown that he's not willing to compromise.

in his mind, compromise = the opposition does exactly what he wants them to do, without requiring him to make any consessions.

That's the benefit of controlling both houses. He lacks the motivation to compromise.

My question is, why are the Dems paying for an ad on TV? What is accomplished, other than political buffoonery?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
and chooses to be the party of opposition.

That's about the best news I've heard from the Dem's in awhile... if they have the balls to stick to it.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it.

LOL! Compliant corporate media!? You mean the one that fabricated a hatchet job on a presidential candidate?

As for the dems, I think some compromise now is the only way they can regain power. If the country does well over two years, the republicans take credit. If it doesn't, they will just point to all the filibusters obstructing their agenda and and pick up weak seats in the off-term election.

To tackle an a few hot issues:

Social Security: Democrats have been blindly supporting seniors when it comes to social security, at the expense of my generation. This will damage the party long-term, because we will feel sold out by the democrats when we have to pay half our lives before SS goes bust and we don't see a dime. There could certainly be some compromise here where everyone, seniors included, suffer a little bit.

Abortion: This will always be a hot topic. Republicans are out to take away women's rights and democrats are out to kill babies. I think there can be a compromise here. Democrats (I'm referring to left-wing elites in this case) need to lose the "abortion any time, for whatever reason" ideals they have and accept some limitations. Republicans need to fight for long-term good, even if they have to concede something for now.

Gay marriage - I don't think the republicans will need to back off on this one. In fact, I think they should bring it up immediately before mid-term elections and they'll pick get past sixty seats in the senate.

Education - They've compromised enough already when they passed NCLB. I think republicans gave up too much already. This is an example of democrats asking republicans to compromise, but bringing out the daggers when "we" (I'm only conservative, not a republican) do.

No more so than they were turned off by the incessant smears coming from Bush and his agents (e.g., Swift Boat Liars for Bush).

Kerry could have destroyed their credibility by signing one form, but he declined the opportunity. I wonder why he did that?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it.

LOL! Compliant corporate media!? You mean the one that fabricated a hatchet job on a presidential candidate?

you're talking about the swift boat people, right?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it.

LOL! Compliant corporate media!? You mean the one that fabricated a hatchet job on a presidential candidate?

You realize the the person who have supposed to have writen the "fake" memo agreed with everything it said and it was factually accurate?

As for the dems, I think some compromise now is the only way they can regain power. If the country does well over two years, the republicans take credit. If it doesn't, they will just point to all the filibusters obstructing their agenda and and pick up weak seats in the off-term election.

hmm that looks strangely like a lose-lose to me. If the repyblicans have a good 2 years, move republicans get voted in, and if the republicans flounder, they can smear the democrats for throwing a wrench into their excellent plans that would have otherwise been comlete successes.

To tackle an a few hot issues:

Social Security: Democrats have been blindly supporting seniors when it comes to social security, at the expense of my generation. This will damage the party long-term, because we will feel sold out by the democrats when we have to pay half our lives before SS goes bust and we don't see a dime. There could certainly be some compromise here where everyone, seniors included, suffer a little bit.

you sir need to educate yurself on the true nature of the social security "crisis"

Abortion: This will always be a hot topic. Republicans are out to take away women's rights and democrats are out to kill babies. I think there can be a compromise here. Democrats (I'm referring to left-wing elites in this case) need to lose the "abortion any time, for whatever reason" ideals they have and accept some limitations. Republicans need to fight for long-term good, even if they have to concede something for now.

The should just go back to clintons "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" philosophy.

Gay marriage - I don't think the republicans will need to back off on this one. In fact, I think they should bring it up immediately before mid-term elections and they'll pick get past sixty seats in the senate.

probably. Makes me very sad for the state of the people in our country

Education - They've compromised enough already when they passed NCLB. I think republicans gave up too much already. This is an example of democrats asking republicans to compromise, but bringing out the daggers when "we" (I'm only conservative, not a republican) do.

Strange, it seemed to me the the republicans stole this issue, did it, fcked it up, and left it to rot. Open to interpretation of course, but thats mine.

No more so than they were turned off by the incessant smears coming from Bush and his agents (e.g., Swift Boat Liars for Bush).

Kerry could have destroyed their credibility by signing one form, but he declined the opportunity. I wonder why he did that?

Are you kidding. They never had any credibility to begin with and the public ate it up.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it.

LOL! Compliant corporate media!? You mean the one that fabricated a hatchet job on a presidential candidate?

you're talking about the swift boat people, right?

 

[bamacre]

Too bad they didn't have the balls to air a commercial condemning the invasion of Iraq, although most were too busy voting for it. Maybe it's time the Democrats tell their party leaders to make a better stand at Bush. Tell them "you are either with us, or against us." Opposition of the war in Iraq was much louder out of DNC voters than it was with the DNC itself.

 

[glenn1]

What do you expect them to say? They won't compromise their beliefs on SS and Taxes anymore than you can expect a conservative to support big government or a different tax policy.

I think it's a fair message that demonstrates that while they are willing to compromise, they are not going to do so on the issues that they believe strongly in.

I expect them to say "here's our alternative" and actually offer a real plan instead of just reflexively opposing whatever Bush proposes. As it stands now they haven't actually offered a NEW idea in years. The last one which worked was the Civil Rights Act, the two main ones in the 40 years since (Equal Rights Amendment and Hillary's healthcare plan) went down in flames. The intellectual energy is completely on the side of the Republicans. You can disagree with their ideas but the only ones in the last dozen years or so (welfare reform, SS reform, etc) have come from them. The Democrats have become nothing more than reactionaries and simply circled their intellectual wagons to protect their shiboleths from the New Deal which they built 70 years ago.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, I do agree with that. The Republicans campaigned on fear and prejudice, and a compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media let them get away with it.

LOL! Compliant corporate media!? You mean the one that fabricated a hatchet job on a presidential candidate?

Actually, it was the Swift Boat Liars that fabricated the hatchet job. The compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media only played the hell out of it, giving that transparent hatchet job far more credibility and attention that it deserved. Fortunately, just as in the Rather case, the media vindicated themselves by firing all the people responsible for reporting and replaying it.

Oh wait, no they didn't.

Why is that do you suppose? The Rather story, well-corroborated except for the authenticity of the copies CBS presented, results in four firings and overwhelming critical commentary from the rest of the media. Meanwhile, reporting the Swift Boat crap -- obviously a fabrication, readily refuted, and clearly a partisan smear against Kerry -- results in no known disciplinary actions and virtually no criticism in the corporate media. Something to ponder in between parroting the Bush talking points.

[ ... ]

No more so than they were turned off by the incessant smears coming from Bush and his agents (e.g., Swift Boat Liars for Bush).

Kerry could have destroyed their credibility by signing one form, but he declined the opportunity. I wonder why he did that?

And? I have no doubt Kerry had skeletons in his closet. He is a professional politician, after all. I'm confident if there were anything really juicy there, Rove would have leaked it out through one of his compliant media whores, e.g., Novak.

In any case, the issue of Kerry not signing Form (whatever) is a diversion from the heart of the matter. Bush's "military" service was a farce: he exploited his connections to avoid serving his country in Vietnam, then found even that cushy berth too inconvenient for his drug- and alcohol-rich lifestyle. Kerry, on the other hand, actually volunteered for service in Vietnam, and actually served in combat with fair distinction. Now it may well be Kerry's accomplishments and sacrifices were exaggerated, but he's still a solid 60 or 70 on a scale of 100, while the Dub is a -50.

Fast forward to the present: this same irresponsible coward is now strutting around in the flight suit he disgraced, sending others to die for his lies, and hiding behind his proxies to smear his opponent, the man who actually had honorable military credentials. The compliant corporate (i.e., right-wing) media obediently shows these scenes of President ChickenHawk playing G.I. Joe dress-up, never pausing to point out how hypocritical it is, while the brainwashed Bush apologists eagerly lap it up. Their guy is a true military hero; Kerry is an evil baby killer (or something bad, we're not sure what, but Lord Bush says he is, so it must be true.) :roll:

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: loki8481

you're talking about the swift boat people, right?

I think the swift vets asked some valid questions. Kerry's blunder was to ignore them. Typically, that strategy works, but it just gave them more power in the media. He needed to do something to reconcile his war hero campaign person and some serious question about his discharge.


I believe Kerry may have had perfectly valid explanations to their allegations. He didn't release his records to the public, so take that how you will. I assumed he had something to hide.