new direction for the left?

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: xyyz
dunno anything about carter because he was in the first few years of my life, but clinton was a populist. so now you can't have a north eastern intellectual liberal in office, because the red zone feels insecure?

The red zone isn't 'insecure'; it's just not as stupid as all the Northeastern elistists have been telling each other.

i don' think the northeasteners believe that the southerns are stupid. they're not just as culturally inclinded as what you call an "elitist northeastener"

and that's not my view, it's the view of newt gingrich when he appeared on newsnight. he admitted that the liberal dems were generally a more educated and sophisticated bunch.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: Snagle
liberalism isnt dead, but the dems need to either work hard to make the word 'liberal' lose its negative connotation, or they need to switch to a more conservative position and/or just pick candidates from the south

i still dont see how to be liberal is a something negative.

what is it negative to believe in equal rights and help those in need?

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: ntdz
its heading where it belongs, down the drain.

Go troll some where else!

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: xyyz
even if you look at it as 49% of the population going with the opposition, the fact of the matter is that left has suffered every which way you look at it.

we didn't only lose the presidency, but both houses of congress have been lost and soon you will have a strong right trend in judiciary which isn't something that you can recover from until a very long time.

If i recall correctly the same was true in Clinton's presidency where the Democrats gained then lost it after Clinton's final term.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: Snagle
liberalism isnt dead, but the dems need to either work hard to make the word 'liberal' lose its negative connotation, or they need to switch to a more conservative position and/or just pick candidates from the south

i still dont see how to be liberal is a something negative.

what is it negative to believe in equal rights and help those in need?

What's equal about affirmative action (race-based preferences)? Old-school liberals were about those things, but that breed has been extinct within the Democratic party for years. The new breed isn't about equality at all; they're about race-baiting and the 'victim' card. I'd certainly be more in favor of liberalism as it used to be understood.

 

[Class1]

dunno anything about carter because he was in the first few years of my life, but clinton was a populist. so now you can't have a north eastern intellectual liberal in office, because the red zone feels insecure?

Carter was a fill in president because nobody wanted another republican after that liar Nixon. Carter sucked as president even though he was an honest man. Kerry would have been another fill in president if he had won since a lot of people don't like Bush. Thats why there will not be a uniting of America behind Bush. Unfortunate for us but thats the way it is.

 

[SirStev0]

do what the right did when a few years ago they were losing power... regroup and move on... i feel that both parties will be changing relativly soon... republicans arent what they were a few years ago... and they are changing more and more... since when does a something like the patriot act come from "states rights" republican that fear a powerful national government...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ntdz
its heading where it belongs, down the drain.

Come on, man, I was just starting to think you might not be a brainless Bush fanboy. I wouldn't call a movement that has 48% of the people voting for it "down the drain". Lest we forget, that's more people than the winner has in many past elections.

48% of the people did NOT vote FOR liberalism; most of them just voted against Bush because of his Iraq boondoogle, and if Kerry wasn't such a liberal, and actually gave people a reason to vote FOR him instead of just AGAINST Bush, he might've won.
If you want to know how popular liberalism is, name a few politicians in NATIONAL races who've proudly accepted the 'liberal' label. Plenty of politicians are willing to call themselves conservative, but how many are willing to call themselves liberal? I can think of none on the national level.

48% of the voters were just fine with Kerry's view and opinions, or so it would seem. You can say it was all about being against Bush, but I doubt 48% of the country is willing to vote for an ideaology they don't like just to be anti-Bush. I do agree that Kerry needed to give people more reason to vote for him, liberalism wasn't a problem, his perceived weakness WAS.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
do what the right did when a few years ago they were losing power... regroup and move on... i feel that both parties will be changing relativly soon... republicans arent what they were a few years ago... and they are changing more and more... since when does a something like the patriot act come from "states rights" republican that fear a powerful national government...

Ditto

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: xyyz
even if you look at it as 49% of the population going with the opposition, the fact of the matter is that left has suffered every which way you look at it.

we didn't only lose the presidency, but both houses of congress have been lost and soon you will have a strong right trend in judiciary which isn't something that you can recover from until a very long time.

If i recall correctly the same was true in Clinton's presidency where the Democrats gained then lost it after Clinton's final term.

exactly my point. things have been progressively getting worse for liberals.

generally, it use to be where an incumbent would lose spots to the opposition, but the right has only strengthened its position.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: Snagle
liberalism isnt dead, but the dems need to either work hard to make the word 'liberal' lose its negative connotation, or they need to switch to a more conservative position and/or just pick candidates from the south

i still dont see how to be liberal is a something negative.

what is it negative to believe in equal rights and help those in need?

What's equal about affirmative action (race-based preferences)? Old-school liberals were about those things, but that breed has been extinct within the Democratic party for years. The new breed isn't about equality at all; they're about race-baiting and the 'victim' card. I'd certainly be more in favor of liberalism as it used to be understood.

what's not equal about it? it's taking a pool of applicants and filling them into slots that's proportionally representative of that pool.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

things come and go in cycles. To think that one party will stay in power forever is foolish. A lot of people who voted Bush didn't like him, but they didn't like Kerry either and that was the problem. If Kerry was a candidate whom they thought was one of them and was one they could trust he woulda one.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: xyyz

Originally posted by: Snagle
liberalism isnt dead, but the dems need to either work hard to make the word 'liberal' lose its negative connotation, or they need to switch to a more conservative position and/or just pick candidates from the south

i still dont see how to be liberal is a something negative.

what is it negative to believe in equal rights and help those in need?

What's equal about affirmative action (race-based preferences)? Old-school liberals were about those things, but that breed has been extinct within the Democratic party for years. The new breed isn't about equality at all; they're about race-baiting and the 'victim' card. I'd certainly be more in favor of liberalism as it used to be understood.

what's not equal about it? it's taking a pool of applicants and filling them into slots that's proportionally representative of that pool.

Affirmative action tosses merit out the window. If there are 50 applicantes for 10 spots, those 10 spots should go to the 10 most qualified, regardless of "proportions."

 

[xyyz]

the other 40 are still at the top of of their game.

it is still based on merit. the 10 spots given to miniorties go for the most qualified in that subgroup.

sometimes merit takes a hit, and i feel that's alright to make things more equal.

just call me a liberal.