The Democrats are effectively DOA.

[Jhhnn]

"Oh they are getting they're act together alright, so much so that 36% of the country believe they have a clear set of policies for the country, per the March 22-23 Time poll."

Yeh, right, which just about matches Bush's current approval rating, and the rating of the Repub party in general...

Seems to me that the Repubs are whistling in the dark, trying to keep their courage up- who has a better chance of improving their numbers- the Dems, or the Repubs, who have an explosive scandal or few and a very unpopular war hanging around their necks? Not to mention Repubs' overall credibility has evaporated, rightfully so... they've been busted pandering to wealth and the fundie fringe way too many times to be taken seriously...

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

 

[conjur]

No, they're not. There are several Dems and potential candidates with good ideas but they aren't given a second of air time.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: conjur
Big surprise someone in love with the DLC and used to write for the DLC-dandy rag: The New Republic would be critical of Democrats that don't represent the corporate whores of the DLC.

How about this for a different perspective:

Turning the Tables
For once, the Democrats are getting their act together while it's the Republicans who are divided
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179973,00.html

And, besides, that author is from my hometown.

Oh they are getting they're act together alright, so much so that 36% of the country believe they have a clear set of policies for the country, per the March 22-23 Time poll.

As true as that may be, much of the country is probably like me . . . pretty sure that the current set of policies are just plain terrible.

Yet the current Democratic leadership apparently still has a very hard time convincing anyone that they possess the solution.

Stop digging! Every American with at least lower order cognitive skills has figured that one out.

Further, the Dems have a weak media position. The rabid right owns talk and has its own network of 24hr cheerleading (Faux). Further, the MSM spends most of its time talking (or more accurately being told what to report) to the power players . . . Bush, Bush's Cabinet, GOPies in Congress. Of course, MSM is doing that if there isn't a missing white woman of the moment. This week its Katie Couric . . .

Granted, I've been somewhat intrigued by the fascination with the alleged rape of a stripper at Dook. I'm not sure what's more laughable; the feigned incredulity that boorish behavior ain't exactly rare in college students (underaged drinking, strippers, etc NOT rape) or the frequent reference to an "exotic" dancer. If that's exotic, George Bush is a fiscal conservative.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs
Just because Slate says so you believe it?
The Democrats will wipe the floor with the Republicans in November.
And the policies and plans that were in effect before the Bushies stole power will be re-enacted.
Deficits will turn to surpluses.
And we will get out of the quagmire in Iraq.

You really are a sheeple arent you?

Deficits to surplus's?
Get out of Iraq?

What next, the democrats have a firesale on Ocean front property in ND and you come cash in hand?

Hey, that is my term for Republicans. You can't use it for non-brainwashed Liberals.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: conjur
Big surprise someone in love with the DLC and used to write for the DLC-dandy rag: The New Republic would be critical of Democrats that don't represent the corporate whores of the DLC.

How about this for a different perspective:

Turning the Tables
For once, the Democrats are getting their act together while it's the Republicans who are divided
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179973,00.html

And, besides, that author is from my hometown.

Oh they are getting they're act together alright, so much so that 36% of the country believe they have a clear set of policies for the country, per the March 22-23 Time poll.

As true as that may be, much of the country is probably like me . . . pretty sure that the current set of policies are just plain terrible.

Yet the current Democratic leadership apparently still has a very hard time convincing anyone that they possess the solution.

Stop digging! Every American with at least lower order cognitive skills has figured that one out.

Further, the Dems have a weak media position. The rabid right owns talk and has its own network of 24hr cheerleading (Faux). Further, the MSM spends most of its time talking (or more accurately being told what to report) to the power players . . . Bush, Bush's Cabinet, GOPies in Congress. Of course, MSM is doing that if there isn't a missing white woman of the moment. This week its Katie Couric . . .

Granted, I've been somewhat intrigued by the fascination with the alleged rape of a stripper at Dook. I'm not sure what's more laughable; the feigned incredulity that boorish behavior ain't exactly rare in college students (underaged drinking, strippers, etc NOT rape) or the frequent reference to an "exotic" dancer. If that's exotic, George Bush is a fiscal conservative.

Managing to nominate a halfway decent candidate (Gore and Kerry certainly didn't do the trick) would go a long way. They really need a solid, visible, confidence inspiring extension of their policies. I mean come on, I've got more statesmanship in my pinky toe than Bush has in his entire body but he still managed to carry both elections.

The Republicans have handed the Democrats all the possible ammunition they could need to use against them but they decide to spend it so poorly.

 

[conjur]

You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Conjur from your article:

"The heart of the Kerry plan would have the federal government pay health plans 75% of the cost of "catastrophic" medical bills -- roughly those over $50,000 a year for one patient -- in return for which the plans would agree to cut the premiums charged to workers by 10%. Thorpe estimates that Kerry's reinsurance plan alone would cost the government $257 billion over 10 years. Thorpe estimates the cost of the entire Kerry healthcare package at $653 billion over 10 years, even after subtracting estimated savings from such things as increased use of computerized medical claims and requirements for more aggressive "disease management" of such expensive ailments as congestive heart failure and diabetes."

I don't know if you even read the articles you search. Yes, google is your friend, only if you actually read what you are searching.

From what it says here, Kerry's plan will actually cost the government more money. Now Kerry wants to cut taxes as well as pay for this new healthcare plan. Where is this money coming from? The only solution I see is to raise taxes or not impliment this plan at all.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

When you turn on the TV and all you see is attack attack attack. It's kind of hard to see what their plans are or perhaps I'm getting old and losing my memory.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Conjur from your article:

"The heart of the Kerry plan would have the federal government pay health plans 75% of the cost of "catastrophic" medical bills -- roughly those over $50,000 a year for one patient -- in return for which the plans would agree to cut the premiums charged to workers by 10%. Thorpe estimates that Kerry's reinsurance plan alone would cost the government $257 billion over 10 years. Thorpe estimates the cost of the entire Kerry healthcare package at $653 billion over 10 years, even after subtracting estimated savings from such things as increased use of computerized medical claims and requirements for more aggressive "disease management" of such expensive ailments as congestive heart failure and diabetes."

I don't know if you even read the articles you search. Yes, google is your friend, only if you actually read what you are searching.

From what it says here, Kerry's plan will actually cost the government more money. Now Kerry wants to cut taxes as well as pay for this new healthcare plan. Where is this money coming from? The only solution I see is to raise taxes or not impliment this plan at all.

(Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government) I wrote that right after the link. I guess it was asking too much of you so I repeated it and even bolded it so you don't miss it again.

Now, where did it state anything about Kerry cutting taxes? He was going to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts as well as remove loopholes for companies "basing" overseas to avoid taxes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

What "demented conspiracy theory"?

Ohio (Blackwell, Taft, Ney, Noe, Diebold)
Florida (Harris, Choicepoint DBT)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

When you turn on the TV and all you see is attack attack attack. It's kind of hard to see what their plans are or perhaps I'm getting old and losing my memory.

Agreed...I did say they could do a better job at spreading the word.

That being said, I'm not really sure how much better our friends on the right are. What was the basic message of 2004? Vote for Kerry and terrorists will kill your children seemed to be the popular one.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

What "demented conspiracy theory"?

Ohio (Blackwell, Taft, Ney, Noe, Diebold)
Florida (Harris, Choicepoint DBT)

The same one you just posted. Even if it were true, which I HIGHLY doubt, it dosen't freaking matter. Perception is everything in politics and the Democrats have clearly forgotten that.

Let's look at it this way, what looks better:

Option 1: "The Republicans stole two elections, don't them do it again since we aren't quite so bad."

Option 2: "The party had strayed from the path but is now ready, willing, and able to set a course for the nation leading to security and prosperity."

Provided there is any sort of decent personality to prop up for the presidency that can at least regurgitate a cohesive and progressive party platform the Democrats should have little trouble emulating their Republican nemesis and walk away with the elections.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Conjur from your article:

"The heart of the Kerry plan would have the federal government pay health plans 75% of the cost of "catastrophic" medical bills -- roughly those over $50,000 a year for one patient -- in return for which the plans would agree to cut the premiums charged to workers by 10%. Thorpe estimates that Kerry's reinsurance plan alone would cost the government $257 billion over 10 years. Thorpe estimates the cost of the entire Kerry healthcare package at $653 billion over 10 years, even after subtracting estimated savings from such things as increased use of computerized medical claims and requirements for more aggressive "disease management" of such expensive ailments as congestive heart failure and diabetes."

I don't know if you even read the articles you search. Yes, google is your friend, only if you actually read what you are searching.

From what it says here, Kerry's plan will actually cost the government more money. Now Kerry wants to cut taxes as well as pay for this new healthcare plan. Where is this money coming from? The only solution I see is to raise taxes or not impliment this plan at all.

(Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government) I wrote that right after the link. I guess it was asking too much of you so I repeated it and even bolded it so you don't miss it again.

Now, where did it state anything about Kerry cutting taxes? He was going to repeal some of the Bush tax cuts as well as remove loopholes for companies "basing" overseas to avoid taxes.

Not sure about that bolded statement. Who is the one-party rule government (insinuating the republicans?)? And how much does that medicare prescription drug program cost?

I agree, Kerry wanted to repeal taxes for the wealthy, but didn't he also wanted to lower taxes for the middle and lower class?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

The force is strong with this one.

 

[conjur]

The Medicare prescription drug program is estimated to cost $1.2 Trillion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6937855/

As for Kerry and tax cuts:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/20/news/economy/election_bigmo/

Kerry wants to roll back tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year. But he wants to keep the higher child tax credit, the lower marriage penalty and the new 10 percent tax bracket for lower-income families. He also calls for new tax credits for health care and college tuition.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

When you turn on the TV and all you see is attack attack attack. It's kind of hard to see what their plans are or perhaps I'm getting old and losing my memory.

Agreed...I did say they could do a better job at spreading the word.

That being said, I'm not really sure how much better our friends on the right are. What was the basic message of 2004? Vote for Kerry and terrorists will kill your children seemed to be the popular one.

Generally, Democrats are weak when it comes to foreign affairs. At that time, with 9/11, Afghan war, and terrorism threat, we needed a strong leader. Kerry on the other hand, wanted to appease France, which showed weakness in the worst of times.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

What "demented conspiracy theory"?

Ohio (Blackwell, Taft, Ney, Noe, Diebold)
Florida (Harris, Choicepoint DBT)

The same one you just posted. Even if it were true, which I HIGHLY doubt, it dosen't freaking matter. Perception is everything in politics and the Democrats have clearly forgotten that.

Let's look at it this way, what looks better:

Option 1: "The Republicans stole two elections, don't them do it again since we aren't quite so bad."

Option 2: "The party had strayed from the path but is now ready, willing, and able to set a course for the nation leading to security and prosperity."

Provided there is any sort of decent personality to prop up for the presidency that can at least regurgitate a cohesive and progressive party platform the Democrats should have little trouble emulating their Republican nemesis and walk away with the elections.

I'm still missing what's a "demented conspiracy theory". Would you mind clarifying? Before you do:

Florida voter roll purging (Choicepoint DBT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1
http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanbuychapter1.pdf

That interview Palast did of the Florida official (Clayton Roberts) was classic.


See this thread
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1836605&enterthread=y

for more info on Ohio.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

When you turn on the TV and all you see is attack attack attack. It's kind of hard to see what their plans are or perhaps I'm getting old and losing my memory.

Agreed...I did say they could do a better job at spreading the word.

That being said, I'm not really sure how much better our friends on the right are. What was the basic message of 2004? Vote for Kerry and terrorists will kill your children seemed to be the popular one.

Generally, Democrats are weak when it comes to foreign affairs. At that time, with 9/11, Afghan war, and terrorism threat, we needed a strong leader. Kerry on the other hand, wanted to appease France, which showed weakness in the worst of times.

If displays of strength is what you are looking for, then I agree, the Republicans are the way to go. What the Democrats provide, and what Kerry would have provided, is INTELLIGENCE. When facing troubled foreign affairs, strength is important. But strength without intelligence is sometimes worse than having neither at all. Kerry might have wanted to "appease" France, but Bush went out of his way to make sure we destroyed our relationships with most of our long-term allies...and that was after 9/11 handed him a diplomatic boon that could have been used to bring even closer ties to our various international relationships. This being a "global" war on terror and all, and the ongoing cost of our occupation in Iraq, means that having some more allies might be helpful at the moment. Whatever value Bush's dick measuring contest with our formerly close allies might have had in terms of showing our strength, I'm not sure it's worth the cost.

What Democrats have to do is not become Republican-lites, aping the silly posturing and macho behavior that seem to characterize Republican foreign policy. Rather, they need to convince Americans that an intelligent and well thought out approach to foreign problems is a better choice. In a perfect world, we could have both, but they rarely seem to come together. Right now, voters have been sold on the idea that Bush's action movie approach is the way to go, I think the Dems would do very well not by trying to do the same thing, but by offering an alternative.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: conjur
You're forgetting the Diebold/Choicepoint DBT effect, too.

You do realize that persisting in this demented conspiracy theory just makes the party look even more desperate and weak right?

What "demented conspiracy theory"?

Ohio (Blackwell, Taft, Ney, Noe, Diebold)
Florida (Harris, Choicepoint DBT)

The same one you just posted. Even if it were true, which I HIGHLY doubt, it dosen't freaking matter. Perception is everything in politics and the Democrats have clearly forgotten that.

Let's look at it this way, what looks better:

Option 1: "The Republicans stole two elections, don't them do it again since we aren't quite so bad."

Option 2: "The party had strayed from the path but is now ready, willing, and able to set a course for the nation leading to security and prosperity."

Provided there is any sort of decent personality to prop up for the presidency that can at least regurgitate a cohesive and progressive party platform the Democrats should have little trouble emulating their Republican nemesis and walk away with the elections.

I'm still missing what's a "demented conspiracy theory". Would you mind clarifying? Before you do:

Florida voter roll purging (Choicepoint DBT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1
http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanbuychapter1.pdf

That interview Palast did of the Florida official (Clayton Roberts) was classic.


See this thread
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1836605&enterthread=y

for more info on Ohio.

You are still missing the point. Both parties have been accused to various degrees of shenanigans with the ballots since almost the founding of the country, albeit some more substantiated than others. Even if, hypothetically, it did happen in two back to back presidential elections what exactly has it earned the opposing party by blathering on and on endlessly about it? Not a goddamned thing, nor any party before it.

It is a losing tactic. Period. End of story.

The best thing is to focus on what can be done now like having goals and someone that inspires enough confidence to make the voters think he/she can accomplish them. Make the margin so wide that there is little doubt that they would win and if the great conspiracy you claim rears its head again you can cut it off with the confidence and support of the voters.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: conjur
Kind of hard for the Democrats to do such a thing when they are routinely scoffed and ignored by the "liberal" media, shot down by the ruling party at every attempt to introduce legislation to hold this administration accountable, etc.

as if they would have anything useful to say even if they didnt..give me a break..their plans are vague as heck

Not only vague but doesn't make much sense either. IIRC, Kerry wanted to give everyone healthcare or a more affordable healthcare (been too long for me to remember) and a tax cut. Now where is this money coming from to pay for this new healthcare plan? Most of Democrats plan is to blame Bush for everything but that solves absolutely nothing. If Democrats wants to win, they need to have realistic plans and blaming Bush isn't going to cut it.

<ahem>

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article207.html (Note that the entire cost of Kerry's healthplan is far less than just the Medicare prescription drug program passed by the one-party rule government)

Indeed. The Dems have plenty of ideas, some of them are even good ones, but they aren't very effective at spreading the word. It's not that people know what the Dems stand for and disagree, it's that they really don't know. Of course I'm not sure sumyungai is the BEST example, given that he can't remember things that happened less than 2 years ago. Still though, the Dems really need to do more to spread their actual message. They are letting Republicans paint them as the party of nothing more than complaints and whining. And while that is far from true, it might as well be true is that's what people think.

When you turn on the TV and all you see is attack attack attack. It's kind of hard to see what their plans are or perhaps I'm getting old and losing my memory.

Agreed...I did say they could do a better job at spreading the word.

That being said, I'm not really sure how much better our friends on the right are. What was the basic message of 2004? Vote for Kerry and terrorists will kill your children seemed to be the popular one.

Generally, Democrats are weak when it comes to foreign affairs. At that time, with 9/11, Afghan war, and terrorism threat, we needed a strong leader. Kerry on the other hand, wanted to appease France, which showed weakness in the worst of times.

If displays of strength is what you are looking for, then I agree, the Republicans are the way to go. What the Democrats provide, and what Kerry would have provided, is INTELLIGENCE. When facing troubled foreign affairs, strength is important. But strength without intelligence is sometimes worse than having neither at all. Kerry might have wanted to "appease" France, but Bush went out of his way to make sure we destroyed our relationships with most of our long-term allies...and that was after 9/11 handed him a diplomatic boon that could have been used to bring even closer ties to our various international relationships. This being a "global" war on terror and all, and the ongoing cost of our occupation in Iraq, means that having some more allies might be helpful at the moment. Whatever value Bush's dick measuring contest with our formerly close allies might have had in terms of showing our strength, I'm not sure it's worth the cost.

What Democrats have to do is not become Republican-lites, aping the silly posturing and macho behavior that seem to characterize Republican foreign policy. Rather, they need to convince Americans that an intelligent and well thought out approach to foreign problems is a better choice. In a perfect world, we could have both, but they rarely seem to come together. Right now, voters have been sold on the idea that Bush's action movie approach is the way to go, I think the Dems would do very well not by trying to do the same thing, but by offering an alternative.

Whether Bush shows INTELLIGENCE or Kerry shows INTELLIGENCE is one's personal political point of view. A republican supporter will view Bush with more INTELLIGENCE than a democrat supporter and vice versa, so it's all relative.

France have their own agendas and interests in Iraq. Didn't Iraq owe France money? Wasn't there an oil for food bribe scandal? Didn't France sell airplane parts and other weapons to Iraq? We needed a president who would look out for our own interest first rather than appease other beaurucrats' interests. Whether you support Bush all boils down to one's view of the source of terrorism. If one view the source of terrorism as an idealogy of hate, Islam, then one would support Bush and his decisions in invading Iraq. If one's view of terrorism as a result from American interference in the middle east, then one would think Bush is UNINTELLIGENT. It all depends on one's peronsal observations.