According to a book, there was a time in 1988 when his prospects had looked good. He had done well in early debates, being compared to Harry Truman, in his blunt style. Some national writers were starting to take notice as well. Simon was not a neo democrat, and in fact had critized other democrats for temperizing too much. Simon's star was riding the highest in late 1987, but when Gary Hart reentered the race, after dropping out, due to the Donna Rice affair, he wound up eating up Simon's support, and Simon would eventually run out of money, and drop out of the race. Would Gary Hart not coming back in have made a difference in Simon's fortunes? Simon would have been a better campaigner then Dukakis, because I could not see him resting on his laurals, until it was too late. I could forsee a Simon whistlestop type campaign, that would cause him to pull of an upset against George Bush? Any comments on what a Simon Presidency would have been like? ttp://www.seriousliving.net/new-3290640-477.html Rosita Navarro plans to vote for "Anybody But Bush." But she hates the terms "Republican" and "Democrat." "I wish there was a Neo-Democrat[ic] Party," she says. "Something new." http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/thompson-m-02-17.html In 1994 the Republicans, after being soundly thrashed by Bill Clinton’s resurgent neoDemocrat majority, put together a “Contract for America”, with things that appealed to more than just Republicans, such as welfare reform and balanced budgets. It worked so well that the Clinton administration, which until that point was working actively towards New Deal-esque measures like universal health care, was paralyzed until they finally surrendered and co-opted it completely. The Democrats have to find the ideas that appeal beyond the 49% base. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...o-democrat&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14&ie=UTF-8
Neo-Democrats need to stand up and tell everyone where they stand. They need to stress the fact that the New Democrat Party has no morals or principles to inhibit their objectives. They need to stress how much the United States will gain by being known as a nation where: * A Christian God has out lived his usefulness. * The Constitution of the United States is a document that has long out lived its time, and the nation should have forward thinking lawmakers on the court benches and not representatives of the people in Congress making the laws. * Neo-Democrats and the governmental bureaucracy knows what is best for individuals and therefore should not be disputed in their plans and policies. * Public schools should teach very young children, even Pre-K, about sex and condoms so that they will be ready when the moment pops up. * Homosexuals should be eagerly encouraged and supported in every household. * Sex between any two or more individuals should be eagerly accepted throughout our society no mater the individual's age, relationship, or mental condition. * The nation's educational institutions should teach conformity and harmony at all cost. Individuals that do not conform to governmental ideals should be criticized, ridiculed and in some way penalized until they start thinking correctly. * Only science that conforms to a no industrial growth philosophy in the United States should be accepted. Archaic laws of chemistry and physics that do not support the party's agenda should be discarded. * The United States should disband its armed forces so that other nations will not feel threatened. The people of the United States need to learn to accept small temper tantrums like 9/11 because, after all, the United States' moral superiority is what is causing them. * The United States should share each individual's earnings with the "leaders" of third world countries like North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Rwanda and France. * The United States needs to stop investigating and criticizing the United Nations; after all, it is the only place left where creative financing can be accomplished without intervention. * The citizens of the United States must realize that raising income taxes on the upper class (those earning in excess of $12,000 each year) is the only option left. http://www.ladylibrty.com/your_view_archives/2005/old-lion-roars.html
Rox, what does that list have to do with anything? You don't really think it represents how Democrats, "neo," or otherwise, think things should be done in this country, do you? That would be absurd. Keep D&D Civil.
roxran started using the phrase neo-democrat and someone asked him what it means.. he googled it and tada..
Well, my post above the one you quoted was a sample in left leaning application, and the one you quoted was the lone sample in the right leaning application...I believe in being at least fair. Now if you think I fully embrace the 3 examples in entirety that is a false assuption...The point as reference is to imply the term is not at all made up as a counterpoint...
Roxran, a neo-con who keeps stroking his guns, dreaming of himself as a rugged patriot who will fight with his guns for his freedom, while he loyally follows his leader and accepts the loss of more and more of his Constitutional freedom of privacy and freedom from warrantless searches.
Okay, now you're posting with a bit of substance- though it seems you're using some fancy vocab to say "Democratic leadership is different from before, and it sucks." The posts you made following this one... are kind of funny. It looks like you googled neo democrat and posted whatever you could find, no matter how trashy, to somehow legitimize the term. I don't understand what you're doing- are you giving your definition of what you think a neo-democrat is, or are you saying that it is a term in common use in modern American parlance? If you're trying for the latter, you're going to fail, because it isn't. Google: neo conservative: 447,000 results neo democrat: 144 results The first page of results in a search for neo domocrat don't even contain that exact phrase, they ironically have "neo conservative" and then "democrat" somewhere else on the page. If you're just making your own definition, hey, feel free. Real question here: is there anything in past Democratic leadership you like, or would call righteous? You obvioulsy despise liberals and liberal ideals. Is there some point in the past where you find liberalism more palatable?
[/quote] This is such utter tripe it is unworthy of consideration or discussion. Ugh. Must have really tickled you.
Wow, you really had to dig for those, huh? LOL. Here's the first page that comes up if you put "neo democrat" in quotes and have google only return pages with that exact phrase: http://bradjprice.smugmug.com/gallery/106407 The second page was that pile of sh*t editorial futher up the thread. The third page: http://bradjprice.smugmug.com/gallery/106407 The fourth page is actually entitled "neo-neocon." http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/02/mosque-bombing-and-its-aftermath-civil.html Yeah, without a doubt, neo-democrat is truly a widely accepted addition to our political vocabulary. Look, you want to use the phrase? Fine, make your own definition. For now, it's a slightly more refined "libpigs." Congratulations. Once you're calle on it you turned to Google and it didn't do too damn much for you.
Sorry, Rox, but I've been having a difficult time figuring out what you believe and what you are googling to make a point. My gut feeling is that if squirrels were given the right to vote, we'd have a Democratic landslide of epic proportions! Keep D&D Civil.
It's pretty clear that Roxran pretty much made this term up, with no idea what he meant by it, as some sort of catch-all slag at Dems. The funny thing about it though is it's obviously intended to mirror "Neo-con," a term which he apparently imagines to be inherently insulting. The truth is that the neo-conservative movement is a proud collection of conservatives that had ideas running contrary to the party proper -- much like the New Democrats of the early 90s -- and they, not their opponents, coined the term in order to encapsulate ideas of which they were proud. If "neo-con" is now considered to be an insulting term, well, that's more an indictment of failed ideas and policies than anything else. When asked to explain what was meant by "neo-Dem," a term Roxran has almost assuredly used more often than any other person living on this planet, he rattled off a list of reasons the most prominent Dems of today suck. Of course, that's not a definition or explanation of the term at all, so he went to google. There he found a couple of places the term had been used (no great surprise - I literally invented the word "Thunderloo" for use in my college thesis play and when I google that I find that at least one other person invented it as well), including one that actually manages to out-crazy anything Roxran himself has written here. To sum up, the neo-conservative movement is a real thing, invented by various deep-thinking conservatives to usher in a new movement, while the term "neo-dem" is a made up catch-all to b**** about Dems, much like Jorge's libpigs (a term he runs away from when asked to explain and runs faster from when asked if a nationally beloved radical left winger belongs to the club) and liberal bloggers' use of "Rethugs." The difference between Jorge/leftie bloggers and Roxran though is that Roxran is still pretending the term actually means something. Ironically, in his vain attempts to invent a definition for a term he virtually invented (and inventing the definition after using it about a hundred times) he made more sense than he does in most of his other posts -- no great feat as none of his posts make any discernable sense at all. I not only believe that English is not Roxran's first language -- I don't even think it's his second.
Batman, was that used to describe a person in Britain with a case of explosive diarrhea?? Keep D&D Civil.
I worked on the Simon campaign. I thought he was the best guy and had the highest potential to grow in the office. Fact is we had a young rube (myself, from Texas) and a Congressional Aide two years away from graduating law school (from Georgia) running the entire Southern campaign. We couldn't generate any interest south of the Mason-Dixon line. It had nothing to do with Gary Hart. And by the way, Dukakis had at least two paid staffers in every Southern state and was cornering the money. When we got pulled off the Southern thing to call all 99 Sherrifs in Iowa days before the caucus, I knew it was over. Damn good experience and lots of fun. Taught me a lot, especially about the media. Even though Simon wasn't one, I still have no idea what a "neo-dem" is.
The term is legitimate because it has been used and it is out there...It has been in the domain of being talked about. This is not a which title gets talked about more thing, because I realize the term of "neo-cons" is talked about more from the left-leaners...Some villiage-idiots like batty minded folk might say ROXRAN pulled the wool and made it all up,...that the term is a new one to all...but the truth is it has been referred to in recent political modern era, starting as far as I can tell from the late 80's. till now moreso. This is evident and an undisputable fact. The neo-democrat is all about the CONFRONTATION,...That is the principled differance I see as far as the neo-democrats being who they are, closely followed by style and delivery. CONFRONTATION for the sake of is a proven fail-secured strategy. It is clarified and evident in my very first post... Use?...Yes, without a doubt... common use?...no, but that wasn't my point. My point is to point the finger at a problem of function attributed to strategic direction from one of the two political powers...I want to believe, the truth is evident that leadership may rise, but I offer dignified qualifiers to create the renaissance of ideology... 1. Stop CONFRONTATION...It inhibits future leaders to establish renaissance... 2. Change the funny style and delivery...I still can't stop the laughter of the message delivery of the Dean, of the Gore, among some others...It lowers er,..just stop! Gone is the day when decisiveness from Truman was legendary... Seriously: Wouldn't you rather do with the old way than the leadership which "sucks" now?
hmmm.... Ive never taken you for delusional before ROX. but you trumpeting that the term has been in use for a long time has been disproven already in this thread. If it was a viable political term, it would have been used somewhere reputable...a couple of instances in some random guy's blog doesnt count. please man...you have done something you dont see very often in today's internet communities....you managed to pwn yourself with your own posts. incredible.
#1. I don't care how you take me. #2. The term HAS been is USE, and I have proven it. An example is the reference to Simon, among others... #3. Instances numbering near 200 is a fact in various threads, blogs or no blogs...the same as that other term. Show the "reputable" use with the other term... #4. Please say something more meaningful...You almost sound as ignorant as batman.
Come on - he has always been nutty. It is just that he only recently began posting politics (beyond the "eating squirrels rox!" mantra to which he clung in his early posting career). Accept and love him for the superfreak he is. No need to try to figure out what he is posting. Kudos, ROX. That last post on page one was like some of the more outstanding papers/essays I have graded over the years - written mostly in English yet still incoherent gibber.
