Demos, what should we do about being nicer guys than Republicans?

it's funny...i've heard people say the same thing about the republicans for a long time...that they're too nice...that they give too much despite holding the majority.

 

I thought there would be more responses.

I have one thought that I heard from Chris Matthews and Mike Barnacle. Are the Democratic leading thinkers in a way too arrogant towards the American public? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. will have no problem talking directly to people. But liberals often talk about how Americans are "ignorant" or "stupid."

 

Thinking about just gives me a headache.
We need a Democrat who's very, very rich. Someone who doesn't need to have a Party that caters to big business to an extent we saw and are seeing in Texas... and now from an Administration that seemingly asks Corporate America, "What do you want? That's ALL?? Hell, you've got it."

The Anti-Sanchez... someone who's rich AND has political acumen.
Then get Wesley Clark to run as VP and we have a shot. And new Party leadership with political acumen wouldn't hurt either.

 

I've never heard that claim before, very funny.

 

yeah..i've heard it in republican circles, really...i think it's typical for disgruntled party members to say this about their own party

 

Probably the most dedicated members thinking that. I saw some documentary recently and it's amazing what people will think when they have blinders on.

 

A certain democrat just got an $8 million book deal.

 

But would you're whole platform be an anti-whatever- the- Repulicans- do platform? The Dems need some ideas, they can't just say "We don't like what they are doing, vote for us."

 

can I get an AMEN!!!!!!

 

I think this is a far more likely scenario-

__________________________________________

George F. Will: Democrats' weakening radar
By George F. Will
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Thursday, June 19, 2003


WASHINGTON -- The contours of the political landscape are becoming increasingly inhospitable to Democrats. This is partly because of what Democrats are, partly because of what they have done to themselves with campaign finance reform, partly because demographic changes are weakening one of their signature issues and partly because of a conflict between their ideology and fiscal facts.

James Carville, political consultant and agitator, warns his fellow Democrats that voters "won't trust a party to defend America if it can't defend itself." Unfortunately, he says, "Democrats by their nature tend to look weak." Unsurprisingly, Carville thinks this defect reflects a virtue: "We" -- Democrats -- "tend to see six sides to the Pentagon." Meaning Democrats comprehend the complexity of things, which renders them rhetorically mushy.

Carville believes, preposterously, that Democrats are "reluctant to judge." Actually, they are hair-trigger hanging judges, promiscuously ascribing to Republicans sinister objectives such as repeal of the 13th Amendment and denial of driver's licenses to women. But Carville has a piece of a point: Many Democrats, although as dogmatic as John Calvin, are also philosophical relativists.

They seem reactive, a party of protest, more capable of saying what they do not like -- George W. Bush, his judicial nominees, tax cuts and other works -- than what they like. Hence Democrats are perceived as the servants of grievance groups. One consequence of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms will be an exacerbation of that perception.

Democrats' ideological aversion to the rich, and the Democratic itch to legislate equality, prompted them to support McCain-Feingold. Now they have awakened from their dogmatic slumbers to the consequences of banning "soft money" -- the unregulated and hence often large contributions not for the election of particular candidates, but for voter turnout and other party-building activities.

Democrats divide their time between deploring anything that benefits rich people and standing in front of rich people, like Oliver Twist with his porridge bowl, begging for more. In an article on McCain-Feingold ("The Democratic Party Suicide Bill") in the July/August issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Seth Gitell notes that in the 1996 election cycle, when Democrats raised $122 million in soft money, a fifth of it -- $25 million -- came from just 168 people.

Republicans have a large advantage in raising "hard" dollars, which are for particular candidates and are covered by annual limits. Democrats, deprived of soft money, will be forced to rely on paid issue advocacy by their "groups" -- environmentalists, gun control advocates, the pro-abortion lobby. Dependence on the groups will cost the party control of its message and pull the party to the left, away from swing voters.

In their reactive mode, Democrats practice reactionary liberalism. For example, their idea for making Social Security solvent for the baby boomers' retirement is ... to oppose Bush's proposal for partial privatization of the system. But Mitch Daniels, who after more than two years as head of the Office of Management and Budget is heading home to run for governor of Indiana, offers a parting observation: America has reached a "tipping point" in the argument about partial privatization because there are now more younger voters strongly skeptical about the viability of the current system than there are older voters strongly averse of changing it.

Furthermore, Daniels discerns a paradox that will increasingly bedevil Democrats. One reason there are two parties is to accommodate two broadly different valuations of freedom and equality: Republicans tend to favor the former, Democrats the latter. But, says Daniels, Democrats have a stake in substantial, even increasing, income inequality.

This is because Democrats favor a more ambitious, high-spending federal government. Almost half of the government's revenue comes from the personal income tax, and, in 2000, 37.4 percent of income taxes were paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of income earners.

The liberals' conundrum is that their aspirations for omniprovident government depend on a large and growing supply of very rich people, whom Democrats deplore in principle but enjoy in practice. Rich people are the reason federal revenues surged into surplus during the boom times of the latter half of the Clinton presidency as income inequality widened and there was a gusher of revenue from capital gains taxes. The liberals' conundrum is condign punishment for the discordance between the way they talk and the way they live.

Sociologist David Riesman suggested there are broadly two kinds of political people. Gyroscopic people have internal guidance systems. Radar people steer according to signals bounced off others. Today, Democrats are more a radar party, Republicans are more a gyroscopic, and stronger.

 

i'm curious...do democrats on this board think she's a viable candidate for president?

 

no.

 

Ditto.

 

Hillary could win the Democrat nomination anytime she wants. If she thought she could win in 2004, she would just organize a "draft Hillary 2004" committee behind the scenes, and she would run.

 

Financed by all that illegal Whitewater money she has stocked away! take that ken starr!

 

No.

 

we'll you better hope hillary doesn't run in 2008 otherwise she will win the nomination.

 

LMAO, this is just another indication that the Democrats who frequent this BBS don't represent any sizable group.

OF COURSE Hillary is a viable candidate for President. Outside of G.W. and Powell, there is no more viable candidate, PERIOD.

 

you really think so??

i think she would mobilize the party base of the Republicans to vote in droves...record numbers for Republicans. the last thing you want to do is mobilize the other party's base.