With all the problems the Rep. have, it's amazing how the Dems don't seem to be in great position to take back Congress or the White house. I got to think that maybe the Dem's position on several issues are such that we yield several large blocs of vote to the Rep without a fight. Issues such as abortion, national defense, gay right, gun control ... Please name another issue if you can think of one. Do you think the Dems can take at least one issue of the table so we can win back some votes and still not give up the core values and principal of a Liberal Dem? Just to throw out a point for discussion. Can we yield on gun control? Can we say to the NRA that they can own as many guns as they want? Is it really important to stick to gun control? Can we take a step back so we can take 2 steps forward? Can we lose a battle in order to win the war?
I think there are some common sense things that can be done about gun control that shouldn't set the NRA into a tizzy... but mention any sort of restriction on firearms and they go nuts. They are like a relevant version of PETA.
I don't think the Dems are losing too many votes to one issue voters who only vote for who the NRA tells them to.
My general understanding of gun politics is that it relates to population density. While it probably wouldn't make an overall difference as stated, I think it could cause regional shifts. Dems supporting liberal gun laws would result in gains in the southwest and midwest but these would be offset by losses in the Northeast and the population centers of California. The thing that gets the gun nuts most upset is the minority of Democrats who are most vocal about extreme measures. Specific quotes get pulled out and used as a rallying cry and fuel the paranoia of a generaly paranoid bunch. When one Democrat makes a comment about confiscating all guns in the country off the cuff, the nuts quote that as the position of every Democrat everywhere. Without getting the extremes to moderate their position, which I don't think will happen as those are generally the people who care most about the issue, I don't think a greater general shift would help, and it might cost more than it gains.
This is the problem with our government system. We have a mindset that says, "im against abortion, so I need to vote republican" or "i support gay rights, I vote democrat". Blind voting over very minor issues is hurting this country. Most of these issues need to be left with the state, not the feds. I feel this is why the democrats can never win. They are too busy fighting to win regional battles instead of trying to win a national vote. If your party clown is busy out there saying we need "gay rights" to the whole nation, they simply can't win against a canidate who is saying they are doing their best at global issues, such as wars, economies, healthcare, ect, even though they are doing a horrible job at it.....especially when they (democrats) can't give a solid answer on these issues. Bottom line, if you're running for president, concentrate on national issues such as economy, war, ect ... Leave the gun control, abortion, gay rights, blah blah to the states, the way our government was initially set up. If being gay is the most important thing for you, then move to a gay friendly state. Quit telling every american that they need to support gays. Vice versa, if being anti-gay is so important to you, move to a state that does not recognize gay relationships.
I understand what you said and but you and others misunderstood what I was trying to get to. I know pandering for the Gun votes will lose some Dem votes who are for gun control ... My point is, why or if the Dem party, as a whole, has to hold firm to one issue such as guns. Can we, as a whole, decide that maybe it's more important to be in the position to affect other changes in the country if we can do so by yielding on one unimportant issue. Gun is only an example. It does not have to be Gun, it maybe something else. As the replies here indicate, if the general sentiment is like this board, the Dem will always be second class citizens.
What you said is basically equivalent to deciding that, as a whole, Gay right is not important enough to make into a national issue. Why then the Dem allows itself to get beat up with it at the national level? Your candidate may leave this issue alone but the Rep sure aren't letting the voters forget about them.
I was being sarcastic. I consider the Democratic Party to be in a great position to take back Congress. And as to the issue of gun control, I disagree completely. This is the same kind of tactic Rove is a master at... attempt to portray the Democrats as being some sort of lock-step, we believe everything the same way party that the GOP actually is. The problem with the Democratic Party isn't that we all feel the same about the issues, it's that we have a difficult time agreeing about a host of things. Many, many Democrats, myself included, are against most gun control. I'm against the concealed carry laws, but otherwise go out and have fun with your guns. Hunt, target practice, collect... I don't care. Some of my fellow Democrats disagree, and that's fine. What we do tend to agree with is that the government has a role in insuring that the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, children, those without health insurance, over 45 million Americans, many considered middle class, get help helping themselves. The GOP believes in bankrupting the country, growing government to record levels, running a huge foreign trade deficit. Just look at their record. Look beyond the Rove/RNC BS, and look at their damn record. It's an outrage. If anyone believes Rove, Bush, and the Rush Limbaughs of this country, they are being taken to the cleaners, and have their heads buried in the sand. They want you to believe that what the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration are actually doing is what the Democrats want to do. Pardon me, but it's bull****. Again, just look at the record of governing of the GOP. It speaks for itself. Keep D&D Civil.
The Dems are still reacting to what the repubs are doing -- this needs to stop. The dems need to dominate the political conversation in the country if they hope to win in Nov.
Republicans have spent this election cycle reacting, however. The fact that the Bush adminstration is dropping, "stay the course," is proof that the environment has changed somewhat.
From what I read, the Dem may take some seats but getting the majority back is a fight. It should not be like that, considering how badly the Rep have performed. The last time the Rep took congress, the Dem did not mess up half as bad. Imagine if the situation was reversed, if the Dems were in charge right now and made these kind of mistakes, they'd be run out of the country. We are in a fight right now because we alienated too many groups of people who would never vote against their personal issues no matter how bad their leaders are doing. Gun control, the Dem are dividing among ourselves here. A Dem candidate loses some votes from our own people if he gives up Gun control. If he is tough on Guns, he loses votes from a block of people who love their guns. A Dem candidate can not win here. If that is the case, why don't we , as a party, agree that this issue is not important. So what if they have their guns? They have had their guns for a long time. The bad things associated with guns have happened for a long time. Let's put this off (we'll fix it later) and concentrate on .... ... these more important issues. You are trying to fight the same losing fight again. I agree with you on all issues but we fought the wrong battle. We fought too many battles, too many groups. Let's fight the fight we can win and let some alone for now. Again, Gun is just an example, we might find another issue that we can take off the table and bring more people to our side.
Doesn't matter who wins they both are errand boys for bankers. Every American should go see this movie. link I saw it last night at the Agelika Film Center in the theatre district in Houston. It is next to the Verizon Wireless Theatre (by the hard rock cafe) The film is slow for the first 30 minutes but the last 45 minutes are dynamite.
As it is always with the right, when you run out of arguments accuse your opponents of being too angry. Pretty much the whole country's pissed off now, Nomar. That dog won't hunt anymore.
Fine you want to argue? I find his post revolting. "Help the weak, poor, etc." The government does too much of that as it is. Self-interest is the best interest.
Look around the world, you will know why "help the weak, poor, etc" is self-interest for the rich ones. Helping the weak and poor, you can secure a safe and stable society, and the rich ones can enjoy their wealth.
