Where is the Democratic leadership? Who is the speaker of the spoken for? ...I think even the most ardent BBS posters who back the Demo's will understand the apparent misdirection which is exhibited in media and reports...You have Liebermann who is starting to sound more like me ....You have Byrd crying and quivering about almost anything...You have Daschale, who I guess is suppose to be the front guy who comes out and twists President Bush's words about what he exactly says, says anything but agreement with Bush's wishes, then at the eleventh hour says he will agree regarding Bush's aim to topple Iraq...Maybe Gephardt is true leadership (though he is more like a moderate from what I heard) Where is the solidarity?
well, this is just how life is for those of us without a moral compass. Seriously, I've been a lefty unhappy with Dem. leadership for a long time. I don't exactly know what the answer is, but it could start with a decision as to whether "we" want to return to our roots, so to speak, or continue with an attempt to be "Republican lite." (half the calories, half the morals, half the corporate sponsors? )
I think initiatives to center partisan views would be a good strategy to sway "moderates" and "lite" republican voters... I am not neccesarily saying get a little more "rightish" on every topic of concern for folk, but pick topics that a substantial amount of citizens tend to agree on to some extend and compromise to swing a little right to make concessions... I don't think this thinking is giving in or losing the battle or any micro-based thoughts this may suggest...
I think the Dems have lost their backbone. Gore hasn't always been my favorite, but at he least he stood for something in his speech about Iraq, and how it would hinder the war against Al Qaeda. These other Dems are just rolling over, to cover their own butts. They are scared that they will look weak if they vote against it. That's my guess anyway.
These other Dems are just rolling over, to cover their own butts. They are scared that they will look weak if they vote against it. That's my guess anyway. I disagree. I think there is honest disagreement within factions of the party on this. Part of it is certainly politically motivated -- for example, it looks bad to be "anti-war" so the leadership ultimately will support Bush. However, some of it -- like Liebermann -- truly supports Bush, I think. Then there are some who truly want to avoid war and others who think being anti-Republican is the best political strategy.
If they would vote what their constituents want instead of what they want, we wouldn't have to have these discussions.
I understand...I just think it is high time that our "leaders" actually vote their conscience. It is time to do away with the notion of the career politician.
You have only been unhappy with Dem leadership? I've been highly disappointed by the leadership from both sides since 1988 when I started paying attention and voting.
That's what they're doing. That's the problem as I see it. Politicians are more concerned about what is popular with their constituents than making up their own mind.
This is exactly right. It's why people like Rush Limbaugh (or Barbra Streisand) advocate "kill kill kill" political jihads and the two parties just seem to myopically wander from election to election. If I were running the Democratic Party-- mwahahahaha-- I would be absolultely hammering the Republican Party on the economy. I wouldn't even pull that phony glynch "Bush recession" bull****, trying to claim everything that's gone wrong in the last two years is directly tied to Bush, or that Bush's tax cuts wrecked Clinton's economic utopia. I would be hammering the GOP on not addressing domestic concerns, for not articulating any strategy at all for stimulating the economy, and I would very clearly try to address the Democratic economic strategy. I think saying, "People are tired of being told 'recovery is right around the corner, just sit tight and be patient'" would really resonate with the average American swing voter, carrying $8000 of credit card debt and trying to juggle consumer-spending debt with job security. Basically, I'd stop the party agitprop BS that half the country thinks is exactly that-- I'd stop trying to tie Bush to Enron and criminal corporate leadership, and I'd stop trying to falsely blame tax cuts for the loss of the semi-fictional surplus-- and I'd say plainly, "We have an economic agenda that can help working middle-class Americans. The GOP either doesn't have or isn't sharing how they intend to stop the economic downturn. Vote Democratic."
I hear you, VDP, but I have had so little in common with the Republican platform from, say, 1980 onwards, that my regard of their leadership is somewhat moot. Unfortunately, since I don't want most of their policies enacted, I find myself hoping for poor Republican leadership. Not ideal. I kind of like where the thread is (perhaps) headed. Some think the politicians aren't accurately representing their constituents, and others think that they represent said constituents far too closely, displaying no leadership. Which is it? This is going to sound incredibly republican, (by the root definition of that term), but I worry about the attention span and true knowledge base of constituents these days. Is there anyway we as part of the general public can move things away from sound bites, wafer-thin issue discussion, and empty posturing? Is there any way to regain the days when candidates wrote their own lengthy statements of platform and proposed policy (appearing in newspapers without candidate photos ), and people chose their candidates based on this sort of criteria?
I certainly don't want to understate the importance of political strategizing to this and just about every decision politicians make, but I agree there's honest difference of opinion, and I think there's also a struggle between idealism and pragmatism, both of which involve "voting your conscience" as opposed to deciding what will make your constituents happy. Idealism - this is wrong. Pre-emptive strike policy is bad. Cowboy unilateralism is bad. Terrorism may be exacerbated. Bush hasn't given enough evidence to warrant clear and present danger and the type of authority he's seeking, etc. (Note: please don't respond to this section. That's not my point.) Pragmatism: The administration's dead set on doing something to Iraq. The multilateral approach is the only saving grace in the eyes of the international community, some Americans, and perhaps conscience. Colin Powell specifically asked for a show of support in trying to bargain with allies. If you're going to lose on this resolution anyway (or even if you're not defeatist about it) at least you can help Sec. State convince the Security Council that the U.S. is not going to be dissuaded and they better hop on the ride. Having the Security Council on board could help legitimize the use of military force (a little bit.) Maybe Daschle's just trying to win votes, but maybe the bit about wanting to help Powell with negotiations is genuine. Anyway, just my thoughts.
ROXRAN: This is how Democrats are SUPPOSED to be. The fact that for a little while they were organized is the abberation. Why? Look at Demographics. The "normal" center of the country will always be conservative, economically if not "morally." However, there are fewer people in the center than at the edges, collectively. The Democratic party (and all liberal parties) are composed of the fringes. Minorities, the poor, the very well educated, and the politically disenfranchised (like radical environmentalists) generally vote Democrat. Oh, sure, there are exceptions, of course. But those are the groups that are predominantly liberal... just like the "center" is predominantly conservative. Hence, Democrats will never be cohesive for an extended period of time. Too many conflicting interests. Democrats have a numerical advantage... Republicans are more cohesive. Each has an advantage.
Considering Women have historically been the largest group to support Democrats, I think your belief that only people on the "fringe" of society vote Dem is wrong. Also, If Dems can't be cohesive for an extended period, why did they control congress for so many years, practically since FDR until 1994? Here's what I think, the majority of Americans don't really care either way. They think the Dems are all about spending their hard earned cash on other people and Republicans are all about supporting Fat Cats who screw over the little guy and don't give a crap about the environment. It's not true, but that's the way they see it. The avg american doesn't vote and the amount of voters has declined steadily for many years now. Also, I still have to pull out the "gore won the popular vote" trump card. Basically, my point is that the average voter doesn't really lean either way and for the most part, they vote for the person they "like" the most. It's really more about perception than about ideology. By the way, I'm tired about this whole moral argument. Does not throwing christianity in everybody's face/school/place of business really make Dems amoral?
Yes, heathen scum. What are you gonna do, throw some milktoast *humanism* in everybody's face? Actually, once upon a time in 'Merica, christianity was not so strongly linked to the Republican party... One "victory" of the Reagan era, some say.
