Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Virginian87]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

The people who own the media don't. And TV tends to be far more conservative than some small town indie newspapers. If you weight everyone in the media business by their influence, you'll see that it's still conservatively biased. Your 3 out of 4 figure sounds a bit out of date or wrong, anyways.

You want a topic to argue over bias?  How about talk radio?

[Virginian87]

Screw FoxNews and CNN.  I watch NBC Nightly News for news or MSNBC for talk.  I have neither seen nor detected bias on either.  I understand the Tiffany network had the Bush services problem with Dan Rather, but I don't really watch CBS anyway.

[Virginian87]

[

trying to make progress towards resolving Social Security

I think you mean dismantle Social Security.

large funding for alternative energy, etc.

What types of alternative energy? The energy bill was mainly a way to give away billions to large oil companies and did nothing to help decrease demand.

These are both true.  Their "privatization" and "personal accounts" will only dismantle Social Security.  Republicans are not offering any real solutions to the energy crisis because ExxonMobil and Chevron's stocks are at record levels.  President Bush may mention some forms of energy conservation and alternative energy, but he's not showing any initiative.  The Department of the Interior with Gale Norton is a joke when it comes to environmental issues.

[Virginian87]

Yay!  Al's back!  Maybe he can talk some sense into jfern and his idea of "bland moderates."

[Virginian87]

Since 57% of young people support personal accounts, here's hoping Social Security is 'dismantled' in the near future.

Where did you get those statistics?

I actually agree that the energy bill was pretty worthless.

I'm glad you do.

[Virginian87]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to tell these liberals like jfern who won't listen to reason.

[Virginian87]

Screw FoxNews and CNN.  I watch NBC Nightly News for news or MSNBC for talk.  I have neither seen nor detected bias on either.  I understand the Tiffany network had the Bush services problem with Dan Rather, but I don't really watch CBS anyway.

I disagree about MSNBC.  Mathews was a staffer for Tip O'Niell; Scarborough was a Republican Congressman and part of the Gingrich Revolution.  The thing is, the don't pretent to be unbiased.  They say, basically, "I'm coming at this story from my ideological stance."  Ron Reagan, Jr., is a flaming liberal.  Okay, that's their ideology and they are upfront about it.  I like that!!!  I know their biases.

I've though, briefly, about not using a colored avatar.  If you take a look at my comments on Schiavo, the Washington Governor's Race, or the Mayor of Philiadelphia, you could not assume that I am a Republican.  However, in real life, I tend to vote Republican and contribute to GOP candidates.  I don't see that it would be right to try to hide that.

I see both Fox and CBS as trying to claim they are unbiased when they are.

Good for you.  It's good to see a Republican who can admit what is obvious.  We need more people like you on the forum.  You should read the heated argument over the past five pages when it was jfern vs. Al and me.

[Virginian87]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Yeah, jfern, let's build a bridge to nowhere.  That argument, and the one about the 1972 presidential election being a good thing, made completely no sense.

[Virginian87]

You make some very good points Al - but on Jfern's last one, I'm minded to agree that comparing Bush with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. I could have voted for Nixon but not Bush

Dave

Likewise. 

[Virginian87]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.

[Virginian87]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, social issues are there too to bite people like you, jfern, in the ass.  That's the problem.  And I am getting really sick of saying that.  But it is true and you won't admit it.  I'm not suggesting we move to a pro-life stance, but the Democratic Party should adopt some restrictions to its abortion position, as most Americans are not in favor of unconditional abortions.  That's not saying they are pro-life, but they feel that some restrictions are necessary.  The majority of Americans don't want Roe v. Wade overturned, but they do support some minor restrictions.  Likewise for gay marriage.  Did you even SEE the referenda in several states where people voted against gay marriage?  Many of those people aren't hard-core conservative, but moderates socially.  And they make up a good-sized chunk of this oft-mentioned 61%.  So if you want to win nationally and not just in California and the Northeast, think about it.

And in the future, I suggest jfern and phknrocket take a trip to some small towns in Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, Georgia, or anywhere in the Southeast and Great Plains.  You might learn something.

Are you saying that all of this huge cultural gap you're talking about comes down to minor abortion restrictions? Partial birth abortion is illegal, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger. What more do you need?

Or, if you're saying it's gay marriage, remember that both Kerry and Bush were against gay marriage, but pro-civil union. The only difference was that Kerry opposed Bush's Massachusetts marriage license revoking Constitutional Amendemnt. I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not just those two issues.  I just gave them as examples.  There are other issues as well.  National Security is a BIG one.  Many people perceive as spineless weaklings, thanks to conservative pundits wrapping themselves in the flag and saying that "Democrats hate America."  I think the problem with National Security may stem from the Carter Administration, when the armed forces weren't able to rescue the Iranian hostages and became a laughingstock.  Then people credit Reagan and his massive spending on defense for reinvigorating the military.

[Virginian87]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Exactly.

[Virginian87]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

[Virginian87]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

[Virginian87]

I think it's a states rights issue. I'd like to see the feds stay out of it altogether.

If some states want to ban gay marriage and civil unions, that's fine with me. If some states want civil unions but no gay marriage, that's also fine.

I don't even think this should be a federal issue whatsoever.

That's right.  We shouldn't let evangelicals with no regard to other faiths run this country by trying to put a constitutional amendment in.  This is an issue that is government should stay out of.

[Virginian87]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

Kerry has his own problems.  Gay marriage was not what cost him the election.  It's not him MODU and I were talking about.  It's the perception of Democrats as a whole. 

And could we stop the name-calling please?  You're acting like an elementary schooler by calling people "idiots" and "fools".

[Virginian87]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

Do you think Ted Kennedy is moderate too?

[Virginian87]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

Do you think Ted Kennedy is moderate too?

Do you have anything useful to say? You seem to have no spine, and are confusing Democrats with a spine with being necessarily liberal. I suppose you hate Senator Reid.

Senator Reid is a pretty good leader in the Senate.
You know, I think you're the one with nothing constructive to say, since you doggedly pursue the same argument over and over ("spineless moderate! spineless moderate!").  It's no wonder you don't display your age.  You probably don't want people to know you're in fifth or sixth grade.

[Virginian87]

Hint, does the Republican party win by moving to the center? Time for you to learn some lessons from them.

Hmmmm . . . that's still flawed.  You need to look more closely as to why they won.  Most of the challengers the Republicans faced were further away from the center than they were or failed to meet the needs of the voting population.  I would think that if you want to increase the number of Democratic politicians in office, you would want to move where the voters are, win their votes, get your party people in office, and then work back towards the left, rather than jump to the left, expect the voters to follow you, and then complain about being the minority party when the Republicans win again.

I've stopped paying attention to him, MODU.  Let him live his dream.