Bush is a gifted politician

[WMS]

Kerry won most people in that quadrant. A few counterexamples doesn't mean sh**t. Kerry did as good as he could with his crappy advisors who for some reason decided that a positive campaign always wins. Kerry should have released 100% of his military documents during the campaign, not 6 months later, but he didn't want people to know he had a bunch of Cs. And another important  up was that Kerry, like most Democrats, didn't learn about framing issues.

I know a couple of libertartians, and last year they decided that the social issues and the war were more important than exactly how much their taxes are, and so they voted Kerry.

Again, if Kerry really kicked ass in the libertarian quadrant, he should've won, because there's a lot of libertarians out there. I'd like to hear from the libertarians on the board about this, actually...

I will agree with you that Kerry had crappy advisors.

The original topic you and Al argued about, though, was on whether or not the Democratic party needs to moderate to win elections. I stand by my original point: you'd better moderate in one direction or another since there aren't enough liberals (by far!) to become the majority party.

Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

I guess it depends how long a generation is, but they already have. It'll be 12 years by 2006. Quite a long time actually.

Interesting POV. I was going off of the Almanac of American Politics, which said that 2004 was the first time the Reps pulled over 49% of the total vote in any category (the Dems were also hovering in the 48%-49% range). Although if the Reps are already dominant from 1994, the Dems look even worse because they haven't made up any ground.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How come you're just counting the gerrymandered House?

I'm not. In 1994 the Democrats sufferend huge, huge losses everywhere; Senate, House, Gubernatorial, Statewide Executives, State Senate, State House... a total bloodbath.

The GOP has had a slight advantage over the Democrats since 1994. And that is all they need.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting POV. I was going off of the Almanac of American Politics, which said that 2004 was the first time the Reps pulled over 49% of the total vote in any category (the Dems were also hovering in the 48%-49% range).

Seeing as how they managed that in three Presidential elections in a row during the '80's I'm not sure how significant it is. Using it as a benchmark of dominance is generous to the Dems IMO

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly

[WMS]

Interesting POV. I was going off of the Almanac of American Politics, which said that 2004 was the first time the Reps pulled over 49% of the total vote in any category (the Dems were also hovering in the 48%-49% range).

Seeing as how they managed that in three Presidential elections in a row during the '80's I'm not sure how significant it is. Using it as a benchmark of dominance is generous to the Dems IMO

It could be. I think it was the over 49% across-the-board (Coburn, anyone? ) that was noticable. I don't have my copy here at work so I'll have to check the exact numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly
[/quote]

A decade of defeats ain't very impressive no matter how you slice it...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry won most people in that quadrant. A few counterexamples doesn't mean sh**t. Kerry did as good as he could with his crappy advisors who for some reason decided that a positive campaign always wins. Kerry should have released 100% of his military documents during the campaign, not 6 months later, but he didn't want people to know he had a bunch of Cs. And another important  up was that Kerry, like most Democrats, didn't learn about framing issues.

I know a couple of libertartians, and last year they decided that the social issues and the war were more important than exactly how much their taxes are, and so they voted Kerry.

Again, if Kerry really kicked ass in the libertarian quadrant, he should've won, because there's a lot of libertarians out there. I'd like to hear from the libertarians on the board about this, actually...

I will agree with you that Kerry had crappy advisors.

The original topic you and Al argued about, though, was on whether or not the Democratic party needs to moderate to win elections. I stand by my original point: you'd better moderate in one direction or another since there aren't enough liberals (by far!) to become the majority party.

The thing is the Democratic party is already too moderate. If they move to the right any further, they'll be massively hurt by losing votes, volunteers, and money from the left. Moving to the right will be a signal to the voters that liberal ideas are wrong, and that they should vote for the true Republicans, not Republican-lite.

The Democratic party has failed their base.


The Republican party hasn't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

I guess it depends how long a generation is, but they already have. It'll be 12 years by 2006. Quite a long time actually.

How come you're just counting the gerrymandered House?

of course we all know gerrymandering only hurts democrats.

It hurts them more places (PA, FL, TX, MI) than where it helps them. Hell, even NY has an anti-Democratic gerrymander. Buffalo and Rochester should really have 2 Democratic districts, they only have one, and it looks crazy.

[WMS]

Kerry won most people in that quadrant. A few counterexamples doesn't mean sh**t. Kerry did as good as he could with his crappy advisors who for some reason decided that a positive campaign always wins. Kerry should have released 100% of his military documents during the campaign, not 6 months later, but he didn't want people to know he had a bunch of Cs. And another important  up was that Kerry, like most Democrats, didn't learn about framing issues.

I know a couple of libertartians, and last year they decided that the social issues and the war were more important than exactly how much their taxes are, and so they voted Kerry.

Again, if Kerry really kicked ass in the libertarian quadrant, he should've won, because there's a lot of libertarians out there. I'd like to hear from the libertarians on the board about this, actually...

I will agree with you that Kerry had crappy advisors.

The original topic you and Al argued about, though, was on whether or not the Democratic party needs to moderate to win elections. I stand by my original point: you'd better moderate in one direction or another since there aren't enough liberals (by far!) to become the majority party.

The thing is the Democratic party is already too moderate. If they move to the right any further, they'll be massively hurt by losing votes, volunteers, and money from the left. Moving to the right will be a signal to the voters that liberal ideas are wrong, and that they should vote for the true Republicans, not Republican-lite.

The Democratic party has failed their base.


The Republican party hasn't.

Where the Democrats are failing their base is on economic issues, not social ones. Does the bankruptcy bill ring a bell?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since you supported the war in Iraq.

Except that I didn't. I was more or less neutral. I was very strongly opposed to both the "anti-war" movement and Rumsfeld having anything to do with the war though.

You've made comments that indicated that you supported it. If you very strongly opposed the anti-war movement, you supported the war. You're either with us or against us. Very simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's not true at all. Just because you disagree with someone's views doesn't make those views "crap".

[/quote]

In other words, you support the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but then it was going to come to a head sooner or later. The situation in Iraq was rather like watching a train crash.
Personally I blame George H.W.Bush for not finishing the job when he could have and should have done.
[/quote]
How the  was it inevitable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at the time just about everyone, pro-war or anti-war, thought there was. If you can recall the anti-war arguement was that Blix should continue with the inspections and destroy the weapons rather than the U.S go in to find and destroy the weapons.
I have a copy of a cartoon from the Independent newspaper which clearly shows that the cartoonist and the editor thought there were WMD in Iraq at the time. Kinda ironic bearing in mind there later coverage.
[/quote]

The anti-war people just said that there was no evidence that Saddam still had WMD. However, you idiots all ignored us. We were right, and you warmongers were wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that view was taken by a not insignificant group of people before the war.
[/quote]
There's no way Bush could have sold the war just on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh come on now. Human rights in Saudi Arabia are certainly atrocious but I don't think the late King Fahd ever launched a campaign of genocide against minority groups and I doubt there are hundreds of mass graves outside Riyadh.
[/quote]
Women have far more rights in Iraq, and you don't hear about a lot of the sh**t that happens in Saudi Arabia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because something is bad in country x does not mean that something should not be done in country y.
[/quote]

Any fool can see that the Sudan had far more pressing humanitarian problems.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry won most people in that quadrant. A few counterexamples doesn't mean sh**t. Kerry did as good as he could with his crappy advisors who for some reason decided that a positive campaign always wins. Kerry should have released 100% of his military documents during the campaign, not 6 months later, but he didn't want people to know he had a bunch of Cs. And another important  up was that Kerry, like most Democrats, didn't learn about framing issues.

I know a couple of libertartians, and last year they decided that the social issues and the war were more important than exactly how much their taxes are, and so they voted Kerry.

Again, if Kerry really kicked ass in the libertarian quadrant, he should've won, because there's a lot of libertarians out there. I'd like to hear from the libertarians on the board about this, actually...

I will agree with you that Kerry had crappy advisors.

The original topic you and Al argued about, though, was on whether or not the Democratic party needs to moderate to win elections. I stand by my original point: you'd better moderate in one direction or another since there aren't enough liberals (by far!) to become the majority party.

The thing is the Democratic party is already too moderate. If they move to the right any further, they'll be massively hurt by losing votes, volunteers, and money from the left. Moving to the right will be a signal to the voters that liberal ideas are wrong, and that they should vote for the true Republicans, not Republican-lite.

The Democratic party has failed their base.


The Republican party hasn't.

Where the Democrats are failing their base is on economic issues, not social ones. Does the bankruptcy bill ring a bell?

All the Senators that voted against that were Democrats from Kerry states. They tend to be more liberal on social issues, too. The "moderates" on social issues that you hold up as the ideal voted for that bankruptcy bill.

Yes, that was a failure, but so were the Democrats who let the Iraq resolution go through. Bush now has a 61% disapproval rating on Iraq. I suppose that might help Democrats in the next election, but it should have been blocked becauses its' bad for America, and its close to 2000 soldiers who died for this curropt war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So what are these social issues that Democrats should move to the right on?

Abortion: Should they abandon the 65% who want Roe vs. Wade upheld?
Gays: Should they support the amendment to revoke marriage liceneses in MA?
Iraq war: Should they abandon the 61% who disapprove of Bush's handling on the war?

Those sound like real winners.

[WMS]

[snip]
All the Senators that voted against that were Democrats from Kerry states. They tend to be more liberal on social issues, too. The "moderates" on social issues that you hold up as the ideal voted for that bankruptcy bill.

Yes, that was a failure, but so were the Democrats who let the Iraq resolution go through. Bush now has a 61% disapproval rating on Iraq. I suppose that might help Democrats in the next election, but it should have been blocked becauses its' bad for America, and its close to 2000 soldiers who died for this curropt war.

The communitarian quadrant probably wouldn't have voted for it, but then again, how many of those are in office?

Here's another example: why is it that the Dems choose to fight dumb battles like the one over Bolton instead of trying for good energy bills and the like? The Dems by far devoted more resources to the Bolton fight.

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

<Time to exit work>

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[snip]
All the Senators that voted against that were Democrats from Kerry states. They tend to be more liberal on social issues, too. The "moderates" on social issues that you hold up as the ideal voted for that bankruptcy bill.

Yes, that was a failure, but so were the Democrats who let the Iraq resolution go through. Bush now has a 61% disapproval rating on Iraq. I suppose that might help Democrats in the next election, but it should have been blocked becauses its' bad for America, and its close to 2000 soldiers who died for this curropt war.

The communitarian quadrant probably wouldn't have voted for it, but then again, how many of those are in office?

Here's another example: why is it that the Dems choose to fight dumb battles like the one over Bolton instead of trying for good energy bills and the like? The Dems by far devoted more resources to the Bolton fight.

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

<Time to exit work>

The Bolton battle was ebcause Democrats wanted to see some documents about him that Bush refused to release. To say that he was controversial was an understatetment, several members of his own party might have voted against him. His comment about the top 10 floors of the UN building was seriously out of line for a nominee to the UN.

One problem with actual bills, is that the Republicans sometimes get around the fillibuster on controversial bills by attaching them to a budget. They did this with ANWR. Then the vote can be 50-50, with Cheney breaking the tie. Also, lots of the spineless Democrats are afraid to oppose any Republican agenda, but figure they can safely fillibuster 2% of Bush's nominees.

[dazzleman]

The Democrats don't offer an alternative to Bush's policies.  They simply carp and criticize.

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

That is the flip side of polarization.  While there are many who will hate Bush even if he turns out to be the second coming of Christ, there are many who hate his opponents so much that they will stand with him regardless of whether or not he's floundering.

Do you do anything but bash Democrats, you hypocrite. Your party is in control. WTF have they done for us recently? Created 10 million jobs less per term than Clinton? Started a war for no reason? Ignored massive warnings of 9/11? That's right, you Republicans have no record to talk about, all you can do is bash Democrats. The Democratic party is sh**t out of power, and Kerry offered plenty of plans that the media ignored, while all Bush did was bash Kerry. ing hypocrites.

Have you ever explored the reasons why you are so angry?  A third party analysis about southern voters sparks this tirade.  I think you need to up the dosage on your meds.

Good thing you're in Berzerkeley, with other like-minded lunatics.

[??????????]

The Democrats don't offer an alternative to Bush's policies.  They simply carp and criticize.

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

That is the flip side of polarization.  While there are many who will hate Bush even if he turns out to be the second coming of Christ, there are many who hate his opponents so much that they will stand with him regardless of whether or not he's floundering.

Do you do anything but bash Democrats, you hypocrite. Your party is in control. WTF have they done for us recently? Created 10 million jobs less per term than Clinton? Started a war for no reason? Ignored massive warnings of 9/11? That's right, you Republicans have no record to talk about, all you can do is bash Democrats. The Democratic party is sh**t out of power, and Kerry offered plenty of plans that the media ignored, while all Bush did was bash Kerry. ing hypocrites.

Have you ever explored the reasons why you are so angry?  A third party analysis about southern voters sparks this tirade.  I think you need to up the dosage on your meds.

Good thing you're in Berzerkeley, with other like-minded lunatics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats don't offer an alternative to Bush's policies.  They simply carp and criticize.

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

That is the flip side of polarization.  While there are many who will hate Bush even if he turns out to be the second coming of Christ, there are many who hate his opponents so much that they will stand with him regardless of whether or not he's floundering.

Do you do anything but bash Democrats, you hypocrite. Your party is in control. WTF have they done for us recently? Created 10 million jobs less per term than Clinton? Started a war for no reason? Ignored massive warnings of 9/11? That's right, you Republicans have no record to talk about, all you can do is bash Democrats. The Democratic party is sh**t out of power, and Kerry offered plenty of plans that the media ignored, while all Bush did was bash Kerry. ing hypocrites.

Have you ever explored the reasons why you are so angry?  A third party analysis about southern voters sparks this tirade.  I think you need to up the dosage on your meds.

Good thing you're in Berzerkeley, with other like-minded lunatics.

I'm angry at the crooks destroying this country, and the people who enable them, like you. You just focus on bashing Democrats, instead of examining how bad your own party is. That's pathetic.

[Jake]

LMFAO

[dazzleman]

I'm angry at the crooks destroying this country, and the people who enable them, like you. You just focus on bashing Democrats, instead of examining how bad your own party is. That's pathetic.

You do more bashing in a day than I do in a year.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you do anything but bash.  You've never offered one positive thought on anything, that I've seen.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you very strongly opposed the anti-war movement, you supported the war.

Not true at all. I think that being opposed to an unholy coalition of spoilt brat students, Islamofascists, Neo-Nazis, Commies, Trots, hypocritical parasite media types and latte liberal yuppy scum while also being very worried about the fact that a crazy bastard like Rumsfeld was involved in the whole planning of the war and it's aftermath is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh? I didn't say that. Read what I said not what you want me to have said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you are totally ignorant of the history of Iraq from the early '90's onwards. Not suprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no they didn't. I've given you an example of that. Pretty much the only people who said that he didn't have WMD also claimed that his genocide against the Kurds didn't happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? Bubba solved Kosavo on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... thing is I don't think the Saudi regime would be able to keep secret genocide against minority groups and lots and lots of mass graves near the capital...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never heard the anti war left campaigning for anything to be done about Darfur (which didn't even feature in the media at the time). In fact if anything was done, I suspect you'd have all thrown a hissy fit about imperalism (ala Afghanistan).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Abortion: Should they abandon the 65% who want Roe vs. Wade upheld?

As I have told you time and time again MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION and also that SUPPORTING UNRESTRICTED ABORTION IS ONE HELL OF A VOTE LOSER

I think you need to WAKE UP to the facts on that issue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again (and I have told you this SOOOOOOO many times) you are making EXACTLY the same mistakes as the anti-war left in the '60's and '70's made over Vietnam.

JUST BECAUSE MOST AMERICANS DISAPPROVE OF THE HANDLING OF IRAQ RIGHT NOW DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION. FAR FROM IT.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And there are more than two positions on Iraq. Until y'all figure that out over in lefty land, you will be unable to capitalize on the growing unease over Iraq.

Note that Jfern didn't answer this

[minionofmidas]

If you very strongly opposed the anti-war movement, you supported the war.

Not true at all. I think that being opposed to an unholy coalition of spoilt brat students, Islamofascists, Neo-Nazis, Commies, Trots, hypocritical parasite media types and latte liberal yuppy scum while also being very worried about the fact that a crazy bastard like Rumsfeld was involved in the whole planning of the war and it's aftermath is a perfectly reasonable position to take.

So which one of that list applies to me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]Lemme echo that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you are totally ignorant of the history of Iraq from the early '90's onwards. Not suprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The war was a long time coming. Bush just finished off what his daddy begun. Very few things are ever technically inevitable though, and this certainly is not one of them. The status quo was dissatisfactory to everybody involved, but was starting to look mighty stable. Mostly because nobody had serious hopes for any workable alternative until (repeat Rumsfeld diatribe) came along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no they didn't. I've given you an example of that. Pretty much the only people who said that he didn't have WMD also claimed that his genocide against the Kurds didn't happen.
[/quote]Here you're wrong. It was utterly obvious to all with eyes to see that while some remains of Saddam's long-abandoned arsenal might still be kicking around somewhere, the programme had been abandoned 15 years ago, and there was no present danger whatsoever. The whole delusional "If the factories had continued operating at full capacity until the day the inspectors arrived then Saddam still has 5000 tons of chemical weapons, and the fact that they were covered in three years' dust by that day is utterly irrelevant" cant certainly did not convince anybody but the already convinced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? Bubba solved Kosavo on that.[/quote]The difference is one of present danger. Saddam was killing thousands of Kurds in the eighties, not the 2000's. He should have been removed in the eighties, not the 2000's. Of course Khomeini might now be buried in Najaf rather than Qom if that had happened.
Interesting tidbit here: Two thirds of West Germans approved of the Kosovo war. One third of East Germans did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... thing is I don't think the Saudi regime would be able to keep secret genocide against minority groups and lots and lots of mass graves near the capital...[/quote]Not near the capital...situation in some parts is apparently pretty unstable (but yeah, nothing like Kurdistan in the 80s, or Southern Iraq in the early nineties...but then again Iraq pre-invasion was nothing like that either, though the same evil people were still in power)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never heard the anti war left campaigning for anything to be done about Darfur (which didn't even feature in the media at the time). In fact if anything was done, I suspect you'd have all thrown a hissy fit about imperalism (ala Afghanistan).
[/quote]Sudan was all over the media at several points in the early 90s. Not that there is a reason for a military intervention in Sudan. And not that I ever threw a hissy fit about Afghanistan.
Oh yeah, I actually did. During the Kosovo war. It was about Bubba attacking there (and preparing a military insurgency before that he then used as reason to intervene) rather than doing something about Afghanistan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It could be. I think it was the over 49% across-the-board (Coburn, anyone? ) that was noticable. I don't have my copy here at work so I'll have to check the exact numbers.

Ah... I see... hmm... I still think that doing it like that is being far, far too generous to the Dems though. To dominate you only ever need just enough votes to win. And the GOP has just enough to do this at all levels above State Legislature (and it even reached down to that level in 2002, until "All Politics Is Local" was reborn out West last year).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. And a decade of victories (even if they have usually been narrow) is dominance no matter how you slice it...
The only exception to that has been Bubba's re-election in 1996 which owed more to Bubba getting the credit for the economic boom than anything else IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So which one of that list applies to me?

It was hyperbole

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but the thing is that over here (and from what I recall the U.S as well) pretty much everyone, whether for against or neutral, assumed that Iraq still had WMD.
It's a shame I don't have a scanner because that cartoon is wonderfully ironic in retrospect

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but the arguement of the people who supported the war on human rights grounds argued that just because it wasn't done in the '80's doesn't mean it shouldn't be done now.
Personally I was *almost* convinced by this, but for the fact that Rumsfeld was basically planning the whole thing...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strange... why is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that, but it wasn't (unless my memory has gone fuzzy again) at the time of the Iraq thing in 2002. But then that's the media for you... just reminded me of the way the famine in Niger was only news for about a week

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's O.K then

[minionofmidas]

It could be. I think it was the over 49% across-the-board (Coburn, anyone? ) that was noticable. I don't have my copy here at work so I'll have to check the exact numbers.

Ah... I see... hmm... I still think that doing it like that is being far, far too generous to the Dems though. To dominate you only ever need just enough votes to win. And the GOP has just enough to do this at all levels above State Legislature (and it even reached down to that level in 2002, until "All Politics Is Local" was reborn out West last year).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. And a decade of victories (even if they have usually been narrow) is dominance no matter how you slice it...
The only exception to that has been Bubba's re-election in 1996 which owed more to Bubba getting the credit for the economic boom than anything else IMO.

And Ross Perot#s continued popularity with the conservative wing of his former supporters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And Ross Perot#s continued popularity with the conservative wing of his former supporters.

That too