How the Dems are preparing for the Fall elections

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
However this has been tried before.
And the result was the Clinton* fiasco.[/quote]

That 8 years of peace and prosperity must really grind Republicans’ gears. Oh, the long national nightmare of GOP-induced nastiness, during which the first sitting president since Andrew Johnson in the 1860s was impeached over his wee-wee. Frankly, the nastiness and hypocrisy sowed by the Republicans is what the reap now – they’ve got a backlash because they’ve turned into a bunch of lying shitbags taking bags of money from Abramoff and their crew.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I think the voting populace is going to be much more careful in selecting replacements for those that wil be shown the door.
And I also think the internet and information available there is going to play a much heavier role in people backgrounding and holding accountable those they vote for.
At least I sincerely hope this is the case.[/quote]

I do too. Which is a great way for people to learn about the Republican scumbags’ behavior over the past few years. I think it’s great that the internet allows us to find out in 5 minutes how Tom Delay’s tear-jerker performance over Terry Schiavo was a total sham – in typical Republican form the f*cker had been glad to put down his father as fast as possible. Meanwhile, the Dems are using the primaries to clear out a lot of dead wood – the Joe “Bush Kissed Me” Liebermans and Cynthia “Wacko” McKinney are getting cleaned out.

What you’ll find are a bunch of strong Democrat candidates who don’t have to campaign on some goofy new “program” – they’ll need a clean record, decent communication skills, and an ability to punch holes in the tissue paper of the Republican policies. Americans are craving a return to normality and a return to privacies and rights of the sort we once had. This “War on Terror” has already lasted longer than World War II did for us, longer than the McCarthy-era Communist witchhunt. Yet our liberties appear to be eroding more and more – people are still subject to indefinite detentions, people sent under rendition programs to overseas torture cells, people with no access to lawyers or their families. This isn’t the America we grew up with, and the founding fathers would flip out if they saw what the Republican congress has been getting away with. If Republicans are disappointed that the Dems don’t have a new “program”, so be it – the Dems can just communicate their vision to return America to a semblance of itself to a receptive America. 2/3 of Americans want the Dems back in charge.

22

Then, by definition, they won’t be Democrats…

23

Ahem…it was like followed like by a HUGE crash in the stockmarket which wiped out a whole lot of that wealth…

24

Ahem…it was like followed like by a HUGE crash in the stockmarket which wiped out a whole lot of that wealth…[/quote]

Yeah, like for the complete jackasses who thought the secret to good investment was to dump money into companies with “.com” in the name. And don’t get me started on the guys who were convinced they could hack it as day-traders. My investments worked out fine – came out of the 1990s with a nice tidy profit – but that was just a matter of using a little common sense and investing in things for the long-run. Warren Buffet’s not necessarily a dummy for saying not to buy something for 10 minutes that you wouldn’t be willing to keep for 10 years. :wink:

In a fun sidenote, I hear that original cutesy stock certificates for companies like “pets.com” now sell for good prices – as souveniers of those wacky days.

25

Ahem…it was like followed like by a HUGE crash in the stockmarket which wiped out a whole lot of that wealth…[/quote]

Indeed. We call that period the Bush Recession. :wink:

26

Ahem…it was like followed like by a HUGE crash in the stockmarket which wiped out a whole lot of that wealth…[/quote]

Indeed. We call that period the Bush Recession. :wink:[/quote]

What recession? Have you looked at corporate and stock holder profits recently? Or unemployment numbers?

All facts aside though, that was good. :wink:

27

“For me to pretend I’m not a Republican would be a lie,” he reasoned. But to run as a proud Republican? “That’s going to be tough, it’s going to be tough to do,” he said. “If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose.”

The scarlet “R”:

"The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, sat down to lunch yesterday with reporters at a Capitol Hill steakhouse and shared his views about this year’s political currents.

On the Iraq war: “It didn’t work. . . . We didn’t prepare for the peace.”

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: “A monumental failure of government.” . . .

It’s all fairly standard Democratic boilerplate – except the candidate is a Republican . And he’s getting all kinds of cooperation from the White House, the Republican National Committee and GOP congressional leaders.

Not that he necessarily wants it. “Well, you know, I don’t know,” the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him. Noting Bush’s low standing in his home state, he finally added: “To be honest with you, probably not.” . . .

The source of the candidate’s anger – and his anxiety – is the Iraq war, which he called “the single thread that is weaving through every issue,” including high gas prices and the violence in Lebanon. “People want an honest assessment from the administration, and they want to hear the administration admit we thought this, and it didn’t happen that way, and – guess what – it didn’t work, so we’re going to try a Plan B.” He continued: “Let’s call it what it is. We thought this was going to be a different kind of engagement.”

He seemed less agitated by the policy failure than by Bush’s unwillingness to admit failure. “I don’t know why the people around him don’t see that,” he said. “It is a frustration, to say the least. I think it is a lost opportunity to bring the American people along on a mission that is incredibly important.” . . ."

28

[quote=“spook”]

The scarlet “R”:

"The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, sat down to lunch yesterday with reporters at a Capitol Hill steakhouse and shared his views about this year’s political currents.

On the Iraq war: “It didn’t work. . . . We didn’t prepare for the peace.”

On the response to Hurricane Katrina: “A monumental failure of government.” . . .

It’s all fairly standard Democratic boilerplate – except the candidate is a Republican . And he’s getting all kinds of cooperation from the White House, the Republican National Committee and GOP congressional leaders.

Not that he necessarily wants it. “Well, you know, I don’t know,” the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him. Noting Bush’s low standing in his home state, he finally added: “To be honest with you, probably not.” . . .

The source of the candidate’s anger – and his anxiety – is the Iraq war, which he called “the single thread that is weaving through every issue,” including high gas prices and the violence in Lebanon. “People want an honest assessment from the administration, and they want to hear the administration admit we thought this, and it didn’t happen that way, and – guess what – it didn’t work, so we’re going to try a Plan B.” He continued: “Let’s call it what it is. We thought this was going to be a different kind of engagement.”

He seemed less agitated by the policy failure than by Bush’s unwillingness to admit failure. “I don’t know why the people around him don’t see that,” he said. “It is a frustration, to say the least. I think it is a lost opportunity to bring the American people along on a mission that is incredibly important.” . . ."[/quote]

If I had to guess, I would say the anonymous Senator is either Senator DeWine from Ohio or Senator Jim Talent from Missouri. Both seats are vulnerable.

29

[quote=“mightyChip”]Based on results in recent elections, I suspect that Democratic preparations are as follows:

  1. Find big gun
  2. Load gun, prepare to fire
  3. Aim gun at own foot
  4. Wait for an opportunity to shoot[/quote]

You got it- I have full confidence in the leadership (?) of the Dems being able to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory

“15 point lead in the polls?- Heck, son, we can blow that overnight while snivelling in terror that Karl Rove will say nasty things about us”

30

[quote=“jdsmith”]…uhm…

…hmmmmm…

help me out here.

State your case boys and girls.[/quote]

Kanye West believes we don’t hate Black Folks

Rain, Sleet, Snow and Hurricanes can’t stop us from delievering

We take the ass out of assuming

:smiley:

Edit–Having been overseas for awhile that has affected my world view on politics. Especially now that i’ve started hanging out in the IP forum. I’m not interested in being labelled a “liberal” as some see me on here, or a ‘conservative’. I’m willing to vote for a party that takes my long and short term interests into serious consideration. Afar as I’m concerned not many of those fools on Capital hill are doing such. Can we bring back Ross Perotjoking :smiley:

31

Perhaps there’s a need for a third party. Like in 1860 when the REpublicans turned itself into a major party. I mean, what the hell right? If Americans don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats. Too bad all of the 3rd parties out there aren’t moderate enough.

32

The last time that there was a possible third-party challenge was when Ross Perot came out of his Keebler Elf Tree with all his charts, climbed well up into the 1992 election polls … and then went nuts over supposed GOP efforts to trash his daughter’s wedding and withdrew before going back into the election.

In the old days, the complaint was that the two parties were “so similar” that you couldn’t tell them apart – mostly because the parties had established a comfortable zone of privileges, corruption and safety, that there wasn’t deemed any reason to shake things up. A lot changed in 12 years since Gingrich’s “revolution”. However, I think it’s fair to say that the Bushian legacy has been to drive the GOP far away from the values that have traditionally deemed “conservative” values and ventured into a new territory that doesn’t necessarily reflect what normal Americans want.

Thus, 2/3 of Americans in recent AP polls have indicated they want to return Congress to the Dems. Small wonder. All the Dems have to do is behave normal, be prepared for the inevitable Republican attempts to smearboat them, and keep communicating that they’ll put America back on track. With a large majority having signalled for a long time now that they don’t think America is headed in the right direction, the Republican-dominated government really doesn’t have anywhere to point the finger.

If the 2006 election is about “values,” then I’m sure the current crop of Republicans will go down in flames.

33

[quote=“mofangongren” inevitable Republican attempts to smearboat them,

Who’s smearing who already?? :no-no:

If the 2006 election is about “values,” then I’m sure the current crop of Republicans will go down in flames.[/quote]

Hedging your bet, eh :laughing:

34

[quote=“Shin-Gua”][quote=“mofangongren” inevitable Republican attempts to smearboat them,

Who’s smearing who already?? :no-no:

If the 2006 election is about “values,” then I’m sure the current crop of Republicans will go down in flames.[/quote]

Hedging your bet, eh :laughing:[/quote]

The Senate race in my home state, Nebraska, pits a conservative Dem Ben Nelson (incumbent) vs. a creepy ultra-conservative Republican Pete Ricketts. Ricketts is running on a platform of “Nebraska values” (whatever those are) and threating voters that if they don’t vote for him then COngress will become Democrat. The guy has no ideas and is running on fear and the more than $5 million of his “own” money he has already spent on the campaign. Many of his recent ads have been attacking Nelson on his performance of when he was governor over 10 years ago. You can see the ads here http://www.petericketts.com/. Yes, the smearing has defenitely started.

35

[quote] WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) – Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an “anti-Semite” for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel.

Al-Maliki has condemned Israel’s offensive, prompting several Democrats to boycott his address to a joint meeting of Congress and others to criticize him. Dean’s comments were the strongest to date.

“The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite,” the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. “We don’t need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah.”[/quote]

Making friends and influencing people. I for one, am filled with relief that should the Dems win Congress and the White House later on, that our foreign policy will be well run by level headed people.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ … ITE=7219&S
ECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-26-19-19-42

36

!!

37

[quote=“spook”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote] WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) – Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an “anti-Semite” for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel.

Al-Maliki has condemned Israel’s offensive, prompting several Democrats to boycott his address to a joint meeting of Congress and others to criticize him. Dean’s comments were the strongest to date.

“The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite,” the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

There’s that irony again. Calling a Semite anti-Semitic.

I guess I just think too much for my own good.

38

[quote]
After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It’s called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America’s allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It’s jingoism with a liberal face.[/quote]

I had begun to notice this…

fake extremism for effect

yawnnnnn
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01222.html

39

No, it’s called giving back what you get.

The Democrats called for a Homeland Security Department, George Bush opposed it.
After polling showed that it was popular, the Bushies started supporting it as long as it was stripped of civil service controls (not only union busting, but enabling corruption, which was one of the major points for the Repubs- what’s the use of a Big Government program if it doesn’t enable Republicans to steal as much as possible?) When the Dems couldn’t support that, the Republicans smeared them as soft on terror - the campaign against Max Cleland being particularly despicable- a draft dodger smearing a Silver Star winning triple-amputee as unpatriotic.

So if the Dems are finally realizing they’re in a state of war with completely immoral sleaze-bags, and finally have the balls to give an iota back of what Karl Rove’s dumped on them, more power to them - people like Beinart, whose highest joy in life is to get a big sloppy kiss from the Washington establishment, and who knows, just like Lieberman, maybe a little tongue from the Decider himself- to the contrary

40

You have to wonder about a party and its “values” when people can run a campaign by threatening voters that if they do not vote for him that party will win. The very fact that this is a feasible strategy says a mouthful about the current state of the Democrat Party.