Why Democrats will lose in Novemeber #1

Politics International Politics
1

Reason: No differentiation.

Case in point: Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV)

[quote]Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff’s partners, firm and clients…

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff’s partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
more[/quote]

In a way it’s unfortunate because the Bush agenda really should be halted, but it’s obvious that Democrats are not the people to do it.

2

:roflmao: or should that be :doh:

Whichever… Yep! It’s a good reason why the Dems shouldn’t replace the Republicans in November, but maybe not the best reason why they won’t.
(There are so many other compelling reasons…)

It is, perhaps, symptomatic of why political institutions are so disparaged.
The (small “d”) democratic party system needs an overhaul–not only in the US, but across the board.

(Here’s me, NOT holding my breath.)

3

Whatever the case, the Republicans must be replaced, and the only other option is the Democrats.

4

How about more middle of the road republicans?

I predict Bush will NOT win!

5

Vote Jeb, :smiley:

6

That is soooooo depressing.

7

That is soooooo depressing.[/quote]

Not too mention dangerous.

8

I hope that every Republican who gave into Big Spending and Big Government loses and I do not care if that makes us a minority in both houses. Time to clean up and I do not mean foreign policy. The spending has got to stop.

Fred

9

That would be November…in 2008…

10

[quote=“fred smith”]I hope that every Republican who gave into Big Spending and Big Government loses and I do not care if that makes us a minority in both houses. Time to clean up and I do not mean foreign policy. The spending has got to stop.

Fred[/quote]

Then there will be few Republicans left. Face it: Republican = Big Spending.

11

I am assuming you are 25 or so with a very limited memory of past spending binges. Given that you seem to think that Republicans = Big Spending then how about putting up a list of all those Democrats who are actively cutting costs and reducing the size of government. I have time. Feel free to send that whenever you get the one or two that would qualify. haha

My view is that there are about 20 to 25 representatives that have been so awful as to deserve to lose and there are another 10 to 12 senators that could use a good shot across the bow. Ideally, those senators will not lose election excepting 2 or 3 and the others learn the lesson. I would be willing to see those 20 to 25 Republicans in the house though take it hard if it sends the right message.

12

Given jerrymandering, what are the chances of any large block of reps, in any government house, getting turfed? It’s foolish. With safe seats, everyone who wants to win the nomination has to run on extreme positions to distinguish themselves from the rest of the crowd and win the party. If–when–they win, they’re stuck with hardcore, foolish position statements hanging over their heads. So much for finding political solutions–they’re stuck pandering to the hardcore, dedicated party members back home. I don’t know if there’s much a third party can do in this situation, other than throwing the election in favour of the party with which it most strongly disagrees. :s

13

Actually, I think it is both. Without offering a real alternative to the Republicans, a lot of people just won’t see enough of a reason to show up at the polls, and low turnout tends to favor Republicans. (Imagine this hypothetical, but not unlikely, race: Both candidates support continuing the occupation of Iraq, both candidates are corporate whores, both candidates oppose gay marriage, neither candidate has a plan to get universal health care… Why should a busy person working two jobs bother voting?)

The Democrats game plan of running on the single-issue of “We’re not Republicans,” would probably be more successful if they actually were substantially different.

That’s a rather myopic view, and as long as Americans continue to share it, we will continue to elect lesser-evils and nothing will change. The fact is that when 3rd parties have the strength to “throw elections,” very shortly thereafter one of the major parties steals their issues and those issues soon become legislation.

Although I don’t support his goals, I do agree with Fred’s tactics. This is the same type of argument Nader has made before and one that is apparently getting traction in conservative circles.

[quote]The patriarch of US conservatives has urged his followers to halt their financial support of the Republican Party and start an independent movement, signaling a major political shift that could result in heavy losses for the US ruling party in upcoming elections.

Richard Viguerie, who was instrumental in cementing the winning coalitions behind Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George W. Bush in 2000, declared that conservatives were “downright fed up” with both the president and Republican-controlled Congress.

“At the very least, conservatives must stop funding the Republican National Committee and other party groups,” Viguerie wrote in a lengthy essay in The Washington Post Sunday.

He suggested conservatives “redirect their anger into building a third force,” which he defined as a movement independent of any party, and laying the groundwork for the 2008 election campaign.

Traditional conservatives, who abhor big government and excessive spending, equate abortion with murder and emphasize individualism over collectivism, have always formed the so-called “base” of the Republican Party and determined its viability as a political organizations…

Viguerie acknowledged that a conservative boycott in November will likely spell defeat for the Republicans, but insisted it would be for the long-term good of the conservative movement.

“If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done,” he reasoned. “Sometimes it is better to stand on principle and suffer a temporary defeat.” (link)[/quote]

14

“Democrats = Big Spending” makes the point “Republicans = Big Spending” invalid in which way again?

15

The only democracies which are viable are the young ones – before the insiders have a chance to learn all the ways to game and coopt such a relatively decentralized system without being visible.

Unfortunately, the world’s oldest functioning “democracy”, the United States, has long passed its viability date and is now beyond hope as a truly representative society without some sort of major overhaul.

Consequently, political parties in the U.S. are largely irrelevant because they’re converging into self-serving clones of one another with the same purpose in mind – perpetuating their tribal agendas and little more while trying to create the illusion of being agents of public service.

16

An interesting concept. :laughing:

17

[quote=“s.b.”]Reason: No differentiation.

Case in point: Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV)

[quote]Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff’s partners, firm and clients…

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff’s partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
more[/quote]

In a way it’s unfortunate because the Bush agenda really should be halted, but it’s obvious that Democrats are not the people to do it.[/quote]

[quote]AP’s Solomon: Sen. Reid (D-NV) voted against state boxing commission after accepting the commission’s boxing tickets which Senate rules say he was allowed to accept.

(All joshing aside, if I didn’t know better I might think that Solomon was developing something of an Ahab complex with that Great White Whale of the Senate, Harry Reid. Back in February, Solomon produced a lengthy expose on Team Abramoff’s alleged efforts to sway Reid to support their Marianas sweatshop clients, without ever mentioning that Reid consistently voted against the Marianas sweatshop owners. That’s a rather salient fact. And once you knew it, the whole piece pretty much collapsed, leaving Solomon with a quid in search of a quo. And perhaps not even a quid. The whole thing was a genuine embarassment. Now, Solomon’s back reporting that Reid accepted boxing tickets he was allowed to accept from his home state’s boxing commission and in exchange voted against the people who gave him the tickets. ( He voted for more federal boxing regs.) When will the corruption end? Paul Kiel has the details.)[/quote]
talkingpointsmemo.com/

18

An interesting concept. :laughing:[/quote]

Its government isn’t called a “parliament of whores” for nothing.

19

[quote=“spook”]Consequently, political parties in the U.S. are largely irrelevant because they’re converging into self-serving clones of one another with the same purpose in mind – perpetuating their tribal agendas and little more while trying to create the illusion of being agents of public service.
[/quote]

I couldn’t have put it better myself. :grandpa:

[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“s.b.”]Reason: No differentiation.

Case in point: Senate Minority Leader Reid (D-NV)

[quote]Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff’s partners, firm and clients…

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff’s tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff’s partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
more[/quote]

In a way it’s unfortunate because the Bush agenda really should be halted, but it’s obvious that Democrats are not the people to do it.[/quote]

[quote]AP’s Solomon: Sen. Reid (D-NV) voted against state boxing commission after accepting the commission’s boxing tickets which Senate rules say he was allowed to accept.

(All joshing aside, if I didn’t know better I might think that Solomon was developing something of an Ahab complex with that Great White Whale of the Senate, Harry Reid. Back in February, Solomon produced a lengthy expose on Team Abramoff’s alleged efforts to sway Reid to support their Marianas sweatshop clients, without ever mentioning that Reid consistently voted against the Marianas sweatshop owners. That’s a rather salient fact. And once you knew it, the whole piece pretty much collapsed, leaving Solomon with a quid in search of a quo. And perhaps not even a quid. The whole thing was a genuine embarassment. Now, Solomon’s back reporting that Reid accepted boxing tickets he was allowed to accept from his home state’s boxing commission and in exchange voted against the people who gave him the tickets. ( He voted for more federal boxing regs.) When will the corruption end? Paul Kiel has the details.)[/quote]
talkingpointsmemo.com/[/quote]

Mike, there might be an argument to be had about the degree of Reid’s guilt in this dirty game, but I’m not sure which one you’re trying to make.

First I mentioned nothing about the Mariana’s minimum wage deal, I have no disagreement with you here.

Second, I quoted about the letters he reportedly wrote on behalf of Abramoff’s tribal donors. Donors he voted with, incidently. (He reportedly claimed to be a long-time supporter of their position–and considering his professional history that seems plausible. Interestingly, even his excuse suggests he is every bit as controlled by industry as a Ney or whatever. And, he’s keeping the money, money Jack stole, right?) Your TPM quote (and link) mentioned nothing of his relationship with the tribal clients, only the Mariana thing.

Finally I mentioned nothing of the boxing ticket issue, because I thought it wasn’t so black and white. But since you bring it up, I think regardless of whether the ethics rules prohibit, or merely warn against, taking multiple gifts from state agencies (the Gambling Commission–I wonder if they would be lackeys of a particuar industry?), clearly it was McCain (?-AZ) who did the right thing in that situation, he paid the market value of his ticket (several hundred dollars) and refused to be given a free ride by folks wanting his ear on legislation. Bad move on Reid’s part.

Bottom line for the Fall 2006 Dog and Pony Classic: Because Democrats are playing the exact same game as the Republicans, the differences will appear to much of the voting public to be as insubstantial as they really are. I mean do most folks really care if the bribes being taken are being taken legally or illegally, especially when the bribees make the rules? I don’t.

Problem: Differentiation.

20

Yes, Yes, Yes, the American governmental system is bad, our representatives are corrupt, it takes forever to get things done, etc. etc. etc. But who here can offer something better? Any Takers?