Why Are the Democrats in Trouble?

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Last thing. As proof that people are easily led, all you need to do is look at televangelism.

Coincidence that 99% of people who are part of "televangelist flocks" are also bush voters?

hmmmm.

nuff said here.

And what percent of the total US population is comprised of the "televangelist flocks"? 0.0001%? Maybe. You are trying to infer that ALL Republicans (or maybe just dumb country kids?) are part of this crowd.

It sounds to me like you don't appreciate or understand any other lifestyles other than the one you find appealing. Not all country folk are dumb....maybe they just CHOOSE to live different than the average big city person. I personally find that life better than dealing with all the crap in a city setting.

[ubiquity0]

2004 presential election most important issues (according to exit polls)

Moral Values 25%
Economy/Jobs 20%
Terrorism 19%
Iraq 15%

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by tobster1911
And what percent of the total US population is comprised of the "televangelist flocks"? 0.0001%? Maybe. You are trying to infer that ALL Republicans (or maybe just dumb country kids?) are part of this crowd.

It sounds to me like you don't appreciate or understand any other lifestyles other than the one you find appealing. Not all country folk are dumb....maybe they just CHOOSE to live different than the average big city person. I personally find that life better than dealing with all the crap in a city setting.

I recommend you do the math. Your percentage would yield 3 people.

I've lived in the country, suburbs, city all in different parts of the country and I've met and befriended people of all stripes. Please accept the fact that the vast majority of this country didn't get over 1000 on their SATs.

And old BMW motorcycel guy, your examples were poor. Those are skilled trades, I'm talking about the majority of factory workers, a population at least 50-fold greater.

Am I a snob or a realist? Both, but at least I'm not lying to myself on the state of the nation and its intellectual well-being. My number one issue is education, the only silver bullet we've got to create a better, more competitive future for our country.

So instead of putting $300B into our school system, bush blew it on the war in iraq. and borrowed against our kids' futures to do it.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
I recommend you do the math. Your percentage would yield 3 people....

My number one issue is education, the only silver bullet we've got to create a better, more competitive future for our country.

I purposefully exaggerated to make a point. You were overplaying the "televangelist crowd" to make a point, so I thought it only fitting to respond in kind.

I do agree with you completely on education. I feel America's only hope for the future is to capitalize on our history of innovation.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Why did you post a link to Iowa primaries for democratic candidates?

What was your point? Were you trying to mislead? You sir, are no Karl Rove!

I'm talking presidential election. We are on the same page, right?

My point is that AMONG DEMOCRATS, the number one issue was the ECONOMY.

However, let's look at the GENERAL ELECTION and the numbers are ALMOST the same. Scroll down to "Most Important Issue"

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

"Moral Values" trumps Economy, but Iraq is in 4th. You will please note how important the Economy was to Kerry voters (Dems mostly)

Sorry, but the war was NOT the key issue of the election.

And I am not Karl Rove. He looks like Charlie Brown. I am more of a Dagwood type myself.

[dtw]

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2

"Moral Values" trumps Economy, but Iraq is in 4th. You will please note how important the Economy was to Kerry voters (Dems mostly)

Sorry, but the war was NOT the key issue of the election.

Of course FWIW exit polls could have chosen to separate 'economy / jobs' into 2 categories and combine 'iraq' and 'terrorism' into one.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
Ok Fint, then what is your winning approach then? It seems to me that when arguing a case that its important to chew into your opponents posistion and give reasons why they are wrong and you are right. Ever watch Law&Order?

Do you propose we go the Rove route and scare people into voting for the Dems? Remember when the Bush team spread inuendo about McCains illegitamate black baby in 2000? Hell, the red-staters believe we've caught Osama, brought peace and prosperity to the mid-east, and stopped the spread of the gay "lifestyle" by outlawing marriage. You're absolutely right, logical reasoning and decency are not going to reach these people. Bring on the smears, fake-news reports, and rumors of surrendering to France!

You ask for me to refute your argument but you fail to post one. You prove my original point once again. The Democrats have no ideas...only finger-pointing. Your post is a perfect example. Not one new idea...just a bunch of bashing and name-calling. And even then, you are repeating half truths. For example:

Remember when the Bush team spread inuendo about McCains illegitamate black baby in 2000?

Any reasonably informed person knows this did not happen. Nor any of the other "scandals" you posted. American voters know these things are not true and hold it against your party for spreading them. A rational person would never vote for such a blatantly dishonest party.

[CamB]

Any reasonably informed person knows this did not happen.

Actually, any reasonably informed person knows that push polling was done to sow the seed that McCain had an illegitimate black child. Unfortunately, the same reasonably informed person knows that no-one can prove who did it.

If I was choosing between McCain's supporters spreading the rumour, and McCain's opponents, I'm not gonna choose supporters.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
Actually, any reasonably informed person knows that push polling was done to sow the seed that McCain had an illegitimate black child. Unfortunately, the same reasonably informed person knows that no-one can prove who did it.

If I was choosing between McCain's supporters spreading the rumour, and McCain's opponents, I'm not gonna choose supporters.

Once again, logic tells me that you are wrong because you limit all wrongdoing to the conservatives. What makes you think that it was not liberals trying to weaken the stronger candidate (McCain) and discredit the weaker (Bush)? Neither Bush nor McCain's people are stupid enough to do something that would ultimately point directly toward themselves. Too obvious.

[CamB]

Whatever. I mean, really. Are we actually talking about the same thing?

OK, if asked to choose between:

- Bush supporters
- McCain supporters
- other people (liberals).

I still don't pick McCain supporters, and I'd have a hard time picking liberals too.

[fintstone]

Why? Are you relying on your gut feeling? They had the most to gain and the least to lose....and certainly the opportunity. Please explain your logic.

[CamB]

OK, google Mccain child smear.

First article is (biased - author worked for McCain) from Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

This is important:

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

I'll agree this doesn't prove (at all) that the smear was lead by Bush supporters. However, the Professor above - the enthusiastic promulgator of that rumour, is:

a) very much a Christian conservative (although not lying does make it into the 10 commandments);
b) at the university where, Google tells me, Bush had his first speech in South Carolina.

That's plenty of circumstantial evidence for me. Hopefully it at least sows a little doubt in your mind.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
OK, google Mccain child smear.

First article is (biased - author worked for McCain) from Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

This is important:



I'll agree this doesn't prove (at all) that the smear was lead by Bush supporters. However, the Professor above - the enthusiastic promulgator of that rumour, is:

a) very much a Christian conservative (although not lying does make it into the 10 commandments);
b) at the university where, Google tells me, Bush had his first speech in South Carolina.

That's plenty of circumstantial evidence for me. Hopefully it at least sows a little doubt in your mind.

There is always doubt in the absence of information...but not enough to make the case. I agree that everything you posted was circumstantial. You have the McCain campaign guy who needed an excuse for getting beat (but had no names or other info) and a guy you tie to Bush...because he is a Christian? Yikes! Maybe I did it.
If you can show that no Christians are Democrats (that seems plausible) and none support McCain (maybe).....you will have made a reasonable case. Otherwise, it is just as much a smear as what was done to McCain.

[CamB]

I don't mind his Christianity in the slightest. I should have just said he was conservative, or "Christian conservative" all in quote marks. Perhaps I wished to draw attention to what I perceive is the unChristian behaviour (IMHO) by him.

Either way, his Christianity isn't the point. His political leanings and place of employment (and its political leanings) are.

(edit) I'm not smearing an opponent up for election.

I'm even Christian. Oh no wait, I'm Catholic, which I understand the esteemed Bob Jones University doesn't consider Christian. Silly me, I thought I was.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Cam, it's senseless to argue with Bob. He doesn't even believe in things like Auschwitz and Dachau. I'm pretty sure there was a knitting needle accident at a young age.

best to move on.

I'm having 2 friends in the Army check him out BTW.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Cam, it's senseless to argue with Bob. He doesn't even believe in things like Auschwitz and Dachau. I'm pretty sure there was a knitting needle accident at a young age.

best to move on.

I'm having 2 friends in the Army check him out BTW.

That's probably a good idea.

[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Once again, logic tells me that you are wrong because you limit all wrongdoing to the conservatives. What makes you think that it was not liberals trying to weaken the stronger candidate (McCain) and discredit the weaker (Bush)? Neither Bush nor McCain's people are stupid enough to do something that would ultimately point directly toward themselves. Too obvious.

Yes ofcourse, wayyyy to obvious for Rove and Co. Lets see....

- They've denied / rejected / physically removed average citizens from so-called "town hall" meetings with the President on more than one occasion
- They've smeared Mike Shavio, calling him a wife-beater
- They've openly smeared two decorated war veterans as being traitors and liars (Clelland, Kerry)
- And now Mr Bush, our "war president", is on vacation for 5 weeks and won't take the time to sit down with the mother of a dead soldier, MUCH LESS ACTUALLY ATTEND A SINGLE SOLDIERS FUNERAL in the 4 years since we've been at war.

NO! Spreading lies about McCain during a campaign is WAY to obvious for them.

[MichiganMat]

Or how about:
- Not firing the people in charge of the great Iraq failure, but giving them medals and promotions
- Resisting the formation of the 9/11 commision, and then resisting to testify at it or provide it with information
- Abusing public funds to pay for fake television news reports
- Attempting to sell us a SocialSecurity plan under false pretenses
- Taking the entire country to war in a foriegn land using evidence based on lies, costing us billions of dollars, 2000 troops, and the loss of international respect
- Subsidizing billions to multiple engergy companies and overpaying Halliburton
- Outting a CIA operative in retaliation to her husbands opinion of the wars handling

I mean, my god, whats a little smear here and there compared to all that!

And the cou-de-gra, the cherry on the sunday, the candles on the cake:

http://www.asyfreedomwalk.com/

In memoriam of the lives lost on 9/11 and the sacrafices of our soldiers overseas, we're going to party like its 1999! Strike up the band baby!

[1967 R50/2]

You people have way too much hate for Bush. As I said previously, this is the Dem's undoing. I suspect it is a Republican ploy to keep the Democratic party from achieving anything.

It certainly has proven to be a permenant distraction to you guys!

Hate didn't work for Gingrich in the 90's. He failed to bring down Bill...and Gingrich was WAY better at playing politics than Pelosi and Co.

The democratic party needs something besides hatred of Bush. They need to concentrate on the economy, jobs, trade and the deficit.

As to the rest:

1. Don't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't vote in the US. And whenever some other countries opinion poll starts dictating the policies of the US, I'd get real worried.

2. Giving credit where credit is due: Bush was right about 4 things:

a) Social Security needs to go Bye Bye. I will sacrifice EVERY DOLLAR I HAVE CONTRIBUTED to SS in order to have free reign over how I would invest my future earnings.
b) The flawed energy bill was also a small step in the right direction.
c)CAFTA is a good idea.
d) We should not leave Iraq until a FUNCTIONING democracy is in place. It's gonna be a while, so quit your whining.

3. I don't ever recall Clinton/Bush #1/Reagan/Nixon/Johnson appearing at any individual soldiers funeral either. Maybe it happened, but the fact that I don't remember it, shows that as a public display, it achieves little.

4. Bush can use his PAC money for advertising and run his Town Halls anyway he wants. But if I do recollect, it was not the Bush campaign that broadcast the swiftboat commercials. You can see conspiracies all you want, but Kerry opened himself up to it because throughout the campaign he WOULDN'T SHUT UP ABOUT VIETMAN. He should have been talking about outsourcing jobs to India instead. Eventually he did...but too little too late.

Besides, as stated in previous posts: BUSH WAS THE WEAKEST CANDIDATE SINCE HERBERT HOOVER AND KERRY COULDN'T BEAT HIM.
That says a whole lot more about Kerry than about Bush.

Again, guys....cut the crap. The "Hate Bush" thing didn't win the election in 2004 and it won't win in 2008, because Bush won't be running!!

If the Dems want to win, they need to get a platform...then they need to get a candidate. But first things first...

This is my last post on this thread. It's REAL tiresome. Too much emotion....not enough fact or logic.