Will Democrats finally get a clue?

[Rob Lister]

I know the title of this post is inflammatory, and for that I apologize. Still, the question is out there.

Dems are losing political power big-time in the US of A. Yet another election where the house, the senate, and the exectutive not only remain in power but extend their power.

The Reps are perfectly willing to move to the Middle but the Dems seem intent on moving further to the Left. The Reps could easily be dis'ed for this because it is (IMO) a form of pandering. The Dems, on the other hand, are cutting off their nose to spite their face. That deserves even more dis'ing. The left is important (in my view) because it tends to balance power of two important aspects of politics: the pragmatic and the idealistic.

Neither is worth a damn without the other.

Lieberman could have easily beaten Bush. You goofed.

 

[Tony]

I think the biggest mistake the Dems have made, a mistake that is somewhat responsible for them losing votes, is their support for more and more gun "control".

 

[Tmy]

Repubs move to the middle?!??! Right now they are as far right as I can remember. THey won those new seats in the jesus states. There were extremists being voted in.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Repubs move to the middle?!??! Right now they are as far right as I can remember. THey won those new seats in the jesus states. There were extremists being voted in.

Well, they moved to the middle in the sense that Republicans have abandoned all pretense at their vaunted fiscal responsibility. After decades of labelling the opposition as "tax and spend", they are themselves simply "spend".

Whatever happened to that "Contract with America" stuff?

 

[Upchurch]

The Reps are perfectly willing to move to the Middle

You mean those Republican movements like faith based initiatives, protection of marriage amendments, and repealing of environmental protection laws? What do you see as an example of the Republican's willingness to move towards the middle?

If anything, I blame the outcome of the election on a generally uninformed (or misinformed) populous.

 

[crimresearch]

If by Democrats, you mean the partisan fanatics operating on blind faith and abandonment of logic, no, they won't. Neither will the Republican party faithful, or the 3rd party woos.

As far as the Democratic party policy makers, will they finally realize that there is no youth vote, and that minorities in greater numbers are running away from the Dems?
Or more importantly, will they do something useful about it?

Good luck....history suggests that it is unlikely.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, they moved to the middle in the sense that Republicans have abandoned all pretense at their vaunted fiscal responsibility.

That's what I liked about the Republican party.

 

[BPSCG]

Lieberman could have easily beaten Bush. You goofed.

I've been saying that for some time now. The Dems could have nominated someone who really did support the war on Islamofascists, and whose criticisms would therefore have been more credible than "It was the wrong war at the wrong place blah blah blah..." And Lieberman would have been a lot closer to the center of the other issues than Bush. I think he would have been a much better candidate than Kerry, and yet the Dems didn't nominate him.

The insightful Mrs. BPSCG, who voted for Kerry, believes it's because the Dems decided the country wouldn't elect a Jewish president. I don't believe that (of course, I grew up in New York, surrounded by Jews, while she grew up in Texas, surrounded by Southern Baptists, so we each bring our own colored perceptions to that discussion), and I put the proposition out to the assembled minds here. I asked, if the lovely Mrs. BPSCG was wrong, then why didn't the Dems nominate Lieberman?

All I got was the sound of crickets chirping, except from Dorian, who answered with a lot of ad hominems and tu quoques, without ever answering the question.

The Dems of today remind me of Henry Clay, who famously said, "I'd rather be right than be President."

 

[Upchurch]

I think the biggest mistake the Dems have made, a mistake that is somewhat responsible for them losing votes, is their support for more and more gun "control".

What makes you think that? Gun control wasn't even one of the big campaign issues this time around.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I always considered Clinton pretty centrist, but he was vilified (and still is) as the pinkest of liberals by the right.

 

[Lurker]

Lieberman would nt have stood a chance agaisnt Bush. IF he supported many of the Bush policies regarding Iraq, why would anyone vote for him instead of Bush?

I disagree strongly that Lieberman would have done better or even as well as Kerry.

I think what sunk Kerry was the Swiftboat ads. Kerry was riding high but those ads really put Kerry on the defensive for weeks until their effect wore off. They distracted from real issues.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

I always considered Clinton pretty centrist, but he was vilified (and still is) as the pinkest of liberals by the right.

Isn't it odd that every Democrat is portrayed like this? First the Clintons were the most liberal people in America. Then, as Howard Dean got momentum the Republicans claimed Dean was the most liberal person in America. Then when Dean lost to Kerry it suddenly became Kerry is the most liberal person in America.

Whoever is the challenger in 2008, rest assured, the Republicans will say s/he is the most liberal person in America.

Lurker

 

[Snide]

I know the title of this post is inflammatory, and for that I apologize. Still, the question is out there.

Dems are losing political power big-time in the US of A. Yet another election where the house, the senate, and the exectutive not only remain in power but extend their power.

The Reps are perfectly willing to move to the Middle but the Dems seem intent on moving further to the Left. The Reps could easily be dis'ed for this because it is (IMO) a form of pandering. The Dems, on the other hand, are cutting off their nose to spite their face. That deserves even more dis'ing. The left is important (in my view) because it tends to balance power of two important aspects of politics: the pragmatic and the idealistic.

I can't agree fully with this synopsis. For example, I am for the rollback of the highest marginal tax from 36% to 39% on the "rich." Had I proposed a highest marginal rate of "only" 39%to my parents when they voted for Carter (again) in 1980, they would have called me a young Republican (and disowned me!...ok, not quite). Most Democrats would agree with me on this, yet you say they are distancing themselves?

But I think you are correct in that the Dems are distanced on the woo-woo, I mean religious issues (sorry if it sounds harsh). See the no same-sex marriage votes, and just a plain fear that Dems are anti-God.

And the Dems must change their image of wanting to get rid of guns. Don't we all know at least one hunter who is a one-issue (guns!) voter?

Neither is worth a damn without the other.

Lieberman could have easily beaten Bush. You goofed.

I doubt that; the same woo-woos who knocked down the same-sex marriage ideas wouldn't have allowed it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Liebermann's past support for censorship of music lyrics and television might count against him. Democrats generally have a harder time justifying trampling the First Amendment than Republicans do.


edited for grammar.

 

[Savagemutt]

The Dems HAVE been moving toward the center since the McGovern disaster (at least thats the conventional wisdom). The Republicans have been moving further to the right since Reagan (again, conventional wisdom).

The problem is, the Republicans are much better at painting fairly centerist Dems as liberal, pinko-commie, hippies than the Dems are at painting the right-wing wackos as...well, as right wing wackos.

I'm a "Chamber of Commerce" type Republican, even though I'm technically unaffiliated; A P.J. O'Rourke type (Although, I seem to drink much less). And I'm p.o.'ed that the "Churchie" Republicans have grabbed hold of the party. Eventually, I'm hoping the party will wake up and realize what freaky, frightening bedfellows they've made.

 

[Upchurch]

I guess the question I want to ask is whether or not Bush will get a clue from the fact that he only squeaked by, not once but twice, and that that is not a mandate to continue with his extremist policies but rather compromise more.


Not that he has any reason to control himself anymore.

 

[Tony]

What makes you think that? Gun control wasn't even one of the big campaign issues this time around.

I know it wasn't an issue in this campaign, but support for gun control is deeply entrinched, historically and culturally, on the democrat side. I'm not saying gun control is that major of an issue. But it is big enough to compell gun owners who would otherwise vote democrat to vote republican based on the issue alone.

 

[Cleon]

Had the Democrats nominated Lieberman, Nader would have had a banner year.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Eventually, I'm hoping the party will wake up and realize what freaky, frightening bedfellows they've made.

Not going to happen. Cynical view: they know, but they're willing to put up with it in to stay in power. They got the presidency and both houses thanks to the religious nuts, and all they'll have to do is throw a few social issues their way. The people who will be the victims of the social policies aren't the sort of people who vote Republican, anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm a "Chamber of Commerce" type Republican, even though I'm technically unaffiliated; A P.J. O'Rourke type (Although, I seem to drink much less). And I'm p.o.'ed that the "Churchie" Republicans have grabbed hold of the party. Eventually, I'm hoping the party will wake up and realize what freaky, frightening bedfellows they've made.

I completely agree. I never would have even considered myself a Democrat until this administration took office four years ago and just went nuts. Even then, it wasn't until the last few days that I had to grudgingly admit that there was no better way to describe myself, given the state of the modern Republican party.