2004 is almost over... [Political]

Jason T. · #1 12-29-2004, 12:42 AM

For those of y'all who missed the memo: the new year is almost upon us. It's a time to look forward to a new beginning. At least, for most people...

I must admit that I am extremely upset at the results of the U.S. Presidential election. It's not because George Bush won, in fact, it has nothing to do with Republicans. The anger comes from the fact that every time I turn on the television I see more and more "experts", including some very well-known Democrats, commenting on how the party needs to move more to the center and change its positions.

WTF?

Did I miss something?

I just cannot understand how that is going to help one bit. Since when was it right to just give up and conform over to what you think is wrong? I don't care which side you consider yourself on...that just defeats the purpose of having two parties. Is it not common sense to keep on fighting?

I personally do not feel that our positions are wrong and that is the reason that I'm a Democrat. I'm almost certain that most other Democrats feel the same way. So what is changing the party's position going to help us with? Getting more votes? Well, that would make sense if there wasn't already a party representing conservatives. Is it going to help polish the image of the party? No, tt is just going to make us look like a bunch of cowards. Not to mention that the party will basically lose it's base if it does such a thing.

What should we do? I think that we should try to stand for what we believe in better. Sometimes I get the feeling that Democratic politicians are afraid to get out there and put forth the message: I'm pro-choice and proud of it. Almost as if they're ashamed of it. If we would just stand up...

I say we put Hillary up in 2008 with Obama as her running mate.

If this is truly the end of the leftist-liberal-loving party as we know it...we might as well go out with our heads held high and our opinions fully represented for once.

GateandGarden · #2 12-29-2004, 12:57 AM

I agree with you. I'm definitely not interested in catering to people by pretending to be less liberal than I am. Gay rights is not my only issue, but this can be a metaphor applied to other issues--I'm not settling for civil unions, I must have marriage. I'm not interested in compromising. And I'm not interested in saying I'm for civil unions but secretly being for marriage.

Hillary

strandinthewind · #3 12-29-2004, 09:41 AM

IMO - for the D party to ever win again, it has to find someway to cast a brilliant like on the hypocrisy of the religious right. It has to show the people of America that being religious has nothing to do with the way you vote.

For example:

They have to find some way to demonstrate that the far religious right is hypocritical when it openly condones killing thousands of Iraqi's and our and others' troops based on a knowingly false sense of urgency is equally as wrong. This will be hard to show because most D's voted to give W the authority to go to war and few can or are willing to make that distinction.

They have to find some way to show the inherent hyposcrisy between the Catholic Church telling people not to vote for any D who is pro-choice and the fact that the same logic should apply to the R's who are pro-capital punishment - after all the RCC (and some religious extremists) condemns both as sin.

They have to find some way to get the point across that although you may hate gay people (and many do) and think they are responsible for the destruction of marriage (which they are not really even a part of mind you), they are not. The govt. was at fault for assigning automatic benefits only to essentially the Judeo-Christian version of marriage to the exclusion of everyone else - now people are calling BS on that and asserting that being married in some religions should not convey automatic rights - it violates the Establishment Clause of the Const. because the govt. is establishing these religions as having merit to the exclusion of the others. The govt. should have no say in who can marry whom and it should give no tax or other benefits to any religious ceremony. The word marriage should be in NO law. Again, if, as the fundamentalists and that COW Musgrove in Colorado says, it is so easy and inexpensive to get these same rights by contract, then let the heterosexuals have to pay for them just like everyone else. That way, the govt. is not picking and chosing.

They have to find some way to show that govt. validation of religion ("under God," the Ten Commandments, teaching the Biblical creationism to the exclusion of evolution, etc. ) is not necessary to affirm individual faith no matter what their preachers tell them. And that if the govt. supports one religion, it has to support WITH TAXPAYERS DOLLARS them all (satanists, wiccans, etc.) otherwise the Establishment Clause of the Const. is violated.
______________________________________________________________

These are the issues the D's lost on (that and Rove's brilliant but seedy portrayal of Kerry

) These are VERY heady issues. Most people do not care. They are dumb enough to think that hating gay people and supporting Chistianity (whatever version they are told of it BTW) is the only thing that matters.

To prove my point, whenever people would bitch about the removal of the Ten Commandments and extoll the virtues of the them, I would ask them to name all of them. NONE could. Yet, God is so important to them

In sum, the D's have a hard path to follow- but they have chosen it and cannot go back. I wish them luck.

GateandGarden · #4 12-29-2004, 10:16 AM

Well Jason, as I was reading that I couldn't help but think that the majority of Americans might ever understand those issues you've presented. I don't know why I single this out necessarily, but can you ever envision the majority of American citizens condoning the exclusion of the "under God" they feel is so vital (though it wasn't even originally a part of the pledge)?

And what makes all of this even sadder is that these issues are of great importance to us, yet if you approach random people on the streets, you'll probably find that the vast majority of them are woefully uninformed about all of these things. It makes me think of this guy I know (just a random example but I'm sure there are millions like him) who is a middle-aged man who should be better educated than he is but voted for Bush for this reason, he explained, "Gay marriage should not be allowed because the Bible is against it and the Bible is always present at wedding ceremonies."

Hillary

DrummerDeanna · #5 12-29-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason T.

I say we put Hillary up in 2008 with Obama as her running mate.

And that would be the perfect way to lose the election to the Repubs in 2008 as well....I don't think this country will elect Hillary Clinton - she's got too much baggage and other stuff - I just don't think putting her in the running in 2008 would be a wise choice.

strandinthewind · #6 12-29-2004, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

And that would be the perfect way to lose the election to the Repubs in 2008 as well....I don't think this country will elect Hillary Clinton - she's got too much baggage and other stuff - I just don't think putting her in the running in 2008 would be a wise choice.

I know - many many D's I know cannot stand her. I like her (as much as I like any politician

) - but she is unelectable as of now. In three years, things may change. Personally, I see Obama rising fast and I see Edwards in there as well (assuming his wife is better, etc. ) . Sadly, America will not, as of now, elect a black Pres. That will change with time though and if they were gonna elect one, he would be it as he has a sterling tongue and is VERY well liked.

2008 will also depend on the R. candidate. While I do not like him. Sen. Frist is a candidate who could win. I mean the guy flies to Africa to perform pro bono work on poor people. That kind of charity will be hard to overcome and will possibly eclipse his theological vehemence, which most of America seemingly likes anyway.

Again, three years is a LONG way off

gldstwmn · #7 12-29-2004, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason T.

What should we do?

Let them know that we will not continue to support the shift to the corporate right.
Also, we need to continue to make the Greens stronger so they can realistically compete on a national level.

strandinthewind · #8 12-29-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Let them know that we will not continue to support the shift to the corporate right.
Also, we need to continue to make the Greens stronger so they can realistically compete on a national level.

ITA - AND that shift began (at least in my life time) with RR and has not really ended - even Clinton did it. The bottom line is no one cares about the environment - it is a dead political issue. People are tricked into thinking that environmentally friendly changes will cost them their jobs and make for inflation. I think that is a load of crap. But, many people believe that. Plus, over all of this is the oil cartels, who will NEVER allow the gnatesq. treehuggers to stop the exploration and drilling of oil. They will not stop until the last drop is extracted from the Earth.

But, I say keep trying even though it is like beating my head against the wall.

GateandGarden · #9 12-29-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

2008 will also depend on the R. candidate. While I do not like him. Sen. Frist is a candidate who could win. I mean the guy flies to Africa to perform pro bono work on poor people. That kind of charity will be hard to overcome and will possibly eclipse his theological vehemence, which most of America seemingly likes anyway.

I hate that bastard.

Jason T. · #10 12-29-2004, 08:26 PM

I understand the fears of nominating Hillary (Even though it would make my life complete and I could die a happy person if she ever became President).

So...if not Hillary, then who? I would understand us nominating someone who is more of a centerist strictly for the purpose of regaining control of the White House, but not in the sense of losing everything we stand for as a party.

SuzeQuze · #11 12-30-2004, 12:26 PM

First they ignore you.
Then they make fun of you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

-Ghandi

We can do it, we will find a way. No we do NOT need to be more centrist, I agree. That is just wishy washy and weak. We need to show that we are strong and have integrity coming out of our ears.

strandinthewind · #12 12-30-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

First they ignore you.
Then they make fun of you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.

-Ghandi

We can do it, we will find a way. No we do NOT need to be more centrist, I agree. That is just wishy washy and weak. We need to show that we are strong and have integrity coming out of our ears.

If I were there - I would hug you for using that BRILLIANT quote by one of the greatest people ever to walk this planet - of course hugging in the speedo cannot occur until, at the earliest, March, which is when I will be able to get it over my, hopefully, no longer corpulent thighs

SuzeQuze · #13 12-30-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If I were there - I would hug you for using that BRILLIANT quote by one of the greatest people ever to walk this planet - of course hugging in the speedo cannot occur until, at the earliest, March, which is when I will be able to get it over my, hopefully, no longer corpulent thighs

Aww, I really needed a great hug today, thanks!

Ghandi was something, we need him right now. I will get a hug in person at NOTS hopefully if all goes well.

strandinthewind · #14 12-30-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Aww, I really needed a great hug today, thanks!

Ghandi was something, we need him right now. I will get a hug in person at NOTS hopefully if all goes well.

CHILD - I am in a suite in the Waldofr Astoria TOWERS right now and have made my reservations - this suite has four bedrooms

I just have one

That is gonna be such a PARTAY

SuzeQuze · #15 12-30-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

CHILD - I am in a suite in the Waldofr Astoria TOWERS right now and have made my reservations - this suite has four bedrooms

I just have one

That is gonna be such a PARTAY

Omigod hon, here I come!!!! For real? Four rooms at the Waldorf? Well, we all know that is Stevie's NYC hotel. Honey, bless you for having the means to be there. And, well, dear, you are such a MAN for giving us like 6 hours' notice and stuff... Sorry, have plans

Dayum.