Democrats Say Rice Misled About Iraq War

[strandinthewind]

I agree with you - but that is not going to happen - and sadly so. Most of America will embrace the far religious right before they will the godless far left. Sad - but apparently very true. So, I think embracing the far left as the agenda of the D party is political suicide. Look at Clinton - he was wildly popular because he was a moderate - perhaos more so in the beginning - and he knew how to win the war instead of the battle. I will grant you he was not perfect, but he was better than anything we have now and I would take him back in a minute. And he got in office by staying in the middle with his voting record (rhetoric does not interest me), at least how that was defined then. Carter and Kennedy as well. Johnson was a little more liberal with the Civil Rights Act, but he was hardly what I would call a screaming liberal.

I also think the D's have got to figure out a way to discredit Fox News AND have the public care that it has been discredited. I am unsure how it will do that short of a Rather esq. scandal.

Anyway - food for thought.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with you - but that is not going to happen - and sadly so. Most of America will embrace the far religious right than the godless far left. Sad - but apparently very true. So, I think embracing the far left as the agenda of the D partyt is suicide. Look at Clinton - he was wildly popular because he was a moderate. I will grant you he was not perfect, but he was better than anything we have now. And he got in office by staying in the middle, at least how that was defined then. Carter and Kennedy as well. Johnson was a little more liberal with the Civil Rights Act, but he was hardly what I would call a screaming liberal.

And nominating a senator from Massachusetts wasn't suicide? Sending Hillary to the front lines to embrace faith-based initiatives and console the loony pro-lifers isn't suicide? Having Clinton tell his own party to get over it isn't suicide? Pushing Obama down the throat of every progressive isn't suicide? People are dropping out of the Democratic party like flies on a hot summer day in Texas. And it will only continue unless they embrace some real liberal objectives, objectives and goals that will make progressives stay and vote for them. Otherwise they're going to alienate the far left (I'm proof of that) and they won't have that built in base come next election. And without that, they cannot win. So I guess it's just lose-lose at this point.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I also think the D's have got to figure out a way to discredit Fox News AND have the public care that it has been discredited. I am unsure how it will do that short of a Rather esq. scandal.

Anyway - food for thought.

It'll never happen. If the American public can't see that Faux News is utter **** by now, they're never going to see it.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

That isn't the point. And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.

Very true. This belongs in your sig.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Very true. This belongs in your sig.

I change that thing more than my underwear, dear.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And nominating a senator from Massachusetts wasn't suicide? Sending Hillary to the front lines to embrace faith-based initiatives and console the loony pro-lifers isn't suicide? Having Clinton tell his own party to get over it isn't suicide? Pushing Obama down the throat of every progressive isn't suicide? People are dropping out of the Democratic party like flies on a hot summer day in Texas. And it will only continue unless they embrace some real liberal objectives, objectives and goals that will make progressives stay and vote for them. Otherwise they're going to alienate the far left (I'm proof of that) and they won't have that built in base come next election. And without that, they cannot win. So I guess it's just lose-lose at this point.

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

You fail to see my point. They are committing suicide by abandoning their progressive base. I was saying this back during the campaign. Don't for a second think that they aren't going to go even further to the center now that they lost the last election. And the very people like me who stood by them are jumping ship.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it.

EXACTLY.

Those who vote for him are right-wingers. They don't want gay marraige, they approve of Iraq, they turn a blind eye to corruption, they're religious fundamentalists, you name it. These are the people who elected him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it.

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him. That other significant portion sees him as a moderate. I think people do not care if religion is in the govt., they think aborition is wrong, and they really deep down hate gay people or at least do not think they should dare to have the same rights as straight people. While I think these issues are important, to most they are not even worth considering unless the other gut is trying to advance them Thus, I think the non-base people that voted for W at least are willing to buy into he is a uniter and the evil D's are the dividers. Butm even so, Kerry, who played it straight to the middle, almost won

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him. That other significant portion sees him as a moderate. I think people do not care if religion is in the govt., they think aborition is wrong, and they really deep down hate gay people or at least do not think they should dare to have the same rights as straight people. While I think these issues are important, to most they are not even worth considering unless the other gut is trying to advance them Thus, I think the non-base people that voted for W at least are willing to buy into he is a uniter and the evil D's are the dividers. Butm even so, Kerry, who played it straight to the middle, almost won

I think few non-base people voted for Bush. He added to his base by reaching out to the fundies.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

EXACTLY.

Those who vote for him are right-wingers. They don't want gay marraige, they approve of Iraq, they turn a blind eye to corruption, they're religious fundamentalists, you name it. These are the people who elected him.

Well, respectfully, no.

These are not far right issues. Most states voted in the high 70th percentile against gay marriage. Certianly that included moderates and many Democrats. Many D's voted for the war in Iraq and the past leader of the D party validated it. All administrations are corrupt. Name one that wasn't - save - perhaps Carter and even then I doubt it because he was a politician.

Thus, I stand by my proposition that people see W as a moderate and to beat him, which Kerry almost did, people will have to play to the middle which is where the votes are.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by dissention

I change that thing more than my underwear, dear.

Sick, Kyle!

I agreed with what you had to say too. Dems need some fire in their pants. No trying to look like the Rs, it's not working and not going to work. Also, they can be liberal without being "far left". Just be more liberal, dammit. By liberal I mean watch out for and fight for the little guy. You don't have to be "godless" to be liberal. It's these stereotypes that get things so confused. Black and white thinking, missing the forest for the trees.

Dammit, we just need to lift everyone up, not just the rich white folks, everyone. Other countries look at us with all of our wealth and shake their heads that we treat our poor and middle class the way we do. It's regoddamdiculous and it needs to change. And not with cowtowing and other yellow-bellied ****e. Take an effing stand, stick by some principles, move things forward. Reread the constitution, that would be a fabulous start. Meditate on what it means to be American. What does freedom really mean? Are we actually demonstrating a government other countries should model themselves after? Just get some sh*t done. Do it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him.

Of course it is. The plan has been to get the base energized all along and the base turned out in record numbers for Shrubya. If it wasn't for the gay marriage baiting, Shrubya would have lost, plain and simple. But he lit the fire under their asses and won as a result.

And, if no one else wants to dare say it, I will: the Democratic party, as a whole, did not like Kerry and he didn't energize them ONCE. He was a lousy candidate and you can bet your stars I'm kicking myself for supporting him.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I agree you'd be surprised at the amount of republicans who do not feel Bush is in the far right wing...as well as independents and undecideds...

An overwhelming amount of ppl voted for Bush because he's someone they'd like to have a BBQ with..not because he's good at what he does

Chris

[dissention]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I agree you'd be surprised at the amount of republicans who do not feel Bush is in the far right wing...as well as independents and undecideds...

An overwhelming amount of ppl voted for Bush because he's someone they'd like to have a BBQ with..not because he's good at what he does

Chris

Those are the people who should be disenfranchised.