May this be a lesson... Hatred never pays.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The GOP learned this lesson the hard way durring the days of Sir Newt. Long gone are those days. The Trent Lotts, Orin Hatches & Strom Thurmonds have been replaced with the Rudolph Giulianis and Arnold Schwarzenegers. The hardcore righties are still there, of course. But they're off in the background... pulling the strings, perhaps, but in the background none the less. George Bush, believe it or not, is very LIKEABLE to many middle Americans. The fact that he isn't the most refined of public speekers HELPS him. Like it or not, it makes him more personable to the average Joe 12-pack.

If the Dems want to make a serious comeback, the Ted Kennedys need to be locked in the basement. They need more personable candidates, like Obama, to be the face of the party. They need to tell the Michael Moores, the George Soroses to, well, move on. Shut your cakehole, you're not helping. If the Democratic party continues to be consumed with hatred they will continue to lose. To quote a little known Irish band, it's time to go away and dream it all up again.

 

[MaxFisher]

I agree!

 

[speedracer]

No kidding.

The Republicans in 1998, the Democrats in 2002 and 2004...when will people learn?

 

[pianorocker]

Yeah, Michael Moore isn't the greatest publicist for the Democratic Party.

 

[U2Traveller]

All you can do is this for this post.

 

[nbcrusader]

I would say the lesson is that extreme hatred of your opponent will cause you to lose sight of the bigger picture.

 

[medmo]

Headache, I agree with most of what you said about the Democrats, and I'll admit it: the people I was pulling for on Tuesday got their butts kicked, no doubt about it. I'm not one to sit around and whine about it, though.

Don't you think, though, that the Republicans are possibly heading for a huge crisis if they are trying to bring the Schwarzenegers and the Giulianis to the forefront of the party? I'm telling you right now, I would seriously consider voting for these guys because I agree with them on most issues. But the thing is, a huge amount of Republicans do not. Whether it be abortion rights, stem cell research, etc. etc. etc., a lot of people who came out in droves to put Bush back in do not agree with these guys on these issues. And they are some of the most important, if not the most important issues to these voters. I'm just wondering if the Republicans can really make these guys the stars of the party when so many people disagree with them on such huge issues.

 

[BVS]

Maybe this explains the rumors of Ashcroft leaving...

 

[sharky]

First off, George Soros is not that outspoken. He gives money and most non-politicos have no idea who he is.

As for the kinder, gentler GOP, you do not want to use Ahnold and Rudy as role models. First, Ahnold is sexist. Believe the allegations because they are backed by proof. Second, Rudy went though a big nasty divorce in the months before 9/11 that included who had control of the mayor's mansion -- him and his lover or his wife.

Bigger issue -- if the GOP wants to keep its "moral values"/Christian base, neither Rudy or Ahnold are going to be flag bearers. Both of pro-choice, both are pro-gay marriage. You can't have a Republican like that win the nomination for president [and Ahnold because he wasn't born here]. The warm and fuzzies are nice but they will not electrify the base.

 

[U2democrat]

politics...religion...anything...hatred makes ANYTHING worse.

 

[Jamila]

One often espouses for others what one needs to learn for themselves.

Or in other words, a Freudian slip maybe, headache and company?

THE GOAL IS SOUL....

 

[nbcrusader]

One often espouses for others what one needs to learn for themselves.

Or in other words, a Freudian slip maybe, headache and company?

THE GOAL IS SOUL....

I guess you wouldn't see your own hatred.....

 

[GOP_Catholic]

True, the hatred that Democrats expressed got them nowhere.

The compassionate conservatives gained ground in the Senate, the House, and retained the White House, and got the most votes in American history.

Now that us compassionate conservatives and Christians have been mobilized, I don't see the Dem. party ever resurfacing. Hillary's campaign in 2008 shall be the final nail in the DNC coffin, and if the millionaire trial lawyer Edwards runs again, get ready for part B of Flushing The Johns, his own people in North Carolina didn't even want him, nobody in my Church wanted him, he doesn't represent or respect our beliefs.

 

[BostonAnne]

Now that us compassionate conservatives and Christians have been mobilized, I don't see the Dem. party ever resurfacing. Hillary's campaign in 2008 shall be the final nail in the DNC coffin, and if the millionaire trial lawyer Edwards runs again, get ready for part B of Flushing The Johns, his own people in North Carolina didn't even want him, nobody in my Church wanted him, he doesn't represent or respect our beliefs.

I have yet to see any compassion at all coming from you. Also, Christians can be as divided on issues as Republicans and Democrats. There are plenty of Christian Democrats too. Myself for one.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

True, the hatred that Democrats expressed got them nowhere.

The compassionate conservatives gained ground in the Senate, the House, and retained the White House, and got the most votes in American history.

Now that us compassionate conservatives and Christians have been mobilized, I don't see the Dem. party ever resurfacing. Hillary's campaign in 2008 shall be the final nail in the DNC coffin, and if the millionaire trial lawyer Edwards runs again, get ready for part B of Flushing The Johns, his own people in North Carolina didn't even want him, nobody in my Church wanted him, he doesn't represent or respect our beliefs.

please don't hijack my thread with BS... and this is comming from a republican and a christian who voted for bush. to say the dems will never resurface is A) stupid, and B) bad for our country if it were to be true. the DMC needs the GOP, and vice versa... to keep each other in check, so to speak.


and a lot of you who are trying to make some sort of argument with me really are missing the point. the republicans are still the party of conservitism. trent lott is still there, and still has his hands on the strings to some extent. but he isn't the public face of the party anymore. he's in the background. the republicans have managed to put a fancy facade on the same old shit. all i'm saying is that the democrats need to do the same thing.

 

[U2Traveller]

Hatred never pays. So right.

 

[Boston01]

I've been finding it interesting that the Republicans have been promoting people like Arnold and Rudy who have dissenting opinions from its base. On the opposite spectrum, people as moderate as Joe Lieberman are being ostracized from the new Democratic base. I've been a democrat for years. I will probably never be a republican, but I am really wondering where my party has gone. I have a hard time ever seeing anyone like JFK (Kennedy) ever being nominated these days. I can't imagine him with Sharpton, et al.

 

[GOP_Catholic]

to say the dems will never resurface is A) stupid, and

Headache, you must be more optimistic. The liberals are killing their own kids at all time record high rates, and many of the other liberals are talking about moving to Canada and Europe. Hillary agrees with Kerry on 99% of the issues, if a male candidate and veteran can't win with those views, there is no way a female candidate can with those views. And now with the Christians mobilized, I'm writing off the DNC for at least a good 10 years.

 

[anitram]

I do not want to comment on this in detail, but members of my family have had a longstanding relationship with George Soros. These are intellectuals with PhDs.

What you fail to consider, Headache, that in the 80s, Soros was essentially doing Reagan's work, because he was funding Eastern European intellectuals secretly in the hope that they will one day bring democracy to the Soviet bloc. He was incredibly instrumental in this and the Americans LOVED him for it.

He is a man who has always put his money where his mouth is, and he has done an amazing amount of work to promote democracy all over the world. He's really not this far leftist that your American media has portrayed him as. If anything, he operated on behalf of the right for most of his life.

 

[sharky]

Boston -- I think the problem is that Gore couldn't pull it off in 2000 by being centrist. And the Democratic base wanted someone more liberal, hence we voted for the "most liberal senator". And I really don't consider Bush a centrist either -- more people voted AGAINST him than any other president and in the past four years, the divide in this country has become even bigger than it was before he took office. Clinton was a centrist. Bush and Kerry were not. Sometimes that's a bad thing, sometimes it's a good thing depending on where the country is going.

 

[sharky]

I do not want to comment on this in detail, but members of my family have had a longstanding relationship with George Soros. These are intellectuals with PhDs.

What you fail to consider, Headache, that in the 80s, Soros was essentially doing Reagan's work, because he was funding Eastern European intellectuals secretly in the hope that they will one day bring democracy to the Soviet bloc. He was incredibly instrumental in this and the Americans LOVED him for it.

He is a man who has always put his money where his mouth is, and he has done an amazing amount of work to promote democracy all over the world. He's really not this far leftist that your American media has portrayed him as. If anything, he operated on behalf of the right for most of his life.

Interesting point about democracy. Soros has said that living under the Nazis has made him push for democracy, which is why he supported Kerry. He feels that Bush is not conservative when it comes to economics and his Patriot Act etc. are pushing us towards a more intrusive gov't, which he is fighting against. would highly recommend the recent profile in the New Yorker as a must read about Soros. He's not the boogey man the media portrays him to be.

 

[BVS]

Only love will conquer hate...

 

[Boston01]

sharky - i agree with you. it seems like these days the dems are looking for an identity in pursuit of victory. in doing so they are moving closer to their base, similar to what the republicans did in the 90s. what would be refreshing is a race where both parties had centrist candidates running at the same time.

 

[deep]

the republicans have managed to put a fancy facade on the same old shit.

I agree with the above
the GOP convention was pure show



Tom Delay is THE power broker fueled by hate. He makes Lott seem reasonable.

Swift boat vets were PURE hate.

Kerry went up in the polls went he defined himself at the convention
and in the debates.

Karl Rove and company had too much money to distort his image.

Our low class president campaigned on name calling and divisiveness.

 

[Boston01]

deep .. you can say what you want about the others but the Swift vets earned their right to say what they want. they started the day after kerry released his book. if kerry has nothing to hide about it why wont he sign the release of his full military records?

 

[deep]

obfuscate-
all you like

they were/are bald face liars

 

[A_Wanderer]

So are you saying that each and every one of those SBV were liars?

 

[deep]

I am saying the naked teenager shot in the back wearing a loincloth was completely made up.


These guys hated Kerry because of his testimony and opposition to the VN war.


I can understand that and would not have a complaint with them going after that aspect of Kerry’s past.

The attacks on his service, and distortions and flat out lies pretty many takes any credibility away.

Yes they lied and they know it.

 

[Boston01]

kerry lied in his book too .. somewhere in the middle is the truth...

 

[sharky]

sharky - i agree with you. it seems like these days the dems are looking for an identity in pursuit of victory. in doing so they are moving closer to their base, similar to what the republicans did in the 90s. what would be refreshing is a race where both parties had centrist candidates running at the same time.

We had that in 2000 and it represented only a small sliver of the population. The rest of us kind of threw darts to determine who to vote for. Remember that one debate when Bush and Gore agreed on everything. Bore.

You can't have two centrist candidates or no one has a choice. I think the problem was that by going extreme, Bush was able to rally the extremists. Maybe the answer isn't centrists and trying to get more voters -- maybe what wins is getting your extremists base rally. Too bad -- it cuts out those in the middle who then don't vote.