The Sad, Sad State of the Democratic Party... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2006, 08:51 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 AM
AN ACT

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes


that act, it was prudent (in a good way) to vote against it.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:14 PM   #32
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

I wrote it out of the rather nauseous feeling in my stomach I get every time I think about the 2008 election.
It's a bit early to be that worried...Bush has plenty of time to screw up badly enough to ensure a republican loss next time around. Not a great way to win an election and doesn't fix the problems mind you, but it's a start lol.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:45 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


It's a bit early to be that worried...Bush has plenty of time to screw up badly enough to ensure a republican loss next time around. Not a great way to win an election and doesn't fix the problems mind you, but it's a start lol.
He also has plenty of time to accomplish things that would make it difficult for the Democratic Party in November 2008. It would be much better for the current low polls to be occuring in 2008 rather than now. Things change, and its more likely than not that Bush's poll numbers and standing will improve. People thought there was no way Bush could win in 2004, but he came away with the first majority win since 1988. Taking a good political situation for granted is not something I think the Democrats will do in 2008, regardless of how Bush is doing at that time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 10:48 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Very good question. Here's my opinion of that list:

Wesley Clark - a tool for the Clintons; he didn't know his platform last time around and it showed. He's kind of the epitome of the Democrats' veteran parade.

Hillary Clinton - she lacks genuineness to me. She really turned me off when she, all of a sudden, started coming out against video games and became in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment. The Democratic Party has enough tools, and she just pisses me off.

Joe Lieberman - too conservative. I might as well vote for John McCain, and the voting public would think the exact same way.

Dennis Kucinich - his allure is too centered on anti-war fervor, and I don't like one-issue, hot button only candidates.

John Edwards - seems like too much of a gimmicky candidate. We're supposed to vote for him, because he's nice and pretty. His platform, however, is almost a mirror image of what you'd expect from a Democratic Party focus group. Well, we've tried that before, and it doesn't work.

John Kerry - if he'd trust his instincts more, he might be a better candidate. However, he doesn't have a great track record on that, and he emerged out of the 2004 election as damaged goods. Compare that to Al Gore who, while still losing, still emerged being rather likeable.

Tim Kaine - not sure, but he's probably better off remaining governor of Virginia right now. He hasn't been in office long enough.

Mark Warner - I'm cautious in my approach to him. I like the fact that he seems to know what he's talking about in interviews. I also like the fact that he likes to avoid the hot-button issues, because it makes him come off as less hysterical. I think he has a good chance of winning, but I do have my concerns that he's more "Republican-lite."

Howard Dean - I've wanted to like him in the past, but he always puts his foot in his mouth in very bad ways. He's best for preaching to the choir, so he's a good DNC chair.

Al Sharpton - he's run so many times that he's not considered a serious candidate.

Barack Obama - good question. I don't know much about him, but he seems to have a mind of his own. Unfortunately, he's going to be a liability considering the bigot vote and he doesn't seem to have enough of an iron fist to convince swing bigots.

I'm leaning myself towards liking Russ Feingold. He's very principled and progressive-friendly, while not being a mindless drone for the Democratic Party. He voted against the Patriot Act, being the only Democrat to have the courage to oppose a poorly written bill and was one of the few Democrats to vote for John Roberts. Now, I'm not saying I like Roberts, but it does show that he is very independently-minded without being Republican-lite and without resorting to shrill hot-button soundbites. That's my kind of candidate.

Melon
Very interesting choice with Russ Feingold. Has he indicated he is running in 2008? Have any of the Democratic talking heads mentioned him much? Whats his star power rating at the moment in the Democratic Party?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:28 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Very interesting choice with Russ Feingold. Has he indicated he is running in 2008? Have any of the Democratic talking heads mentioned him much? Whats his star power rating at the moment in the Democratic Party?
Well, you have to understand. I'm making these opinions based on the individual, rather than their popularity. I'm not sure Feingold is interested in running, but there's the usual grassroots group of people pushing for him to do so.

Out of your above list, Warner is probably the most electable, even if I have unanswered questions about him.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:53 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Well, you have to understand. I'm making these opinions based on the individual, rather than their popularity. I'm not sure Feingold is interested in running, but there's the usual grassroots group of people pushing for him to do so.

Out of your above list, Warner is probably the most electable, even if I have unanswered questions about him.

Melon
I wasn't sure if something I had not heard about yet was in the works for a Feingold run. The field is wide open in both parties since no one from the current administration, Bush or Cheney, will be running in 2008. I think the Vice President running after two terms in office usually crushes any challengers. This time around, so many people will be running that its going to be difficult for many candidates to get a lot of relevant exposure. I think its going to be a must that everyone declare by September 2007 that their running, although some may wait in the hopes that announcing later would stir things up and provide some exposure they not normally have received had they announced when most of the other candidates did.

Its not as long off as many people think. The race really starts in September 2007 with hard fought battles in both parties to win the nomination.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:57 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I think the Vice President running after two terms in office usually crushes any challengers.
History is kind of funny when it comes to that. VPs normally cinch the nomination, but usually lose. Bush, Sr. was the first VP to actually win the presidency in well over 100 years.

Quote:
Its not as long off as many people think. The race really starts in September 2007 with hard fought battles in both parties to win the nomination.
Probably so. But, obviously, all the attention right now is on the 2006 Congressional elections. I'm sure some potential candidates might choose to run or drop out based on the outcome here.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 05:43 AM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 06:22 PM
I really wanted Clark to win the nomination last time. Bush would've had to say "General Clark, you don't know how hard war is."
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 10:05 AM   #39
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 02:22 PM
I like Mark Warner a lot. Based on his governorship, he seems to understand that government can and should be a part of solutions without going nuts with huge bureaucracies. He also seems to have good instincts as to when to get tough and when and how to compromise, and he can extract nice "wins" out of "compromises" too, like he did with the VA Republicans, who are a particuarly nasty, narrow-agenda breed of right-wingers.

I like Obama, too, though he's young (in Senate-terms). *Such* an electric speaker. He can seem cautious, but I'll forgive that and watch as he grows. I hear Melon's right about the bigot-vote.

How I wish we could resurrect Paul Wellstone.

Bascially, the Dems task for 06 and 08 is much easier than they are making it (given their penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory). They need to recite this like a damn broken record every single time someone puts a mic in front of them.

Wages.
Health care.
Schools.
Iraq.

Wages.
Health care
Schools
Iraq.

Not a tough sell, really. Edwards can take one for the team and lend some of the language from his "two Americas" stump speech, which I always did like.

Also, one thing I think Dean really did get right is his point that how the HELL did Kerry or the Dems in general seriously expect to win when they intentionally only competed in a fraction of our 50 states. For gods sake quit being afraid of the south, get your asses down here and talk poverty.

I even have a linky for 'em

http://www.splcenter.org/
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 10:38 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

It crosses my mind once in a while to enter politics myself someday.
you shouldn´t.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 11:04 AM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling
I like Mark Warner a lot. Based on his governorship, he seems to understand that government can and should be a part of solutions without going nuts with huge bureaucracies. He also seems to have good instincts as to when to get tough and when and how to compromise, and he can extract nice "wins" out of "compromises" too, like he did with the VA Republicans, who are a particuarly nasty, narrow-agenda breed of right-wingers.
It's good to be a Virginia Democrat these days

Quote:
I like Obama, too, though he's young (in Senate-terms). *Such* an electric speaker. He can seem cautious, but I'll forgive that and watch as he grows. I hear Melon's right about the bigot-vote.

How I wish we could resurrect Paul Wellstone.

Bascially, the Dems task for 06 and 08 is much easier than they are making it (given their penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory). They need to recite this like a damn broken record every single time someone puts a mic in front of them.

Wages.
Health care.
Schools.
Iraq.

Wages.
Health care
Schools
Iraq.

Not a tough sell, really. Edwards can take one for the team and lend some of the language from his "two Americas" stump speech, which I always did like.

Also, one thing I think Dean really did get right is his point that how the HELL did Kerry or the Dems in general seriously expect to win when they intentionally only competed in a fraction of our 50 states. For gods sake quit being afraid of the south, get your asses down here and talk poverty.

I even have a linky for 'em

http://www.splcenter.org/
Amen. I don't think people understand the scale to which poverty is a huge problem in the south. Look at New Orleans...do people seriously think that poverty is JUST a problem there? Hell no. We need another Robert Kennedy...
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 05:13 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling


Wages.
Health care.
Schools.
Iraq.


[/url]
The problem here is, what is the Democrats unified approach to the following issues? Iraq could certainly be a winning issue if things were to remain deadlocked or get worse there. But on wages, Health Care, and Schools, I don't see as being any better an issue for the Democrats to run on than it was 5 or 10 years ago. Regardless, developing strategies for handling each, independent of criticism of the administration or Republicans is important. Communicating their plans to solve these issues first before launching attacks against the Republicans is something that might catch peoples attention, if they find the ideas for dealing with these issues appealing.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 11:17 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 01:22 PM
I always vowed if I could ever vote him back into office, I would.

http://www.grainnet.com/info/article...pe=bn&ID=32903

Untill someone else can cover the issues with as much intelligence and knowledge as he does, at this point, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton.. since I don't believe at the end of the day her beliefs are that far flung from Bill's.

But I'm still listening and studying..
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 04-16-2006, 04:11 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:22 PM
Abolish the Electoral College. It's outlived its usefulness.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-16-2006, 10:10 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Abolish the Electoral College. It's outlived its usefulness.
Could you describe why it was useful before and how abolishing the EC would enhance our current political system?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com