Why are democrats so angry?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Elvis Presley

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
5,058
Location
eachnotesecure.com
Sorry to group all into one with the thread title. But it seems to me that Democrat politicians can be very angry folks. Take Ted Kennedy for example, he always seems upset to me. Its somewhat proven also that angry politicians dont win elections. From either side.

Think about who ran the angrier campaigns

Gore was angrier than Bush
Dole and Bush Sr. was angrier than Clinton

I base this mostly on what I recall from those elections, other opinions?
 
I don't know that it's all anger. It's emotion, that's for sure. Anger is an emotion. Some of us liberals are just plain restless. We're not really happy with the status quo, we just think people can do better. That's what motivates us.
 
2081606.jpg


I agree w Mr Presley.
Very good observation:up:

DB9
 
Yeah, that's what they say about Dean. It's a motivator, definitely. It's why people go out and give out leaflets. You've got to have some sort of motivator to do this. You're not going to go out and do it if you're wondering why you're doing it.
*edited because I can't type without massive screw-ups*
 
Last edited:
the clinton impeachment... the election... add those two highly debated, bitter partisan events and you've got a party who's salivating to attack the new republican president at the first available opportunity. then factor in that there really wasn't anything to get on him for after 9/11... his approval ratings were sky high... so they wanted to get him on something, but they couldn't... then came the war and the economy... finally the dems had something to attack bush on... but the war, while it hasn't been perfect, hasn't been the horrific and devestating event that people warned of... and the economy is on an upturn. so they're reeeeeally pissed now.

just my .02 cents... i could be wrong
 
Getting back to what wins elections..:)

In the end most polictians are after the "20% of undecideds" left in the middle.
A person who is angry scares them.:huh:
A person who is percieved lovable liked Clinton or GW..gets that majority:hmm:

DB9
 
Last edited:
Interesting observation...

I think here in America policies between the Rep and Dem have dangerously come too close together. There are only few issues that honesly divide the two parties, politics in general have moved towards the moderate.

But what I see as the biggest dividing factor between the two parties is this "emotion" or "anger" whatever you want to call it.

I think it's fair to ask why are Dems so angry, but we can also ask why are Reps so complacent?

They're ready to jump into a war, but their complacent when it comes to the issues in their back yard. They don't seem to care that this is the worst president environmentally we've had in a long time making huge steps backwards, that the separation of church and state is deteriorating, and ignoring for the most part huge corporate scandal like Enron.

Why are they happy with the status quo? I think it's a question that can go both ways.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But what I see as the biggest dividing factor between the two parties is this "emotion" or "anger" whatever you want to call it.

I think it's fair to ask why are Dems so angry, but we can also ask why are Reps so complacent?


I dont necessarily agree with this, however, one thing is true, the emotion and anger certainly dont go over well with the nations voters if past history can be used.
 
A related article....

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/098743-5314-021.html


Politics of hate won't beat Bush


December 4, 2003


Anyone up for a "Hate Bush" meeting in Hollywood? Doesn't it sound like just the sort of thing conservatives would invent to make liberals look stupid and open the conservative spigots?

But this was no right-wing conspiracy. Matt Drudge may be the one selling the idea that Hollywood held a "Hate Bush" meeting, but he didn't come up with the title. This is a self-inflicted wound by another silly Hollywood liberal giving honest politics a bad name.

The meeting in question was chaired by two longtime Democratic operatives, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm, who have recognized that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be at a severe financial disadvantage as compared to the president.

The Republicans have an institutional advantage when it comes to raising money, because they are the party of business, and because they have a larger small-donor base; they also have an advantage because they control the White House and both houses of Congress.

So what are Democrats to do?

Under the new campaign finance laws, neither party is allowed to raise "soft" money. But independent groups can. So longtime Democrats have created two independent groups. One, headed by Ickes, focuses on providing media cover for the nominee beginning this spring, when the president is expected to start spending heavily; one headed by Malcolm and former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal will focus on field organizing in target states for the general election.

Invitations were sent to the usual Hollywood suspects, a collection of people with an interest in politics and money to give, to attend a meeting Tuesday with Ickes, Malcolm and Rosenthal. It was titled a "Meeting to Change the Leadership in America in 2004." Hardly worthy of Drudge.

Then Laurie David sent an e-mail forwarding invites to the "Hate Bush 12-2 Event," and the right went nuts.

Who is Laurie David? In news clips, she is identified as Larry David's wife. Who is Larry David? He's the star of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

Maybe his wife should curb hers. It is only helping Republicans.

The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.

Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."

Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.

The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.

Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.
 
Life is cyclical. We're probably in a resumption of the 1950s, where optimism, even if unwarranted, is popular right now. In the 1960 election, Nixon campaigned how "good" things were, while JFK disagreed. JFK won, and, until the reign of Dubya, cynicism won votes.

What worries me about unwarranted optimism is that, while Nixon was campaigning on Eisenhower's "happy" administration, it was covering up a lot of despicable acts in the name of "national security." Is a lot of this happening in the Bush Administration? Who knows...I'll let you debate that.

Melon
 
melon said:
In the 1960 election, Nixon campaigned how "good" things were, while JFK disagreed. JFK won, and, until the reign of Dubya, cynicism won votes.

Melon

I am not so certain I agree with this completely. Yes, being the "incumbent" he would have been in the position of defending the "status quo", however, Nixon was the chosen candidate of the Civil Rights leaders like Jackie Robinson, and many well into the kinnedy administration up until 1962 felt that Kennedy was playing lip service to the black leadership at that time. recent tapes released by the Kennedy library and written about in an UNFINISHED LIFE indicate that even Bobby Kennedy while trying to work a compromise with the Governor of Mississippi over James Meredith, argued that he was just doing his job enforcing a court order. He was NOT passionately arguing for the rights of the African American.

As more gets released from this time period more will be learned. However, it is easy to paint a candidate as being "every thing is good" just because they are the incumbent. Civil rights is definitely an issue where Nixon was favored ahead of the Kennedy's.
 
Dreadsox said:


Kennedy was NOT passionately arguing for the rights of the African American.

Civil rights is definitely an issue where Nixon was favored ahead of the Kennedy's.

Thanks for pointing that out Dread.:up:
Republicans are forgotten about these days for their work for Civil Rights in the 1960s.
Charlton Heston even marched for equality of the human race.
I dont think Senator Byrd attended Civil Right demonstrations in the 1960s, maybe under a hooded white sheet.;)

DB9
 
Dreadsox said:


I am not so certain I agree with this completely. Yes, being the "incumbent" he would have been in the position of defending the "status quo", however, Nixon was the chosen candidate of the Civil Rights leaders like Jackie Robinson, and many well into the kinnedy administration up until 1962 felt that Kennedy was playing lip service to the black leadership at that time. recent tapes released by the Kennedy library and written about in an UNFINISHED LIFE indicate that even Bobby Kennedy while trying to work a compromise with the Governor of Mississippi over James Meredith, argued that he was just doing his job enforcing a court order. He was NOT passionately arguing for the rights of the African American.

As more gets released from this time period more will be learned. However, it is easy to paint a candidate as being "every thing is good" just because they are the incumbent. Civil rights is definitely an issue where Nixon was favored ahead of the Kennedy's.

Yes. It was during Kennedy's Administration that the civil rights people in Birmingham decided to turn up the heat on the government, get rid of the racist :censored: :censored: :censored: scumbag Bull Connor, and meanwhile they were getting African Americans admitted to the universities. They had to put pressure on the Administration to get civil rights legislation. They didn't just get it. The Ku Klux Klan were blowing up churches, and all sorts of stuff was going on. If it hadn't been for the demonstrators and other people putting pressure on the Administration they wouldn't have gotten anything. You always have to pressure the government to get stuff like this. I don't mean to sound cynical but it's true. It's our experience.
 
I'm glad the African Americans and colorblind demonstartors of that day forced the Kennedy Administration's hand.:up:
They were very very brave, esp the black demonstrators.

I would recomend a very telling and well written book by a well known liberal author exposing the "Kennedy myth"..

The author -Seymour Hersh was a well known liberal journalist from that era and a friend of the Kennedys.
In the book, he exposed their closet racism but chose to do it decades later.

The book is called -"Dark Side Of Camelot"

Deep gave me this book as a gift a few years back.
0316360678-resized200.jpg


a review/overview/summary-

Hersh, Seymour M. The Dark Side of Camelot. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1997. 498 pages.
Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist at the top of his profession, spent five years on this book. By tackling the one topic that has benefitted from more spin, puffery, and outright lies than any other, Hersh knew he'd be stepping on toes. The defenders of conventional wisdom pounced -- they had little choice, because by exposing Camelot in interview piled on top of amazing on-the-record interview, Hersh inadvertently puts American journalism in the dock: How is it that so many reporters and so many pundits have been so misleading and incompetent for so many years?
Hersh avoids the assassination, but persuasively shows the two brothers and father as dangerous, corrupt, dishonest, vindictive, and megalomaniacal, with JFK also recklessly dependent on illicit sex and drugs. What all this means today is unexplored by Hersh. It still seems likely that the Mafia, which was clearly double-crossed by the Kennedys, had revenge as the best motive. But Castro and the USSR could have conscientiously acted out of self-defense; the threat to them was objectively that serious..
ISBN 0-316-35955-6

DB9
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
JFK also recklessly dependent on illicit sex and drugs. What all this means today is unexplored by Hersh. It still seems likely that the Mafia, which was clearly double-crossed by the Kennedys, had revenge as the best motive.

As many of you know, I have spent most of my free time reading every book I can about the Kennedy's as politicians, and on the assasinations from the time I was in Junior High School.

The current book that I am reading An Unifinished Life delves into these areas with a slightly different take.

The sex, especially in his youth, was a result of his sickly nature. The fact that somehow he felt that his life was not going to be long, and he needed to live and squeeze every ounce of life into each and every day. Unfortunately, he somehow translated this into sexual conquests, and the author does a remarkable job presenting quotes from friends from his youth and college days showing how proud he was of his sexual conquests as if it somehow made him more alive.

I sincerely question if the American public would have elected him if the public had known he was taking so many of the drugs he was taking. Many of the drugs were not being taken for recreational purposes, but for the addisons disease, from which Kennedy sufered, and from which the public did not know. On top of this Kennedy had sever back problems and had had surgery and injuries in this area sustained from the PT-109 incident in WWII. He most certainly would not have been allowed into the military had his medical history not been kept secret from the military, and he was able to function through it. He most certainly was able to function as President, although by almost accounts Kruschev manhandled him in their 1st meeting( Kennedy WAS doped up for that no HISTORIAN doubts this) and this may very well have led to missles in Cuba and the Berlin wall because Kruschev thought he could handle Kennedy not knowing Kennedy was doped up during their initial meetings.

As to the Mafia......

Bobby Kennedy and the President screwed the mafia in two cases. the Bay of Pigs and operation Mongoose in which the Mafia was working with Cubans to overthrough Castro.

Kennedy cut a deal with Kruschev that Castro would be safe 100% if the missles were removed from Cuba. The United States would remove its missles from Turkey. The deal had to be kept secret and the American public must never know that he cut the deal. These are facts, not Oliver Stone conspiracy theory. The Cuban Missle deal was not made public until the 1990's and papers in the Kennedy Library prove it. Why did Kennedy not want it public? He wanted to remain tough on Communism. If he looked weak, cutting the deal, removing Missles from Turkey, he could lose the election. This way, the fallacy that the blockade, made Kruschev back down would work. Castro is still in power isn't he? No more crazy US actions against him since right?

Anyway, Bobby Kennedy did indeed STOP all of the covert operations that were going on between the CIA and the mob AGAINST CUBA. They were shut down. The MOB is pissed. They helped Kennedy win in Chicago. To top it all off, Bobby kenned has the Godfather of New Orleans Carlos Marcello illegally deported to (Honduras? Nicaragua? can't remember...).

Marcello is flown illegally back into the the US by DAVID FERRIE (yes Olliver Stone) who was in the Civil Air Patrol with Lee Harvey Oswald (ABC 20/20 Two Weeks ago confirmed this for the first time ever). Oswald's Uncle worked for Marcello as well. Guy Bannister (Former FBI, Private Eye, Marcello Employee, Office in the same Building as Oswald) works with David Ferrie as well. Bannister and Ferrie were allegedly to have been involved in supplying guns and Ferrie according to ABC's 20/20 flew a mission during the Bay of Pigs. All of the these people were connected to a MOB boss, to the Bay of Pigs, to Oswald. The Mob Boss wanted Kennedy Dead. They set Oswald up to do it. In my opinion, the governement was not involved in the assasination of President Kennedy, but they may very well have not wanted to be connected to the people they had once been connceted with.
 
I think there's quite a bit to be angry about right now

People like to cast Howard Dean as the "angry guy". Personally I appreciate someone who has enough passion and concern to get angry about the current state of affairs.

I'll take an angry politician over an apathetic, one dimensional , robotic one any day.
 
I do not find Dean ANGRY....and I actually find myself liking him more and more. He takes a scary photo though:O)
 
Elvis...I wantesd to apologize for getting so far off topic.
 
i'm angry about all this snow, but ya don't see me wanting to throw al roker out of office. in three days when the temperature hits 50 and it rains, all this snow will be just a memory, and good ole al will be my buddy again. :wink:

the dems entire platform is being based on the war and the economy... if come next november the situation in iraq is calm and drastic improvements are shown, and if the economy continues on this upswing... howard dean's gonna be even more angry, 'cause his name will forever go down in history right next to walter mondale's
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom