Did you hear Geraldine Ferraro?

[2ndAmendment]

Geraldine Ferraro was on Hannity & Colmes Friday. Sean was showing her the red/blue map. She said that if the blue states seceded from the union the red states would have no markets and said that all the talent is in the blue states anyway.

This elitist attitude by a Democratic former VP candidate is one reason the Democrats have lost ground with the majority of voters. If the Democrats continue to express this kind of elitist stuff, they will continue a downward spiral and a new party will take the left center. It may be the Republicans and a new, more conservative party will take the mainstream right in politics since the Republicans are tending toward Giuliani and McCain.

 

[Tonio]

I would love to see a third party attract the dissatisfied centrists from both parties, meaning the Democratic Leadership Council types on one side and the Giulianis and McCains on the other side.

However, I think it's more likely to happen on the GOP side first, if it happens at all, because of the influence of the Gary Bauers and James Dobsons. Either they'll bolt the GOP and strengthen the Constitution Party, or they'll dominate the GOP and prompt centrists to form their own party.

 

[vraiblonde]

It may be the Republicans and a new, more conservative party will take the mainstream right in politics since the Republicans are tending toward Giuliani and McCain.

That's what I'm seeing. Democrats will go the way of the Whigs and Tories and a new ultra conservative party will make the Republicans the liberals.

I, personally, like the turn the Republican party has taken. I like the diversity of it. If we start getting too carried away with "party agenda", we run the risk of making the same mistakes the Democrats did, i.e. getting so caught up with our ideology that we alienate the mainstream.

I have some disagreements with Bush - specifically, Social Darwinism (abortion) and gay marriage. Plus that illegal immigration thing and sending all that money over to keep Africans from AIDSing themselves to death. In some ways he's a lot more conservative than I am, in others he's more liberal.

But he's still better than anything the Democrats have run in the last 40 years or so.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I have some disagreements with Bush - specifically, Social Darwinism (abortion) and gay marriage. Plus that illegal immigration thing and sending all that money over to keep Africans from AIDSing themselves to death. In some ways he's a lot more conservative than I am, in others he's more liberal.

Well you know me; I am far more conservative than many. I believe abortion is murder. I am against homosexual marriage but against an amendment. I am for closing the borders to illegal immigration; I see it as an invasion of the country. I am for private help of children or others with AIDS through no fault of their own but against helping those that chose immoral sexual conduct.

Off topic, but people forget that STDs could be completely wiped out if everyone was sexually moral, no premarital sex and monogamous sex after marriage, in only one generation. The only exception would be non-sexual transmission, but after a generation or so, this transmission source would be eliminated too.

 

[rraley]

I do not think that the Democratic Party will disappear as some have stated. These gloom and doom predictions have been pegged on my party so many times in its history, yet we always manage to come out of it. Recall the Civil War...we were supposed to dissolve because all the Democrats went to the South, but we didn't. We were supposed to dissolve after Bryan lost, but we came back. We were supposed to dissolve with the Wallaceites leaving the party, but we didn't.

The Democratic Party did have a rough election day...but we still won 55 million votes for president, and if you switch about 3% in Senate elections, we won a majority in that chamber. Furthermore, we gained greater control in state legislatures across the country. And the elitest attitude that Geraldine Ferraro displayed here will end if we stop nominating Brahmin New Englanders like Kerry. Look at Clinton, he wasn't an elitest and neither was John Edwards. Just because some in my party are elitest does not mean that the entire party is. So many leaders are not and in 2008, I am confident that we won't nominate one who is.

 

[dems4me]

I do not think that the Democratic Party will disappear as some have stated. These gloom and doom predictions have been pegged on my party so many times in its history, yet we always manage to come out of it. QUOTE]


ooohhhh rraley!!!! ...

Have you seen what they have done to me

 

[2ndAmendment]

rr, you may be right, but the Democratic Party platform has left many of the people of the center. Political parties come and go. There is nothing sacred about either the Democrats or the Republicans except in their own minds. Many of the party, Democratic or Republican, faithful are people that don't bother to find out what the party stands for, they have always voted for the party and will until they die. I think that is stupid, but it is the way it is. What I think is interesting is that many young people, like my 19 year old sons, are registering Republican or have conservative values. Even the University of Southern California student body is becoming more conservative much to the consternation of their professors. I will confess to influencing their value system; all parents should influence their kids. I did not tell them how to register. They want to keep what they earn instead of the government taking it from them and giving it to someone who does not work. If they choose to help someone, they want to choose who and how much.

 

[rraley]

rr, you may be right, but the Democratic Party platform has left many of the people of the center.

Has it really? I mean, Bill Clinton wrote the platform just eight years ago and it was decidedly moderate.

 

[czygvtwkr]

What a twit, I will never vote for anyone from New England or California regardless of their party. I just don't trust anyone from there.

I was in Mass once and man I never met so many jerks in my life.

 

[jazz lady]

ooohhhh rraley!!!! ...

Have you seen what they have done to me

First, there is no THEY - it's just ME. Second, YOU did it to yourself. Next time you won't make such a foolish bet.



rraley, I am enjoying your commentary. It's very nice to see a rational discussion about politics.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Has it really? I mean, Bill Clinton wrote the platform just eight years ago and it was decidedly moderate.

Do you really think that Clinton wrote the platform? Do you think Kerry wrote the platform? You are naive if you do. The platform is written in the "smoked filled" back rooms by the big money folks. Homosexual rights, vast entitlement programs, open boarders, and gun control are not the platform of the middle but it was the platform of the Democrats because the extreme left wing has come to the forefront. Unless moderate Democrats retake the party from the extremists, the Democrats will continue to lose until they fade away.

 

[rraley]

Do you really think that Clinton wrote the platform? Do you think Kerry wrote the platform? You are naive if you do. The platform is written in the "smoked filled" back rooms by the big money folks. Homosexual rights, vast entitlement programs, open boarders, and gun control are not the platform of the middle but it was the platform of the Democrats because the extreme left wing has come to the forefront. Unless moderate Democrats retake the party from the extremists, the Democrats will continue to lose until they fade away.

I invite you to read the platform of the national Democratic Party from 2004 and tell me where you saw these things mentioned. Besides gun control (which, by most accounts, is "middle," most opinion polls show that the assault rifle ban received overwhelming support), I do not think that you are going to find too much to back up these statements. As for the party platform and who wrote it, you should wake up to reality...the national platform committee is merely a rubber stamp for whatever the presidential candidate wants nowadays. We no longer have platform fights like we used to in the political parties because we want to elect our nominees, who are more moderate than most party loyalists.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I invite you to read the platform of the national Democratic Party from 2004 and tell me where you saw these things mentioned. Besides gun control (which, by most accounts, is "middle," most opinion polls show that the assault rifle ban received overwhelming support), I do not think that you are going to find too much to back up these statements. As for the party platform and who wrote it, you should wake up to reality...the national platform committee is merely a rubber stamp for whatever the presidential candidate wants nowadays. We no longer have platform fights like we used to in the political parties because we want to elect our nominees, who are more moderate than most party loyalists.

Try this for one example.

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

As for the assault weapon ban, you are following the party line. The reason it was allowed to sunset was because so many people wrote to their representatives to tell them to not enact it again. That and the fact that many of the original ban supporters were voted out of office because they backed the ban.

You can live in the altered reality of no back room deals if you want, I don't really care. That is your "reality".

 

[rraley]

Try this for one example.

As for the assault weapon ban, you are following the party line. The reason it was allowed to sunset was because so many people wrote to their representatives to tell them to not enact it again. That and the fact that many of the original ban supporters were voted out of office because they backed the ban.

You can live in the altered reality of no back room deals if you want, I don't really care. That is your "reality".

You see on the gun control issue, a vast majority of voters support the assault weapons ban, the thing is that gun control is a voting issue mainly for conservatives, not liberals. By the way, I did not intend you to have the understanding that I myself supported the ban.

As for the language in our platform that supposedly points to support for gay marriage....I do not see it; both of our presidential and vice presidential candidates supported civil unions, not gay marriage.

 

[czygvtwkr]

The assult weapon ban was silly. Guns that could do the exact same thing as ones labeled assult weapons were not banned.

It seemed like "well that gun sounds intimidating lets call it an assult weapon, but the flowery moose killer doesnt sound that dangerous lets not ban it"

The assult weapon ban was nothing but feel good legislation.

Al Gore lost West Virginia due to the gun control issue, a state with almost no violent crime and an average of 2.3 guns per household. A republican had not won WV since Ike.

Hate crime laws are also silly too. Murder, assult etc are still illegal, it is any less bad if you kill someone to rob them than if you kill someone because they are a minority?

 

[Pete]

And the elitest attitude that Geraldine Ferraro displayed here will end if we stop nominating Brahmin New Englanders like Kerry.

The DNC did not "nominate" Kerry, he was chosen by your party's primary voters. They picked their poison and judging from the yahoo story on Dean thinking about becoming the Chairman of the DNC I would say they have not learned their lesson aobut being out of touch. He was more left than Kerry.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not to disparage Ferraro or anything...

...but in '84 with Mondale, they lost New York, including HER district.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You see on the gun control issue, a vast majority of voters support the assault weapons ban, the thing is that gun control is a voting issue mainly for conservatives, not liberals. By the way, I did not intend you to have the understanding that I myself supported the ban.

As for the language in our platform that supposedly points to support for gay marriage....I do not see it; both of our presidential and vice presidential candidates supported civil unions, not gay marriage.

Since the DNC platform is in PDF and you cannot cut and paste, I did not type out the whole section. Read it yourself. It is toward the end. It states that they are for equal benefits and letting the states control but goes on to endorse equal protection. The implication is that if a state approves homosexual marriage then that marriage should be universally recognized under equal protection. It is typical lawyer-ese.

 

[sleuth]

Since the DNC platform is in PDF and you cannot cut and paste, I did not type out the whole section. Read it yourself. It is toward the end. It states that they are for equal benefits and letting the states control but goes on to endorse equal protection. The implication is that if a state approves homosexual marriage then that marriage should be universally recognized under equal protection. It is typical lawyer-ese.

You can do a CTRL-PrintScreen if you're so inclined.
Then just crop it in Microsoft Photo Editor and upload it if you'd like.

Just a little tech tip.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You can do a CTRL-PrintScreen if you're so inclined.
Then just crop it in Microsoft Photo Editor and upload it if you'd like.

Just a little tech tip.

Stick your tech tip. I am on Linux. I HATE Microtard stuff.