Has there ever been a worse time to be a Democrat?
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Spoiled...
...it's not this month, it's the last four years.
Perhaps more than anything else, Kerry lost because what he said just did not resonante with the people he claimed were suffering.
Worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
Only net job loss since Hoover.
The dollar is tanking...probably because of Herbert Hoover
Teh defecit is out of control because George W. Hoover
This sucks because of Bush.
That sucks because of Bush.
The economy grew last year at 4.4 percent while Kerry prattled on and on about Herbert Hoover.
Jobs grew last year by 2.2 million, not exactly Hoover-esque.
Afghanistan had free and fair elections.
Iraq is doing the same.
The national debt shrunk some.
The dollar just hit a three month high against the Euro.
So now, the economy is clearly fine and was fine and democracy is breaking our around the globe.
The Democratic Party claimed one wasn't happening and oppossed the other.
You can look it up.
...it's not this month, it's the last four years.
Perhaps more than anything else, Kerry lost because what he said just did not resonante with the people he claimed were suffering.
Worst economy since Herbert Hoover.
Only net job loss since Hoover.
The dollar is tanking...probably because of Herbert Hoover
Teh defecit is out of control because George W. Hoover
This sucks because of Bush.
That sucks because of Bush.
The economy grew last year at 4.4 percent while Kerry prattled on and on about Herbert Hoover.
Jobs grew last year by 2.2 million, not exactly Hoover-esque.
Afghanistan had free and fair elections.
Iraq is doing the same.
The national debt shrunk some.
The dollar just hit a three month high against the Euro.
So now, the economy is clearly fine and was fine and democracy is breaking our around the globe.
The Democratic Party claimed one wasn't happening and oppossed the other.
You can look it up.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
More Bad News...
http://drudgereport.com/flash3jb.htm
And everyone got a tax break! Ha!
So much for the class warfare silver bullet.
http://drudgereport.com/flash3jb.htm
And everyone got a tax break! Ha!
So much for the class warfare silver bullet.
SmallTown
Football season!
careful larry. As we all know, we were all patting ourselves on the back in 1988 saying how great republicans are and how the dems don't have a foot to stand on. What did that get us? 4 years of daddy bush, and 8 years of Clinton. The parties we have today have been around for quite awhile, and 2 elections won't make one go away. Heck, imagine how low the republicans felt when they couldn't oust clinton (via the election or removal from office)
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry Gude said:
Larry, it was announced last week that there was not a net job loss during Bush's first four years. If I remember correctly, Bush was about 108,000 jobs to the good at the end of his term. Not bad for dealing with a recession, a few bubble bursts, corporate malfeasance, a terrorist attck and two wars. It looks like Hoover still continues to maintain that title all on his own.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Though I'm not wanting to gloat or rub anyone's nose in it, I do agree that the Democrats are going through a tough time right now. I'm a strong believer in a 2-party system, and so although I've been used and abused by dems, they need to stick around. But as the Kerry experience should teach, they do need to get in touch with where the majority of Americans are, and rethink their platform. They also need to clean house, as we Republicans are fond of pointing out. They need credible people to come to the top; they should be credible people with properly balanced judgement. They need to set up some targets of their own, instead of waiting for the next Republican move and then reacting to it. And quite frankly, they need to wake up and smell the coffee - when your country and its citizens are attacked, that is an act of war that demands a swift response. Democrats aren't all bad - the ones I know personally aren't. The party needs policy change and some replacement talking heads.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
st...
...let me make myself perfectly clear:
If Bill Clinton or John Kerry for that matter, was willing to put off dealing with Iraq no longer, was willing to make tax policy better, willing to hold Wall Street accountable, willing to address Social Security and willing to tell France to put it where the sun don't shine, I'd vote for them, happily.
Now, if W wants to truly become legend, he can push nuc u lar power.
I'd be happy to support a Democrat for President if they will do that one thing.
I'll hold my breathe.
No.
I won't.
...let me make myself perfectly clear:
If Bill Clinton or John Kerry for that matter, was willing to put off dealing with Iraq no longer, was willing to make tax policy better, willing to hold Wall Street accountable, willing to address Social Security and willing to tell France to put it where the sun don't shine, I'd vote for them, happily.
Now, if W wants to truly become legend, he can push nuc u lar power.
I'd be happy to support a Democrat for President if they will do that one thing.
I'll hold my breathe.
No.
I won't.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's just great Bruz...
So, through all this, in the end, they have to eat herbert Hoover as well?
Worser-er and worser-er...
So, through all this, in the end, they have to eat herbert Hoover as well?
Worser-er and worser-er...
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry Gude said:
Yep... just one more plate of crow!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
yl...
...
That's the whole point: They piss and moan that somebody making a gazillion dollars a year got a large enough tax break to buy a Lexus and Joe 6 pac, me, only got enough to put gas in a Lexus.
Well, excuse me for following the logic trail but Daddy Big Bucks is still PAYING enough to buy a fleet of Lexi (multiple Lexus'es) and I'm still only paying enough to put gas in a few of them.
The idea is to make it fair not so a rich guy can buy one more car but so that the rich guy is not paying for all of government and therefore rather much entitled to lobbyists to bend things his way.
WWHHD?
What would Herbert Hoover do?
...
That's the whole point: They piss and moan that somebody making a gazillion dollars a year got a large enough tax break to buy a Lexus and Joe 6 pac, me, only got enough to put gas in a Lexus.
Well, excuse me for following the logic trail but Daddy Big Bucks is still PAYING enough to buy a fleet of Lexi (multiple Lexus'es) and I'm still only paying enough to put gas in a few of them.
The idea is to make it fair not so a rich guy can buy one more car but so that the rich guy is not paying for all of government and therefore rather much entitled to lobbyists to bend things his way.
WWHHD?
What would Herbert Hoover do?
SmallTown
Football season!
Larry, this wasn't about you voting for a democrat. It was about the possibility that the follow-up to Bush may not offer both the republican and moderate votes, or may not stand above the dems in a way we see with bush today. Like I said, we were all basking in our own glory when Reagan left office and it wasn't long before it went downhill. fast.Larry Gude said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
St...
...I hear what you're saying but I don't remember it that way.
The Graham/Rudman bill was already being routinely violated shortly after it became law. Reagan and Congress had negotiated that for each new dollar of spending there would be a cut somehwere to pay for it. This didn't happen and Reagan signed spending bills from the Democratic controlled House in order to get what he wanted.
Thus, the deficit ballooned and Reagan and the defense budget were already getting the blame.
Clinton called it the 'decade of greed' to great effect. Of course, he then went on to show us what greed really was.
Maybe I'm just missing your point.
...I hear what you're saying but I don't remember it that way.
The Graham/Rudman bill was already being routinely violated shortly after it became law. Reagan and Congress had negotiated that for each new dollar of spending there would be a cut somehwere to pay for it. This didn't happen and Reagan signed spending bills from the Democratic controlled House in order to get what he wanted.
Thus, the deficit ballooned and Reagan and the defense budget were already getting the blame.
Clinton called it the 'decade of greed' to great effect. Of course, he then went on to show us what greed really was.
Maybe I'm just missing your point.
May I point out that there is nothing in the Constitution about the political parties, tow or otherwise, and that this country started without Democrats or Republicans. If either or both parties go away will be fine with me. They probably should since neither actually listens to the people anymore. Big party politics is about money and power, plain and simple. Neither of the major parties puts the interest of the citizens of the United States first and subrogates their own interests.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I don't think I can agree with you on that ST, mainly because I think the election dynamic has changed in a way that a lot of people overlook. I think the most important four years of the last few decades were the years of the first George Bush presidency. Not because Bush did much that was significant, but because it was the transitional time between the "old" way of looking at elections from a national level, to the current way of a "what's in it for me?" level. Reagan started changing the dynamic when he asked "are you better off now than you were four years ago?", and it's been snowballing up to the Clinton era. People quit voting based on what was best for the country as the determining factor, and started voting for what was best for themselves. I think that this shift, more than anything else, has led to the "division" of our country.
Keeping all that in mind, Clinton made excellent use of the new dynamic to win election in 1992, and to a lesser extent in 1996. Gore did a pretty poor job of showing "what's in it for me" to anyone living outside a major city or south Florida, and he lost. Kerry did a better job of campaigning outside of the cities, but the problem was that when he could communicate a vision of something, his vision wasn't shared by enough voters, so he lost.
What are the Republicans campaigning on? Tax cuts, national security, education, tax reform, SS reform, toughness on crime, banning gay marriage, etc. What do the Dems have to campaign on? They've already gone on record as saying SS is fine. Aside from global warming there's no real environmental issues they can campaign on, especially since most people can recognize the fact that new technologies are still a long way off. Gun control is a dog, they can't champion gay marriage without appearing to be "too gay", and Hillarycare defined their approach to socialized medicine.
As long as the 2008 Republican candidate sticks to her conservative guns, she has a great shot of beating any Democrat who sticks to theirs. Now, if the Dem tries to shift to the right for purposes of the election, I'm betting that the new media will be able to get the truth out aka the Swift Boat vets.
Keeping all that in mind, Clinton made excellent use of the new dynamic to win election in 1992, and to a lesser extent in 1996. Gore did a pretty poor job of showing "what's in it for me" to anyone living outside a major city or south Florida, and he lost. Kerry did a better job of campaigning outside of the cities, but the problem was that when he could communicate a vision of something, his vision wasn't shared by enough voters, so he lost.
What are the Republicans campaigning on? Tax cuts, national security, education, tax reform, SS reform, toughness on crime, banning gay marriage, etc. What do the Dems have to campaign on? They've already gone on record as saying SS is fine. Aside from global warming there's no real environmental issues they can campaign on, especially since most people can recognize the fact that new technologies are still a long way off. Gun control is a dog, they can't champion gay marriage without appearing to be "too gay", and Hillarycare defined their approach to socialized medicine.
As long as the 2008 Republican candidate sticks to her conservative guns, she has a great shot of beating any Democrat who sticks to theirs. Now, if the Dem tries to shift to the right for purposes of the election, I'm betting that the new media will be able to get the truth out aka the Swift Boat vets.
SmallTown
Football season!
Tax cuts: Can only cut so far. And regardless of how low taxes becomes, people will feel the need for lower taxes. At some point the cuts will have to stop. When the republicans can't offer that, people will begin to look elsewhere. Not that this is fair, it is just human nature.Bruzilla said:
National Security. We already had a discussion on this, and people like Larry think we are already spending too much money on this. If we begin cut backs to please people like Larry, the rest of us will be worried about the notion of cutting national security spending.
Tax reform. Every politician I have ever heard has discussed this.
SS reform. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. But once (if) Bush's plan goes through, can't really campaign on that in the future. It will have already been done.
Education. All I can say is, about time!
Crime. No brainer. each side wants less crime. You would be better off making an argument of how your plan to fight crime is better.
Banning gay marriage. Nice. Are you suggesting adding something to the constitution that essentially takes away instead of gives rights? I suppose you did get the memo that Bush will not push for this after all. A good campaign idea, but in reality it isn't something that will take place on the national level.