Republican or Democrat?

[monsoon]

I did not get this from the Republicans, I got this from the pragmatic arm of the Democratic party. Go listen to Al Sharpton if you want to hear what this party needs to do to turn it around. I will point out that Sharpton got more votes in the primary than Dean. Yet the liberal democrats continue to attempt to muzzle him and dismiss what he has to say. Yet they still lose elections.

Uhh, Dean got killed because people did not vote for him. It can't be more simple than that. Up until the election he was considered the front runner by the media and was their darling. Dean got far more positive coverage than any of the other candidates. Yet he lost big time. Dean's failures where his own and of his campaign's making. To blame it on the media or someone else is typical of the liberal arm of the Democratic party and is the reason they continue to lose. By placing Dean in charge they continue to demonstrate they are in beligerent denial on why no one votes for them.

To say the South is ideologically conservative is niave and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what it takes to win elections. To write off a region of 130M people is political suicide and if this is the Democrats plan, then they are indeed sunk. Unlike the steriotypes that outsiders seem to have, the South is very diverse and does not consist of just bible thumping zealots that will vote republican no matter what. Hell, hundreds of thousands of "blue stateers" move here every year. LOL. Dean's first big loss by the way was in the mid-west. Are democrats going to write off that region as well?

BTW, Democrats have won in my lifetime. I don't know how old you are but but Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to win a number of Southern states. And in my home state of NC, our Democratic Governer just beat out a very conservative opponent even though the state went for Bush. Democrats can win in the South, they just need to take their heads out of the sand and quit being a party of just 17 States. (Al Sharpton).

[knuckle50]

Why would anyone discredit what Richard Clarke says in his book? He is a Republican who was appointed by Bush and defected.

Its like saying Christine Todd Whitman is part of the evil left wing of America and her defection away from the President is part of this conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Republicans discredit anyone that presents facts that are contrary to their opinions. They make up these myths - liberal media, liberal academia, etc. because if they recognize reality, recognize that Richard Clarke was not an evil partisan hack, their entire belief system - founded on lies and ignorance - collapses.

monsoon, you seem to have a lack of understanding of politics, especially Democratic politics. Dean wants to run a 50 state campaign, and besides, the South has transitioned from being a regional party that votes for candidates from their region to an ideological conservative party. I realize you may be biased because you're from the south, but these are the facts.

[monsoon]

Haha, yet the results say otherwise. When liberal NE politicans start winning national elections again, get back to me. But the wait might be a long one since it hasn't happened in 44 years. And aside from that, you already said a Democratic candidate can't win in the South which means that you don't really mean Dean is a 50 state candiate, or you were just doing general South bashing. Which is it?

In any case your position is exactly the one that has caused the Democrats to lose not only the presidency but both houses of congress as well. The Republican party used to be THE minority party now that is just a memory. A couple of more good routs and the Democrats will cease to be a National party.

the South has transitioned from being a regional party that votes for candidates from their region to an ideological conservative party. I realize you may be biased because you're from the south, but these are the facts.

This statement of yours makes no sense. The South is not a political party. Before you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about you can at least try to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the difference between a political party, and a geograhic region.

Don't take my comments as an endorsement of the Rebublican party because it isn't. But you do know where they stand and what you get when you vote for them which is something you don't get with democrats now. Until Democrats stop blaming their problems on the "dirty Republicans" they are going to keep losing because they will not admit what their real problems are. They need to get off their "high horse" and start listening to the Al Sharpton's of the party.

[Spartan]

When are people in this country going to realize that once a country has an entrenched insurgency, YOU CAN'T WIN. If a country doesn't want you there, it is not possible to win. The Soviets learned it in Afghanistan, we learned it in Vietnam, and now we've forgotten it. How can you even think there's a possibility of winning a war that has been run so incompetently?

Have you read Richard Clarke's book? what evidence do you have to suggest that he's a left-winger? You're just drinking the Republican kool-aid without even putting any thought into it. The minute he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration engaged in an unprecedented character assasination campaign. And you drank it right up, completely ignorant of the merits of what he was saying. What evidence do you have to suggest that every single thing he said wasn't true? You haven't read the book, so you don't know. It's not about Bush, it's about Clarke's career. Bush isn't even mentioned until the last 40 pages or so, and even then it's pretty mild and pretty damned far from a polemic. It just describes what happened. But of course, facts that don't chime with a right-winger's opinion are automatically wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol, it sounds like you are drinking the democratic kool-aid

I have never read a political book, and I never will. Everyone who writes one has an agenda, and this guy's book came out at a very "convenient" time. I never made any accusations about his book or its content other than saying it was partisan, as all books on political situations tend to be. This guy took advantage of the current events market to make a few bucks, and I have no problem with that. You seem to be alittle too upset over my passing comment on that book.

First of all, we aren't the Soviet Union. Second, You can win against an "entrenched insugency." This same thing happened in post-war Germany. The Germans were quite rebellious against the Allied government. Allied troops were the victims of bombings and drive-bys and whatnot back then. If you read some of the news articles from those days you might mistake them for today. People wondered if the Germans could ever be self governing again.

I apologize for choosing to be optimisitc about the Iraqi war. Some of you lefties are all "gloom-and doom" and can't see this thing ending. I see no reason why we won't be out of there in a couple years. The Iraqi people can be self governing. Since the interim government was set up, Iraqi's have been looking to them for resolutions to some of their problems instead of blaming us (eg utilites). That seems like progess to me. The preliminary results of their election showed they had a better voter turn out than America did! I realize they don't know for sure yet, but don't you think that is a good sign? The Iraqi people don't want us there any more than we want to be there.

Until Democrats stop blaming their problems on the "dirty Republicans" they are going to keep losing because they will not admit what their real problems are. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is very true.

[PghUSA]

This country could use a little more Boston in its political appetite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do know we need a first family from PITTSBURGH (forget Hillary in '08 think Teresa!)

THE WESTERN WHITEHOUSE . . . FOX CHAPEL PA!

[knuckle50]

Haha, yet the results say otherwise.    When liberal NE politicans start winning national elections again, get back to me.  But the wait might be a long one since it hasn't happened in 44 years.  And aside from that, you already said a Democratic candidate can't win in the South which means that you don't really mean Dean is a 50 state candiate, or you were just doing general South bashing.  Which is it? 

In any case your position is exactly the one that has caused the Democrats to lose not only the presidency but both houses of congress as well.  The Republican party used to be THE minority party now that is just a memory.  A couple of more good routs and the Democrats will cease to be a National party. 

This statement of yours makes no sense.  The South is not a political party.  Before you tell me that I don't know what I am talking about you can at least try to demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the difference between a political party, and a geograhic region.     

Don't take my comments as an endorsement of the Rebublican party because it isn't.  But you do know where they stand and what you get when you vote for them which is something you don't get with democrats now.  Until Democrats stop blaming their problems on the "dirty Republicans" they are going to keep losing because they will not admit what their real problems are.  They need to get off their "high horse" and start listening to the Al Sharpton's of the party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're trying to take everyone in the Northeast and lump them together to say they can't possibly win. And I don't like that any more than you like it when people lump everyone in the South together and say they're retarded hicks.

I'm not South bashing, I'm being a realist. I have lived in the South. I do not think it is possible to win there in our generation. People there vote for conservative "values". With Dean, it's not a one-or-the-other type thing. He is running a 50-state campaign, and I don't think we can win in the South any time soon. But he is getting it started, and laying the groundwork. Read up on what Pat Robertson did after he lost in 1988, starting the Christian Coalition. It's one very large reason for the Republican dominance today. I just saw a documentary on it, and the parallels between that and what Dean's doing is amazing.

Can you just keep an open mind and consider that just because people aren't from the South doesn't mean they're going to lose? Different people are different and will use different tactics and run different campaigns.

I meant to say "voting bloc", not party.

I agree with you on not knowing where the Dems stand, which is why I like Dean. And I agree with Sharpton as well. He was the best speaker, by far, with the best message of all the candidates in any of the debates, but nobody considers voting for him because he's black, or because he's passionate, or something. I don't know. But Sharpton's message is pretty similar to Deans if you can get past your regional bias.

[knuckle50]

I have never read a political book, and I never will. Everyone who writes one has an agenda, and this guy's book came out at a very "convenient" time. I never made any accusations about his book or its content other than saying it was partisan, as all books on political situations tend to be. This guy took advantage of the current events market to make a few bucks, and I have no problem with that. You seem to be alittle too upset over my passing comment on that book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, it's not a political book, it's a book on terrorism. I probably was too upset about it, but it bothers me when people denounce a book and claim it's as biased when they've never read it. It also bothers me when they compare said book to Michael Moore (I'm not a big fan of his).

First of all, we aren't the Soviet Union. Second, You can win against an "entrenched insugency." This same thing happened in post-war Germany. The Germans were quite rebellious against the Allied government. Allied troops were the victims of bombings and drive-bys and whatnot back then. If you read some of the news articles from those days you might mistake them for today. People wondered if the Germans could ever be self governing again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, we ARE America, and we still did lose Vietnam. Second,we aren't Germany in 1945. We have far less troops, and far less competence, in the military today.

I apologize for choosing to be optimisitc about the Iraqi war. Some of you lefties are all "gloom-and doom" and can't see this thing ending. I see no reason why we won't be out of there in a couple years. The Iraqi people can be self governing. Since the interim government was set up, Iraqi's have been looking to them for resolutions to some of their problems instead of blaming us (eg utilites). That seems like progess to me. The preliminary results of their election showed they had a better voter turn out than America did! I realize they don't know for sure yet, but don't you think that is a good sign? The Iraqi people don't want us there any more than we want to be there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand about the "gloom and doom" thing. People on both sides spin themselves into believing things that probably aren't true. But realistically, I don't think it's possible for us to win. The "liberal media" inflated the turnout totals, by the way, dividing it by registered voters instead of by eligible voters. Under their calculations, U.S. turnout would have been 80-90%! Actual turnout was about 45%.

[monsoon]

There is no regional bias. It is a simple fact that in every election since 1964 the winning President always won some Southern States. How the NE votes is of little relevance in the elections. I will repeat, this is a fact. Kerry's strategy of shorting the South lost him the election. And if you and Dean's army truely believe you can't win in the South, then as I said earlier the party is sunk and something else will come along to replace it. Its no coicidence that every president elected since 1960 has been either from the South or California.

To simply say the idealology of the South is the reason they won't vote for a Democrat is simplistic and does not reflect an understandng if the vast region. People are people and they are going to vote for who makes them the most confortable. 40 years ago the Democrats were the party of the people. They voted with the Unions, against exporting of jobs, enviornmental controls on big business, etc etc. They have long since abandoned this part of the platform. Since they will no longer fight for the people and have sold out to big business, we are left with Republican values vs Democratic values (because the Democrats have nothing left now). And guess whose values play out better in middle Amercia?

If Democrats are going to win back the middle (and we are not just talking about the South) they are going to have to take some difficult stands on issues. Otherwise they are going to continue to be dismissed as flipfloppers, elitists, and weak spined. Isn't it a shame the Democrats tried to stop Sharpton's speech at the Convention.

[monsoon]

Political campaigns run on a budget like everything else, and Democrats have a smaller budget to work with. Throwing money away in states like Alabama which have a proven track record to vote against even moderate Democrats like Bill Clinton means its probably not worth wasting your money there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kerry raised more money than GW Bush, and ended his campaign with a $10M surplus that he refuses to refund to his contributers.

The party is stupid if it continues to write off part of the country because the issues that people have in Alabama are the same as every where else. Jobs, Security, education for their kids, etc. The problem is Democrats have abandoned their platforms on these issues and THAT is when Idealology comes to play. When are they going to wake up figure this out?

BTW, 9% of African American voters went Republican in 2000, that figure is up to 13% now. Democrats can't even hold on to this once very solid block of voters in their base. And that is because it goes back to what I said above. Its Jobs, Security, Education and Democrats have no definable stand on these issues now.

Continuing to blame the democrats defeat on what the starbucks crowd considers stupid voters is only going to cost them more elections.

[Spartan]

First of all, it's not a political book, it's a book on terrorism. I probably was too upset about it, but it bothers me when people denounce a book and claim it's as biased when they've never read it. It also bothers me when they compare said book to Michael Moore (I'm not a big fan of his).

I probably shouldn't have used Michal Moore as an example. I still stand by my opinion that people who write books like that have an agenda.

I understand about the "gloom and doom" thing. People on both sides spin themselves into believing things that probably aren't true. But realistically, I don't think it's possible for us to win. The "liberal media" inflated the turnout totals, by the way, dividing it by registered voters instead of by eligible voters. Under their calculations, U.S. turnout would have been 80-90%! Actual turnout was about 45%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are our voter turn out stats not done by percent of registered voters? I always assumed they were. It seems to me that if you aren't registered to vote you shouldn't be counted in voter turn out since you wouldn't be voting anyway.

[MathNerd05]

I'm an independent.

[knuckle50]

Are our voter turn out stats not done by percent of registered voters? I always assumed they were. It seems to me that if you aren't registered to vote you shouldn't be counted in voter turn out since you wouldn't be voting anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our voter turnout is done by eligible voters. If it was done by registered, it would be 80-90%.

[knuckle50]

Kerry raised more money than GW Bush, and ended his campaign with a $10M surplus that he refuses to refund to his contributers.

[Spartan]

You're ridiculous. The majority of the people in the South dont give a f_ck about jobs, education, and that stuff. They care about Jesus and values and abortion and, of course, gay people. Because that's what's important to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are so manything wrong with that statement I don't know where to start.

You are comming off as an arrogant Yankee.

You are stereotyping criticizing Southerners for having morals based on religion??? What is wrong with that? The majority of us are not hard core Christian conservatives.

You think Southerners don't care about jobs? I really don't understand where you are coming from on this one. We have some of the highest growth rates in the country. Most of our region is booming. All you Yankee's keep moving down here too We must be doing something right

Education... what? Nobody is arguing we have the best education system, but to say we don't care about it is just sheer ignorance.

Where do you get these ideas?

[MathNerd05]

You're ridiculous. The majority of the people in the South dont give a f_ck about jobs, education, and that stuff. They care about Jesus and values and abortion and, of course, gay people. Because that's what's important to them.

I was going to stay out of this discussion and just read, but your assenine comments cannot go unmarked. This may be the single largest piece of bigotry I have heard in quite some time. I vehemently disagree with the above statements and I welcome you to come visit us in the south so you can see firsthand.

[satalac]

You're ridiculous. The majority of the people in the South dont give a f_ck about jobs, education, and that stuff..........IDEAS MATTER, NOT REGIONS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

do you see the hypocracy in this? i live in the south, and know a whooooooooole lot of people that live in the south too. we all love jobs, education and "that stuff". to say what you said is just plain ignorant. i don't understand where you are getting this thinking from. please explain why you think this.

[knuckle50]

do you see the hypocracy in this? i live in the south, and know a whooooooooole lot of people that live in the south too. we all love jobs, education and "that stuff". to say what you said is just plain ignorant. i don't understand where you are getting this thinking from. please explain why you think this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get too into politics, and write stuff without proofreading. I just got frustrated with monsoon's bias in saying that there's no way anyone in the northeast could win elections, and talking about how if someone from the South gets nominated then they'll magically win.

The point I was trying to make is that, when it comes to elections, the majority of Southern people favor those who they find to be "moral" and into Jesus than those who would clearly benefit them economically. They did it in the last election, and they've been doing it for years. A lot of it is manipulation of them by Republicans, and a lot more is pure ignorance. No offense, but when people vote clearly against their interests there IS an element of ignorance.

I've been to the South, I lived there for a year. And I saw clearly that people were willing to give a veto to the education of their kids, a veto to putting bread on the table, a veto to their employment, and a veto the betterment of society, for ridiculous issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, issues that have a huge benefit and little downside - except the perception that a little man in the sky will send them to hell.

I didn't mean what I wrote before, I just didnt think before posting it. Hopefully this is a more articulate version of the point I'm trying to get across.

[monsoon]

The future of the Democrats is in the West. Take a look at Montana. The Democrats took control of the State House of Reps, the State Senate, and the governorship. How? A compassionate message that was moderate in the right places - gun control, etc. In the South, it would not have been possible because abortion and jesus would have dominated.

If you look at the results of local elections in the past 20 years, the South has been shifting to the Republicans. Consistently, in party ID and in how they vote. How can a Dem possibly win there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said you continue to demonstrate ignorance of the South. North Carolina has not only a Democrat for a Governer, but a legislature that is dominated by Democrats. These are the same qualities that you said made the west important. This was the last election, not 20 years ago.

BTW Montona has only 3 electoral votes. NC has 13 +1 in the last election. The Dems need to focus on the South because that is where all the political power is shifting.

[monsoon]

The point I was trying to make is that, when it comes to elections, the majority of Southern people favor those who they find to be "moral" and into Jesus than those who would clearly benefit them economically. They did it in the last election, and they've been doing it for years. A lot of it is manipulation of them by Republicans, and a lot more is pure ignorance. No offense, but when people vote clearly against their interests there IS an element of ignorance.

I've been to the South, I lived there for a year. And I saw clearly that people were willing to give a veto to the education of their kids, a veto to putting bread on the table, a veto to their employment, and a veto the betterment of society, for ridiculous issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, issues that have a huge benefit and little downside - except the perception that a little man in the sky will send them to hell.

I didn't mean what I wrote before, I just didnt think before posting it. Hopefully this is a more articulate version of the point I'm trying to get across.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are being what you consider articulate, then you really are ignorant when you make claims that a majority of the voters in the South vote for Jesus. That is one of the more stupid things I have seen posted on this forum.

And the facts don't support your case either. First the educational opportunites in the South are vast. There are waiting lists for every state supported college in NC for out of state residents wanting to come here. If employment was as bad as you make it out, then hundreds of thousands would not be moving here every year from the NE and our cities would not be growing at unprecidented rates. I am not sure what you mean by the betterment of society, but I will point out the people in the South are generally considered to be very nice and respectful towards others.

Sorry but what NE Democrat, especially Kerry and Dean, has said anything that is going to make life better for the Southerner?

As I said earlier, the Democrats don't have a stand on anything important. And if your perceived ignorance and complete disdain of the South is typical of NE candidates, and they do seem this way, then no wonder that every candidate from there has lost the presidential election (and usually big time too) in the last 40 years.

These are the facts. Sorry you can't accept them.

[knuckle50]

As I've noted before, North Carolina has a Democratic heritage just like the rest of the South. Many of the legislatures have been Dem-controlled for a very looong time. They are now beginning to shift - notably in Georgia in recent years.

This time I'm going to cite actual evidence.

Let's look at who the South elected last election:

Kentucky: Bunning was narrowly re-elected despite the fact that he is batcrap insane and losing his mind - literally, this isn't hyperbole.

Oklahoma: They elected a man who was probably by many standards insane: Tom Coburn. The guy wants to turn the USA into a theocracy, and thinks homosexuality is inherently evil. This is the kind of guy that claims spongebob is a spokesman for the radicval homosexual recruitment movement.

With these and many other candidates, the South has voted against common sense in favor of anti-abortion and anti-gay candidates.

Let's take a look at Alabama. They voted against a constitutional amendment to remove now-defunct segregation laws and languagefrom their constitution.

Honestly, not only do I not think my party can win over the people in these states, I don't WANT these people. I don't WANT segregationists in my party. What do you advocate the Democrats to do, exactly, in terms of policy, to get these people on our side? Become anti-choice? Become anti-equality? I'm not trying to make a rhetorical statement, I just want to know: what exactly do you expect us to change to gain these voters?

EDIT: What have Kerry and Dean done for the Southerner? Nothing, because they won't give them a chance and elect them.

[monsoon]

Ok you are being a bit dramatic. Most of the people in the South these days are not segregationists. And the KKK has moved out of the South to join their Nazi friends in the West. Friendlier ground there.

I will point out the very first state that Dean lost was Iowa. And that is not in the South. And Kerry's last stand was in Ohio, a state ravaged by job losses to Mexico, China and the rest of the world. Yet Kerry was unable to win this state as well and this is not in the South. If you have written off the South and the Midwest, what is left?

Throughout the entire election I did not hear one concrete thing that Kerry would do differently than GW Bush that would fix the issues that you mention. So all we have left are "values" and guess what, the vast majority of the country are not in touch with Democratic values whatever that might be. Kerry would not even take a definate stand against Gay marriage, so as I Gay man, I was very disappointed in his lack of honesty.

The real question is not what will it take for Southern conservatives to vote for Democrats, but rather, what will it take for the center to vote for Democrats because this is the group this party has lost, and in big numbers too.

[knuckle50]

What we need is a candidate with the down home style of a politician, the smarts of an intellectual, and the balls to believe in what he says and doesn't let the media eat him up for saying it.

Surprise surprise, Clinton was exactly that. We Democrats need another Clinton like candidate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

I'd like to apologize for the stupid comments I made earlier. I got frustrated.

I agree that another charismatic, likeable candidate would be nice *cough*Obama*cough* but I think we as a party have to get away from the "one perfect candidate" strategy. They won with a monkey, we should be able to too (to the republicans here, just kidding). We need infrastructure and our own noise machine that can match that of the Republicans. Dean can do that. We haven't been losing on platform or policy, we're just plain bad at politics. We need to learn how to reframe our issues without compromising them.

For example, stress how we as Democrats support a woman's choice over her own body, but we want to reduce abortions, and we do that through a strong economy, contraception, etc. On gun control, we should allow the states to decide - explain how rural Montana doesn't need the same gun controls as Times Square. There's so many simple rhetorical and small policy adjustments we could make that could get us back into the majority, but we don't do it. Hopefully, Dean and Reid can do it. They both certainly have their crap together.

[Spartan]

Exactly.

I'd like to apologize for the stupid comments I made earlier. I got frustrated.

I agree that another charismatic, likeable candidate would be nice *cough*Obama*cough* but I think we as a party have to get away from the "one perfect candidate" strategy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone says thing they don't necessarily mean from time to time. Its cool B)

Obama has a bright future ahead of him. That man is a brilliant speaker. I enjoyed his speach at the DNC last year. Obviously I don't agree with him on everything, but he has a Clinton-esque eloquence about him.

[satalac]

i think we all need a big group hug , then we need to change the rule saying that clinton can't be president again. while i don't care for either party, clinton was just an awesome president in my opinion. sure he had faults, but you could tell he was a people's president. one of the best speakers too. i think it would also be fun to see al sharpton become president. in all honesty, i don't think he'd be that bad.

[Brickell]

being president isn't just relating to people and having good ideas. you have to be a good administrator too. i just don't see sharpton being that. i would love to see him run for congress though.

i hated clinton. he drove me away from the democratic party. I have to admit though, those were pretty good years.