Learn from Past?

[Benhamin]

You completely miss the point.  Nobody said people voted for Bush with a gun pointed at their head.  What has been said is that Democrats failed to put forth ANY message as to why it is better to vote for them, and this is especially true of the head of the party at the time, John Kerry.  I just  hope your state has enough balls to not  inflict this career politician on the US Senate again when Kerry's term is due.  I'm afraid however we will see him again.  It's politicians like Kerry who have destroyed the Democratic party.  We need someone new to lead the party. 

I did re-read that thread.  Much of it is on the mark.  It was thead about CLT forumers being bashed on OTHER less mature forums, but we consider that topic to be inappropriate for UP so it was deleted.  I don't see where it has anything to do with people voting for Bush or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are way off the mark. Bush's total failure as a leader should be reason enough to kick his ass out of office. Kerry whooped his ass in the debates, made him look like a fool, and had some decent plans to get this country back on track. I'm sorry you brainwashed bible belt people can't see you are screwing this country over bad.

I am proud to be from Massachusetts, the state with the smartest people (and the most technolgically advanced) state in the nation. Is it a coincidence that MA is a liberal Democrat stonghold, or is it the fact that our populace is extremely well educated as a whole that determines who we vote for? Hmm... smart people liberal, less intelligent people (and greedy heartless beotchs)... conservative. That says it all.

Bush is controling this country with fear, lies, and propaganda, I cannot believe how some of you people buy into this madness. Start thinking for yourselves and see that the way America is going is wrong! If you conservatives had listened to us in the past and developed renewable or alternate energy sources (Carter was big on this in the '70s) gas wouldn't be $3.00 a gallon in some places. Thanks Reagan, and both Bushs, for f*cking this nations energy future. Our refineries are running at 96% capacity in this country, there isn't more we can do. Maybe it's time that you guys see the flaws in conservative thinking and listen for a change, instead of oppress.

[monsoon]

Before you label me as "brainwashed bible belt people can't see you are screwing this country over bad. "you should know that I am a gay man who has voted for democrats for decades. I am about as liberal as you get.

There is absolutely no argument from me that Bush is a bad leader. I am against almost all of his policies. Yet that does not change anything I have said about democrats. They absolutely failed to put forth any message as to why you should vote for them. In fact an examination of the facts indicate that most of them have voted with Bush when they thought it was politically popular, instead of sticking to their platform. Its this lack of commitment that has caused the national democrats to consistantly lose elections, to lose congress, and to lose the presidency to the worst president since Nixon. Old time Democrats are turing over in their graves from this spineless bunch, including John Kerry, that is running the democratic party now.

I voted for Kerry but it turned my stomach to vote for such a worthless politician. I should have stuck to my guns and voted for Nader instead.

As I sad again, don't blame the voter, blame the politician. Until democrats learn this and be willing to stick to a platform, they are going to keep losing.

[Scott]

You've got it backwards...

After 9/11 an incumbent Bush administration should have been bullet proof but a scrappy John Kerry gave them a run for their money and almost de-throned them. The red state spin has been that this was somehow a great triumph for fearless leader but in reality it was almost a disaster. Perhaps next time (2008) Mr Kerry won't make some of the same mistakes like picking a better running mate.

[monsoon]

Heh, spin it as you like but the results speak for themselves. Kerry lost to the worst president since Nixon and he wasn't even as close as Gore. If you want to blame the loss on Edwards, then keep in mind that was Kerry's decision to put Edwards in that position.

Kerry may run again, but he will never win the nomination. Thanfully his goose is cooked from a national perspective.

[knuckle50]

If, by this, you are saying the elections are now decided by Southerners, then Kerry's strategy of "winning the election without the South" does indeed seem very foolish. 

If you are not saying that elections are won by Southerners, then it is a moot point and only goes to prove that Democrats do not have a compelling message anymore. 

I completely agree with what you said concerning the war and WMD's but the big failure by Democrats in this is they completely supported the President on this matter as long as they though it was politically popular.  Instead, they should have been fighting for absolute proof which none of them, including Kerry did.  Its this lack of commitment to stand for anything that has killed the national Democrats.  Hopefully some Southerners will take over the party but it seems that the Dems are going to have to lose a few more elections before this happens.  The recent nomination of Dean to the head of the party indicates they still "Don't Get It".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you even know what Dean stands for? He wants, first of all, to run a 50-state strategy, which would encompass the South. Second, he was against the Iraq war from the start and wants to make the Democrats stand up for their beliefs. I think if he was from the South, you'd automatically support him...

If we gain seats in both the House and Senate in 2006, will you admit Dean was a good choice? Want to put money on it?

[knuckle50]

I am proud to be from Massachusetts, the state with the smartest people (and the most technolgically advanced) state in the nation. Is it a coincidence that MA is a liberal Democrat stonghold, or is it the fact that our populace is extremely well educated as a whole that determines who we vote for? Hmm... smart people liberal, less intelligent people (and greedy heartless beotchs)... conservative. That says it all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go Mass.!

No, it's not a coincidence. And if you take a look at the correlation between Bush-voting states and crime rates, Bush-voting states and divorce rates, murder rates, low education standards and scores, higher prison population rates, lower incomes, lower incomes, higher church attendance, lower tolerance, etc it's quite staggering.

It's easy to get pissed off at how the South votes directly against its best interests. I've done it numerous times, just ask monsoon. It's just been so ingrained in them that everything can be solved with more guns or more Jesus that I dont think we'll win them any time this generation. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas", it really explains it. Basically, the Republican-controlled media has so ingrained this image of the "Liberal Elite" controlling everything that they've brainwashed the South into believing it, and they've got the South to vote directly against their best interests because of that.

EDIT:

The parallels between Bush and the Republicans and fascism are unquestionable, I think they've learned quite a bit. I think calling them fascists goes way too far, but it'c certainly very disturbing.

The thing I find most disturbing of all is that when 9/11 happened, the Dems rolled over and played beotch to the Republicans. 9/11 SHOULDN'T have been a good thing for Bush. Can you imagine what would've happened if Gore was president? Well, he would've been competent enough to prevent them, but even if they did happen, the Republicans would have blamed him, he probably would have had to resign in shame, with repeats of advertisements showing clips of the "seven minutes" that he sat there doing nothing. But no, the Democrats rolled over and let him be portrayed as a hero...

[Spartan]

That has to be the most asinine thing I have ever heard. You have absolutely no base for what you just said. You assume the the entire South is stupid just because we voted Republican.

the Democrats rolled over and let him be portrayed as a hero...

I just want to make sure everyone reads this statement. It speaks for itself.

[waccamatt]

Go Mass.!

No, it's not a coincidence. And if you take a look at the correlation between Bush-voting states and crime rates, Bush-voting states and divorce rates, murder rates, low education standards and scores, higher prison population rates, lower incomes, lower incomes, higher church attendance, lower tolerance, etc it's quite staggering.

It's easy to get pissed off at how the South votes directly against its best interests. I've done it numerous times, just ask monsoon. It's just been so ingrained in them that everything can be solved with more guns or more Jesus that I dont think we'll win them any time this generation. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas", it really explains it. Basically, the Republican-controlled media has so ingrained this image of the "Liberal Elite" controlling everything that they've brainwashed the South into believing it, and they've got the South to vote directly against their best interests because of that.

EDIT:

The parallels between Bush and the Republicans and fascism are unquestionable, I think they've learned quite a bit. I think calling them fascists goes way too far, but it'c certainly very disturbing.

The thing I find most disturbing of all is that when 9/11 happened, the Dems rolled over and played beotch to the Republicans. 9/11 SHOULDN'T have been a good thing for Bush. Can you imagine what would've happened if Gore was president? Well, he would've been competent enough to prevent them, but even if they did happen, the Republicans would have blamed him, he probably would have had to resign in shame, with repeats of advertisements showing clips of the "seven minutes" that he sat there doing nothing. But no, the Democrats rolled over and let him be portrayed as a hero...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what you need to remember about the South is that not everyone votes Republican here. Kerry won my county by a landslide. Dems do almost as well in some Southern cities as he does up North (Columbia being one of them, Durham being another and Atlanta being a third). The problem is that more people live in Bush strongholds in the South: the suburbs and rural areas. I would love to see Howard Dean as President with Barack Obama as his running mate. Regarding Dean, other than his right of center views on gun control, Howard Dean represents just about everything that I believe in. The problem is that it would be very difficult for him to carry any Southern states. Nobody is going to get elected President in the near future without carrying ANY Southern states. Clinton always had old reliable Arkansas and Tennessee, but unfortunately, Al Gore couldn't keep his home state in the blue column.

Now, back to a Democrat that can win some Southern states: Anyone have any ideas? Hillary, probably not, although she would be strong in the Midwest and the West coast. Dean, probably not. Edwards? Maybe. What about Mike Easley, North Carolina's governor? Warner from Virginia? I think a Democratic governor would be a good choice to get the nomination in 2006.

[monsoon]

Go Mass.!

No, it's not a coincidence. And if you take a look at the correlation between Bush-voting states and crime rates, Bush-voting states and divorce rates, murder rates, low education standards and scores, higher prison population rates, lower incomes, lower incomes, higher church attendance, lower tolerance, etc it's quite staggering.

It's easy to get pissed off at how the South votes directly against its best interests. I've done it numerous times, just ask monsoon. It's just been so ingrained in them that everything can be solved with more guns or more Jesus that I dont think we'll win them any time this generation. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas", it really explains it. Basically, the Republican-controlled media has so ingrained this image of the "Liberal Elite" controlling everything that they've brainwashed the South into believing it, and they've got the South to vote directly against their best interests because of that.

EDIT:

The parallels between Bush and the Republicans and fascism are unquestionable, I think they've learned quite a bit. I think calling them fascists goes way too far, but it'c certainly very disturbing.

The thing I find most disturbing of all is that when 9/11 happened, the Dems rolled over and played beotch to the Republicans. 9/11 SHOULDN'T have been a good thing for Bush. Can you imagine what would've happened if Gore was president? Well, he would've been competent enough to prevent them, but even if they did happen, the Republicans would have blamed him, he probably would have had to resign in shame, with repeats of advertisements showing clips of the "seven minutes" that he sat there doing nothing. But no, the Democrats rolled over and let him be portrayed as a hero...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankyou for proving my point knuckle. Spoken like a true Dean/Kerry supporter.

[monsoon]

Now, back to a Democrat that can win some Southern states: Anyone have any ideas? Hillary, probably not, although she would be strong in the Midwest and the West coast. Dean, probably not. Edwards? Maybe. What about Mike Easley, North Carolina's governor? Warner from Virginia? I think a Democratic governor would be a good choice to get the nomination in 2006.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its not just Southern states. Remember the election was decided in Ohio this time. The Democrats have two big problems.

1. They are a party of just 17 or less states. Kerry's policy of ignoring the South, untill he discovered too late this would cost him the election, is a good example of this. So now this crowd characterizes the South as a bunch of idiots as demonstrated by the above posts, rather than attempt to figure out what cost them the election. Al Sharpton said it best. "you can't be party that only appeals to the Starbucks crowd". They need to be sent back to the coffee houses for destroying the party.

2. The party absolutely refuses to adopt a platform the average middle class voter can identify with. And forget sticking to that platform. So the average person is left with wondering why they should vote for this lot. Sure Democrats have their traditional voters but this isn't enough to win elections. If you can't convince the middle class you have something to say then you are not going to get its vote. The fact of the matter is the middle class has moved to the South and that is why it is important to find a strategy to win over this bunch. Clinton as a Southerner certainly understood this and won the Presidency twice! Whoever gets the nomination next time needs to have a similar background and understanding.

Edwards might have had a chance to do this, but he might have tainted himself by his association with Kerry. I think his past ties to the Kerry/Dean crowd are going to stick to him like the tarbaby and he needs to do everything he can to separate himself from that bunch.

[AmericanUrbanDesigner]

Spartan brings up a good point.  Unlike Nazi Germany of 1939 we are not living under a dictatorship.  The problem for the people who are against Bush is they have not come up with a compelling enough story as to why they should be supported instead.  The national democratic party has completely sundered itself and really needs to look at why it lost this election rather than blame the people who did not vote for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a good point about intelligence...but one has to wonder, given the earlier, expressed, interest on the part of the neo-conservatives (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice...) that they wanted Saddam gone.

Also, the question I poised was not about Germany in 1939...it was about Germany in 1930 - prior to Hitler becoming chancellor and dictator...

[AmericanUrbanDesigner]

Though I think any comparisons to Nazi Germany is waaaay over the top...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm comparing the US to "Nazi" Germany. I'm comparing the US today to pre-Nazi Germany...

[knuckle50]

I'm comparing the US to "Nazi" Germany.  I'm comparing the US today to pre-Nazi Germany...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone who has a deep understanding of history and the circumstances around Hitler's rise sees the extremely disturbing trend taking place in American politics. I've been reading some stuff in history books lately... and it's incredibly scary.

It starts with the small stuff, like Congress violating the Constituion by passing legislation that violates the checks and balances of government (Terri's bill). Nobody really cares because it isn't major. It escalates from there.

Everything has a precedent in history. Learning about it is the best thing you can possibly do.

Taking a look even at the way liberals are disorganized and splintered by separate interests, it has a precedent. The resemblance is striking. And we're just likely that people like Harry Reid and Howard Dean are putting the party back together.

And by the way, monsoon, do you want to make a bet that the Democrats will win seats in 2006? And if they do, will you admit you were wrong about Dean? I just want to establish it now, because after the fact one can always justify and qualify what you say, so it has little meaning.

And by the way, Spartan, I was not saying the entire South is stupid because they vote Republican, I was trying to make the connection between the lack of education and bad test scores (which is a fact) and the way they vote Republican. I am not saying they are stupid, I am saying their entire view of the facts is often gotten through misinformation - Republicans are able to manipulate them, and even more so because their education system is in shambles. Republicans are able to make issues that are so ridiculous - like gay marriage - into reasons for supporting them.

[knuckle50]

I just want to make sure everyone reads this statement. It speaks for itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you honestly not believe that the Republican Party would be attacking Gore within a week after 9/11 for allowing it to happen? I'm just railing against the assessment that because Bush sees the world in simple, black and white terms, and because he talks tough, he's a good president on national security.

[Spartan]

I can't speak for the Republicans and what they would think if Gore were in that situation. If Gore handled it the way Bush did, (rather than the Clinton method of "nothing") then I would have no problem letting him be portrayed as a hero. I have no issues with supporting my leaders, democrat or republican when it comes to national security issues. Without security, all of the other things we bicker about are absolutely meaningless.

The fact is that he didn't win in 2000. Maybe some people haven't accepted that yet. It is a waste of time to debate that too much.

[monsoon]

And by the way, monsoon, do you want to make a bet that the Democrats will win seats in 2006? And if they do, will you admit you were wrong about Dean? I just want to establish it now, because after the fact one can always justify and qualify what you say, so it has little meaning.

And by the way, Spartan, I was not saying the entire South is stupid because they vote Republican, I was trying to make the connection between the lack of education and bad test scores (which is a fact) and the way they vote Republican. I am not saying they are stupid, I am saying their entire view of the facts is often gotten through misinformation - Republicans are able to manipulate them, and even more so because their education system is in shambles. Republicans are able to make issues that are so ridiculous - like gay marriage - into reasons for supporting them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know for someone who claims to come from the "more educated" portion of the USA, you seem to have a very difficult time understanding simple english. I have told you to drop trying to imply that Southerners vote for Republicans because they are all uneducated, poor and stupid. And I have told you to quit issuing challenges. This was your last post here.

The really stupid never cease to amaze me.

[nashvol85]

Puuullleeaaasssseeee. This is ridiculous. No, I don't agree with everything Mr. Bush and the Republican party does (in fact, I really don't consider myself a Republican), but to compare them to a party that has been OUTLAWED WORLDWIDE is purely ignorant. For one, Mr. Bush doesn't rule by fear (unless you are intimidated by that dumb smile of his), Hitler had massive military parades to display his military might. Hitler was a great orator, which Mr. Bush obviously is not. Hitler was able to capture the imaginations of a vast majority of German citizens and make them believe that their country would once again be the ultimate power in the world. We are not a nation of nationalists like Germany was in the 30's, and I don't see Bush preaching the same types of things that Hitler did...otherwise, he would try to ethnically cleanse the blacks or Mexicans in order to "purify" this nation.

Don't compare the Bush administration to Hitler totalitarian government. It's just not the same, and you come off sounding like a cretin.

[satalac]

i think the key point that this post was trying to make was that as a whole, the united states is doing nothing to learn from history. look at all the great civilizations that have fallen. there are plenty of parallels to the united states. it is scary to look at the similarities of 1930s germany (pre-nazi) and the united states. this does not mean that we will do what the nazi's did however. i believe that the main problem that the united states has is it's ego. sure we're a great country, but not the greatest. i don't mind pride. everyone should be proud of where they are from and the values they have, it's just when those people start forcing it on others is when it gets out of control and causes problems. it did with the germans and it's happening with us in the middle east. what's so wrong with isolationism? remember the whole walk softly and carry a big stick idea? well right now we're running around banging that stick on everybody's door. we just need to chill out and worry about our own great country right now. believe it or not, we have our own problems to deal with.

[nashvol85]

i think the key point that this post was trying to make was that as a whole, the united states is doing nothing to learn from history. look at all the great civilizations that have fallen. there are plenty of parallels to the united states. it is scary to look at the similarities of 1930s germany (pre-nazi) and the united states.

Germany's situation contributed to welcoming the Nazi party to power. They were economically devistated because of World War I and were not allowed to have any sort of army. A lot of Germans felt that they didn't deserve to be treated like that. We are not in a similar situation, and our government is set up to prevent any tyrant or party from attaining complete power. Remember, 3 branch government...

this does not mean that we will do what the nazi's did however. i believe that the main problem that the united states has is it's ego. sure we're a great country, but not the greatest. i don't mind pride. everyone should be proud of where they are from and the values they have, it's just when those people start forcing it on others is when it gets out of control and causes problems. it did with the germans and it's happening with us in the middle east. what's so wrong with isolationism? remember the whole walk softly and carry a big stick idea? well right now we're running around banging that stick on everybody's door. we just need to chill out and worry about our own great country right now. believe it or not, we have our own problems to deal with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with isolationism? Nothing, imo. The problem is that when something happens (say, Iraq invading Kuwait for example), then UN and the rest of the world expect us to use our muscle to resolve the situation. The UN thinks that they can use us for that, but when we want to help set up a new government, we shouldn't, that's their job.

Basically, if we isolate ourselves, we are being selfish, but if we assert our power then we are some sort of tyrannical nation bullying all of the others around. Personally, I say screw the UN. We should use them as a diplomatic channel...we don't have to listen to them or participate in their futile peacekeeping missions.

By the way, if we aren't the greatest country, then who is?

[satalac]

Germany's situation contributed to welcoming the Nazi party to power.  They were economically devistated because of World War I and were not allowed to have any sort of army.  A lot of Germans felt that they didn't deserve to be treated like that.  We are not in a similar situation, and our government is set up to prevent any tyrant or party from attaining complete power.  Remember, 3 branch government...

What's wrong with isolationism? Nothing, imo. The problem is that when something happens (say, Iraq invading Kuwait for example), then UN and the rest of the world expect us to use our muscle to resolve the situation.  The UN thinks that they can use us for that, but when we want to help set up a new government, we shouldn't, that's their job.

Basically, if we isolate ourselves, we are being selfish, but if we assert our power then we are some sort of tyrannical nation bullying all of the others around.  Personally, I say screw the UN.  We should use them as a diplomatic channel...we don't have to listen to them or participate in their futile peacekeeping missions.

By the way, if we aren't the greatest country, then who is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree, nothing is wrong with isolationism. we can still help countries in need, but only if we get the help from our allies. i agree about the un also. it has become weak and something needs to be done to save it. and i honestly don't think there is a greatest country. the greatest country is whatever country you decided to live in. just because i believe that the u.s. is the greatest country for me, doesn't mean that iraq isn't the greatest country for someone else. we have to step back and realize that everyone had different needs and wants. maybe the united states isn't the best for everyone. if it was everybody would be living here.

[nashvol85]

if it was everybody would be living here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Mexicans are trying real hard.

[satalac]

The Mexicans are trying real hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nah, they just want our money. haha

[monsoon]

I agree we should withdraw from the UN. That organization has become corrupt and it runs all the way to the top.

[murderingmouth]

Instead, they should have been fighting for absolute proof which none of them, including Kerry did.  Its this lack of commitment to stand for anything that has killed the national Democrats.  Hopefully some Southerners will take over the party but it seems that the Dems are going to have to lose a few more elections before this happens.  The recent nomination of Dean to the head of the party indicates they still "Don't Get It".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is one of the best statements I've seen about the 2004 elections. I think it is somewhat true these days that an election depends on the South. Kerry ignored this to his peril.

The Democratic Party is setting itself up to be the Tories of America for the next couple decades unless it builds a cogent and logical independent political platform. Right now it exists solely to be "the opposition" and its identity is based on its opposition position, rather than having any unified ideological message.

Anyone read "The Urban Archipelago"? I'm sure most of you have. What's the chances that the Dems could make a comeback by pushing themselves as the Party for the Urbs? Not just the Northeast and Left Coast urbs, but also the up-and-coming NewUrbs (meaning pushing themselves as the party of Austin, Charlotte, Dallas and Denver, Phoenix and Orange County)...

MM

[Brattleboro]

Admin's note - It seems that banned user Knuckle50 just doesn't get the message