Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Nov 3, 2004.
This just about says it all, IMO.
That "winning message" part is absolutely correct. The problem is that the message is one of individualistic morals and man's independence from responsibility to a Higher Power. That is why it is accepted by so many people, and it is where they are most mistaken.
I don't even pretend to understand that reasoning.
Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with Huffington. This idea that liberals should boldly go their own way rather than appeal to centerists is also a recipe for disaster.
Let's face it, this country has taken a hard right turn to fundamentalism, and is now in many ways in danger of becoming the "Christian" equivalent of the Taliban.
The real problem is, the Democrats can't win by appealing to the left, and they can't win by appealing to the center. The only thing that apparently wins any more is the right.
In other words, there's no longer any way for liberals to be represented in any meaningful way. And you wonder why people are talking about leaving the country?
Here's why Kerry lost:
America has taken a hard swing to the right due to hard-line conservative media spin machines. These spin machines have been pushing rulings and legislation ensuring they'll further consolidate their power and influence over the American people and their minds.
This machinery controls the course and content of political debate in America.
I can't tell you how many people I've run into that think Iraq attacked us or Kerry shot himself to get his medals.
Truth is dead. Long live the spin.
These days many Republicans remind me of Adonis smiling at himself in a mirror. Oooh, do I look good or what?
As I pointed out in another thread, Republicans have learned that winning is as much about marketing as it is about message. Democrats already have the edge on most issues, they just need to learn how to talk about the issues in a way that makes sense to Americans. I agree, this approach risks alienating some who aren't used to hearing a sharply honed message, but as we've seen in this election, winning isn't always about appealing to the mushy middle of American politics where people don't seem to know what they want or need out of the government. Huffington isn't really suggesting a hard left turn for the Democrats so much as the party's need to articulate a competing vision for the country. She argues this is where the Democratic Party has failed miserably, and I agree with her 100% in this analysis. It's why I left the party over 25 years ago and haven't ever felt an urge to return.
Exactly. Exactly. I don't hear civil discourse any more from the far right. All I hear is mindless repetition of what Karl Rove's lie machine spits out.
"And the Republicans are framing their victory as the triumph of conservative moral values and the wedge cultural issues they exploited throughout the campaign."
Well, they might be doing some "framing", but it's based on exit polls in many states as to what some of the voters considered to be important to them. Morals and values are important to many people, and this view is not at all limited to some wild-eyed "Religious Right". The issues could not have been "exploited" were they not there as issues for exploitment--they weren't dreamed up from nowhere.
This is a losing analysis. There is no virtue in a party having a muddled message. I beginning to wonder if Democrats deep in their hearts, don't want to lose.
One needs only to look towards the Middle East and see why a Theocracy is a bad idea. I would rather keep my religion and my government separate, thank you. Especially if that government's idea of morality is what we have been seeing so far.
The problem is that the Dems had no clear message. The Repubs had a very clear message and could stir those who cared enough about the issues like terrorism and "morality". They had a nice mix of hope and fear that really spoke to it's core target. Kerry was all over the place. Trying to appeal to people who disliked Bush, but were apathetic or undecided. They did not vote for him as overwhelmingly as expected. The Neo-cons have turned Liberal into a dirty word. Relating it to weakness and pointing out the extremists. The fact that they did not fight to stop this image only proved the point. Instead of focusing on domestic issues and getting the message out, they tried to fight the administration on their own turf and were constantly on the defense.
I would consider myself an Independant. I didn't like Kerry, but I voted for him simply to defeat Bush. Unfortunetly, there were not enough of us... although I do hope Bush sees that 48% and realizes he should move back towards the center like he promised in 2000 to admit to his mistakes and begin to fix them.
But we all know that's not going to happen.
BTW did anyone find out why kerry didn't release his military file? why would he coverup his military record by not signing the form 180 like W did? (I am not advocating are arguing minute points of each others past but the bigger picture). After all wasn't dean lambasted for hiding his files in a sealed box in a library? If W had not signed the form 180 and kerry had, would there be a hundred more threads of W coverup.
MM did more to help W than OBL did at the end.
I find it funny that Dems talk about no clear msg now but vigorously refuted that argument by Reps earlier in the campaign.
As I and many here stated over and over, W is not the best prez we ever had, but in no way was kerry compelling enough for the rest of us. I am a Christian but would have seriously looked at lieberman cause the guy is much less contraversal (sp), and like gore, has some more distinct family values, and not dangling off the edge of the left. Many more moderate repubs are swayable-but not by those from MA ranked as the #1 most liberal voter in the senate.
Some of you more far left types are not much different from the far right ones. The far right would probably like a more conservative pres and are angered by things like prescription drug benefits, the fact there is an energy dept or dept of Education, the deficit, etc... Piled high bueracracy with no benefit is how THEY feel. So you both are angry, the rest of us are dealing with it and are going to MOVEON.
"The far right would probably like a more conservative pres and are angered by things like prescription drug benefits, the fact there is an energy dept or dept of Education, the deficit, etc... Piled high bueracracy with no benefit is how THEY feel."
I don't think I'm "far right". Too many issues where in principle I'm fairly liberal. My "rightness", generally, comes from a disgust with liberal methodology in government programs--which I'd rather discuss elsewhere...
Anyhow, I'd question whether it's really "conservative" to want a president who actively speaks to the Constitution, or who has such concepts as individual sovereignty in the forefront of his thinking. Is it then "liberal" to deny the importance of ALL of the Constitution? Or to ignore any wish for personal liberty? I don't think so...
Prescription drug benefits for us Old Farts? Isn't this a Liberal concept? Absent means testing, isn't this purely political bribery for votes?
While the problems we now see in the schools were noted in the 1930s (according to my mother, who was involved in some research back then), I've watched the rise in political power and in the budget for the Dept/Edu. Things certainly haven't gotten better, but certainly more expensive. Why is opposition to failure "conservative"?
Piled high bureaucracy? How does anybody deny this? First off, just count up the number of laws which are hated by liberals but seem to require a large number of bureaucrats to enforce them. The WOD comes to mind, just for starters. Tell me how much fun it is to find somebody in government employ who can actually answer a question about "permits" for various purposes.
Another "for instance": Ask somebody from the Corps of Engineers to explain Section 404 for farming or timbering in or near a wetlands area. Then ask a second bureaucrat--and compare their answers.
You can follow this procedure again, but this time with IRS...
Do you like the idea that for one who was burned out during the Rodney King riots in LA, as many as 64 separate--and expensive--building permits could be required before one could resume business? This is Good?
Now: All of these "gripes": How are they "conservative"?
rat, I'm not arguing a left position. I am right on with most of what you say, but am trying to show some on the far left that the way the government looks, feels, and acts is not some right wing heaven. So far left here think that W is a far right John birch type or something. I was trying to point out to them that the far right is not as happy "yet" as most on the left think.
Far be it from me for the Far Right to be fat and contented with the way the U.S. is run.
Typically, Al Franken has a slightly different view of Kerry's defeat: