A Little Information For the Democrats

I think there was so much fighting in the party because Kerry was chosen and not everyone agreed with that. Along with that, there was a number of things that people didnt agree with, with him.

Its easy to say there wasnt infighting in the rep party because George was running again and everyone figured he was a shoe in. Wait another few years and see what happens in the rep party because they have their own issues to work out.

It also wasnt a landslide victory. Very close and came to one state deciding as well this time around.

Now with George talking about spreading freedom to the rest of the world...Im wondering in the back of my mind if he is going to try and start another war and I think just about everyone and their dog is sick of Iraq.

America may be trying to do the "right thing," but we are losing friends and gaining enemies faster and faster.

Ziggy,

I don't disagree witrh your points on the Republican Party. I'm not a Republican, and have little concern for their party. As for my own (Libertarian) party, there is much infighting in it as well, infighting that has, I believe, cost us the ability to make the significant gains that could be made with the fragmenting of the "big two", and which I have addressed repeatedly to my colleages, with mixed results. But in the case of the Republican party, they have enough cohesion to have gained almost complete control over federal policy....only a few dems need to be courted to pass virtually any bill (FRIGHTENINGLY close to a one party system).

To add insult to injury, the Dems appear to be shooting themselves in the foot in hyping Hillary in '08 (a Hillary candidacy GUARANTEES that I will vote for the Republican candidate...regardless).

I have never registered in any party, simply because I believe in voting for the best person, not a party.

That being said, this may shock some people, but I am conservative!

And I did not vote for Carter, but I was not upset that he won.  I did not vote for JFK or LBJ because I was not old enough.  However my choices since LBJ have, with the exception of clinton and Carter, been uber liberal!  I mean, you have Mondale, Dukakis, mcGovern, Gore and kerry.

I dont pretend that republicans are all that conserative, or maybe I am jost not their kind of conservative.  I call myself a Goldwater conservative.  The government that governs best governs least.  But seriously, can the democrats run a decent candidate that is not a criminal?  I would really like to vote for a decent (Lieberman), honest (Lieberman), moderate (Lieberman) democrat!

Sorry for the subliminal messages.

Joe Lieberman has about as much chance winning the election as Monica Lewinsky. He is so bland. His campaign would have zero vigor. I voted for Kerry here in Iowa because he seemed the best candidate at that early point. The fact that every other candidate all but gave up after that one victory did a disservice to the party. The next election we need an exciting leader. The election was very close and not the mandate I hear Bush supporters talk about. Kerry lost the election in August and did not have enough steam to have come back. As for congressional and senatorial elections, incumbents are very hard to beat. Very few elections were close on either side and most of those were contesting open seats. We just need to do our homework better the next time.

Joe Lieberman has about as much chance winning the election as Monica Lewinsky. He is so bland. His campaign would have zero vigor. I voted for Kerry here in Iowa because he seemed the best candidate at that early point. The fact that every other candidate all but gave up after that one victory did a disservice to the party. The next election we need an exciting leader. The election was very close and not the mandate I hear Bush supporters talk about. Kerry lost the election in August and did not have enough steam to have come back. As for congressional and senatorial elections, incumbents are very hard to beat. Very few elections were close on either side and most of those were contesting open seats. We just need to do our homework better the next time.

You are wrong.  You just heard the truth and you ignored it.  I, a conservative, would vote and would have voted for Joe Lieberman!  Even when we tell you the simple and obvious solution to your problems, you dis it!

Sorry Gid, I am afraid my democrat voting days are over.  I guess next time I will look at the Libertarian candidate a lot closer as the Republicans are going to stomp the dimocrats again.  So why waste my vote on a republican?

I think the same thing could be said about the Republican party in a few years. The umbrella has spread so wide that there is no way they are going to keep everyone under it happy. As more moderates mingle with the hardline conservatives, I think it will mirror the ultra-liberal/moderate problem in the Democratic party.

as the Republicans are going to stomp the dimocrats again.

I would like to step in here by saying the Republicans did not "stomp" the Democrats. Yes, we lost, but by a very slim margin. It certainly wasn't the mandate people say it was. And in the 2000 election, if there was a mandate at all, it was for Gore, but the electoral system put Bush in office. You can talk about how the Republicans are crushing us, but the truth is the country is roughly 50/50.

I would like to step in here by saying the Republicans did not "stomp" the Democrats. Yes, we lost, but by a very slim margin. It certainly wasn't the mandate people say it was. And in the 2000 election, if there was a mandate at all, it was for Gore, but the electoral system put Bush in office. You can talk about how the Republicans are crushing us, but the truth is the country is roughly 50/50.

Not when you refuse to learn from your mistakes.  And that was my message.

Hate does not carry over, and does not last forever.  That is all democrats had last time.  Show me something new.

Joe Lieberman has about as much chance winning the election as Monica Lewinsky. He is so bland. His campaign would have zero vigor. I voted for Kerry here in Iowa because he seemed the best candidate at that early point. The fact that every other candidate all but gave up after that one victory did a disservice to the party. The next election we need an exciting leader. The election was very close and not the mandate I hear Bush supporters talk about. Kerry lost the election in August and did not have enough steam to have come back. As for congressional and senatorial elections, incumbents are very hard to beat. Very few elections were close on either side and most of those were contesting open seats. We just need to do our homework better the next time.

You are wrong. You just heard the truth and you ignored it. I, a conservative, would vote and would have voted for Joe Lieberman! Even when we tell you the simple and obvious solution to your problems, you dis it!

I'm sorry but she's right, Lieberman would never make it through the primaries, simply because he is dull and boring to listen to. Though I respect him a great deal, I myself would have a hard time voting for someone who basically laughed at the Dems. loss in the Senate and Presidency, acting almost like he was so far above everyone that we were daft not to pick him. (Go ahead and say we were daft not to pick him[I dare you!j/k)

Reply #9 By: DNCdude - 2/4/2005 10:28:40 PM Joe Lieberman has about as much chance winning the election as Monica Lewinsky. He is so bland. His campaign would have zero vigor. I voted for Kerry here in Iowa because he seemed the best candidate at that early point. The fact that every other candidate all but gave up after that one victory did a disservice to the party. The next election we need an exciting leader. The election was very close and not the mandate I hear Bush supporters talk about. Kerry lost the election in August and did not have enough steam to have come back. As for congressional and senatorial elections, incumbents are very hard to beat. Very few elections were close on either side and most of those were contesting open seats. We just need to do our homework better the next time. You are wrong. You just heard the truth and you ignored it. I, a conservative, would vote and would have voted for Joe Lieberman! Even when we tell you the simple and obvious solution to your problems, you dis it! I'm sorry but she's right, Lieberman would never make it through the primaries, simply because he is dull and boring to listen to. Though I respect him a great deal, I myself would have a hard time voting for someone who basically laughed at the Dems. loss in the Senate and Presidency, acting almost like he was so far above everyone that we were daft not to pick him. (Go ahead and say we were daft not to pick him[I dare you!j/k)

Okay, you guys were daft for not picking him.

Whoman69 inadvertently let it slip. They think the only reason they lost is that their candidate wasn't "exciting" enough. And they obsess about the "narrow margin of victory" while they ignore the elephant (small 'e') sitting in the corner - the remarkable Republican gains in the Senate and House, not to mention governorships & state legislatures.

Look, Bush is anything but "exciting" - God knows the left reminds us relentlessly - but he got elected, and with some "serious" coattails. The left appears to be clinging to the idea that style can somehow trump substance if they can just find the right guy or gal, dreaming of a Kennedyesque enrapturement of the electorate. They forget that Kennedy was a less legitimate President (by their current standards) than Bush - his margin was razor thin (less than a quarter of a percent and less than a majority) and achieved only with Daley's dead voters. And they can't seem to figure out that Camelot never really existed - it is the media myth of Kennedy that grew from his assassination that lives on in their minds. No one really revisits the real-world political problems that Kennedy was facing or stops to ponder what might have happened in the next election had he lived.

So, while the Democrats continue to show themselves as the party of wishful thinkers and obstructionists (how about the "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"? - such a shame Spiro was a crook), the Republicans are getting things done & getting elected. Until the Democrats have a reason to run other than the raw lust for power, they're doomed to be repeatedly "shocked" at how "stupid" the electorate is.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Years of experience in customer service has taught me that people who complain are the ones you want to respond to, because if someone complains, they're interested in continuing to do business with you, but have a legitimate beef they want tended to.

Very true. I think I first learned that from Tom Peters in the 80's. More people need to take that advice to heart.

You are wrong.  You just heard the truth and you ignored it.  I, a conservative, would vote and would have voted for Joe Lieberman!

In a Bush v. Lieberman contest I would have voted for Lieberman. (Heck, I might have voted for Dean. )

They are right in saying Lieberman probably can't get through the primaries. That's excellent evidence that the primary system is seriously broken.

Okay, you guys were daft for not picking him.

Well, they asked for it.

In a Bush v. Lieberman contest I would have voted for Lieberman.

Same here. I really wondered in dismay why/how the Democrats stampeded to Kerry. I was thinking "Don't they know this man's history?". But none of his opponents attacked him on his Anti-War history during the primaries. Because IMO they thought such talk would sink themselves too. I did notice the Republicans sitting around with a grins on their face saying nothing.

While Lieberman may not be exciting, those in the middle (mostly none partisans or Moderate Republican) was looking for a person with integrity. But with the fewer and fewer moderates joining the Democrat party and the party getting smaller, the Radicals will continue to gain a higher voting percentage. No matter what the Republicans say about Clinton, he was really a moderate. But I don't think even Clinton would have won this last primary, if it was his first time running this last year.

(Heck, I might have voted for Dean. )

I just can't agree with you on that one though.

That's My Two Cents

Kerry wasn't dull and boring to listen to?

The problem with the Democrats is that the left wing of the Democratic party is severely in disagreement with everyone in in the country. I think Lieberman would have won in the 2004 presidential general election.

There has been talk about how the Democrats hope to duplicate the success of Gingrich-led Republicans in 1994. In order to do that, they need their version of the "Contract of America", a simple but powerful agenda that includes specific and verifiable actions that Democrats will take. The Democrats seem to just be the party of opposing Republicans, and as long as they do that, they will continue to be the minority.

Not when you refuse to learn from your mistakes. And that was my message. Hate does not carry over, and does not last forever. That is all democrats had last time. Show me something new.

Fair enough. But that only covers the 2004 election. What about the 2000 election? As I said,

in the 2000 election, if there was a mandate at all, it was for Gore, but the electoral system put Bush in office.

Unless the decline started after the 2000 election, I would like to know how that election showed we were out of touch.

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

Okay, you guys were daft for not picking him.

The hole system is daft I'm afraid, no matter who one in this election(In my opinion) the next four years weren't going to be something I looke forward to.

Whoman69 inadvertently let it slip. They think the only reason they lost is that their candidate wasn't "exciting" enough. And they obsess about the "narrow margin of victory" while they ignore the elephant (small 'e') sitting in the corner - the remarkable Republican gains in the Senate and House, not to mention governorships & state legislatures.

This was all again close though in general, most of those victories you seem so proud of were close, and most of the places Republicans picked up in were in the south, and in Texas(thanks in large part if I'm told right to Delay) When yo look at many other places Dems did remarkably well. Colorado for example, a Bush state, sent Ken Salazar a Democrat to the senate, the only change of hands in the representative races went to the Dems and they picked up both house in our state legislature, or Montana,(yes Montana) now has a Democrat Gov. a pickup for the party.

"Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"

You keep thinking that okay.

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

Right on!

I'm sorry but she's right, Lieberman would never make it through the primaries, simply because he is dull and boring to listen to. Though I respect him a great deal, I myself would have a hard time voting for someone who basically laughed at the Dems. loss in the Senate and Presidency, acting almost like he was so far above everyone that we were daft not to pick him. (Go ahead and say we were daft not to pick him[I dare you!j/k)

I agree and disagree. he would not have made it through the primaries, but not because he is dull and boring, but because the kooks have hijacked the party. And that is why I dont fear a democrat in the white house in the forseeable future. As long as you let the kooks pick the nominee (Mondull, Dukaki, Gore, Kerry), you are going to loose. You got one in there with Clinton, thanks to Perot.

But Perot is gone, and Clinton cant run. SO you got just your hate and idiocy left. Who's next? Robert KKK Byrd?

Whoman69 inadvertently let it slip. They think the only reason they lost is that their candidate wasn't "exciting" enough. And they obsess about the "narrow margin of victory" while they ignore the elephant (small 'e') sitting in the corner - the remarkable Republican gains in the Senate and House, not to mention governorships & state legislatures. Look, Bush is anything but "exciting" - God knows the left reminds us relentlessly - but he got elected, and with some "serious" coattails.

That gets an insightful!  And so very true!

And they can't seem to figure out that Camelot never really existed - it is the media myth of Kennedy that grew from his assassination that lives on in their minds. No one really revisits the real-world political problems that Kennedy was facing or stops to ponder what might have happened in the next election had he lived.

No, I disagree in one respect.  Great presidents are presented with crisies, and they chose the right decision.  Kennedy did in oct 62.  That is his legacy.

While Lieberman may not be exciting, those in the middle (mostly none partisans or Moderate Republican) was looking for a person with integrity. But with the fewer and fewer moderates joining the Democrat party and the party getting smaller, the Radicals will continue to gain a higher voting percentage. No matter what the Republicans say about Clinton, he was really a moderate. But I don't think even Clinton would have won this last primary, if it was his first time running this last year.

Another Insightful!  This brought out a lot of great comments!

in the 2000 election, if there was a mandate at all, it was for Gore, but the electoral system put Bush in office.

No, what made 2000 so unique was the last minute surprise (DUI).  Bush was crusiing, but in all honesty, it was not a mandate for bush, but an Anti Clinton reaction.  That and the Campaign finance scandal.  If Gore had been elected, quite likely he would have been impeached and had to resign or thrown out of office due to that scandal.  Since he lost, they just buried it.

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

You should qualify that and say he did not generate any excitement on the kook left.  Many in the middle were very energized by his candicacy, but since they are not registered, had no say.

Dont assume based upon the kook fringe of the party, or you will always be a fringe party.

This was all again close though in general, most of those victories you seem so proud of were close, and most of the places Republicans picked up in were in the south, and in Texas(thanks in large part if I'm told right to Delay) When yo look at many other places Dems did remarkably well. Colorado for example, a Bush state, sent Ken Salazar a Democrat to the senate, the only change of hands in the representative races went to the Dems and they picked up both house in our state legislature, or Montana,(yes Montana) now has a Democrat Gov. a pickup for the party

I will only say that if that is your only solace, you are doomed to failure.  On a local level, we have  democrat governor.  Why?  Because he ran as a conservative and had the money(self made).  But since every other elected office is conservative as well, that does not mean the democrats (nationally) did any thing.

Democrats get elected on a state level (and BTW< you forgot Daschle) by running as conservatives.  Not the kook fringe that has taken over the presidential nominating part.

Dr. Guy -

Wasn't referring to his concrete successes or failures, just the Camelot myth, which the party and the media has been glorifying and feeding off of ever since his assassination ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine."). The Cuban Missile Crisis was indeed his best moment, but there were other, rather less glorious moments (Bay of Pigs fiasco comes to mind), not to mention the circumstances of his election. It can't be denied that, by the left's own current definition, Kennedy was an illegitimate President.

Cheers,
Daiwa