Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

A Little Information For the Democrats

▼

A Little Information For the Democrats

from JoeUser Forums

I have hit on this every way I know how, but it seems to fall on deaf ears among those who staunchly defend the Democratic Party. Interestingly enough, though, it gains a lot of "hear hear"s from Dem defectors who find themselves in the Republican or various third parties.

The fact is, Dems, your party is going down the tubes. With so much infighting, negativity and dissension, you virtually GAVE the presidential election to George Bush. By taking your party further and further to the left, you are alienating your moderates. I think so, virtually every Dem defector I've spoken with thinks so, and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris thinks so. But you continue to defend your tactics, somehow justifying yourselves in stating that we don't represent a significant voice in the Democratic Party. You are driving yourself further into obscurity and towards extinction because you WON'T LISTEN!

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. While I can fairly say I've probably forever abandoned the Democratic Party, there are still disgruntled moderates among you that you should work to save.

Listen to these people, take what they have to say into consideration, and set about the hard work of reforming your party. Otherwise, I can virtually assure you that a Republican president will hold office in 2008 and possibly beyond, if a third party doesn't rise up and eliminate the Democratic Party altogether.

politics
8,392 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
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.


In a vote in which he put all his eggs in the basket in what is his own area of the country, the man with the most name recognition of all the candidates got a big 8.6% in that whacked out kooky state of New Hampshire. In that way out of the mainstream state of Iowa, his moderate views got him exactly zero delegates.
Its very insulting you call the Democrats ruled by kooks and zero based in fact. The same claim was made of Republicans in 1964 and they won the next presidential election.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

Its very insulting you call the Democrats ruled by kooks and zero based in fact. The same claim was made of Republicans in 1964 and they won the next presidential election.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.  The difference between 64 and 04 is that the Republicans did not allow the kooks to keep the party.  However your denial, and the tone of the leadership of the democrat party indicates that you did not learn the lesson of 64.  Indeed, you seem to think that any lesson that can be learned from anyone but your kooks must be wrong.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
whoman69 -

I suspect Johnson's implosion & Humphrey's convention riots had as much to do with that Republican victory in '68. But goes to show ya that "events on the ground" can throw all bets out at any time. And sometimes today's kook is tomorrow's visionary iconic statesman - just look at Goldwater. I still consider mysef a Goldwater Republican and that's anything but a "right wing kook" anymore. Well, maybe for Tim Robbins & Babs Streisand.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words. Somehow the right has painted Michael Moore to be the sage of the left, while Ann Coulter is nothing more than a sexy funny girl who writes articles that Republicans never read, Rush Limbaugh has a show that noone listens to, and that the evangelical right was just fraught with frustration when they said the America was to blame for 9/11 for allowing homosexuality. Kerry didn't lose because he was the kook running the party. He lost because he could not use charisma to gain a following, because he could not stay on message with the war, and let Republicans take the front seat in making all his policies flip flop.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words. Somehow the right has painted Michael Moore to be the sage of the left, while Ann Coulter is nothing more than a sexy funny girl who writes articles that Republicans never read, Rush Limbaugh has a show that noone listens to, and that the evangelical right was just fraught with frustration when they said the America was to blame for 9/11 for allowing homosexuality. Kerry didn't lose because he was the kook running the party. He lost because he could not use charisma to gain a following, because he could not stay on message with the war, and let Republicans take the front seat in making all his policies flip flop.


First, Ann Coulter did not sit in the VIP Box next to Bush I. Second, 20 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh.

No one ever said that ALL the democrats were kooks, just that the kooks are running the party. That is evident by the fact that the top 3 candidates were all left of Mikey Moore (edwards, Kerry and Dean). You want the democrats to be taken seriously? Take your party back from the kooks. Otherwise, get use to losing.

You can point to conspiracies and such, but you are the one that dismisses Liberman out of hand, instead of trying to work with him to win back the white house.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy is correct. We Republicans have our kooks, too, but the party is not led by the 700 Club, the Moral Majority, Billy Graham, and/or the John Birch Society. And we denounced Pat Robertson for that bigoted, idiotic comment about 9/11.

Charisma is not the problem, and as long as Dems think it is, they are in for continued disappointment. The electorate deserves more respect than that.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words.


Whoman,

Oh, I SEE. The GOP planted kooks undercover in the Wisconsin Democrat party in order to sabotage me into thinking they were kooks and cause me to defect to the Libertarian Party? What a dastardly, dastardly plan.

I have detailed my experiences with the Dems repeatedly, whoman...I WAS one of you, and a hard and diligent worker as well. The fact that you dismiss my experience as propaganda of the Republicans only deepens the rift between me and the Democratic Party, rather than healing it.

In other words...nicely done!