Democrats for the future

[Mickey]

I am sure that there will be a ton of advice from all the experts on what the Democratic party needs to do to improve their political fortunes. Such debates make me want to scream as they are so often initiated by those who, if they had their "druthers", would prefer a one party state achieved through the elimenation of the democratic party. I do think a change is in the offing but it isn't the one I think most would recommend.

 

First off, tuesday's result were not that bad. A 3% loss only loos bad in comparison to 2000, the closest election in history. Kerry only lost New Mexico by around 10,000 and Nevada by 21,000 or so. Ohio was obviously close, only about 135,000. Iowa is still in the air but so far Bush's lead is only around 13,000. Those numbers are close enough that they could easily have been the other way around without OBL doing Bush a favor with that tape or without passions being inflamed over gay baiting. Those who claim the democrats have to make fundamental change because they can't capture a southern state are silent about the republicans needing a fundamental change to enable it to carry a northeastern state. It wasn't the failure to take a southern state that lost the election, it was the failure to take Ohio. If Kerry had taken Ohio, we would be talking about the fundamental flaws in the republican party that shut it out of not only the northeast but the lion's share of the Great Lakes states as well.

 

Even so, I think democrats need to face the reality of the situation which is that poor and lower middle class white voters whose economic circumstances are best enhanced by voting for democrats instead vote for republicans because of social issues. Some guy scraping by in a menial job in Alabama is not going to ever vote for a democrat no matter what happens to his economic situation. He is going to church 3 nights a week and he is going to vote for republicans because of their positions on abortion, gay baiting and religion. No matter how many jobs he loses, no matter how much his income erodes and no matter how much his economic opportunities shrink, he is more worried about gay marriage.

 

There is no way on earth for the democrats to ever get through to that kind of voter. That voter is going to find a way excuse the republicans on the economic problems in his life. He can always conclude that if it were not for affirmative action, he would have a better job. Or he can conclude that he has no job because taxes are too high. He might also believe that he is out of a job because of excess regulation. There will always be some rationale that can be used to excuse republicans for economic misery. There is too much of a disconnect between policy and economics to tie a given policy to bad economic times. This voter can't be reached by the democrats. Though his economic situation might dictate that he vote democratic, he doesn't because of social issues. The democratic party is carrying his economic water and getting nothing in return. It is high time the party abandoned this voter to the consequences of their own choices.

 

Whether it is student loans, farm loans, affordable health care, increasing the minimum wage or an extension of unemployment benefits, it doesn't matter. Democrats get whacked in the nose with their support for these things over and over and yet the voters who most benefit vote for the other party because of gay marriage, etc. The party needs to stop catering to these constituencies, it doesn't work. I say we dump them and let them go to the republican party to complain when their plant closes and their unemployment runs out.

 

There are voters that currently vote republican that could easily be presuaded to vote for democrats. There are plenty of social moderates who have no use for gay baiting or religious fundamentalism. These people by and large detest the radical agenda of the right when it comes to gay marriag or abortion. Even so, they vote republican based on tax policy and the effect taxes have on their bottom line. They simply do not care enough about social issues to vote based on those issues. Instead, they vote their pocketbook.

 

The opposition to "tax cuts for the wealthy" by the democrats has got to come to an end. They should do a 180 on this and start proposing on their own massive tax relief to the upper classes. Any such proposals by the republicans should be met with a counter proposal that increases the tax cut. Leave no doubt that the democratic party is for cutting taxes even more that the republican party is. They can't very well fight that after supporting huge tax cuts forever and ever in the past. If it drives up the deficit, who cares? Democrats have made this argument before and it never catches on. People will reach whatever conclusion they need to that justifies reducing their tax burden. The democrats should one-up the republicans at every turn on tax cuts.

 

If they can do that, then moderate republicans and democrats who vote on the issue of taxes more than anything other issue, might be persuaded to vote for the democrats especially since they would no longer have to hide or ignore their opposition to their own party's actions with regard to social issues. They could get the tax relief they want without having to buy in to the gay baiting thing. They are for stem cell research freedom, they are mostly pro-choice, they are environmentally sensitive, they have no problem with civil unions for gays and they are uncomfortable with religious extremism. The problem is, none of those issues are more important to them than taxes. Democrats could get these voters by out cutting the republicans. The repulicans can no longer continue to blame Bill Clinton and "liberals" for everything. They run the show even more so than before the election. The imaginary liberal bogeyman they have jousted for so long is dead. They now acutally have to act like they are in charge by being responsible which sometimes means telling a key constituency that they can't have their candy because it would give the budget a huge cavity.

 

If they propose a tax cut of 5%, the democrats should double it. If they propose a cut of 10%, the democrats should double even that. If it creates a huge deficit, so what? Apparently no one cares about the deficit anymore so why should we?

 

This new philosophy on tax cuts will be very popular in the west in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. It will also play well in states where there are significant numbers of moderate republicans like New Jersey, Virgina and even North Carolina. Democrats have to face the fact that socially conservative middle class voters are not going to vote for them no matter what policies they formulate. They already agree with us on those policies but aren't going to vote for us anyway because of social issues. There is no way the democrats are ever going to out play the republicans on social issues. No matter how right they might move, the republicans will move another step further even more to the right. I say we give up these voters. If they don't care that they don't have health care or a wage that allows them to live comfortably and want to vote based on gay marriage, fine, let them go.

 

We can replace them with new, socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters who only stay away now because they are afraid we are going to raise their taxes. We need to show them the opposite is true and then go after their votes.

[Alaska Darin]

Tuesday's results aren't that bad? Against a President with a less than 50% approval rating?

 

You're MUCH smarter than that.

[KD in CA]

We can replace them with new, socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters who only stay away now because they are afraid we are going to raise their taxes.  We need to show them the opposite is true and then go after their votes.

101170[/snapback]

 

That's possible, but people are staying away because of more than taxes. There is nothing moderate about the Democratic party on social issues. They actively promote class and race warfare, and until that changes, I don't care how fiscally conservative the Dems become, I won't vote for them.

 

IMO, the mainstream supports abortion rights, gun rights, the death penalty, low taxes, limited social programs, strong defense, and fiscal conservatism. Label the parties however you want, but any candidate that supports those position will get my vote every time.

[Adam]

If the Democrats can't find a candidate with a pulse- which they quite obviously couldnt in the last 2 elections, we'll have to get rid of them, and find a new 2nd party.

 

The Democrats are a joke

[bobblehead]

Tuesday's results aren't that bad?  Against a President with a less than 50% approval rating?

 

You're MUCH smarter than that.

101177[/snapback]

 

Mickey's actually on to something here. Although Bush does have a mandate due to the majorities in the house, senate, the loss of Daschle, etc. etc., anyone who tries to downplay a 3% victory and fail to see the consequences of it is just trying to spin towards the right.

 

Also, I also wondered why the Liberals let the Conservatives demonize them (I mean, I don't get liberals at all, but especialy this). Rove made liberalism a four letter word, and the liberals had no answer to that. What was Kerry doing with his "what are labels anyway?" answer? Of course there are labels!

[Adam]

Mickey's actually on to something here.  Although Bush does have a mandate due to the majorities in the house, senate, the loss of Daschle, etc. etc., anyone who tries to downplay a 3% victory and fail to see the consequences of it is just trying to spin towards the right.

 

Also, I also wondered why the Liberals let the Conservatives demonize them (I mean, I don't get liberals at all, but especialy this).  Rove made liberalism a four letter word, and the liberals had no answer to that.  Kerry with his "what are labels anyway?" answer?  Of course there are labels!

101224[/snapback]

 

I couldnt agree more- a friend was telling me he cant understand why Kerry didnt get in- he keeps telling me how much smarter JK is than Bush.

 

The fact is, people dont care about that- BUsh polarizes people- you love him or hate him. Kerry is just there.

 

Kerry focusses on future issues- people dont have enough of an attention span for that. Bush focusses on things that bring instant gratification.....which politician is the smarter one now.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Republicans are NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!! That is the single largest misconception out there. They cut taxes more than they cut spending, and that drives the deficit to new dazzling heights. Doing the math, that leaves MORE RED, no matter WHO HAS the tax burden!

 

The Democratic Party FAILED to appeal to centrists, for the anger against Bush did not carry over to as many voters as anyone predicted. Kerry SHOULD HAVE WON this election based on Bush's poor record, and because he didn't, he FAILED MISERABLY, and he deserves to go down in flames for it. His far-left, forced personality did him in, and he was just not believeable nor did he appear to honestly reflect some of the things he said. Although Bush is the master of acting like a moral figure, Kerry obviously looked the buffoon to those who weren't angry.

 

I agree with your assessment about the taxation, however, it needs to be RESPONSIBLE tax cuts... the spending MUST be cut MORE than the tax, plain and simple, and Republicans are not capable of that.

 

The Democratic Party has failed all of us who voted for it, and now I am angry at the forces who caused this colossal blunder. We have four more years of madness, and now it's time to say goodbye to the far-left of the party as the forefront of issues.

[Alaska Darin]

Mickey's actually on to something here.  Although Bush does have a mandate due to the majorities in the house, senate, the loss of Daschle, etc. etc., anyone who tries to downplay a 3% victory and fail to see the consequences of it is just trying to spin towards the right.

 

Also, I also wondered why the Liberals let the Conservatives demonize them (I mean, I don't get liberals at all, but especialy this).  Rove made liberalism a four letter word, and the liberals had no answer to that.  What was Kerry doing with his "what are labels anyway?" answer?  Of course there are labels!

101224[/snapback]

I'm not spinning anything. I'm not going to disagree that the Democrats nominated an incredibly weak candidate. It's also not a surprise they did that, given the party is FILLED with them.

[Mickey]

Tuesday's results aren't that bad?  Against a President with a less than 50% approval rating?

 

You're MUCH smarter than that.

101177[/snapback]

He is an incumbent and we are at war. Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war? I can't think of a single one. Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 35. How many by less than 3%? Only 9. That means that this election was closer than 80% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 20% were this close or closer. The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers. If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ.

[BillsGuyInMalta]

I couldnt agree more- a friend was telling me he cant understand why Kerry didnt get in- he keeps telling me how much smarter JK is than Bush.

 

The fact is, people dont care about that- BUsh polarizes people- you love him or hate him. Kerry is just there.

 

Kerry focusses on future issues- people dont have enough of an attention span for that. Bush focusses on things that bring instant gratification.....which politician is the smarter one now.

101235[/snapback]

Exactly, what the Democrats need is someone with charisma. Kerry had some interesting ideas, but the guy was flatter then a piece of wood. They need someone who invokes passion in the people through his speeches and actions, Kerry just kinda plodded through this entire process.

 

I keep hearing that Democrats really hope that Barak Obama continues his success at the federal level, but if you only have one gem in a box of rocks, the party has some issues. Dont get me wrong, I think Obama is going to be something special, I just dont see many other Dems having his charisma and talent.

[DCgirl]

Mickey - I agree with you that the fact that Kerry lost to Bush doesn't mean the Democrats have serious issues. It was very close and Kerry was a liberal senator from "Taxachusetts." However, I do think the losses in the House and Senate (esp. Daschle) are more significant for the Democrats. Bush is the only President in a long time to increase his party in Congress. That didn't happen to Reagan OR Clinton. That to me does show that the Democrats are out of touch with "middle America."

 

I am an independent but I typically vote Republican because I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal and as you pointed out - I care more about the fiscal issue than the social one. However, even though I am socially liberal - I respect people with different views and do not think the federal government should try to impose its will on people on social issues. I think gays should be allowed to marry but I do not want the federal government telling states that they have to allow it. It should be up to the states to decide. The same with abortion. I am pro-choice but I do not think the federal courts or federal government should impose this on people. So I do think that the Democrats could be socially liberal without trying to impose their views on others.

 

But back to the fiscal issue - as much as I dislike Clinton because of his lack of morality - I did agree with many of his economic policies. The Democrats don't need to offer tax cuts and more tax cuts. But they DO need to control their spending. I know this may sound dumb since Bush has spent like a maniac and has upset many fiscal conservatives. But I really think if the Democrats were more fiscally conservative - they would attract a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents. And if they put up a conservative Democrat from the south or midwest - they could pick up some of the swing states, which would be enough to win the Presidency.

 

That's what I would suggest for 2008. But I hope the Democrats don't put up Edwards (a good looking guy with no experience) or Hilary Clinton (could never get more than 45% of the vote) or I will be voting Republican yet again.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

He is an incumbent and we are at war.  Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war?  I can't think of a single one.  Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 60.  How many by less than 3%? Only 9.  That means that this election was closer than 87% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 13% were this close or closer.  The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers.  If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ.

101268[/snapback]

 

Lyndon Johnson bailed out; he would surely have been defeated.

 

Not a SINGLE incumbent LOST during a war... you are right sir!

[Mickey]

That's possible, but people are staying away because of more than taxes.  There is nothing moderate about the Democratic party on social issues.  They actively promote class and race warfare, and until that changes, I don't care how fiscally conservative the Dems become, I won't vote for them.

 

IMO, the mainstream supports abortion rights, gun rights, the death penalty, low taxes, limited social programs, strong defense, and fiscal conservatism.  Label the parties however you want, but any candidate that supports those position will get my vote every time.

101205[/snapback]

What makes moderate republicans moderate is that they in fact do support abortion rights, reasonable gun control, environmental issues etc, etc. Rudy, Pataki, Whitman hold these views. Democrats are never ever going to be able to out gay bash the right or move to the right of their abortion position. Republicans who like Powell, Whitman, Pataki etc, do not support bans on gay unions, abortion etc. They even support affirmative action in some forms. Both Rice and Powell publicly split with the President on that issue. Democrats can easily be just as pro tax cut and defense as the right, even more so if they choose. It will not offend their core constituency at all. It will leave moderate republicans with no reason not to vote democrat. Why would they vote to lose the reproductive freedom they want if they can keep that and get the tax relief they want?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If the dems were:

 

Strong on Defense

Strong for Smaller government

Strong on Free Trade and Markets

Strong on Reduced taxes

 

I'd vote for them. Unfortunately for them, they'll NEVER be for any of these, so they'll never get my vote.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

If the dems were:

 

Strong on Defense

Strong for Smaller government

Strong on Free Trade and Markets

Strong on Reduced taxes

 

I'd vote for them. Unfortunately for them, they'll NEVER be for any of these, so they'll never get my vote.

101293[/snapback]

 

Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson were all strong on defense. "Something happened on the way to that place..."

[BuffaloBorn1960]

I am sure that there will be a ton of advice from all the experts on what the Democratic party needs to do to improve their political fortunes.  Such debates make me want to scream as they are so often initiated by those who, if they had their "druthers", would prefer a one party state achieved through the elimenation of the democratic party.  I do think a change is in the offing but it isn't the one I think most would recommend.

 

First off, tuesday's result were not that bad.  A 3% loss only loos bad in comparison to 2000, the closest election in history.  Kerry only lost New Mexico by around 10,000 and Nevada by 21,000 or so.  Ohio was obviously close, only about 135,000.  Iowa is still in the air but so far Bush's lead is only around 13,000.  Those numbers are close enough that they could easily have been the other way around without OBL doing Bush a favor with that tape or without passions being inflamed over gay baiting.  Those who claim the democrats have to make fundamental change because they can't capture a southern state are silent about the republicans needing a fundamental change to enable it to carry a northeastern state.  It wasn't the failure to take a southern state that lost the election, it was the failure to take Ohio.  If Kerry had taken Ohio, we would be talking about the fundamental flaws in the republican party that shut it out of not only the northeast but the lion's share of the Great Lakes states as well.

 

Even so, I think democrats need to face the reality of the situation which is that poor and lower middle class white voters whose economic circumstances are best enhanced by voting for democrats instead vote for republicans because of social issues.  Some guy scraping by in a menial job in Alabama is not going to ever vote for a democrat no matter what happens to his economic situation.  He is going to church 3 nights a week and he is going to vote for republicans because of their positions on abortion, gay baiting and religion.  No matter how many jobs he loses, no matter how much his income erodes and no matter how much his economic opportunities shrink, he is more worried about gay marriage. 

 

There is no way on earth for the democrats to ever get through to that kind of voter.  That voter is going to find a way excuse the republicans on the economic problems in his life.  He can always conclude that if it were not for affirmative action, he would have a better job.  Or he can conclude that he has no job because taxes are too high.  He might also believe that he is out of a job because of excess regulation.  There will always be some rationale that can be used to excuse republicans for economic misery.  There is too much of a disconnect between policy and economics to tie a given policy to bad economic times.  This voter can't be reached by the democrats.  Though his economic situation might dictate that he vote democratic, he doesn't because of social issues.  The democratic party is carrying his economic water and getting nothing in return.  It is high time the party abandoned this voter to the consequences of their own choices.

 

Whether it is student loans, farm loans, affordable health care, increasing the minimum wage or an extension of unemployment benefits, it doesn't matter.  Democrats get whacked in the nose with their support for these things over and over and yet the voters who most benefit vote for the other party because of gay marriage, etc.  The party needs to stop catering to these constituencies, it doesn't work.  I say we dump them and let them go to the republican party to complain when their plant closes and their unemployment runs out.

 

There are voters that currently vote republican that could easily be presuaded to vote for democrats.  There are plenty of social moderates who have no use for gay baiting or religious fundamentalism.  These people by and large detest the radical agenda of the right when it comes to gay marriag or abortion.  Even so, they vote republican based on tax policy and the effect taxes have on their bottom line.  They simply do not care enough about social issues to vote based on those issues.  Instead, they vote their pocketbook.

 

The opposition to "tax cuts for the wealthy" by the democrats has got to come to an end.  They should do a 180 on this and start proposing on their own massive tax relief to the upper classes.  Any such proposals by the republicans should be met with a counter proposal that increases the tax cut.  Leave no doubt that the democratic party is for cutting taxes even more that the republican party is.  They can't very well fight that after supporting huge tax cuts forever and ever in the past.  If it drives up the deficit, who cares?  Democrats have made this argument before and it never catches on.  People will reach whatever conclusion they need to that justifies reducing their tax burden.  The democrats should one-up the republicans at every turn on tax cuts. 

 

If they can do that, then moderate republicans and democrats who vote on the issue of taxes more than anything other issue, might be persuaded to vote for the democrats especially since they would no longer have to hide or ignore their opposition to their own party's actions with regard to social issues.  They could get the tax relief they want without having to buy in to the gay baiting thing.  They are for stem cell research freedom, they are mostly pro-choice, they are environmentally sensitive, they have no problem with civil unions for gays and they are uncomfortable with religious extremism.  The problem is, none of those issues are more important to them than taxes.  Democrats could get these voters by out cutting the republicans.  The repulicans can no longer continue to blame Bill Clinton and "liberals" for everything.  They run the show even more so than before the election.  The imaginary liberal bogeyman they have jousted for so long is dead.  They now acutally have to act like they are in charge by being responsible which sometimes means telling a key constituency that they can't have their candy because it would give the budget a huge cavity.

 

If they propose a tax cut of 5%, the democrats should double it.  If they propose a cut of 10%, the democrats should double even that.  If it creates a huge deficit, so what?  Apparently no one cares about the deficit anymore so why should we?

 

This new philosophy on tax cuts will be very popular in the west in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.  It will also play well in states where there are significant numbers of moderate republicans like New Jersey, Virgina and even North Carolina.  Democrats have to face the fact that socially conservative middle class voters are not going to vote for them no matter what policies they formulate.  They already agree with us on those policies but aren't going to vote for us anyway because of social issues.  There is no way the democrats are ever going to out play the republicans on social issues.  No matter how right they might move, the republicans will move another step further even more to the right.  I say we give up these voters.  If they don't care that they don't have health care or a wage that allows them to live comfortably and want to vote based on gay marriage, fine, let them go.

 

We can replace them with new, socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters who only stay away now because they are afraid we are going to raise their taxes.  We need to show them the opposite is true and then go after their votes.

101170[/snapback]

Mickey,

 

Although well stated...I think you are missing the big picture...

 

Your Candidate lost to a sitting president with almost everything going against him...

 

- Liberal Media threw everything at him 3-1 against him... fabricating documents... faulty exit polls designed to repress the vote

 

- Insurgents in Iraq making news every day... see above comment on media...

 

- Terrible economics news.... see above comment on media....

 

- He was Dumbest president ever... see above media comments.....

 

- The world hates him... see above media comments....

 

All those things and he still managed to...

 

Increase his electoral victory...

 

Increase his popular vote and win the majority of votes..

 

Increase party seats in Senate & Congress

 

I say this was the Dems best chance and they blew it.... The Liberal left Kerry/Kennedy faction that took over your party is out of touch with the majority of Americans! Until your party realizes this and turns to the more moderate element of the party(and there is one there) it will continue to get pounded by just about anyone the republicans choose to present.

 

America needs strong leaders on both sides..

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson were all strong on defense. "Something happened on the way to that place..."

101298[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly. I'd have likely voted FOR Truman, but against Kennedy and Roosevelt and Johnson, though. The latter three were simply TOO big of spenders.

[Mickey]

Republicans are NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!! That is the single largest misconception out there. They cut taxes more than they cut spending, and that drives the deficit to new dazzling heights. Doing the math, that leaves MORE RED, no matter WHO HAS the tax burden!

 

The Democratic Party FAILED to appeal to centrists, for the anger against Bush did not carry over to as many voters as anyone predicted. Kerry SHOULD HAVE WON this election based on Bush's poor record, and because he didn't, he FAILED MISERABLY, and he deserves to go down in flames for it. His far-left, forced personality did him in, and he was just not believeable nor did he appear to honestly reflect some of the things he said. Although Bush is the master of acting like a moral figure, Kerry obviously looked the buffoon to those who weren't angry.

 

I agree with your assessment about the taxation, however, it needs to be RESPONSIBLE tax cuts... the spending MUST be cut MORE than the tax, plain and simple, and Republicans are not capable of that.

 

The Democratic Party has failed all of us who voted for it, and now I am angry at the forces who caused this colossal blunder. We have four more years of madness, and now it's time to say goodbye to the far-left of the party as the forefront of issues.

101256[/snapback]

The facts are that over and over in all the polls Kerry did better or essentially even on the issues from the economy to Iraq. Where he lost was so called "moral issues" and that means gay marriage, abortion and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Economically distressed voters in Ohio especially which has been killed with job losses over the last 4 years did not cast their vote based on that distress. They excused the administration of responsibility for that. Those excuses are so familiar to us all we could recite them by rote: Economic forces are outside the President's control, He inherited a recession and stock Rosen that was Clinton's fault, 9/11 cost us lots of jobs, we had to go to war and that hurt the economy, his tax cuts haven't had time to do their magic, etc, etc. Apart from excuses, he can also blame shift to democrats with oldies but goodies like: tax and spend, overregulation, environment over business, affirmative action, etc, etc. The result is that the Republicans get a pass on responsibity for economic misery. That voter instead votes on social issues just as all the after election polls indicate. Democrats lost because these voters do not vote on economic issues and instead vote based on gay marriage and the like.

 

I say screw them. Let them go to the Republican's begging for an extension on their unemployment benefits. I am tired of them enjoying government programs and then bitching about big government and taxes and labeling the democrats as tax and spend maniacs. If they would rather ban gay marriage then have a job then let them keep voting for republicans. I think we should reward the people who would support us if we did reward them because these people will not. Why fight for a middle class tax cut if the middle class in Ohio is going to screw you over because of gay marriage? Maybe if we were rewarding the wealthy a little more and the upper middle class in places of increasing wealth and population like Arizona, Nevada and the like, we might build some strength in the west to add to our lock on the northeast. These people are socially more in line with our party's position, so much so that Bush even announced that he was pro civil union despite the party plank to the contrary on the eve of the election. He didn't do that out of principle my friend, it was smart, albeit craven, pandering to the moderates in his party. Lets steal those moderates from under his nose because the second they start backing off social issues to keep their moderates they lose their evangelical base. That is the weakness of the republican party and that is where we need to challenge them.

[Mickey]

Exactly, what the Democrats need is someone with charisma.  Kerry had some interesting ideas, but the guy was flatter then a piece of wood.  They need someone who invokes passion in the people through his speeches and actions, Kerry just kinda plodded through this entire process. 

 

I keep hearing that Democrats really hope that Barak Obama continues his success at the federal level, but if you only have one gem in a box of rocks, the party has some issues.  Dont get me wrong, I think Obama is going to be something special, I just dont see many other Dems having his charisma and talent.

101276[/snapback]

I disagree. I don't care if Kerry were the charisma king. White evangelical christians are not going to vote for a party that favors gay civil unions and reproductive freedom. It ain't going to happen.

[Mickey]

If the Democrats can't find a candidate with a pulse- which they quite obviously couldnt in the last 2 elections, we'll have to get rid of them, and find a new 2nd party.

 

The Democrats are a joke

101212[/snapback]

Really? Thats 54,996,123 jokes. For a party that is such a joke, there sure are a lot of us.