The real thing killing the liberals is this:

[fimbulwinter]

Against the political spectrum of America, I am on the left. With the exception of their horrendous financial ideals, I agree with pretty much everything that forms the basis for liberal thought. If forced to agree with one party, I would pick the democrats over the republicans, but as a libertarian I am so hated by the vast majority of leftists that I cannot support their party. Because I am Christian, I get crap from all people who have ever been wronged by any form of church. I personally have been wronged by blacks, gays, asians and, at one time or another, pretty much every subset of society, yet for me to hate one of those groups based on the actions of one of their members is, to me silly and to society at large repulsive. This is good. The fact that this kind of blatant stereotyping currently not only exists within but also greatly permeates all facets of modern American liberalism is sickening.

Want a chance in 2008?

-Pick an electable executive candidate.
(That may be a bit obtuse: Don't fuck it up when it's time again to pick Dean.)
-Marginalize your zealots (contrast how the republicans treat Pat Robertson with how the Democrats treat loose-cannon entertainment supporters)
-Find ways to co-opt those who share some but not all of your views, rather than forcing them into the "all for" or "all against" decision.

The truth of the matter is that there are thousands like me. We're the ones who end up running successful businesses, practicing local medicine and law, holding local offices and directing local organizations. We are looked up to within our communities and within our circles of friends. We swing votes. Unless they take action now, the American left will have an extremely difficult time getting me and others like me to ever vote for or endorse their candidates again after their complete, categoric failure in this last election.

fim

[Richard Tanner]

Hooray, another Libertarian is here. As for the post, yeah they need to pull their heads out of their asses. But I have a question, why is it that you side with the Dems when put to that choice.

Cody

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
-Pick an electable executive candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn't Kerry supposed to be "electable"? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"-Marginalize your zealots (contrast how the republicans"
***********************************
God luck on this.
The extreme left has the Democrat party by the gonads.


"treat Pat Robertson with how the Democrats treat loose-cannon entertainment supporters)"
**************************************
Good luck again.
Again the extreme left controls the Democrat party. When Pat Robertson types get ticked off at Repub leadership there is a small dip in turnout but they still vore for the Repubs. But when the extreme left get ticked off, they vote for people like Nader and their money goes with them.


"-Find ways to co-opt those who share some but not all of your views, rather than forcing them into the "all for" or "all against" decision."
*****************************************
Good luck again. Refer to my earlier comments.


The Republican has made TONS of mistakes but the Democrats party was been shooting themselves in the foot every chance they get. Their blind hatred of Bush43 is one of they worst (or best /images/graemlins/smile.gif )traits. The Dems have not hit rock bottom just yet... Howard Dean chairing the DNC is a sign of the Dems making a hard left turn.

[EarlCat]

Howard Dean is hardly an "electable" candidate. He's FAAAAAAR too left leaning, even for most Democrats.

The mistake the party made was neglecting a large number of moderate liberal votes to go after the relatively small number of ultra-liberal votes they lost to Ralph Nader.

If anyone could have beaten GWB, I believe it was Joe Lieberman. Every other nominee was far too anti-Iraq-war, a difficult position to argue DURING the war. Whether or not you agreed with the invasion in the first place, not falling in line and taking your own country's side once the conflict has started is political suicide. (And I'm talking perception here, so don't give me this we-support-the-troops-not-the-presdient business.)

Aside from attracting more moderate votes than Kerry could have dreamed of, Lieberman would have taken the war debate completely off the table, leaving plenty of room to criticize Bush's countless domestic blunders like the deficit, prescription drugs, campaign finance, steel tariffs, no-bureaucrat left behind, and talking about rumors circulating around the internets. If these had been the focus of the campaign Bush wouldn't have had a chance.

[knifeandfork]

senators hard to get elected these days. voting records pain in the a ss they all look like they dont know which way is up when you look at a voting record to much ammo for the oppo and the press im sure this has been said before though...

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"With the exception of their horrendous financial ideals, I agree with pretty much everything that forms the basis for liberal thought."

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I can't imagine what "financial ideals" might be but I'm curious as to which two or three you find to be the most horrendous and how the GOP eschews them.

2. If prejudicial stereotyping is something you loathe, and if it "permeates all facets of modern American liberalism," then how can you agree with "pretty much everything that forms the basis for liberal thought?"

3. What kind of "crap" to you get for "being a Christian?"

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Howard Dean is hardly an "electable" candidate. He's FAAAAAAR too left leaning, even for most Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]You clearly have no idea of his stance on issues and you're completely talking out of your ass.

It'll be Warner or Bayh in 08, with Obama as VP. You heard it here first.

Dems are already quoting scriptures right and left in 05- showing how Democratic values are in line with Christian morals. Let's do have a debate about how "It is almost impossible for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God!".

Then with Dean in charge, I'm confident Dems will have the balls to really go after the Republicans. Clearly Republicans aren't interested in bipartinsanship- they're interested in spending their heaps of "political capital"- so why should we be? Let's not bail out Jr. this time like we did Reagan in his second term.

We're gonna play ball. For example: let's call Bush's tax plan what it really is this time: A baby tax. Not a tax cut, but a tax on babies. Someone is going to eventually have to pay the bill he's racking up.

[natedogg]

What you are is a libertarian.

That's not a bad thing. For one, you're right about most things. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


natedogg

[natedogg]

Is it a tax bill or a spending bill?

natedogg

[natedogg]

The libertarian quandry:

Democrats on economy: drooling idiots or cynical panderers. Either way, they're dead, dead, wrong.

Republicans on economy: empty lipservice to some better approaches but no real action. Witness current budget for god's sake!

Democrats on personal liberty: Somewhat palatable on so-called "moral" issues like the bedroom and abortion but those two are really it. Drugs prohibition, free speech, right to arms, and others they get an 'F' like the Republicans.

Republicans on personal liberty: yeah right. Jesus never said anything about personal liberty did he? Next question.

natedogg

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"With the exception of their horrendous financial ideals, I agree with pretty much everything that forms the basis for liberal thought."

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I can't imagine what "financial ideals" might be but I'm curious as to which two or three you find to be the most horrendous and how the GOP eschews them.

2. If prejudicial stereotyping is something you loathe, and if it "permeates all facets of modern American liberalism," then how can you agree with "pretty much everything that forms the basis for liberal thought?"

3. What kind of "crap" to you get for "being a Christian?"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The idea that money used for social causes is better distributed by the government than by the private sector. The idea that spending more money now to stimulate future economic growth is a good plan long-term. many, many more. arguing that liberal ideology has a good fiscal plan is like arguing that Kim Jong Il is a beacon of physical perfection. Just because many people are on board with it doesn't mean it's not completely ridiculous, silly, counterintuitive and without historical merit.

2. Notice I never once said that modern american liberals are in line with liberal ideology. In fact one possible thesis of my post could have been that a return to that which separates liberals from conservatives ideologically is the only way for american liberals to positively identify themselves and put themselves in a position to win future elections. I'm sure you got that.

3. The conversations I've shared with Quadsoverquads and Koller (being called the friend of a serial killer, being told to burn in hell, etc.), amongst others on these bords, have more than sufficed to flesh out some of the more softcore things I've heard from defacto liberals when they've heard that I am Christian.

fim

[jaxmike]

its like pumping water INTO a sinking ship.

socialism in the US might just be getting beaten back........ all of humanity should pray it dies.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"The idea that money used for social causes is better distributed by the government than by the private sector."

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that you can think of a single social cause the government has funded after the private sector had proven any greater ability to meet the need or "better distribute" funding.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Dems are already quoting scriptures right and left in 05- showing how Democratic values are in line with Christian morals. Let's do have a debate about how "It is almost impossible for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God!".

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dems don't give a rat's ass about Christian values, and neither do the Republicans (the idea that we should legislate moral values is absurd anyway). This "values" nonsense is a red herring the Bush people threw out there, and the Dems are falling for it.

As for the scripture, the "eye of a needle" was a reference to a small doorway built into city walls so that citizens could go in and out at night without opening the main gates and making the city vulnerable to attack. Yes, it was pretty tough to fit a camel through it, but hardly impossible.

Read the rest of the bible--especially proverbs. There's plenty of virtue in becoming rich.

Oh, and painting the Dems a the anti-rich and spinnig that to be some sort of Judeo-Christian virtue isn't gonna win votes either.

[ QUOTE ]
Then with Dean in charge, I'm confident Dems will have the balls to really go after the Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure the Republicans are saying, "Bring it on." Yeaaaaaarrrrrrh!

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that you can think of a single social cause the government has funded after the private sector had proven any greater ability to meet the need or "better distribute" funding.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about retirement savings? The stock market has averaged 11.8% annual return since its inception. Social Security (created after the private sector proved superior) has averaged less than 2%.

[jaxmike]

there is nothing that the government can do socially that the private section CANT (i stress CANT as opposed to WONT) do better.

[CORed]

As much as I dislike the current administration, I have a lot of issues with the Democrats, especially their belief that every social problem can be solved by another tax-funded giveaway program. I also fault them for not, at least for the first year or two after 9/11, offering any effective opposition to the excesses of the Bush administration in resopnse to 9/11, especially the Patriot act and the proposition that the executive branch could indefinitely detain citizens simply by declaring them to be "enemy combatants". During the 2002 election, most of the Democratic congressional candidates were so afraid of being labeled "soft on terrorism" that barely a peep was heard from them regarding the massive power grab by the executive branch. Also, most Democrats, including John Kerry, actively supported the rush to go to war with Iraq. Only after things started to go badly did most start questioning whether this war was really a good idea. I can understand that the wanted to support the President during a national emergency, but even in war time, part of the roll of the opposition party should be to speak up when the administration is overstepping their authority or making bad decisions.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
senators hard to get elected these days. voting records pain in the a ss they all look like they dont know which way is up when you look at a voting record to much ammo for the oppo and the press im sure this has been said before though...

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a point, but it didn't help any that Kerry, especially early in the primary process, was trying so hard not to take a position that might offend somebody that he reinforced the notion that he was a "flip-flopper". Many of his speeches and interviews looked almost like a Saturday Night Live parody of a fence-riding politician. He came across as phony and insincere. The democrats could have won the electin with a decent candidat, but I'm not sure that any of those running in the primaries qualified.

[hetron]

The only thing that is killing the democratic party is that the right wing has managed to convince enough people in this country that the left is unamerican and socialistic if not outright demonic with broad stroke arguments that collapse like a deck of cards if anyone takes a good look at them. Go to any bookstore in the US from Florida to New York and you will see "Deliver us from Evil" by Sean Hannity on the best-seller list. Open the book up and prepare to have your intelligence insulted.

The simple truth of the matter is that despite what the posters on this board say about the left controlling the media, the right wing has managed to successfully define the left in a skewed way without the left being able to do the same back in response.

If the democrats could just convince a few more people of the following things, I believe they could disrupt the republican radio putsch to put them out of existence:

A. Government regulation and social programs are not the answer to all problems, but they are not useless in all cases either. There is data to support this.

B. Objecting to the actions of the american government is not unamerican. If I was chinese and I objected to the actions of the chinese government, that doesn't make me any less chinese. If I am german and object to the actions of the german government, that doesn't make me anyless german. Same goes here in the US of A.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
It'll be Warner or Bayh in 08, with Obama as VP. You heard it here first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think a pro-war Democrat has a shot at landing the nomination? Granted we don't know if the Iraq war will still be a hot-button issue in 3.5 years, but right now it doesn't look that promising. With an outspoken anti-war northeast liberal just being named the party chair, I'm curious as to why you think a fairly moderate Warner or Bayh will be the nominee to the exclusion of all others.

[Chris Alger]

Prior to social security, half the population over age 65 was destitute and only a handful of companies offered pensions. Your point doesn't so much argue for the absence of compulsory public pensions but for a better use of the savings generated.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to social security, half the population over age 65 was destitute and only a handful of companies offered pensions. Your point doesn't so much argue for the absence of compulsory public pensions but for a better use of the savings generated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to social security, your chances of living past 65 were fairly slim (life expectancy at the time was only 63). My argument was really just to point out how the private sector (11.8% growth in the stock market) has out performed the government (less than 2% growth in Social Security) in providing Americans with retirement savings.

And actually I would argue against compulsory public pensions (although better use of the savings would be a step in the right direction) for several reasons. First, I believe in private property rights. Protecting those rights means not stealing money from citizens. Second, the average rate of return from Social Security doesn't even keep up with a bad CD. The earnings are consistenly lower than inflation meaning you'd literally be better off spending the money now than "investing" it in this system that very closely resembles a pyramid scam.