A call to Democrats everywhere.
 

I thought we could pull it through this time. I woke up this morning expecting the battle for Ohio to be in full swing. I was wrong, along with a lot of us. Looking at the results so far and everything else that has happened up to this point, I ask myself, what has happened to this party? Where did we go wrong? Did the democrats not pay enough attention to the south? Is the party really not in touch with mainstream America? Is a lot of soul searching necessary in order to pick up the pieces and move on? I don't know about the rest of you, but one good thing that has come out of this election so far is that I am personally going to get more involved with this party and try and help to turn things around for all of us. Just like John said in his speech earlier today, don't lose faith. I don't plan to. I believe in this party, its values, its ideas for this country and I believe that we can all make it a better one. I am upset over this loss, but I'm going to turn that energy into making this party better and I think that we can make real change in this country for generations to come.

Don't lose faith everyone.

Personally, I think you hit it right there. Of course, I don't see that as a problem. I have issues with any party or candidates who will change their views of what's best based on what's more "in touch" with America.

I hope people listen to this, because it would get very boring very quickly if all the Democrats just ran crying to Canada instead of working toward what they want to see. :)

I'm pretty shocked at the results.

Disappointed.

But Bush is president again, I'm I'm really just glad to get all this shit behind us. Both parties were getting REALLY annoying with their personal attacks on other parties.

I don't think Bushs final term will be as bad or terrifying as everybody says, so I'm just gonna cheer up and say congrats Bush.

I am a far right nut job in the general scheme of things, and I think I will join the democratic party just to try and help them become a reasonably viable entity for future contests.

In current form, they are pathetic and run by thugs. With the incumbant as poor as he is, this should have been a cake walk. Instead the democrats put forth an admitted war criminal with zero accomplishments of distinction his entire political career, and were rightly handed their asses.

I am hearby pledging to do what I can to create or even mold a viable alternative to the republican party.

IMHO it starts with Terry McAuliffe...

Terry...you're fired!

If we can't have true conservativism, at least we should be able to have gridlock, with a congressional check of the executive branch. Ideally a democratic executive with a republican congress, but a republican white house with a democratic congress would be the second best choice.

-bear

Simply put, I hope this is the beginging of the end for the Democrats. And I really hope the libertarians take their place.

Want some unsolicited advice?

Consider respecting the people who voted against you. You will clearly need some of them in the future. I don't mean all democrats, but, be honest, most of you think Bush and those who voted for him are stupid or ill-informed and you like to talk about that a lot. You can ride smug superiority all the way to Whig status or open your minds up a little bit. Don't be insulted if this isn't true for you, but this way of thinking was almost uniform for the dem.s I talked with this time around.

Consider whether the message is too shrill and negative.

Consider whether or not having activist liberal judges making legislative policy is really a good thing. Nothing loses you elections like having social issues on the ballot that are only there b/c four democrats in robes from Mass decided to make decisions for all of us.

Consider your leadership. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are your two most powerful leaders. That's great if you want to be king of NY or LA. Start giving your midwestern leaders something important to do.

Tell Michael Moore to shut his trap.

Stop being so divisive on college campuses--that stuff sticks with people, for and against you and the fors are so rabid they turn off most leaners.

Act like you respect those in the military more than Springstein.

Let Hollywood go. Babs isn't helping you.

Listen to Bill Bradley.

I'm sure we could come up with a list for the rep.s too, except they did seem to win everything.

Agreed that Terry needs to go today. Us dems are down but not out. 51-48 is not a mandate folks.

I heard something on the way home..Its not good when a democrat cant carry a southern state anymore....Gore couldnt carry his OWN southern state in 2000, Edwards couldnt do it in 2004. Heck Bush won 36 of the 58 counties in California and 39 of the 62 counties in NewYork (I just picked states on each coast with a high electoral count)

The democratic party its not what it was in Kennedy's time, it seems to me they really dont hold with that way of thinking anymore.

Look at this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm
click on the past elections tab and start over at the left in 1948 and see how democratic the south was until the 1964 election..... Maybe the dem party needs to take a look and remember what values and politics kept them popular and start re evaluating from there

i would be much happier if the choice were between a libertarian agenda and the current republican platform. in fact, havintg those two parties duke it out would be very close to my preferred political balance.

Libertarians vs Republiacns provides no debate over the economics of the country. It'd just be people who don't tax AND don't spend and people who just don't tax but spend anyway. I would much prefer to see Greens and Libs - both ends of the economic spectrum taken to their logical conclusions and both parties pretty hands off in terms of social issues.

Of course, as we see in this election apparently it's the social issues that drive America. So, in that sense maybe Libs vs Reps is more reasonable to hope for. However, I don't think many Dems would be comfortable migrating to the Lib platform. To most Dems, the Lib platform is one of cruelty, not helping other people and giving stuff away. It's not that Libs are cruel though, Libs just think that it's not their choice to make. Either way, I just can't see most dems - at least not the truly liberal ones - going for a Lib platform.

Personally, I'd be happy with the Libs replacing either of them.

the problem is that the party has catered to the kool-aid drinkers for too long, and has managed to piss off it's former core constituencies by pandering to the far, far left. If hte Democrats had nominated a moderate, they'd have won. They didn't, so they lost.

Del, the Dems lost the white House, lost seats in both houses of congress, and lost the popular vote by close to 4 million votes. It's a mandate.

I know there are a lot of Lib. on this forum but when that party runs neck and neck with Paroutka (sp?) and gets beat handily by Nader in states Nader was on the ballot.... I don't see it picking up any momentum.

What I think the Dem party needs to do and I have said this for sometime, get rid of the special interests of the party (the truly wacko left) and become a centrist party. Doesn't mean you have to change stances on issues just means you need to CHANGE THE FOCUS of what issues you want out there and to be recognized with. The Dems focus far far too much on minority issues and want to make those issues laws everyone must deal with.... the Heartland and South will never allow it, and unfortunately the minorities are too small to elect nationally.

Drop frontlining:
Gay Rights - take the stance that it is not a Federal issue that it is a states rights issue but find a way to pass a law that when in the hospital or for insurance purposes the person paying HAS THE RIGHT to have anyone see them or covered. Hey, if I have an insurance company and a gay man wants to cover himself and his SO and pay for that then it should be his right to. Not a moral or legal matter. Same with any benefits (hospital visitation, spouse discounts, etc.) as long as the person pays I don't care who he/she brings. (GOP doesn't want any of this.... giving states and the people the right to choose how they want to live AND allowing gays perhaps not marriage but at least some form of dignity and rights enjoyed by everyone else)

Abortion - it is a woman's body but again it should be a right that a state or community votes on. If Ohio doesn't want abortion we should not be forced to have it. (GOP wants to do away with Abortion all together.... advantage DEMS by giving the people and states the choice and not a federal mandate one way or the other)

gun control - Again make it a community and state issue, but do outlaw assault weapons. make legal only weapons the police department is allowed. I don't give a rat's ass what the NRA says NOONE SHOULD BE MORE ARMED OR HAVE MORE POWERFUL WEAPONS ON THE STREET THAN THE POLICE. (Advantage: Dems. there are far more people that would agree to that than a form of stricter gun control or absolutely no gun control. Plus again you give the state, the people and the communities the right to choose how the want to live. GOP would have no gun control nor have allow states the right to choose (because the NRA might see people want certain weapons taken of the streets).

Religious hate - Stop pandering to those who file lawsuits because God is mentioned somewhere on a public platform. Make sure people understand the government will not allow religious bullying but if people in government offices choose to have religious items shown than that is their right to do so. If a community wants a Christmas Parade or Tree in it's downtown and a majority have voted to allow it then so be it. (Advantage - Dems noone is forcing religion and you are allowing the true freedom of such. Some religious people the Dems have lost may come back.)

affirmitive action - make sure you give the Equal Employment Boards a way to enforce discrimination violations, but do not force companies to have %ages and quotas they don't work and they breed contempt. (Advantage - Dems you regain the section of people you lost by supporting AA and shoving it down people's throats.)

Focus heavily on:

Education - create more funding and ways to advance the technology and methods used to educate today.Yes, it may require a lot more funding but I believe people will be ok with a truly great and worldly competitive education system

rebuilding the infrastructure - offer companies incentives to build factories here, people can say we are getting away from the manufacturing industry, but that is suicde because that is what truly makes an economy move... the making of things... otherwise we rely on not so friendly governments to make items and we have nothing to trade them back with.... hence trade deficits. Require companies that do downsize and/or close to pay the worker's reeducation/training and offer paid job counselling until the worker has a new job of equal or better pay. Companies that keep over 75% of their employees for over 20 years recieve a tax credit every year that 75% retention stays there

rebuilding a government that focuses on the future as a whole not on select issues

What are the special interests that this party panders to going to do? Go GOP? Start their own party and truly lose any power they may have?

Somewhere along the line the Dems deemed it necessary to pander and sell votes to extremist groups. The GOP does it also but the Religious Right and NRA are far more powerful than all the small little groups the Dems have.

It is not that hard to see that the Dems allow too many special interest groups pull their ideas too far left for the mainstream. If the Dems focus on center and on bettering ALL PEOPLE's lives then they should be able to defeat the also heavily burdened GOP handily. There is no doubt in my mind what I have described is the road to victory. The problem is the Dems know it they just are scared to cut the special interest umilical chord.

That's why people say lesser of 2 evils both parties have lost focus on the true majority and have made it so that people are voting for one side simply because the other side's special interests scare them

I'm appalled at the lack of civility in this board. There really can't be a thread without constant attacks. Lighten up.

pan, gun control of ANY form is unacceptable in the South and Midwest.

You want to get pro-gun people to work for the Democrats? Fine. Have the Democrats lead the charge to get rid of the stupid gun control laws on the books. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind. We don't fall for the "I support the Second Amendment for hunters, but want to ban the militarily effective weapons" ploy, as Kerry has proven yet again.

I have to agree somewhat Daswig.... but I submit the Dems are just scared to be moderate as a party, that their whole identity has become that of the special interest party .... and yeah someone maybe for gay rights but he's tired of affirmative action and the religious haters so he votes GOP knowing that an issue he supports may lose but at least the other issues he has imported interest to will still be ok and handled the way he wants them to be.

maybe democrats should articulate their values. certainly bush has convictions based on his moral beliefs and many voters were attracted to this. the democrats do not take a strong stand when it is needed and their values do not shine through. instead of projecting deep convictions about protecting the environment, helping the downtrodden amoung us or whatever else, they come off as pandering to scattered special interests. as a result, many citizens think democrats are lazy tax-hungry unpatriotic godless sodomites.

democrats in congress lethargically opposed the war, another particularly moral issue (see john paul II). then things started going bad and their outrage seemed to be more partisan than anything. seemed like they were jumping ship at a time of trouble to many people.

having some direction would really help. it's becoming the "not republican" party.

AMEN! The Democrat/Republican two party system had a good run, but the time is fast approaching that we will need something a little less....redundant. A libertarian president would have NEVER gone to a preemptive war (actually a true conservitive president wouldn't either, but that's for you republicans to figure out). Libs got 376,000 votes. That's more than Green and Constitution party candidates combined. :thumbsup:
Keep up the good work and we'll be free soon.

From what I understand, the Republican party had problems like this at one point, and what they did is a good example to follow for us Democrats.

They took a step back, and asked themselves, "What does it REALLY mean to be Republican?".
Then, they put alot of effort into educating young people about what it means to be a Republican, and created a generation of politically-savvy young adults who are bred Republicans.

The Democratic party doesn't seem to be putting nearly enough effort into spreading their ideals and helping people become more politically-savvy.

I think alot of good will come from this defeat, because the first step is always admitting you have a problem, and it seems like people realize that we do have a problem here.

This is where it's at. I'm a Democrat. I believe in Kerry's policies much more than Bush's. You know why I was pulling for Bush? Because every single Democrat I've ever met believes that anyone who is not Democratic (and ESPECIALLY the Republicans) are simply fucking idiots. This is not the case. There IS such a thing as two political parties; two parties with different beliefs within the US is not uncommon. It seems in the past four years that every Democrat that gets the chance to say something negative about our Government MUST chime in that all Bush supporters are fucking stupid and ignorant. It's simply pathetic how closed-minded and IGNORANT 90% of the Democrats were this time around. Accept that some folks have different political views and GET OVER IT.

The college campus situation is correct as well. There are so many Democrats at my school that say all Republicans are morons and that Bush is worse than Hitler (literally) that it really turns me off to even consider voting Democratic. The Democrats push and push and push everyone to hate Bush, and frankly, it makes you hate those exact people. The Republicans on campus said vote for who you want to...the Democrats said if you vote for Bush then you're a fucking moron. Which side do leaners choose?

And the idiot Michael Moore. Good film-maker? Yes. Liar? Yeah. Having that moron on the Democratic side is a bad move. He's doing everything I mentioned in my first paragraph to the 10th power.

Like I said before, I'm a Democrat, but I was actually pulling for the Republican side for this election because the Democratic state was ridiculous. All of the crazed Democrats need to get that there's more than one political party and that non-Democrats aren't ignorant bastards.

-Lasereth

I agree with what almost everyone said about the Dems.

If you look at the Democratic map, it might as well call itself New Englifornia. I remember during the Gore campaign he said, "we dont need the South" in an offhand remark which I'm pretty sure he didnt know the camera was on. Well that got played a LOT down here, and lots of Dem friends of mine said fuck the democratic party and went republican from that. I'm sure Florida has gotten lots of dem. attention but other than that all we hear is from people like Moore saying how stupid and backwards we are because we support a guy who actually lives down here.

Stop trying to make white people feel bad to be white. Affirmative Action was great long ago, but now this % black, % white vote pisses off as many blacks as whites that I know. You cant convince a "good ol' boy" to vote for you if you tell him because what his great-great grandaddy did (or maybe even didnt do) he cant get hired.

Tell Hollywood to STFU. Sorry, but 99% of the US only laughs when P. Diddy, and Streisand tells us who to vote for. It's hard to pretend to be the "party of the people" when all of the visible supporters are multi-million dollar people with no visible talent, or any reasonable claim of political intelligence.

I hear all the time on these boards of neo-cons. Well most Republicans are moderates, as well as Democrats. If Bush continues on his slope of pandering to the far right you have a great opening of grabbing some of those ex-Reps., instead of nominating an ultra-liberal voter for president try a moderate one we can't hate for his voting record.

Personality... Gore.. then Kerry. It's REALLY hard to get behing people who cant answer a simple question withing 15min.

Lasereth,

Couldn't have said it better, but it means so much more to have it come from someone on the other side of the aisle. Thanks for the post.

There's a lot of good comments here. I myself was looking for a reason to vote Democratic this time around but the more I looked the more I realized the Dems were to far to the left on every issue. There seems to be no middle ground, you either swallow their leftist views or your a dumbass. I believe we should protect the environment, but closing off thousands and thousands of acres of PUBLIC land to everyone but hikers is ridiculous. I believe in some gun control, but we have more then enough laws on the books now that aren't adequately enforced and the AWB was ridiculous. Kerry's stance on the AWB probably hurt him as much as anything. I also believe there should be some legal recourse for gay couples, but gay marriage isn't the answer. Let's come up with some sort of legal union that both sides can live with. We need to be aware of opinions from around the world, but we don't need to adopt policies that are bad for the U.S. just because every other country in the world has adopted them. Lets get away from the extremes and find some middle ground everyone can live with.

Based on exit polls, a lot of the difference seems to be people who voted on "morals" (probably a catch-all for religious right issues like gay marriages, premarital sex, etc.) -- they voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

My guess (near certainty) is that the Dems will drift to the right, culturally, and the Republicans will probably pander even more to that point of view in an effort to distinguish themselves.

From my vantage point, this is a disaster, mitigated only by the fact that Bush will not easily be able to dodge the blame for what his policies will bring (or credit, should there be any). Even worse, I suspect it will continue the polarization of American society. When Roe v. Wade gets repealed (and with conservatives continuing to appoint SC justices, it is only a matter of time), it will get interesting. I'm not looking forward to that, but... if I must fight in a culture war, OK, I will.

Switch the words Democrat and Republican
Rinse
Repeat

The same applies to both sides.

If you want an honest opinion from a non-American, I think it is the Republicans who seem more shrill and reluctant to accept that others may not agree with them.

Both sides need to settle down, agree that they disagree and try not to paint the others as "un-American", "traitors", "enemies of America" blah blah.


Mr Mephisto

ShaniFaye, what lost the Dems the south was civil rights and the racism of the white population, pure and simple. If those are the values that will make us popular again, to hell with it.

And FWIW, I live in Texas.

Note to everyone....the Democrats lost the south when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act. This is nothing new. There have been some exceptions but the Republicans rule here (I'm from LA...imagine living in a place where you almost NEVER win...very frustrating).

Also, if you think that the modern Democratic party is run by the "far-left" you might want to check your own kool-aid intake. Clinton was about as centrist as they get. Smearing all Democrats as socialist makes for great propaganda but it has little to do with reality. The real left wing of this country has been dissatisfied with the Democrats for years as anyone who has been paying attention to them would notice.

When it gets down to it, most voters in this country don't know politics or history....they only know propaganda.

Well Daswig is right about the gun control issue as far as the south is concerned. We will not vote to elect any candidate that wants to restrict our rights anymore, that shit just doesn't fly 'round these here parts. Seriously though, it's a no win issue for the Dems as they stand on it now.

Adam....ok I can go with that reasoning for why we lost it....thanks for pointing that out...that was a little before my time and honestly something that didnt occur to me when I typed that out

I disagree, maybe for the NRA hardcore any weapons ban may be a point of contention to them solely because they are mainly one issue voters, making sure the GOP wins by using fear and have been drilled into their heads any gun control is evil. But there are many more citizens out there and police departments that believe NO MAN SHOULD HAVE A WEAPON MORE POWERFUL THAN THE POLICE.

I think that would be 1 great issue for the dems to hammer home and get those people that don't those weapons out there but do want their nice Glock 9MM or Saturday night special for home protection.

The NRA can scare all they want but when you allow citizens to have AK 47's and sub machine guns and hollow point bullets and weapons that are truly made for one reason and that is to kill people. Not protection, not hunting but for killing and maiming multiple people fast. They just are not necessary and anyone who believes they are so important that they can't live without a bazooka or whatever and will only suppoert those who believe that those weapons are ok is stupid and voting for people who when given the chance will sell you down the river when they need votes and that group won't give them enough but the opposition will all that politician has to do is favor more stricter gun control.

Trust me, I have a feeling the NRA will change their tune real fast if the public starts looking at them as people favoring people with more powerful weapons than the police. Right now the NRA gets away with all they can because they scare that guy who has a little derringer or S&W shotgun that the Dems will take it away from him soon. They lose power with that fear they will change their tunes real fast so will the GOP. They'll have to because the Dems will destroy them on that issue.

Well, 45% of Americans are die hard republicans.

45 % of Americans are die hard Democrats.

And 10% don't even know who what is the capital of the United States, or for that matter that the world is round, let alone the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

The Democrats generally have a tough time appealing to this segment of American society.

The republicans just zoom right in and talk all tough and vote for me and you will stand tall.

Works every time.

Listen, Kerry actually did better than I thought he would.

If Clinton had of been running against Bush, he would have destroyed Bush IMHO.

In a perverse way, I am glad the Republicans won because the mess that they have created is so huge, the Democrats would have been blamed for it all in four years time. This way, it's going to be pretty hard for them to wiggle off the hook.

Iraq.

A struggling economy.

Massive debt.

A falling currency

The draft.

Let them deal with all of this rather than the democrats.

You watch, in 18 months Bush's popularity will go through the basement floor. The chickens will be coming home to roost, mark my words.

The thing I can not understand is why people actually like Bush. I mean he has quite literally done nothing "for" you in the last four years. Nothing. And yet he wins cause he wraps himself up in the flag and dupes people into believing his BS.

I don't know who will be the nominee for the Democrats in 4 years. It won't be Kerry, it probably won't be Edwards, or Gore. It will have to be someone new on the scene.

The fact is, noone has more powerful weapons than the police at their disposal. There has been laws on the books since the '30's regulating the ownership of true automatic weapons. Does it make you feel better to outlaw a gun because it appears "more powerful"? Thats basically all the AWB accomplished. It was ridiculous. You want everyone to compromise on the issues you feel is important, but you don't want to compromise on issues that other people feel is important. Extremism gets neither party anywhere. Bush may have only won by 3% but a much larger percentage more don't support some of the issues that the Democrats promote. For example, Michigan, a primarily Democratic state passed legislation banning gay marriage. I can almost garauntee a lot of the Democrats who voted for Kerry in Michigan are opposed to gun control. They voted for Kerry under the premise of "anyone but Bush". Most of America is opposed to gun control, this has been proven in several elections now. When is the Democratic Party gonna leave gun control behind? When is the Democratic Party going to leave the extreme enviromental lobbyist alone and realize that most while people want to save the environment, most also want to enjoy it while helping save it. Closing off our national parks and huge tracts of government owned public land to everyone but hikers from the Seirra Club is ridiculous. The Democratic Party is just to far left for it to be appealing to anyone in the middle. Hopefully this election will wake up the powers that be.

That's why both the FOP and the NRA endorsed Bush. Have you read the Second Amendment? If says nothing about maintaining weapons parity. As a former cop, I never had a problem with people owning the same exact guns that I was issued. And the Second Amendment is about the people having access to the basic arms that an infantryman carries. During the Revolutionary War, that was a flintlock. During the Civil War, that was a percussion rifle. During WWII, that was an M-1 Garand. And now, that's an M-16A2 or an M-4 or M-249.

Heh. Some people will NEVER learn. That's what the Democrats have tried over and over again, and they keep getting their asses handed to them. Why do you keep wanting them to push a losing platform?

Demonize the NRA all you want. That just makes them stronger. If the Democratic Party continues to push the position you're pushing here, they will remain the minority party nationally forever.

I seriously doubt the FOP endorsed Bush on this issue alone. I'm sure it was an amalgamation of issues..

As for banning weapons more powerful than the police have, you didn't look at the polls that had the US citizens heavily favoring the AWB renewall.

You want to be a one issue voter go ahead. I have a feeling along with the other stances I gave, you'll be among the minority.

I'm not demonizing the NRA just saying they have painted themselves into a corner of wanting to legalize everything and the vast majority of the USA wants some form of control as to what is out there.

If I can find a job in Canada, I'm going to move there. It's true that I won't be able to affect the change I want to see, but that's looking less and less possible anyway. Despite the democrats moving so far to the center that they overshot, they still managed to lose. Despite the president facing a huge array of serious allegations during his term, they still managed to lose. And things will keep getting worse - Texas redistricted so that democrats lost 5 house seats there, and that will keep happening all over the country. Rather than respect the values of democracy, people are only interested in winning.

Given all that, and the fact that if we have one more even minor crisis, a draft will be necessary (and this time there will be no need of re-election to hold it back), I want to get the hell out of dodge. I've seen too many movies and read too many books about the beginning of the German invasion of Poland, when you just want to scream at the screen "Leave! Get out of there!" to want to fool around. I want to play it safe and leave the country before any borders are closed.

So anyway, if anyone has any jobs for game programmers in Canada (or anywhere outside the US, really) let me know.

Bingle.

I just love it when people say things like "Whites are racist" and don't even comprehend the irony.

I'd like to hear the basis for your summation of white Southerners, too.

Alaska is very anti-gun control also. They are a tool for our way of life, not toys or weapons of mass violence up here.

I believe that gun control "may" need to be done in a much smaller scale. Some city areas like LA would benefit. They have dry counties for alcohol, why not guns?

IMO - Clinton may have actually cost Kerry the election and I mean both of them. I heard several comments today about Daschle and Hillary and where they can go today. I was also surprised to find that people spoke that Kerry could not fulfill his healthcare and other agendas.

Alaska was bound to be a Bush state (with our measly 3 EC votes). Opening ANWR is a hot topic here.

Oh. You mean like when W was blamed for a recession that started under Clinton, or when Clinton took credit for a recovery that started during Bush Sr.'s term.

I get it.



Didn't you hear? The big lie about Bush wanting a draft didn't work. By the way, it was Charlie Rangel who introduced that bill to reinstate the draft.

In case you didn't know, he's a Democrat.

I wouldn't call Hillary new to the scene. I don't think she's going to be able to resist much longer.

Is there truly a need for fully automatic machine guns, bazookas and anti aicraft missiles or hollow tipped teflon bullets up there in the Klondike?

Is there truly a need for an automobile wherever it is you are?
BTW, "teflon bullets" are a myth. They don't exist. Moly-coated bullets exist, but moly-coating simply reduce fouling in the bore. The "teflon bullet" byth is a creation of hollywood.

The statement was originally saying that the vast majority of the white population of the south was racist. This is not a racist statement, any more than "Hispanics are 50% more likely to vote Republican". It's also true - look at the civil rights battles in the south, and the patterns of discrimination in the south after Reconstruction. That's not to say that a lot of Northerners weren't racist, too, but it was certainly more institutionalized in the south.

Read some history of the time, or some works by black authors on the post-war South.

Bingle

It's funny that everyone is agreeing that the Democrats need to become more centrist and nominate a candidate who will appeal to rural voters. Kerry WAS the moderate candidate picked largely by Iowa voters. It's clear this model for success is flawed.

I actually think that the Democrats need to go left of where they are now to actually differentiate themselves. If this means remaining a permanent minority then so be it, Americans deserve real alternatives, not lighter shades of pale.

The Republicans are able to label progressive agendas as "the failed policies of the past" and there's some truth in that. What worked in the 1930s is not always the best plan for today. In four more years the Democrats will either be able to attack the "failed policies of Bush" or they may as well concede defeat now.

First Democrats need to stop feeding at the corporate trough, even if this means a huge loss of money. Corporate donations to Democrats need to be seen for what they are: hedge funds for big business in case the Dems win.

Dems need to focus on their strengths that are still applicable to today's world: worker's rights, universal healthcare, social security, social equality, limits on corporate monopoly, a libertarian sensibility for women's rights (abortion) and drug control (medical marijuana), and a sensible foreign policy. Five years ago Republicans were tearing their hair out at the prospect of American interventionism in Bosnia. Democrats need to have a foreign policy that allows for intervention based on facts, support from our allies, feasiblity, and a clear exit strategy. Iraq and Afghanistan need nation building, like it or not, Democrats are the only party willing to admit it.

People who voted Republican need to take a sober look at what they voted for: drilling in ANWAR, a conservative Supreme Court (read: repeal of Rowe v. Wade, prayer in school, harsh constraints on amendments 4,5,6: Search and Seizure, Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process, Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel), a regime too afraid to pass even the most lenient of gun control laws, tax cuts for the top 10% of earners, HMOs, rewarded outsourcing of American jobs, a blank check for the military-industrial complex, a rejection of equality for gays and lesbians let alone civil unions or gay marriage, and willing consent for the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

And a draft. Campaign rhetoric aside, unless we see a sudden change in Iraq there will be a draft. This is something I was biting my nails about concerning a possible Kerry presidency. Recruitment is low, the Reserves are already over-extended, and our allies are leaving not joining (Hungary is now withdrawing their troops). A draft seems inevitable.

Woooah there, hold them horses.

Kerry had the MOST liberal voting record in the Senate.

Yes he won first in Iowa, and there ARE liberals in Iowa. The caucus system leans to the more extreme type of supporters and who can get the most people mobalized all over the state. Its not like you had independent Iowians picking the dem nominee.

yeah I heard he voted like ten million times to raise taxes :rolleyes: , dude the campaign is over stop being a sore winner. The fact is that he was he had one of the most conservative platforms and records of all the primary candidates besides Lieberman. The choice at that time was down to Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt. Kerry was the definitely the moderate alternative to Dean.

Calling Kerry the most liberal member of the senate isn't just a political smear, its the TRUTH, and when you have a liberal saying he will be moderate, do you trust what he says or do you trust 20 years of liberal voting?

Kerry wasn't the moderate to Dean, Kerry was the 'electable' one, Dean at least could take a stand.

I'm pretty dismayed at the fact that people would stand by a party so strongly. We should really do away with the party shit, just let the best guy win.

Tool for your way of life?!?! So, how often do you subsistance hunt in Anchorage? As a lifelong Alaskan myself, I can honestly tell you that the only things that urban residents use guns for are to pleasure hunt and that's a fact. They are weapons/toys. And it won't matter if ANWR is opened or not. It won't bail us ouf of middle east dependence like Bush & co. want's you to think.

You have to realize that even the concept of "most liberal Senator" is so subjective and tainted by campaign rhetoric that it becomes irrelevant in a discussion of facts or history. When it comes to writing the history of something like the Democratic primaries, something you didn't partake in and had nothing to do with, I'd kindly invite you to butt out. You people are like pit bulls sniffing the crowd for dirty and uncouth LIBERALS and once you get your teeth in them you can't even release your jaw willingly. If you feel the need to continue the campaign against Kerry, or Clinton, or whomever then I've got a prediction for you. It's going to wear thin. With solid control of the of all three branches of government you'd better learn to start thinking constructively and stop playing the blame game.

You don't have any qualms with my predictions for the next four years ustwo?

You know what the party needs to do? We need to re-define ourselves. Define what being a Democrat really means. One of he main problems with this party is that we're all over the place on a lot of issues. We need to define where we stand and stick with our beliefs. Someone said that's what the Republicans did when they were in this boat 10 some odd years ago. Dems can take a lesson from this defeat. We need to do the same. I think that we should stick to our base, stick to our beliefs, define our issues and work to bring people to our side. Why should we be the ones to always come to the middle? Make the other side either come to us or we both meet halfway to find common ground. Bush sure as hell won't do this for the next 4 years. Why does he have to?

yeah, i talked to another alaskan and he said he had no problem with the drilling.

this is funny because i know a lot of montanans. seems like a similar outdoorsy rural red state, but montanans must be environmentalists in comparison. the land is deeply respected, the government is not. bush wanted to do some exploratory drilling on the rocky mountain front, not even in a particularly special location, and the public outcry was significant enough for the administration to scrap plans completely.

also, there was a ballot initiative to relax regulations to allow a mining company to set up shop -- soundly defeated.

Everything on that list already is illegal for the masses to own. Perhaps you should do a little research. You might find out when the AWB was passed the very next election the Dems lost control of the House and Senate. Polls may say one thing, but voters are telling you something else. Much like the pre Nov. 2 polls or the exit polls from the election itself. This is also why when it came up for renewal, noone in the House or Senate wanted anything to do with it. I couldn't understand why Kerry didn't just leave it alone. Maybe he thought having his picture taken with a few shotguns, with one of which would have been illegal under the AWB btw, would shake his voting record in the Senate and his promotion the same on the campaign trail.
It even cost Al Gore the election last time around. Someday, hopefully soon, the Democrats will realize polls are misleading at best. I predict as soon as the Democrats leave these and other extremist views behind they will become a viable alternative to voting Republican once again. Shoot, even some of the old Democrats don't believe in their party anymore, Zel Miller is a perfect example.

You know what I'm tired of always being attacked on here about guns because the second I say it should be illegal to be more armed than the police I have gun enthusiasts who ignore the entire post I posted just to focus on that.

And you are right, I don't know fucking gun laws because I don't fucking care. As long as my neighbor doesn't have a fucking arsenal I could care less. And that's what I say..... but then I am attacked and told I need to justify w3hy people should not be armed better than cops.

Screw it you want me to change my mind fine.

IF BEING ARMED BETTER THEN THE POLICE IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE 1 LINE OUT OF A LONG POST AND TURN A GREAT THREAD INTO A GUN CONTROL THREAD.... THEN FUCK IT........ MY STANCE IS MAKE ALL FUCKING GUNS, AND FLATWARE ILLEGAL GO INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSES WITH THE MILITARY AND TAKE EVERYTHING... LEAVE PLASTIC KNIVES AND SPORKS AND FUCK IT...

Simple enough now? As a matter of fact from now on when I am posting and I have the urge to mention gun control because now I am a fucking freak and want them all taken........ I"ll simply refer to PAN'S SPORK LAW of 11/04....

Well, let's just see what factcheck.org has to say about the "most liberal senator" bs:
You know, I'm sick of being a Kerry apologist....I'm not even a registered Democrat. Unfortunately, until the same old bullshit sound bites stop getting flung around, I guess I'm stuck in this role. I just can't stand to see blatant dishonesty masquerading as truth.

Alrighty. It was merely a suggestion to research a bit, that's all.

You know what the problem with the Democratic party is? They claim to be a party of the people, but the party elite dislikes the average person. They don't listen to them on issues, and their "discourse" is just talking at, not with, people. Alot cannot see any other opinion than there own, and they leave no room for compromise. Even after the election, instead of seeing where they might have gone wrong, many liberals are simply saying how stupid people were for electing Bush, and predicting DOOM and GLOOM as much as the most fundamentalist Christian predicting Armageddon. And they seem to relish this, like they hope that bad things happen. Look at history, the US has gotten through one massive depression, 2 world wars, the Vietnam war and civil protesting, an energy crisis in the 1970's, and a direct terrorist attack. Why do so many think that the country will all of a sudden crumble now? If the same Democratic mindset is present in 2008, they will lose that election as well.

This is a late response, sorry. Mr. M., I try to be objective on a lot of these issues and its usually wrong to paint with such a broad brush, but I think that the whole--the other side is an idiot--thing is a democratic trait. Look at how they treated Reagan and Bush compared to Carter and Clinton. Republicans have their own bad traits, even some forms of smugness, but nothing compared to the claimed intellectual superiority of the left

The two examples that you give just don't hold up. Clinton was castigated mightily all of his years in office (and still is) and Carter became synonomous with failure. Have you ever listened to talk radio, read any Republican blogs or payed any attention to the American conservative media juggernaut? Any casual examination would reveal that demonization is a bipartisan trait.

Thanks for diong that... I really didn't feel like looking it up right now.

Really people... wtf. If your going to post something like "Kerry is the most Liberal Senator" back it up with something, ANYTHING, and do some research.

I've seen soo many arguments on these forums, and even in this thread, about things that have been shown to not be true or to be half truths. And continually people will add comments that are half turths. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the campaign ads from the candidates this year. Dont post information based on anything you saw in an ad.

Edit: Oh, and teflon bullets do exist. The teflon just isn't what makes them pierce armor. Teflon protects the bore from the ill effects of the hard bullet core. Google is your friend.

What mythical "average person" are you talking about? Surely you don't think the 51% that voted for Bush were all that much more "average" than the 48% who voted for Kerry?

You are right, though, that I see less and less room for compromise. The Republicans have drifted so far to the right that their "middle ground" is mostly as unappealing to me as their original proposals... I just don't see much point in bothering to try to work with them any more; either way, I get an unpalatable solution.

If we lose in 2008, so be it. I'd rather lose than be the homophobic party of fundamentalists and Enron executives. Winning isn't everything.

Yes, but I'd certainly accept the boredom, considering that the welfare rolls would shrink to almost nothing.

Drop us a line when you get the chance to experience Canadian health care. Oh, and let us know your opinion of the taxes they hit you with, too.

Bon voyage.

Lot of attitude here, sorry to see it.

In my opinion, because both candidates ignored or glossed over the most looming issues in the campaign -- budget deficit, massive increases in public debt and its effect on the dollar, whether the tax cuts were working, the coming collapse of Medicare and the health care system when the mass of boomers crosses the big 60 (all the long-term, structural issues, in other words) -- all a lot of voters really had to go by was style and symbolism. A few more people like Bush's symbolism better. He won.

As a liberal -- and you can be a liberal without being a Democrat or thinking that big government is _always_ the answer -- I wasn't really pleased with either candidate. I voted Kerry because I thought he might eventually be more realistic in facing the domestic problems to come, the ones that George Bush will now face.

So George Bush won reelection on symbolism -- Christianity, a "moral outlook," opposition to abortion and gay marriage (real issues to some, but not to the big-money powerbrokers who aim to make billions by backing the right candidate). According to the pundits, terror wasn't the deciding issue. In any case, Bush has about a year before the glow of that symbolism starts to fade, less if we lose another thousand or two people in Iraq with no results, or if we sink into another recession.

At that point, many of the people who voted for a Christian, moral man will begin to think more with their pocketbooks. CNN polls on election day showed that 45 percent of Kerry voters had family members who'd lost jobs in the last two years, and only 22 percent of Bush voters had. If Bush voters begin to feel the heat more, through job loss or health insurance woes, Bush will have to step up to the plate with something that provides immediate relief. Health savings accounts won't do it, not for the many low-income Republican voters who have little income to save. More tax cuts won't do it, not with the results of the current ones being so slow and lackluster (he'd have been better off to target mainly the middle and lower class with his tax cuts, but his political ties didn't allow him to do that).

What do the Democrats do? For a start, find themselves another southern or border-state governor who can talk the evangelical talk. Charges that high-level Demos look down on the religious working class of the heartland are probably quite justified. The New Deal is not dead -- people now expect government help in hard times, in a way that they never did before the '30s (my mom was alive then, and poor -- she told me what the score used to be). The Demos just need the right mouthpiece to invoke it.

Personally, I'd like the two-party system to self-destruct. I'd love to see some kind of legislative system in which coalitions of parties could hold control instead of one monolithic party. If they are stable, such systems tend to encourage moderate government. And as a liberal, moderation is more than good enough for me. It gets there in the end. That's my major quibble with Bush -- he doesn't know about moderation or compromise. I read a quote from him today in which he said he'd be willing to reach out to people on the other side of the ideological divide if they could embrace his goals. A statement like that characterizes Bush as, at best, unclear on the concept of what "reaching out" means.

We're certainly branching out from the original thread, but here goes.

Yours is a bad analogy. A more comparable statement to yours would be "Blacks like watermelon." It's insulting, and may have been true at one time, but no more.


Thanks for the (unnecessary) advice. Here's some reading for you:

"White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State."

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1907, as cited in Truths of History, p. 92

Non-resident blacks were forbidden to attend public schools in Connecticut because "... it would tend to the great increase of the colored people of the state."

William Lloyd Garrison, as cited in Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

New Jersey prohibited free blacks from settling in the state.

Massachusetts passed a law that allowed the flogging of blacks who came into the state and remained for longer than two months.

Indiana's constitution stated that "...no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state..."

Illinois in 1853 enacted a law "...to prevent the immigration of free negroes into this state."

Oregon's 1857 constitution provided that "...No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption [of the constitution of the state of Oregon] ... shall come,reside, or be within this state..."

Beverly B. Munford, Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

"But why should emancipation South send free people North? ... And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?"

Abraham Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December, 1862

State /Year Blacks Barred from Voting
New Jersey 1807
Connecticut 1814
Rhode Island 1822
Pennsylvania 1838

Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North

You also seem to have missed the bloody race riots of the 1960s in Newark and Detroit. And the violent resistance to forced busing in Boston (right after a judge broke up my high school in Georgia with forced busing, over which there were no riots).

It is also documented that the North is more segregated than the South.

Legal Lynching, Southern Partisan, p. 44

Still want to tell me that racism was, or is, so much more institutionalized in the North?