Dems Altering Style, Not Substance (Is liberalism dead? Is Howard Dean crazy?)

CBS News ^ | 12/09/04 | Terence Samuel

[Libloather]

"It's not like we are going to change our core values," remarked one Hill Democrat.

And the one question that still remains unanswered - what are RAT core values? Even they don't know...

[mainepatsfan]

It's a fight between the Michael Moore wing of the party versus the Bill Clinton wing.

[Reactionary]

Liberalism is dead because the shrieking Leftists who control the party will never give up until they're run it into the ground.

They're a bunch of fanatics.

[Reactionary]

"They've," rather.

[thoughtomator]

Between those who cover up their crimes and those who are proud of them.

[Prince Caspian]

My proposal is simple. Permit anyone who has voted... or participated... and has contributed in some way... to vote for the next leader...

Looks like the DNC is a case study of "An open mind is an empty mind."

[mainepatsfan]

Basically. The Clinton wing understands they need to disguise who they really are whereas the Moore wing is convinced America will love outright socialists like them.

[ReadyNow]

They need to embrace the homosexuals more closely, and to make it clear that those who don't embrace the gays are motivated primarily by hate. They also need to be more forceful in pointing out the shortcomings of Clarence Thomas' writing, and the gross stupidity of Jemimaleeza Rice. They also need to keep lying, because it fools the stupid masses.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I would like to post something profound like

"This is a battle for the soul of the Democrat Party", but ...

Oh, well, you know.

[tkathy]

How can 57 million people be so stupid?

[mainepatsfan]

Yeah we all know the punchline.

[carlr]

Howard Wolfson was the one,I believe, who called the networks after Fox called Ohio for Pres.Bush and asked(ordered)the "impartial" news organizations to not make the same call.

This bunch of horse muffins going on over the vote in Ohio was planned long before Nov 2^nd.

[Lunkhead_01]

Is Howard Dean crazy?

The short answer is: YES. The long answer is he is crazier than a loon.

I first met Howard in 1967 when we were both soon-to-be freshmen in the Yale Class of 1971. He then knew everything -- and knew no one else knew anything at all. If that is not the sign of a demented individual, what is.

And remember he suffers from deanmentia, a mental defect brought on by political stress, often accompanied by loud screaming and hawwing like an ass. The condition deanmentia is apparently similar to Tourette's Syndrome in which stress causes individuals to utter socially inappropriate words or phrases.

[StJacques]

Let us discuss the myths under which the Democrats are trying to regroup themselves:

". . . 'A minority party can only become a majority party by surprising people enough to realize that it is better than they thought,' says Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). 'The last two campaigns have been short on such shock therapy. Next time we have to surprise people by becoming an insurgent reform party again, as we did in '92.' . . ."

There was an "insurgent reform party" in 1992, but it was NOT the Democratic Party. It was Ross Perot's Reform Party which accomplished two things: one of substance, in that they put the budget deficit front and center of the national political debate; and a second of fleeting value, in that they got the American people angry with President Bush, Sr. (41). Perot and his people split the "anti-Democrat" vote in two, permitting Clinton to win with just under 43% of the popular vote.

Let the Democrats dream on that they captured the imagination of the American people with "shock therapy" in 1992. Their only hope is for another political candidate to come forward to divide the Republican vote as happened in 1992 and 1996. Unless of course, they actually rethink their agenda, which is something I would not hold my breath waiting to see.

And the lesson for us Republicans to remember is that we can never let fiscal and tax policy get away from us again. We've been drifting close to the edge on this one lately, and we need to return to our roots. When Perot screamed about the budget deficit it was about spending that was out of control. What made that argument poignant in the minds of voters, at least those prepared to overlook the fact that Perot was a flake, is that there had been a significant tax hike in November 1990, which President Bush, Sr. had to agree to in order to get the domestic political peace he needed to push the authorization to use force in Desert Storm through Congress. Perot never saw the wisdom of that move and remained lost in his hopeless delusion that Bush, Sr. had prevented him from bringing the POW/MIAs who were "still" in Vietnam home to a heroes' welcome. If we get back to fiscal integrity and stay tough on tax policy we'll be ok.

[davisfh]

"...what the party needs to do to reverse its recent string of defeats. "Change" seems to be the consensus answer --..."

It's just more of "How can we fool 'em next time."

[bill1952]

I think that ole Slick Willie is far more atypical of the Democratic party than is Moore.

Moore is more outspoken, but he seems to be a spokesman for that despicable view of America, and any Democrat that espouses a view opposite than his is, in my opinion, suspect, in that he is only saying that which will gain them the White House. Fortunately, JF Kerry was such a poor lier, that everyone saw right through him, and that is the totality of the meaning when dems say" "We need to refine the message." .

Hillary will do exactly that.

[Nuzcruizer]

I was wondering the same thing. No matter who it was running to be top Rat, I never once heard what the core values of RATS were. None of them had a platform on how they would run the country. Not one of them could say how they would protect it other than to leave that up to our enemies and competing countries, they all prommised to raise taxes and spend. Spend on what? At least with Bush, we know what he's spending on. He has a "plan" unlike Kerry, who throughout his campaign kept talking about his plan like it was some magic orb floating just behind the curtain. Bush's plan at least has a form, a better military, better national security, reformed social security, a drug plan, education, and NO new taxes! Spending yes, but arguably spending on what needed to be spent on. Maybe that ticks off the RATS most of all. Bush has spent, and spent so much that if by chance the RATS ever did get into power in 08, they would have nothing to spend, so they would sit in the whitehouse for a whole term doing the second thing they do best... nothing.

[xJones]

And the one question that still remains unanswered - what are RAT core values? Even they don't know...

The core value seems to be that if they click their heels three times hard enough, they'll win. Values, hypothetical "I have plans!" be damned, they just wanna win back the White House, Senate and House. That's some really nice real estate, y'know, and ownership is everything, even if you don't know what you're going to do with it.

[whereasandsoforth]

That "Baby Tax" thing is an real loser! It reminded me immediately of their nasty evil stance on legal Baby Murder.

The dems will never believe that we are in a new era where people "connect the dots" (politically speaking). They can't even utter the word "baby". The whole world knows how much they care about the future of the babies. The "baby" should be so lucky to live to pay a tax someday.

[Once-Ler]

Too many Americans doubt whether Democrats will be tough enough in the war on terror... We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore."

Then they would be the Party of 50 years ago. The party Reagan said left him. I don't see that happening until the majority of today's anti-America anti-God rats are unable to vote.