Posted on 01/30/2006 5:26:09 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Good stuff:
Democrats stand for:
Your 13year old daughter can have an abortion without telling you;
Two queers (their word not mine) “marrying” is a healthy alternate lifestyle;
America is a force for evil in the world;
An American defeat in Iraq would be a good thing;
America is always wrong. Europe is superior to America;
We should cut and run in a quick surrender in Iraq;
Hollywood values are American values;
Voters are stupid and liberal activist judges know better;
Patriotism is child like and corny;
School prayer was the cause of problems in our government schools;
All money belongs to Washington;
Completely agree, but my point was to the long-term situation. Sure there will be election hiccups, but the Republicans are in the driver's seat for the next 15 years (assuming they don't screw up too badly and that the Rats keep pandering to the fringe left).
If the Rats were smart they'd move to the right of Bush on many/most issues and then there'd be a political earthquake. Stay where they are in respect to environment, but pass sensible legislation (like ANWAR drilling and offshore natural gas drilling). Let go of the fringe abortion lobby and play it more mainstream (like abortion is ok for the first trimester only--anything else must be to save the life of the mother). Drop the gun issue and push more strict laws for violations of existing laws. Stop gov't increased spending and no new taxes. Kill earmarks. Stop illegal immigration.
The problem with that is where would the RATs get their funding? They are already losing to the Republicans and the fringe left won't fund that platform...so they'd be SOL for a few years. But needless to say they can't move that direction on nearly any of those issues because the fringe left won't let them. Unfortunatley, this allows the Republican party to drift left and buy votes from the middle because they know they have a lot of wiggle room and buying votes is easier and more fun than running a principled campaign and office.
All of this is true
But complacency can still kill us
The blue states are turning purple
But they don't act that way. Furthermore, both Gore and Kerry came within a single state of winning. Most people don't like to be labeled extreme on either side--it does not, however, change who they really are.
Florida’s demographics
Overall favors Republicans, true. Just remember: it was won by a hair in 2000. These people are fully capable of supporting a Democrat.
The war in Iraq is not the quagmire the black table -phone media and the Democrats have spent the last three years telling us it is. Americans know this and have stop responding to these lies half truths and distortions.
The war in Iraq is going neither so well as Bush says nor so badly as the Democrats are saying. The problem is that most of the American people hear that it is a quagmire from the media and are starting to believe it. To sum up: Iraq is not a positive subject for the Republicans
Big Labor’s pull back from the Democrats will hurt them. In some races it will be the difference, no matter how the old media will try to spin it.
Any pullback hurts and yes, it may hurt them next election--but probably not on a massive scale.
Howard Dean has crossed the line from “not helpful” to hurtful.
To the contrary, Dean is perfect for the Democrats right where he is. I truly believe that Dean was made the DNC chair to get him out of the way. See, he would always be a threat to win the nomination, but never a threat to go all the way. Most people think he is a little off his rocker, sure. But for most of them, it will not change how they actually vote.
No voter fraud means trouble in many locations for Democrats
True, but voter fraud changes few races and what makes you think it is about to stop?
The loss of Louisiana after the investigation
The "investigation" is a sham. If it does not condemn Bush it will be shoved under a rug. If it succors Bush, the media will declaim it and it will eventually vaporize.
The conservative blogosphere: 527 times stronger
The majority of people still watch CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN (no one watches MSNBC) or read the NYT. The view of the average person is colored far more by the MSM than by the blogosphere.
Blacks are slowly leaving the Democrats
Shrinkage is minor and not enough time has passed to see how things work out. Bush was a state away from losing in 2004 to a BAD candidate. Clinton, evil though he was, was a great politician. Kerry is a pathetic one--and Bush couldn't crush him.
Democrats have come to rely on liars who give them phony poll information.
From an electoral point of view, it doesn't matter.
Redistricting make the numbers impossible
Temporary. Advantage/disadvantage does not stipulate victory.
Doom and gloom, rooting for the terrorists, doesn’t sell very well
But that is not how most people will view it. They will take the doom and gloom as genuine criticism and, except in the most egregious cases, not even realize who the Democrats really favor.
Scandals can carry you just so far
But probably just far enough. All they need to do is make the other person look worse than themselves...and they're succeeding. Most people never see just how flimsy the charges are.
America knows and understands the Democrats stand for:
To the contrary, most Americans (the liberals and then the "moderates") don't understand in the slightest.
Evangelicals are in the game to stay
If the Republicans keep antagonizing them by snubbing their goals and priorities, maybe not.
Banning guns still won’t win elections
But "reducing crime" does, and that's how they sell it.
Cindy Sheehan is the crazy cat woman from the Simpson’s
True. Once again, most people will not project this onto other Democratic candidates.
Queers (that’s their word not mine) marrying? No thanks.
Most people feel that way, but not strongly enough to repudiate the Democrats, who are blatantly in favor of it. The people who regard this as a defining issue would never vote Democrat anyway, so no loss.
The candidate Gap
Disagree. Democrats have some decent prospects on the horizon and certainly are no worse off than the Republicans.
The message Gap
They have a message. Not a meaningful one, but they have it. Because Kerry was a bad candidate who almost won on this "message gap" I think we have to assume that a decent candidate can readily win.
The money Gap
Soon to be closed. Who do the Democrats have behind them for fundraising? Practically all of Hollywood. Quite a force in the monetary arena. The Clintons have also proven that, through legitimate means or no, the Democrats can raise ridiculous amounts of money.
The Economy is now in the best shape it has been in our lifetime
But the media has convinced the "middle-of-the road" people that this is not the case.
The meaning of Bush’s improved voter numbers
He ran against a bad candidate and, if things are as glorious as you say, he should have done a lot better.
The Clinton magic is over
Didn't we say that after Lewinsky? You're a fool to count them out now.
Bungling the Alito hearings
Alito will be confirmed, but I can't bring myself to believe that anything they have done will haunt them. They have done so much smearing in the past that one more time won't make a difference.
The never ending millstones around their neck
Those "millstones" comprise the majority of the party and give them a legitimate chance to win.
If I were being paid $100,000 per year as an advisor to the Democrats, I would suggest that they do with their core constituents (gays and anti-war nuts) what the Republicans often do with their "static core": throwing them a bone or two but otherwise ignoring them. If I were a Democrat leader, I would focus on:
1) Term limits for abortion: politically speaking, a new federal law on this would probably cause the Supreme Court NOT to overturn Roe vs Wade. The Democrats can preemptively preserve Roe vs Wade with federal abortion term limit legislation and they could win in 2008 by consistently asking the Republicans why they are against term limits. The independents would melt away from the GOP at this point if the GOP then holds to a completely pro-life position.
I am not saying I would like this to happen so much as: this would be a politically intelligent move on the part of the Dems.
2) Federal anti-smoking legislation: 70% of Americans would favor smoking bans even in bars. 90% favor smoking bans in public buildings and restaurants. Majorities are in favor of a lot tougher restrictions. Democrats could split the Republicans down the middle on this, while Republican politicians might be too slow to get out of the line of fire and come out on the winning side. Only smokers care about "smokers' rights" and only 27% of American males smoke while only 21% of American females smoke.
I am sure there are other topics where the Dems, if they came to the right on the war on terror, could rip the Republicans to shreds...but my point is that they are not smart enough to even think of the ones above. They still seem to think that being pro-gay and pro-terrorist is going to get them somewhere. They are ideologically wired to be "against the white heterosexual male"...so they can't even begin to think that maybe they could gain power by concentrating on other topics.
That'll be enough out of you.
No one cares to hear how your Teutonic blockheaded thinking will improve the "List".
Improvements were not requested. Niether were debates.
What'd ya think about "the American Al Queda Party"?
Never mind.
Bravo
Very true.
Really? Aren't evangelical Christians most predominant in America, which is based in part in protecting individual freedom of religion? They don't do too well, as a movement, in more statist countries.
Christians do not like Libertarians because of the moral issue, period. Many of the Republican party's Christians were from the democrat party before they became so morally corrupt that it was impossible for them to stay.
While I have always loved the Republican's conservative economic stance, I would leave them in an instant if they supported gay marriage or abortion, I would never vote for a Rino or a Libertarian, because a leaders morals do matter when determining if he is fit to lead and where he will take us.
Our freedoms depend on our morals and our being able to self govern our actions.
GREAT READING,
Thanks.
Then they could vote for republicans.
Not sure I agree with this. I don't smoke...never have...never will...I hate smoking; however, I don't think it's fair to pass a law telling a business owner what they can or can't do with their business. Having said that I do like going to a bar that is smokeless, but I still don't think the ban is right and it would probably fail at the supreme court.
Having said that it still may help in some cases as the point is to get votes and not necessarily to change the laws. It would hurt in states they are already losing (south) and help in others. But then that 20+% of smokers will definitely vote against it and many of the non-smokers won't care. So they better look out for unintended consequences if they do back a smoking ban.
Well that covers about all sides of the issue :-)
Now onto term limits...I don't like them because it will just encourage more corruption. Better take what you can while you're there. You can't spread it out over 20 years, so go in and sell your soul early and often to get "yours".
That was a great episode.
That's somewhat true in CA. Many repubs have left the state and moved back to the middle of the country - making that area even stronger than it was before.
I have long been of the opinion that in order to have a read debate among conservatives the democrat party must electorally die.
This way the debate is between conservative party A and conservative party B.
Yes we will have opportunists like bloomberg. However, they will only be local phenomenons. They can't sustain a left wing position and achieve national office. (see Guiliani's acceptance of civil unions in the homosexual marriage debate)
Right now democrat politicians want to speak red state but act blue state and then say it was really a red state act.
I was talking about the Democrats pushing for abortion term limits as a pro-active move against the inevitable roll-back of Roe vs Wade (and I wasn't stating my position for or against abortion by saying this). I wasn't talking about politician term limits. :-)
[...I hate smoking; however, I don't think it's fair to pass a law telling a business owner what they can or can't do with their business.]
Yes you can. This is a no-brainer even in red states. There is 70% support for telling bar owners that they cannot allow their customers to smoke in the bar. The public sees smoking cigarettes like it sees drug taking or lapdancing...something that can be regulated as a behavior. Actually...there are probably more Americans in favor of allowing business owners to allow lapdancing than to allow smoking.
Nobody should have the right to come up to me in a bar and blow smoke in my face. Yet, that is basically what smokers have been doing to people for far too long. The game is now over in much of the world and soon the entire USA.
This really is a no-brainer and the Democrats are stark raving stupid for not capitalizing on such an issue where they would cakewalk to victory...as opposed to being anti-war traitors.
The country needs another viable political party. It is a total disgrace that the Democrats have abandoned reason on the War on Terror. They need to find a topic where the people will agree with them...and something with bottom-line 70% support will help.
Other countries are supporting the USA in the WOT. We still have most of our allies and Denmark and Germany and Portugal are now as right wing as ever since 9-11.
So it IS actually appropriate to note that the huge tidal wave of anti-smoking legislation that is hitting the rest of the world is NOT a symptom of over liberalization that American conservatives must resist.
Scotland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium just passed comprehensive anti-smoking laws. Sure, you can say that they have all liberal governments now. But the point is that part of the reason they DO have liberal governments is because their liberal politicians concentrated on anti-smoking laws in their campaigns (not on being against the American President). Now that the people have what they want in terms of fresh air, they can go back to voting conservative again in the future. No anti-smoking law will ever be overturned anywhere once it is enacted. This is because it isn't really "conservative" to favor a small special interest group like smokers.
In Scotland starting in the middle of March, it will be illegal to light a cigarette in any pub. It turns out that conservative politicians in Scotland and Spain were partly butchered politically precisely because the liberal candidates made a very big deal about smoking.
So whether you or I agree with anti-smoking laws or not (and I most emphatically do agree), I am still pointing out that politicians can get trounced at the polls if they try to take up a flimsy "let business owners do what they want" tactic, which is a lie because they cannot allow gambling or nudity or drugs or hand-dishwashing already.
Plus...smokers in Sweden and Ireland are now saying that they are overwhelmingly in FAVOR of being able to eat in restaurants without the smoke of OTHERS to bother them.
A Democrat could run in Alabama saying "I agree with my Republican opponent on everything except smoking" and win.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "near" is.
If you include the US's off balance sheet unfunded liabilities (you know the same ones that turned Enron from the most admired company in America into a worthless bankrupt in less than a month) the US is six times closer to collapse than anybody believes. Beginning in 2008 there are going to be 78 million boomers that are going to be shocked to learn their SS checks may not be in the mail or may be worthless when they get them. Those same people will start learning what their Medicare "benefit" is worth to them in 2012. Younger Americans are going to be learning what the boomers' "benefits" could cost working Americans. By 2016, only three Presidential elections, possibly a single President from now, the US could collapse just as quickly as Enron or the Soviet Union.
All it takes is for enough people, and not just Americans any more, to realize that the US cannot possibly pay all that it owes! The only hope of avoiding this scenario is to elect enough conservatives to restore the Constitution before confidence in the full faith and credit of the US is lost. There is a small group of Freepers that believe they know how to do this. We are trying to get Jim Robinson to lead this effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.