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.
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".