Dems in search of fresh faces and fresh ideas

USA Today ^ | 11/11/2002 | Jill Lawrence

[ex-Texan]

WASHINGTON

[MissHardihood]

Here are some fresh faces for them.

These guys will be out of work real soon -
maybe the Dems can take them under their left wing.

[Seruzawa]

How about it? Should we suggest some new ideas for the demoncRATS? Here's a tentative list:

1- The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

2- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

(Here's one for the pubbies, too)
3- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

These ideas may be two hundred years old, but they are obviously new to the demoncRATS who seem to believe in the principles of slavery. Even the Kings of old didn't interfere and micromanage the lives of their subjects to the degree that the commie demoncRATS desire.

[Cincinatus]

He says Democrats should propose restoring progressivity to the tax code, so wealthier people shoulder more of the costs of government, and "serious investments" in transportation, health care and broadband Internet access.

Wow!! There's some "new thinking" for you! Look out, Republicans -- they're coming back!!!

ROFL!!!

[Nick Danger]

Here's an idea: how about having the media lie to the public on behalf of Democrats?

For example, let's say that Ruy Teixeira, a Democratic analyst at the non-partisan Century Foundation, says Democrats need to counter Bush's "aggressive unilateralism" with a more internationalist, though not anti-war, foreign policy. The reporter could accidentally forget to point out that the UN Security Council voted unanimously last week to support Bush's "unilateral" action. Even Syria voted in favor of it. That leaves Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. Democrats, opposed.

An honest reporter would point that out, but I bet we could find a Democrat shill at USA Today or someplace who would let that slide right by.

[SES1066]

The optimistic thing about this is the way of renewal for our country. I was a child during the Goldwater Presidential run, but I remember and have read the punditry that pronounced doom for conservatism. Yet 1964 lead to 1980, to Reagan and now to Bush. The Democrats will renew and if their message suits the electorate better they will win just as we did last week.

[Cicero]

We have one last presidential election before baby boomer retirement is at the center of American politics.

A significant observation. The baby boomers have gone all through life whining and demanding everything, and because of their numbers invariably getting it. When they retire we will begin to see the beginnings of the social security crisis. Money will be scarce for other purposes, because you can be sure that the boomers will want it all for themselves, although no doubt they will put the matter in terms of compassion for the underdog. In the 70s they cried, "Trust no one over 30." Now they will whimper, "Trust no one under 65."

So there will be a considerable shortage of tax gravy to be spread around on "improving the infrastructure," which apparently means reverting to Al Gore's policy of building a highway into the 21st century.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Democrats should propose restoring progressivity to the tax code, so wealthier people shoulder more of the costs of government"

So, when the top 5% of taxpayers pony up 50% of the taxes, that is not enough progressivity? When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pony up less than 5% of the taxes, that's not enough of a break? When fully 45% of taxpayers have an effective tax rate of less than $0 (subsidies, y'know), they are bearing too much of the cost?

Bloody h*ll.

[ServesURight]

RUSS FEINGOLD (Rat-WI)

[ZULU]

If they really want a "fresh face" they should look to Miller of Georgia, not to that leftist, homophilic, hoplophobic freak Pelosi from the Queer Capitol of the U.S.

[ODDITHER]

This is ssssssssso funny. If they had core values they wouldn't need a new message or messanger.

Reminds me of a company that has made 8 track tapes and then realizes that CDS are now the rage.

You know your in trouble if you have to figure out what you are for.

"Down with the establishment", "Give peace a chance", "capitolist pigs" doesn't quite cut it anymore.

[finnman69]

For a front row seat watching the RATS trash each other go to DUmmyland.

Worth a peak if you ever wanted to see Ultimate Fighting Challenge DemoRAT style.

[MissHardihood]

"Down with the establishment", "Give peace a chance", "capitolist pigs" doesn't quite cut it anymore.

Yep, so old school.

[wardaddy]

Evan Bayh is the most appealing (from my perspective as a non Dem observer) of all the younger Dems I have observed in the media.

If he gains more political prominance, it would not be to our benefit. Idiots like Pelosi and even the media darling Ford the Younger make much better foils.

[mewzilla]

Gee, now why would McPaper consider Ford's candidacy symbolic? Thursday's vote is a secret ballot. Pelosi may have some verbal ssurances, but that doesn't necessarily mean much (I mean, we are talking about Dems here). Or is McPaper trying to tell us the Dems still have a death wish? Now, that I can believe...

[Darlin']

A topical quiz from today's email...

Q. Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q. Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A. The Democratic Party.

Q. Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A. The Democratic Party with Al Gore throwing the deciding vote.

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A. The Democratic Party. An immigrant can move into this country at 65 and get SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid any money into it.

And the Kicker is... After doing all this, they promulgate the lie that Republicans want to take your Social Security. The worst part is that it is believed, not by you, but the uninformed. When a lie is told often enough it is believed. The Democrats are desperate to find an issue.

[Darlin']

"Evan Bayh is the most appealing (from my perspective as a non Dem observer) of all the younger Dems I have observed in the media. "

I agree but I hear he is really dumber than a fishing worm.

[Captain Shady]

Fresh faces and new ideas?? How about honest, moral and right ACTIONS instead.

[Redcloak]

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place. They know that they've got to move in the political spectrum. The problem it that there's really no available direction for them to move.

If they go left, as the vast majority of the Party's insiders want, they'll alienate their moderates. They'll also chase away independents (at least those who actually bother to vote). The GOP, of course has a similar problem. Steering a more conservative course alienates the County Clubbers and pushes independents away. In either instance, one party's moderates can find a home in the other party if things get too "extreme" for them. The indy's drift about, usually to whoever they think will win.

The unique problem the Dems have is what will happen if they choose a more moderate course. Like the GOP, they risk offending the base. But unlike the GOP, the Dems' base has a place to turn: The Green Party. There is no conservative analog to the Greens to draw away disaffected conservatives. At worst, "extreme" conservatives stay home; but, they don't join another party en mass.

Before the Greens came along, the Dems made the same calculation that the GOP must make: What makes me bleed voters the fastest? For the GOP, moderating causes the base to stay home at a high rate and costs more votes than are picked up from indys and conservative Dems. Thus the higher bleed rate is seen moving to the left. For the Dems, however, the bleed rate is the same in either direction. They'll lose radical liberals to the Greens as quickly as they'll pick up indys and liberal Republicans by moving to the right. They'll bleed away more conservative Dem and indy votes than they'll win back form the Greens by moving left.

Like I said: They're between a rock and a hard place.

[connectthedots]

Lets see; 29 years of abortion and the Democrats can't understand why they are losing out to Republicans.