[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 25, 2019 - 8:29am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 25, 2019 - 8:19am
 
Android App DLNA - - Jun 25, 2019 - 7:42am
 
President Elizabeth Warren - sirdroseph - Jun 25, 2019 - 7:32am
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2019 - 7:29am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2019 - 6:20am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 25, 2019 - 6:10am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 25, 2019 - 5:36am
 
Trump Lies - BlueHeronDruid - Jun 25, 2019 - 12:14am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 24, 2019 - 12:16pm
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jun 24, 2019 - 10:41am
 
Flat Earth News - Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2019 - 10:16am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - Red_Dragon - Jun 24, 2019 - 10:11am
 
Mellow stream - BillG - Jun 24, 2019 - 9:46am
 
Anti-War - black321 - Jun 24, 2019 - 8:33am
 
Anyone have Popcorn Hour? - Proclivities - Jun 24, 2019 - 7:44am
 
ear worm - need help lol - Proclivities - Jun 24, 2019 - 6:53am
 
Tech & Science - black321 - Jun 24, 2019 - 6:32am
 
Beer - sirdroseph - Jun 24, 2019 - 4:55am
 
Trump - westslope - Jun 23, 2019 - 4:44pm
 
What happened to the Rockin' & Groovy mixes??? - Roguewarer - Jun 23, 2019 - 3:32pm
 
Iran - R_P - Jun 23, 2019 - 10:58am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Steely_D - Jun 23, 2019 - 10:23am
 
Cool & Interesting Signs, Billboards, etc. as Opposed to ... - SeriousLee - Jun 23, 2019 - 9:57am
 
Immigration - oldviolin - Jun 23, 2019 - 9:53am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Jun 23, 2019 - 9:00am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - gfischer99 - Jun 23, 2019 - 8:16am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Jun 23, 2019 - 5:49am
 
Track Transition cutting Out - siskinbob - Jun 23, 2019 - 2:11am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - oldviolin - Jun 22, 2019 - 10:10pm
 
Favorite wine? - SeriousLee - Jun 22, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - sirdroseph - Jun 22, 2019 - 12:15pm
 
Loudness Wars - islander - Jun 22, 2019 - 9:09am
 
Bob Dylan - sirdroseph - Jun 22, 2019 - 5:02am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - SeriousLee - Jun 21, 2019 - 1:51pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jun 21, 2019 - 12:06pm
 
Congress - R_P - Jun 21, 2019 - 11:53am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - SeriousLee - Jun 21, 2019 - 9:58am
 
How's the weather? - SeriousLee - Jun 21, 2019 - 9:56am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Proclivities - Jun 21, 2019 - 9:04am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - islander - Jun 21, 2019 - 8:14am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 21, 2019 - 7:19am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - sirdroseph - Jun 21, 2019 - 5:38am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jun 21, 2019 - 3:52am
 
New song submissions - Krane - Jun 20, 2019 - 4:37pm
 
Latin Music - rhahl - Jun 20, 2019 - 1:16pm
 
Mellow Mix Fan Club - - Jun 20, 2019 - 10:47am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jun 20, 2019 - 10:39am
 
You're doing it wrong! - miamizsun - Jun 20, 2019 - 9:26am
 
volcano! - miamizsun - Jun 20, 2019 - 9:11am
 
Mystery Topic #10590 - Proclivities - Jun 20, 2019 - 6:45am
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Jun 19, 2019 - 6:56pm
 
Export rated songs playlist - ruby2zday - Jun 19, 2019 - 6:43pm
 
Redundancy - oldviolin - Jun 19, 2019 - 3:15pm
 
Installing Dishwashers is NOT Easy - Or in Our Case, Even... - oldviolin - Jun 19, 2019 - 1:03pm
 
OUR CATS!! - Proclivities - Jun 19, 2019 - 10:40am
 
Thorium Power - miamizsun - Jun 19, 2019 - 7:44am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jun 19, 2019 - 6:39am
 
Things I Saw Today... - - Jun 19, 2019 - 4:26am
 
Song Lyrics - sirdroseph - Jun 19, 2019 - 3:07am
 
Flower Pictures - yuel - Jun 19, 2019 - 12:29am
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2019 - 2:54pm
 
Banksy! - - Jun 18, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Dangerous Bus Stop - - Jun 18, 2019 - 2:10pm
 
Why Everything You Believe Is Immoral, Irresponsible, Irr... - Proclivities - Jun 18, 2019 - 6:41am
 
American Oil Strikes Again - westslope - Jun 18, 2019 - 2:20am
 
HomeKit HomePod AppleTV - gtufano - Jun 18, 2019 - 12:57am
 
Music News - R_P - Jun 17, 2019 - 3:07pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Jun 17, 2019 - 2:47pm
 
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc) - miamizsun - Jun 17, 2019 - 12:41pm
 
Getting RP in For iPad Mini 2 - Ian_and_Annie - Jun 17, 2019 - 10:12am
 
Recommended documentaries - sirdroseph - Jun 17, 2019 - 10:02am
 
Great guitar faces - Proclivities - Jun 17, 2019 - 7:02am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Jun 17, 2019 - 2:56am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Democratic Party Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 59, 60, 61, 62  Next
Post to this Topic
GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:19pm

That's true. I remember you saying Kerry was the wrong guy, honestly. Too bad you aren't calling the shots for the Libs.

Unfortunately, relegating Dean to the pursesnatching role really does the party a disservice. It was a masterful move on Hiliary's part, to get him out of the way. If she had a brain in her head, she'd run as Dean's running mate and your party would be IN. She could run for prez in 2016 when she actually had a resume.

ScottFromWyoming wrote:


Not me. For the record, not me.

GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:16pm

Of course nobody votes for you if you don't run. Plus, I thought Gore didn't really lose? That was the chance to fix the 'wrongs' of Decision 2000, and they didn't give Gore the chance.

pdhski wrote:


I do not care what they did before, as it has no bearing on the point I am making, which again is: after running for pres and losing, most politcians fade away. Recent history illustrates that. Why run again? No one votes for a loser. Why not renominate Dole in 2000? Again - once you lose, it's the end.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:15pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
We were writing similar posts simultaneously! Your Kerry = Dole comment has validity. Although everybody knew Dole wasn't going to win, and they allowed him to run because he had the clout and pulled in a career's worth of favors, as did Kerry. Difference was, the Dems and the Press thought Kerry was a much better candidate than he really was. Turns out good hair isn't enough after all, as was commonly supposed.



Not me. For the record, not me.

:-k I think you like to think we thought Kerry was a shoo-in, a mighty locomotive of a candidate, because that makes your squeaker win more satisfying. If I say Kerry was a half-deflated spare tire of a candidate, it makes your win pretty hollow. No? It's my pop-psych and I'm running with it.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:14pm

RiverCityRansom wrote:
You know what? You all eat balls! All of you think your political opinion is right, no one actually READS and THINKS ABOUT the other persons posts, you just jump and type your rebuttal as fast as possible to make yourself feel smart.

Balls, Balls, BALLS!


We're so smart we don't have to read and think about the other person's posts for an hour.
phineas

phineas Avatar



Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:14pm

RiverCityRansom wrote:
You know what? You all eat balls! All of you think your political opinion is right, no one actually READS and THINKS ABOUT the other persons posts, you just jump and type your rebuttal as fast as possible to make yourself feel smart.

Balls, Balls, BALLS!

You think you know everything.










GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:14pm

We were writing similar posts simultaneously! Your Kerry = Dole comment has validity. Although everybody knew Dole wasn't going to win, and they allowed him to run because he had the clout and pulled in a career's worth of favors, as did Kerry. Difference was, the Dems and the Press thought Kerry was a much better candidate than he really was. Turns out good hair isn't enough after all, as was commonly supposed.

ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Your party is on a roll so you think you have everything figured out, but there were plenty of potential challengers who would have elevated the level of discourse in this country, but the Reps were just "ah, screw it" and ran a guy, any guy. I'm not going to defend Gore or Kerry since both of them were pre-ordained losers that any idiot could and did beat. But we've had this conversation before.

Sure, I'd nominate a "can't win" candidate, if I had the chance to put Dean or Kucinich in, yeah I'll take my chances and in losing I'd be making a statement. But nominating Kerry equals nominating Dole as far as your point about a party that just can't get a movement together. It'll change eventually.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:13pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
There is a difference between 'naked ambition' and 'big ambitions'. Colin Powell had big ambitions, and has fulfilled them, serving his country admirably in the process. He was essentially drafted into the political arena after Gulf War I, in much the same way Eisenhower was after WWII. Hiliary Clinton, however, is an example of naked ambition... that 'succeed at any cost' mentality that scares the shit out of the rest of us.

You are correct about Dean. He was your best shot at unseating Bush... the reason he resonates with people is identical to the appeal of Bush, Regan, and Bill Clinton: they are real people. Gore was a fake. Daschle fake. Gephardt fake. Dukakis fake.

Yes, Delay is fake. Trent Lott is fake. The difference is, we learned our mistake with Dan Quayle and we don't run losers anymore.

Bush 2 is a fake, and Bush 1 a fake but less so. Learned your mistake? from Dan Quayle? I'd say you honed the principle to a keen edge: Elect a VP who is so objectionable nobody will want to oust the Pres.
RiverCityRansom

RiverCityRansom Avatar



Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:11pm

You know what? You all eat balls! All of you think your political opinion is right, no one actually READS and THINKS ABOUT the other persons posts, you just jump and type your rebuttal as fast as possible to make yourself feel smart.

Balls, Balls, BALLS!
samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:11pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Not all that much, but it beats the alternative.



"A Pox On Both Your Houses!!"
~~ Mercutio in "Romeo & Juliet" ~~
GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:10pm

Not all that much, but it beats the alternative.

coding_to_music wrote:


By the way, what do you like about the Republicans?

GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:08pm

There is a difference between 'naked ambition' and 'big ambitions'. Colin Powell had big ambitions, and has fulfilled them, serving his country admirably in the process. He was essentially drafted into the political arena after Gulf War I, in much the same way Eisenhower was after WWII. Hiliary Clinton, however, is an example of naked ambition... that 'succeed at any cost' mentality that scares the shit out of the rest of us.

You are correct about Dean. He was your best shot at unseating Bush... the reason he resonates with people is identical to the appeal of Bush, Regan, and Bill Clinton: they are real people. Gore was a fake. Daschle fake. Gephardt fake. Dukakis fake.

Yes, Delay is fake. Trent Lott is fake. The difference is, we learned our mistake with Dan Quayle and we don't run losers anymore.

Mugro wrote:


I disagree with your generalization about naked ambition and "eating their own". I think that anyone that high up on the political ladder has plenty of naked ambition, or else they would not have gotten to the position that they hold. Because there are so many things to be done on the local level, any kind of "citizen farmer" could participate in government on the local level and then go back to his or her life without making it a career, while still having an impact on the world around him/her. People that rise to be Congressmen/President are people with huge ambitions. This exists on both sides of the aisle.

I also believe that you make an inaccurate generalization about "eating their own" as well. The nature of politics is to forget you knew X (be it Joe McCarthy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, etc.) after they fall from grace. The Democrats do have a problem, IMHO, when it comes to rallying around one set of ideas and moving forward as one group. Democrats celebrate the fringes and have a very splintered view as to what the party platform is. Republicans realize that you have to stick together in order to win. That is what they have done lately, anyway.

I agree with your comment on Democrats reacting. That was Kerry's main problem with the election -- he criticized the President (which is easy to do!), but did not offer enough clear substantive suggestions as to what to do differently. Now, before you pelt me with quotes from Kerry, please recognize that what I am saying is that the majority of the American public did not feel that Kerry was presenting another option, but just an "anti-Bush" option. He didn't stand for anything. He just stood against Bush. Not enough to win.

Now, here is a thought. My opinion is that if the Democratic party machine allowed Howard Dean to win the nomination, he would be President today. Howard Dean was against the war. Period. He could have campaigned on this and WON.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:00pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Your choice of Dole as an example is particularly poor. The guy was a war hero and distinguished pol and diplomat for a long time. The Pres race was a capstone to a career, not a definition. He took a bullet for the party, because nobody was going to beat Clinton mid-term.

If Gore was so qualified and shit-hot in 2000, why didn't the party run him again? He was the real president in most of the lib's eyes anyway... or so they say.

Your party is on a roll so you think you have everything figured out, but there were plenty of potential challengers who would have elevated the level of discourse in this country, but the Reps were just "ah, screw it" and ran a guy, any guy. I'm not going to defend Gore or Kerry since both of them were pre-ordained losers that any idiot could and did beat. But we've had this conversation before.

Sure, I'd nominate a "can't win" candidate, if I had the chance to put Dean or Kucinich in, yeah I'll take my chances and in losing I'd be making a statement. But nominating Kerry equals nominating Dole as far as your point about a party that just can't get a movement together. It'll change eventually.
coding_to_music

coding_to_music Avatar

Location: Beantown
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 1:00pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Ironically, your post illustrates my point precisely. Personal attacks, etc. Perhaps you should spend a bit more energy worrying about what should be done by Dems rather than what shouldn't be done by Reps.


By the way, what do you like about the Republicans?
pdhski

pdhski Avatar

Location: O-town
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:57pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Your choice of Dole as an example is particularly poor. The guy was a war hero and distinguished pol and diplomat for a long time. The Pres race was a capstone to a career, not a definition. He took a bullet for the party, because nobody was going to beat Clinton mid-term.

If Gore was so qualified and shit-hot in 2000, why didn't the party run him again? He was the real president in most of the lib's eyes anyway... or so they say.



I do not care what they did before, as it has no bearing on the point I am making, which again is: after running for pres and losing, most politcians fade away. Recent history illustrates that. Why run again? No one votes for a loser. Why not renominate Dole in 2000? Again - once you lose, it's the end.
coding_to_music

coding_to_music Avatar

Location: Beantown
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:50pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Ironically, your post illustrates my point precisely. Personal attacks, etc. Perhaps you should spend a bit more energy worrying about what should be done by Dems rather than what shouldn't be done by Reps.


So I guess I should just forget about all the things the Republicans are doing, and sit in my little sandbox and dream up an ideal world...
Yes, they would like that, nobody looking at them as they do their deeds...

BTW, did you see the question I posed to you in the Military Matters forum?
GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:49pm

Your choice of Dole as an example is particularly poor. The guy was a war hero and distinguished pol and diplomat for a long time. The Pres race was a capstone to a career, not a definition. He took a bullet for the party, because nobody was going to beat Clinton mid-term.

If Gore was so qualified and shit-hot in 2000, why didn't the party run him again? He was the real president in most of the lib's eyes anyway... or so they say.

pdhski wrote:


Running for president is essentially an all-or-nothing gambit these days. Look at anyone who has put in for it and lost; where are they now (including Bob Dole?)

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:47pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Ironically, your post illustrates my point precisely. Personal attacks, etc. Perhaps you should spend a bit more energy worrying about what should be done by Dems rather than what shouldn't be done by Reps.



1. Nominate Howard Dean
2. Shoot our pollster
AugieK

AugieK Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:44pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Hi sweetheart....

I'm not sure I agree. When you think of naked ambition, do you think of John McCain or Bill Clinton? Ron Reagan or Ted Kennedy? Most Reps at least tend to have had a job/career before office, unlike the career pols on the left side. Or that is the perception anyway, which is as good as reality.

And it is the lack of principle (rudder of the ship, to quote Khalil Gibran) that has got the Dems in their current predicament. The party without a message.... blowing in the wind, resorting to personal attacks and class warfare, fighting rearguard actions against the Rep agenda.

Whether or not you like it, the Dems are just reacting-- to the War, to Patriot Act, to Social Security Reform, to Filibuster busting, to whatever.

Your choice of Republicans in your comparison presupposes the answer. Cast it differently, and the answer changes. Let me put it this way: When you think of naked ambition, do you think of Dick Cheney or Hubert Humphrey? Karl Rove or Jimmy Carter? Tom Delay or Joe Lieberman?

That said, I do agree with your second paragraph. They need to take a stand, in a manner that convinces people other than hard-core Dems that they are taking a stand.
GolfRomeo

GolfRomeo Avatar

Location: Way Down Yonder
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:43pm

Ironically, your post illustrates my point precisely. Personal attacks, etc. Perhaps you should spend a bit more energy worrying about what should be done by Dems rather than what shouldn't be done by Reps.

coding_to_music wrote:


I disagree, the biggest problem with the Republicans is they want to invade Iraq and kill lots of people and invade other countries and kill those people too. They do lots of other things too, like remove Social Security, install right-wing activist judges, remove rights from gays, women, workers. And they like to destroy the environment too.

And that's just before lunch, you should see the schedule for the rest of the day !

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 7, 2005 - 12:41pm

GolfRomeo wrote:
Hi sweetheart....

I'm not sure I agree. When you think of naked ambition, do you think of John McCain or Bill Clinton? Ron Reagan or Ted Kennedy? Most Reps at least tend to have had a job/career before office, unlike the career pols on the left side. Or that is the perception anyway, which is as good as reality.

And it is the lack of principle (rudder of the ship, to quote Khalil Gibran) that has got the Dems in their current predicament. The party without a message.... blowing in the wind, resorting to personal attacks and class warfare, fighting rearguard actions against the Rep agenda.

Whether or not you like it, the Dems are just reacting-- to the War, to Patriot Act, to Social Security Reform, to Filibuster busting, to whatever.

Bah. None of this is a valid indictment of Democrats. Same could be/was said of the Reeps when they nominated Dole. Fercryin'outloud.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 59, 60, 61, 62  Next