Dems can't keep yaps shut

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-03 09:44am

Kerry says US needs "regime change"
Don't these guys learn anything?? It sure worked for Daschle

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-03 10:02am

Can we label him an enemy sympathiser and send him to Gitmo?

What is it with these dumbassed democrats that just want to shoot their mouths off? Hell, I don't like Bush much but I'd still take him over these idiots. They don't get it that all they're doing is ruining their own credibility. You can't effect change by just bitching about the things Bush has done wrong.

They should take a tip from the Republican Congresses during the Clinton years. You need to have a plan and work towards your goals not simply snipe at the guy leading if you want to win people over.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-03 10:11am

You know what, I say let them yap! It will only cost them in the long run. If they want to be the perpetual minority party, who are we to stop them?

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-04-03 10:19am

They're just sore because they aren't the majority.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-03 10:26am

While I agree that Kerry should be focussing on his OWN reforms and sticking to describing the theoretical benefits that such reforms would have rather than blaming Bush for sending the country into chaos (which is debatable), he's right. Bush DOES need to be replaced. The sad fact is that he's probably going to get re-elected, and THEN we'll see where the economy goes.

My prediction is this: Bush gets re-elected and shows the country exactly how messed up his economic plan is, as soon as he gets some semblance of economy back under him. His second term will end in financial turmoil for the country. Unemployment will remain low with no hope for amelioration in the near future, at least not under a smiliar governmental structure. Kerry gets elected after Bush's second term (provided Bush hasn't rewritten the constitution to extend the maximum number of presidential terms indefinitely). Unemployment goes down, social programs go up, tax cuts even out, wealthy people get pissed because Kerry will reverse the cuts that Bush made. Middle- and lower-class citizens will be made happier, as well as the elderly, education departments, etc.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are better than the Republicans. I'm saying I'd take Kerry over Bush any day, and not just because he's from my home-state. Rather, BECAUSE he's from my home-state, I have spent quite a bit of time getting to know his policies, most of which I agree with. (read: I don't wanna be flamed for being biased because this guy's from my state. It's just not true.)

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-03 10:33am

As always Let the best person win, my prob with the Dems is they never offer any solutions. They use scare tactics and doom and gloom insted of putting forth their ideas. Even a partisin as myself can see good ideas if shown some. If Kerry has some, talk about them. Railing aginst the Prez and the war only pushes them further left of center.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-03 12:20pm

theski wrote:As always Let the best person win, my prob with the Dems is they never offer any solutions. They use scare tactics and doom and gloom insted of putting forth their ideas.

They offer solutions all the time. Those solutions just happen to include raising taxes, which people get all pissy about, and then wonder why the government can't pay for anything. The Democrats want to raise taxes to keep funding their various programs, and the Republicans want to lower taxes and pretend that the Democrats' programs don't exist. Well, sorry, they do exist, and the lobbying groups behind them will see to it that they don't go away. Whether or not these programs are worth the money is another debate.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-04-03 01:02pm

Durandal wrote:
theski wrote:As always Let the best person win, my prob with the Dems is they never offer any solutions. They use scare tactics and doom and gloom insted of putting forth their ideas.

They offer solutions all the time. Those solutions just happen to include raising taxes, which people get all pissy about, and then wonder why the government can't pay for anything. The Democrats want to raise taxes to keep funding their various programs, and the Republicans want to lower taxes and pretend that the Democrats' programs don't exist. Well, sorry, they do exist, and the lobbying groups behind them will see to it that they don't go away. Whether or not these programs are worth the money is another debate.

So your point is what? That no matter what, we can never bring spending under control, so we shouldn't even try?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-03 01:05pm

Durandal wrote:They offer solutions all the time. Those solutions just happen to include raising taxes, which people get all pissy about, and then wonder why the government can't pay for anything. The Democrats want to raise taxes to keep funding their various programs, and the Republicans want to lower taxes and pretend that the Democrats' programs don't exist. Well, sorry, they do exist, and the lobbying groups behind them will see to it that they don't go away. Whether or not these programs are worth the money is another debate.

But the point is the Democrats have simply yelled about the "problems" the Republican's have created. None of them offer the solutions in public and frankly they've offered damn little in the way of alternative policy as a party.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-03 01:33pm

The Democratic strategy that the party has embraced has been simple. Oppose the president, attack his policies, essentially take whatever the opposing view is on an issue that he stands for. This policy backfired dramatically for them in the last election when they lost seats in both houses and essentially lost control of Congress. Democrats faced with this crisis now have no real alternative strategy. They just don't get the fact that at least on the issues that they oppose like the war and foreign policy, the majority of the electorate is with the president.

The real problem is two fold: One the Democrats are not picking and choosing their battles. They need to focus on their strengths and not engage Bush in areas where they have no real stand such as opposing the war, we have troops in the field, time for opposition is over. You just look stupid criticising a president for going to war when your already in war. They have not learned this yet. The liberal leadership just cannot concieve of the fact that the American electorate supports this action and they think that if they keep harping on it the true majority will eventually rise up....BZZZZTT not going to happen. They need to focus on issues like the economy where Bush is floundering.

Two: They need to get a message., Right now they don't have one. The republicans have one: cut taxes and protect the nation. Simple and something most people can agree with. Can the Democrats boast such a simple message. Other than "We oppose this admintration?" I'm not seeing a message here. Clinton had the right idea: "Its the economy stupid." A simple message that resonated with the American public. Right now Democrats and resonate just don't go together. they need to find a message and quickly.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-04-03 01:51pm

I think Stravo has hit the nail on the head. The Dems need a focus and a message like yesterday if they dont want to get trounced in the next election. Right now their 'oppose everything' stance is really hurting them even amongst the normally prime constituents. They are essentially saying we oppose defending the country, and we oppose the tax cuts the President has delivered and thoes he is contemplating. All adds up bad bad juju for their election hopes. If they keeps this up I forsee the Republicans with nigh on super majorities in both the House and Senate, especially if the mid-road Dems can't get the Lefties to shut the hell up.
The dems should concentrate on winning one of the houses and making a strong bid for the Presidency in 2004, rather than squandering themselves trying to fight every battle.

Of course this is all playing devils advocte on my part, I hope they keep it up it just makes thing easier for the President and the GOP

Here's to Bush in '04 and Republican heavy majorities in both House and Senate

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-03 04:14pm

The Democrats have been utterly lost since September 11. If you remember, as late as September 10, the economy was going into the tank, the Democrats had the Senate, there was still lots of grumbling about Bush's legitimacy, and Bush's Social Security plan was in the process of dying a slow, painful death at the hands of Tom Daschell. Had Osama bin Laden's band of merry men not flown airliners into skyscrapers the next day, the Republicans would have gotten clobbered in the 2002 midterms and Bush would be scrambling to save his presidency right now.

Unfortunately for them, September 11 shocked America out of the feeling of security it had since the end of the Cold War, and when Americans feel threatened physically (by criminals, terrorists, or foreign powers), they vote Republican. The Democrats' issues--Social Security, prescription drug benefits for Medicare, blaming Bush for not fixing the economy, etc.--either evaporated or got pushed to the back burner (for example, Americans are much more likely to say today that the bad economy is the result of factors outside the Preisdent's control than they were two years ago). The new issues were making sure September 11 never happened again and punishing those responsible in the first place. On the second, there's little substantial to criticize the administration on: the loathsome Taliban has been crushed and its remnants scattered to the hills, hundreds of al-Queda are rotting in prison or Guantanamo Bay (and as much as it twists Amnesty International's panties, John Q. Voter isn't going to get weepy eyed because someone forgot to read Achmed Q. Terrorist his Miranda rights) and a lot more are dead. We haven't caught bin Laden, but that's not enough to win an election.

On the first issue, it really comes down to Iraq, and there the Democrats are faced with the choice of totally backing the president (boosting his poll numbers and alienating their own grassroots) or criticizing the war and looking like they're rooting for the US to fail (which works if we do fail and they can scream, "I told you so," but if we win, they look like a sack of assholes and every moderate in the country is going to be pulling the Republican lever in 2004). There's a third third option: that would be loyal opposition and criticizing the war on technical grounds ("Shock and awe is a failure", "The diplomatic buildup was a total clusterfuck that cost us a northern front from Turkey", etc.), but that's a gamble because you have to start doing that before the war, and you look foolish if you're wrong, and the Democratic party likes taking risks the way I like to slam car doors on my dick. So, in a move that's pure Clintonism, they've tried to to both at once. The problem is, none of them are as smart as Clinton, and they've looked traitors to the cause in the eyes of the left and spiteful obstructionists to the right--and spineless pantywaists to both. In the meantime, the Republicans will, if they've got any sense at all, make a mad dash for the center as soon as the war is over to hang on to the moderate vote while Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy preach to the "vomit-in" crowd. John Kerry or Dick Gephardt will be the sacrifical lamb in the 2004 election, the Democrats get pasted again in Congress, and everyone waits for Bush to totally fuck up his second term. This was the same strategy that the Democrats tried in 1984, and it eventually paid off in 1992 when Clinton was elected. The trouble is for you lefties here, I don't think you want to wait until 2012 to see a Democrat in the White House again. So you've got to root for the economy NOT to get better and for our foreign policy TO be fucked up (in other words, Bush has to live down to your expectations), or else you'll be watching them innaugurate President Condoleeza Rice in January 2009.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-03 04:22pm

You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-04-03 04:56pm

Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.

Hell that was the reason why I voted for Bush. At the time I was hoping him and the democrats become so deadlocked on everything, neither of them could do anything to adversely effect the economy. Then September 11th happened...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-03 05:03pm

Rubberanvil wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.
Hell that was the reason why I voted for Bush. At the time I was hoping him and the democrats become so deadlocked on everything, neither of them could do anything to adversely effect the economy. Then September 11th happened...

Of course, and then Bush goes and passes all sorts of dumbass tariffs and doesn't hesitate to jump on the anti-business bandwagon after Enron to pass all sorts of new regulations to even further retard any recovery that might have taken place sooner. I love the Republican party.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-03 05:08pm

Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.

The invasion of Iraq seems to have done a good job at driving the stock market up and oil prices down. Once that slows down we can attack Brunei and Saudi Arabia... The British might not like the former being invaded however.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-03 05:11pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.
The invasion of Iraq seems to have done a good job at driving the stock market up and oil prices down. Once that slows down we can attack Brunei and Saudi Arabia... The British might not like the former being invaded however.

But the uncertainty over the war was a contributing factor in the non-recovery of the economy for quite a long time. It may be a good war, but that doesn't make it good for the economy, ceteris paribus.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-03 05:11pm

Gridlock is good for everyone..

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-03 05:48pm

I'm loathe to admit it, but I think Bush has the 2004 election in the bag unless he horribly fucks the war up. We're not far along enough at this point to really make a judgment call on that yet, but the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be a major determining factor in whether or not the war was worth it.

Right now, Americans are all about killing the bad guys and liberating people, but when the sun comes up and the party's over, Bush has to clean up the vomit and count the cash to make sure he covered the keg.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-03 09:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.
The invasion of Iraq seems to have done a good job at driving the stock market up and oil prices down. Once that slows down we can attack Brunei and Saudi Arabia... The British might not like the former being invaded however.

I'd like to see Bush justify those invasions to the anti-war group who thinks he's already just out to get oil.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-03 09:14pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:You know what sounds good to me? No bullshit "plan" for fixing the economy. How about letting it fix itself for a change? It's pretty good at it.
The invasion of Iraq seems to have done a good job at driving the stock market up and oil prices down. Once that slows down we can attack Brunei and Saudi Arabia... The British might not like the former being invaded however.
I'd like to see Bush justify those invasions to the anti-war group who thinks he's already just out to get oil.

Saudi Arabia gives money to people to kill Westerners. Brunei is more difficult. Not that I'm suggesting an invasion of either would be a wise move...at the moment.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-03 09:23pm

Durran Korr wrote:Saudi Arabia gives money to people to kill Westerners. Brunei is more difficult. Not that I'm suggesting an invasion of either would be a wise move...at the moment.

Yeah, and the US gives money to Israelis to kill Palestinians, and we don't see any Arab nations coming to get us. ::Shrugs::

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-03 09:24pm

nonononononno no Israeli/palestinian talk *gets out nomex suit* and popcorn

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-04-03 09:25pm

Here goes Queeb AGAIN. If your going to make a statement like that, just tattoo on your forehead: "I'm a DIPSHIT, please kick me."

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-03 09:28pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:*snip leftist alarmism to the nth power*

Yesss Bush is going to take food from babies too.

Yes Republicans cream their pants when passing military bills or wanting to cut spending?

Wealthy people will get pissed off?? They probably should be; "left of Lenin" suggests you think that the money never belonged to them in the first place, but to the state.