Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

bmk. I may read this later. Sorry to have missed the insults.

Your use of the word "condemn" is the problem with your formulation here. My belief that the fundamentalist fanatic's beliefs are simple is not bigotry, it is a belief. Fundamentalist fanaticism is simple by definition. It's black vs. white, good vs. bad. That's simple.

If you believe in these polarities, then I believe that you believe in an over (way over) simplified view of the nature of the human being and of society. That's not bigotry, that's my belief. If I get short tempered about it, that's not condemning, it's being short tempered with it. I wish everyone would face up to the complexity of society and recognize their fears without using systems of belief that require pat answers. And I AM annoyed........well furious really........ right now because I believe there are those who are using this belief in simple polarities for political and financial gain.

If you don't want to read that I think it's simple, then go to another thread. On this thread, those of us who believe we're in trouble because of the outcome of this election are thinking and discussing what to do next. And we don't need to be constantly clarifying our terms. Read the title of the thread, please. If you're going to stay around, say something useful or at least different from your usual.

But you are getting away from what I said and attributing different meaning to my words.

Joe is not speaking of a fringe group of fanatics, but everyone that would believe in a god. I am portraying him as an elitist bigot that thinks people that do not believe as he does are somehow "simple" meaning less intelligent. Less sophisticated. That is bigotry.

I do not believe in a god either, but I do not denounce others that do because I understand people have differences and the human need for a belief system is vital. I do not consider my wife, a devout ROman Catholic to be simple. Hell, she voted for Kerry, but she also opposses gay marriage and abortion. As do I.

Ok dems what went wrong and how can we fix it?

Try running a candidate that is smarter than the competition. And stay away from the mud slinging, it never gains as many votes as it pushes away. (Thank you Michael Moore)

Then how come Bush won?

And you took it.

Too many Irish.

He lacks integrity, stands only for himself, will say and do anything to achieve his personal goals, including deception and betraying those with whom he has a shared committment.

perjar"]

Then how come Bush won?[/quote]

Because he is smarter than Kerry :wink:

Because he is smarter than Kerry :wink:[/quote]

Which is why
Bush got 3.5 million more of the popular vote and 34 more of the electoral vote, and the GOP picked up 5 more Senate seats.

Sorry McG......I'm a little reactionary still. I should have paid more attention to what you were talking about. I was being interrupted and didn't take the necessary time to read.

And I take it again.

Boston Tea Party
American Revolution

pol·troon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-trn)
n.
A base coward

cow·ard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kourd)
n.
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

You're not getting off that easy. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean I'm gonna let you get away with continuing to smear him. There is nothing cowardly about Kerry and all of the things you ticked off were Republican talking points with no basis in fact.

Thank you. I'll take my tranquilizers now.

And vow of silence ends......

But that isn't what I wrote, or thought, although you seem to know my thoughts, you've got it wrong. I am happy that you do not denounce people who have differences though I seem to have fallen victim to something very much like denouncing here, though you did say at first I only sounded like a bigot, I fear that I have achieved a fuller status now that you have portrayed me as a elitist bigot. My only question is who will portray me in the movie? Can it be Jude Law?

And I especially like your confusion because I share it. You don't believe in a god but you say the human need for (such) a belief system is vital. Why aren't we both dead?

Joe Nation

And now, back to solving the identity crisis of the Democratic Party.......

More like it never began.

I sincerely hope they helped.

Your objection is noted.

My opinion of the man is unchanged. It is not based on anyone's talking points. I was among those he slandered, and I have enough direct related experience to know and understand the depth of his self-serving lies, manipulations, and betrayals. Further in his various political gambits he fully revealed that those same qualities have infected other areas of his actions and judgement.

As someone who would have voted for a conservative Democrat, I think that the big problem was that one never knew where Kerry stood. He appeared to be incapable of a clear opinion on anything. In a time of war, that is very dangerous.

Does anyone remember the Edsel? It was a good car, and some of its technology was ahead of its time. The car died after three years. I remember discussions as to why that auto bombed. Savvy car manufacturers slant their products to certain demographic groups. The Edsel never seem to attain any "image", and so few people identified with it and wanted to buy it. And so it was with Kerry.

Kerry never appeared to have a codified vision of how he was going to deal with the problems that face the US. People made fun of his "flip-flopping", but IMO, ultimately, that was his downfall. In many of the threads that I read on A2K, rarely did I see anyone praise him for one thing or another; one of the only positive attributes that he had was that he was not George Bush.

Evan Thomas, an editor of Newsweek, had this to say when he was interviewed by Matt Lauer, on "Today"



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110404/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html

I know that this is the Limbaugh site, (so stop snickering ) but the report is coming out in Newsweek later this week.

TRUE

That is merely a currently fashionable European epithet. There is no more thought and understanding behind the phrase than is contained in it.
Moreover, it would be very difficult to support the notion that Europeans or their governments are dealing well with the serious social, demographic, and economic problems before them. The factt and results of stupidity are more significant than the assumed forms associated with it.

Stupid is as stupid does. In view of the awful history of the 20th century, Europeans should merely sit back in shamed silence.

Intersting take from 'The Backseat Philosopher'

To My Fellow Democrats

We Democrats are supposedly the party of the therapists, the teachers, and the 'relationship experts.' If anybody would be proud of the title, 'active listener', it would be a Democrat. We're the soft ones who understand where the other side is coming from and negotiate.

Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."

Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.

And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

Here are some arguments that are being made that the Democratic party has simply not responded to, in the larger sense of the word "response":

-Whatever the UN was, might have been, or should be, it now isn't. Genocidal tyrannies are on the Human Rights commision. Saddam Hussein funneled over 1.7 billion dollars to various decision makers and world leaders to weaken his sanctions program. One out of every three votes is about Israel. Until the UN is significantly reformed, you shouldn't take its decisions seriously.

-If we view 1000 or even 10,000 dead soldiers as unacceptable, we will never be able to fight a real war again.

-Proportional response with no preemption allows the other side to set the pace of the battle.

-Throughout history, governments have had a strong interest in promoting long-term child-rearing heterosexual relationships. That is why governments create a legal definition of Marriage and provide lots of benefits to heterosexual couples who enter into it. This has been true for States throughout history independent of the religious beliefs of the populace. Worrying about changing that definition, even to the point of deciding against a change, is not automatically sexism or bigotry.

-If you never are willing to draw a line where human life starts, there will be no line.

-Just because it says something in the Bible doesn't mean there are no ancillary arguments supporting it. And just because someone uses the Bible as a source of their morality doesn't mean that any particular view of theirs is wrong. Actually, stuff that's lasted for thousands of years is more likely to be useful than stuff that was dreamed up in a French philosophy book.

I am not saying that all these arguments should win. But I do not hear enough Democrats elucidating reasoned counterarguments to these positions. "Bush insulted our allies and the UN," "Bush lied, people died," "We have become the aggressor," "Homophobia," "Religious nut." These are not responses, these are dismissals. When Democrats start actively responding, we will succeed. Until then, we will be increasingly ignored as irrelevent.

LINK

Fedral,

Well said! Who is this guy?

I believe the points made are all valid. Moreover they can be taken as a starting point for recasting the basic drives of the Democrat agenda, perhaps enabling them to debrade the useless and offensive tissue from the still viable body of their political beliefs and platform.