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

Timber:-

Why is abstinence an "unrealistic alternative"It is going to have to be used at some point.And anyway what exactly is abstinence.

I read somewhere that the Australian aboriginal population did not increase for 25,000 years and they had none of the interferences spoken of up above and there's no evidence of shortage of food or plague.

It might be the missionaries.

There have been a very large number of abortions in our green and pleasant land and yet I don't know anybody who has had one.Are they so ashamed.They damned well should be.Just look at Holbein's Madonna or Rapheal's.

George,

Many of us had argeed upon Dean before he suffered Media and Political Assassination...

Love him or hate him, at least he was a stand-up guy for what he believed in.

Cycloptichorn

Well the worst thing that happened to Dean was the endorsement by Al Gore.

A long campaign finally exposed the weaknesses of John Kerry as a candidate. Dean escaped much of that ordeal, and we will never know how he would have fared in the finals.

He may well be a "stand up" guy in terms of reppresenting the collective agenda of the various Democrat special interest groups, but he is quite unelectable for precisely that reason.

Sheesh, Bush was the CAPTAIN of special interest representation, and HE got elected. How would a Dem be any different?

Cycloptichorn

Because the majority of Americans favor the 'special interests' of Republicans more than they do those of Democrats.

Also the Republicans have done better in putting forward a coherent agenda than have the Democrats who are, to a much greater extent, beholden to their lunatic fringe supporters.

Well, you could make the case that the Republican party is just as beholden to their lunatic fringe as the Dems, if not more, George. It's the fundamentalists who have gotten Bush and others elected for the last 5 years, and they are hardly moderate.

The 'special interests' of Bush in this last election were Big Business, the Rich, Fear of Terrorism, and the Religious. That's about it. And you're right, more people support some combination of those three than support Dean's crazy special interests of National Health care, Anti-war, Education, and equality for all. Yaknow, crazy ideas like that.

Cycloptichorn

Lola, I'll point out my earlier mentions of medical necessity and pregnancy resultin' from non-consensual sex as among the legitimate indications for abortion. I object only to abortion-as-birth-control. My entire point is that abortion no longer is a necessary, or even viable, method of birth control; for prolly less money and effort than now is spent on abortion-as-birth-control, universal access to safe, effective contraceptives, and education in their proper use, could be provided throughout the world. As a side benefit, there would be attendant desireable effect on a number of other ills which long have fallen the way of the disadvantaged.

If one truly were committed to the cause of women's reproductive rights, and givin' women control over their bodies, one would champion ongoin' research into, universal availability of, and education regardin' medical contraceptives - it is far better to choose to not become pregnant than to terminate a pregnancy which easily could and should have been prevented. Body-and-fender repair does not come about as a result of effective, reasonable vehicle control, as a rule. Go to the cause, not the effect.

Your thinkin' is rooted in the past - abortion-as-birth-control was once the only practical alternative to unwanted pregnancy. With current technology, no longer is it a necessary option, it is not even a defensible option. "An ounce of prevention ... " and all that, you know. And even within a stable pair-bond, there are contraindications for procreation - women need not be condemned to choose between bein' brood critters or havin' abortions. There are today, as opposed to throughout all the rest of history, other, better ways to prevent undesired pregnancy.

Shut the gate, and the horses won't get out. For the first time in history, we have safe, reliable, economic, fully automatic, thoroughly practical gate closers. Insteada lookin' for ways to get around the inconvenience of loose horses, it would be far better for all concerned to keep the horses coralled. It is more than time everyone, even feminists, caught up with the times. There would be far fewer dead horses to beat, too.


Spendius, abstinence - the conscious decision and practice of avoidin' extra-marital/other-pair-bond sex - has been preached since around the time preachin' began. There's been no noticeable success.

Your last statement does go to a point on which I concur. I too have noted not a lot of women seem proud enough of havin' availed themselves of abortion to brag on their score. The very reticence evidenced offers strong credence to the concept that even abortion-as-birth-control's beneficiaries are, as a general rule, not themselves entirely comfortable with the practice. Of course its a a "private decision" - moral and ethical failin's pretty generally fall into that category; few folks are proud of doin' shameful, needless things.

Perhaps they could perform a radical hysterectomy upon having the third abortion?

A pro-choice war protester and a non-factor to be exact.

You can say that about any congressman. This wasn't the first time a congressman has been accused of indecisiveness.


They thought they had it with Kerry. A moderate (compared to the other Democratic nominees) war veteran.
I honestly believe that had Wesley Clark run in Iowa he might even be president today. The people want a strong candidate but we're limited in our selection. The lobbyists make sure of that.

Well, I guess there isn't any problem. The Democrats are doing everything right - their platform is OK and their candidates are OK. What they need is a new electorate.

The presumptive topic of this thread is what the Democrats must do to reverse a prolonged adverse trend in their success in elections at the state and federal levels. For those of you who think everything is OK - that's fine with me.

Yup, Commodore, that works for me too. I'm content the Dems' and their current leadership continue to embrace and pursue failed strategems, rejectin' objective, contstructive criticism; I'd like to see 'em keep up the good work, as long as the current crop of personalities and ideas hold sway within the Democratic Party - the future depends on it.

On the other hand, I'd really prefer The Democratic Party would outgrow and abandon its juvenile, negativist, obstructionary, game-playin', feel-good, directionless, self-servin', short-sighted approach, and get back to bein' an active participant in the matter of positively and proactively managin' the affairs of this nation. The 2-Party system works better when both Parties actually participate.

Well, when one party makes it abundantly clear that b/c they are in the majority, opposition bills and concerns will not be allowed to pass/addressed at all, it makes it difficult for the other party to have a meaningful part in the process.

Cycloptichorn

Poppycock, to my mind - I feel that were the Opposition to present any real, viable alternative, as opposed to mere complaint and objection to findin' themselves representationally disadvantaged, not only would such alternatives be considered, the Opposition would not find itself so representationally disadvantaged as today is the case. The Opposition has done this to themselves. They are the Party of denial, obstructionism, and baseless recrimination. Thats the way I see it, anyhow.

It's so easy to forget that up to 1994, the Democrats had held the majority in both houses of Congress for generations as well as a huge percentage of governorships and majorities in state legislatures. They were even electing presidents now and then. Then slowly but certainly their lunatic fringe became more and more the mainstream of Democrats in government, in universities, in the courts, and in the media. Social engineering and presumed moral superiority replaced constructive ideas and progressive initiatives. Sooner or later even some of the more staunch of their ranks lost faith in their agenda.

And voila, the GOP who actually did have and marketed ideas that were more compatible with American values and convictions gained important majorities and have been improving on them ever since.

George pointed out awhile back that given any serious challenge, the GOP will likely become as ingrown, complacent, and self-serving as the Democrats had become. Timber is right that we would all be better off with a clear choice between two or more good candidates on election day.

But for now, the Democrats seem to continue to be in denial and their lunatic fringe keeps hogging the microphones and camera angles that will likely ensure GOP victories long into the foreseeable future.

Timber, Foxfire and george......by the time you finish gloating over your perceived victory and look around you, it will be too late. The GOP is flirting with the edge and some have already fallen.......they just don't seem to have recognized it yet.

Tom DeLay for one has finally cooked his own goose, I do believe. And Frist too. When those without a true mandate get too cock sure and all gloaty, they will find themselves by the wayside, cast aside as most over confident bullies eventually are.......... and deservedly so.

The doom you see befalling us is simply prediction on your part, but actual events have shown the reverse for some time now. I don't believe there is much in reality to support your theory.

Lola follows the party line of predicting that the GOP will stumble enough to fall and joins in the chorus of condemnation of specific Republicans and Republicans in general in a concentrated effort to hasten that process. But they rarely have much constructive to say about the Democrats. It's funny how the GOP can see that and none of the Democrats seem to be able to do that.

Maybe Michael Savage is correct in his new book title: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"?

He has a few other choice names for them. He's fun to listen to.

Brandon writes


Yes he is though at least a third of the time I think he's absolutely bonkers, about a third of the time I think he's right on target, and the rest of the time I can't figure out what his point is. But he is definitely fun to listen to.