Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Hillary seems to be drifting to the right preparing for '08....will be interesting as this clashes with Dean's view of where the Party should be.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Hillary seems to be drifting to the right preparing for '08....will be interesting as this clashes with Dean's view of where the Party should be.

I don't like her much, but at least she has enough brains to see the writing on the wall.

0 Replies

http://www.hillary.org/images/hillary.jpg

LOL Brandon, ya think?

<Hi, my name is Hillary Rodham, and I'm reporting for duty!>

0 Replies

LOL! I bet Kerry cringed when he saw that ...he thinks he's the front runner in '08.

It's gonna be fun.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

That would be quite a feat, neo, since the very basis or the pro-life movement is to keep someone from killing babies.

It is pro-life, in every essence of the word.

But what about what happens after the baby's born?

Also, anyone think that maybe it's time for the Demos to get "Back to basics"? That they've been trying too hard to compete for the CEO's dollars instead of working with their "grassroots"?

0 Replies

NeoGuin wrote:

Lash wrote:
That would be quite a feat, neo, since the very basis or the pro-life movement is to keep someone from killing babies.

It is pro-life, in every essence of the word.

But what about what happens after the baby's born?

Also, anyone think that maybe it's time for the Demos to get "Back to basics"? That they've been trying too hard to compete for the CEO's dollars instead of working with their "grassroots"?

The sanctimony of the right rarely reaches past the birth of the baby, Neo. But you know that.

0 Replies

So, rip it to pieces, so it doesn't interfere with your life....and pretend it's not really a baby.

What blackmail. <not remotely humorous> If the Right won't take responsibility for all these children, they should sit back quietly while they're slaughtered.

The logic of that is craven.

0 Replies

Snood:

I know that, it's just that the GOP has managed to keep so many people in the dark on that

Lash wrote:

What blackmail. <not remotely humorous> If the Right won't take responsibility for all these children, they should sit back quietly while they're slaughtered.

The logic of that is craven.

Well someone has to! Making it so that parent could have a job that keeps them above the poverty line would be a good start, IMHO.

I have a feeling my argument on this will be drawn out one point at a time.

0 Replies

I don't think the GOP is trying to prevent people from working at decent jobs.

<not heated> Do you think<really> aborting babies is a solution for the economy.

0 Replies

Dean.

Dean/Democratic Chairman.

Maybe try to tie this in somehow.

or go for it - get another thread locked down

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

NeoGuin wrote:
Just:

Actaully, IMHO, Dean signals a change in Progressives.

They realize that they need to put energy into getting people in power that will listen to them!

You must have missed the tie-in.

It was about Dean, and his influence on the Democrat party.

The poster who kicked off the personal insults on the other thread is not here. So, his thread is unlikely to get shut down.

0 Replies

Yes. I only used the double-speak about 'abortion' as an example.

I could as easily have used Dean on....

Religion
Republicans
Race
The WOT

Not to mention 'miscellaneous' LOL.

0 Replies

Actually, back to Dean and his statements about abortion---if I were to advise them--I'd tell them not to talk about it at all. Its a done deal. Why continue to stamp ABORTION on everthing they do?

Abortion will never be illegal. They should start finding a reasonable, nuanced position, like against PBAs and for parental notitication--to seem less murderous.

I don't think Planned Parenthood will let them, though.

This may be their worst problem. They are in bed with Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, lawyers, and unions---and groups typically rejected by most middle Americans. They need to find a new...reason to exist.

Actually--they should steal what we have lost. Fiscal responsibility. That's what I'd do if I was their Karl Rove. But, you can't base an entire party on that. I don't think.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Actually--they should steal what we have lost. Fiscal responsibility. That's what I'd do if I was their Karl Rove. But, you can't base an entire party on that. I don't think.

I agree. That and "big government". Trot out the Patriot Act every chance they get and make people think that the gov't will use it to take their guns. If I was their Shirley Rove, that's what I'd do.

0 Replies

That, too. Obviously, I think the Patriot Act is a necessary thing--but completely tossing political opinion--and putting on the "party boss" hat--you're right. The Patriot Act is easy to make look anti-America-freedom... An easy target.

And, I'd be grooming five or six candidates for military prowess. They'd be getting schooled on the side by the best military minds in the country--and campaign for spots on the military committees... They'd be immersed, and visiting troops to talk with them, and glean some on the ground info.... And, to velope reps as Dems who know what they're talking about.

Problem there is the division between he mindset of an Idealist--most Dems--and a Realist--most GOPers.

And, this isn't a dig--- You can feed two people the same information--and they can compute it in completely different ways....and come to completely different results. Depending on their worldview. The Dems will have to find (IMO) someone, who espouses most of the traditional Democrat values--but in foreign policy--has the Hobbsian view. Methinks, anyhoo.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Problem there is the division between he mindset of an Idealist--most Dems--and a Realist--most GOPers.

With the right finessing, this is pretty easy to turn around. Notice how Bush is the idealist when it suits him. Democracy for the downtrodden peoples? Idealism. Abortion rights? Realism. It all depends on the issue. It's all sales as far as I can see, and if the Democrats can stay one step ahead of the Republicans the way the Republicans stayed one step ahead of them in the last campaign, then they can come back.

0 Replies

Well--Interesting, Freeduck. We had a melee in Global Issues class just yesterday, in which I <in bliss, I tell you> pointedly challenged my prof to make that point. Bush is being labelled as an Idealist for Iraq--but he's not.

The reason he's being pegged is because the political scientists and people who are doing the categorizing have chosen to view the move as humanitarian. It wasn't. It was a gamble for our Vital National Interests. Defense as Offense.

Being that terrorism has broken the mold of warfare--someone had to think up a new way to fight an assymetrical war.

Bush et al decided the best way to do his was to somehow drag them out of the 16th century. Modernization will kill stone age theocracy. Education will kill it. They are attacking it from the inside--because you can't drop a bomb on it.

Iraq was Realism. Humanitarian by-products were nice--but they weren't the primary goal---in the least.

But, if the Dems become smart, and regroup---yes, they can be a contender again.

I don't like either party with too much power. So, I'm hoping the Dems refashion into something appealing.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Well--Interesting, Freeduck. We had a melee in Global Issues class just yesterday, in which I <in bliss, I tell you> pointedly challenged my prof to make that point. Bush is being labelled as an Idealist for Iraq--but he's not.

The reason he's being pegged is because the political scientists and people who are doing the categorizing have chosen to view the move as humanitarian. It wasn't. It was a gamble for our Vital National Interests. Defense as Offense.

Well, that's a good argument, but I assume they are using the president's own words, such as those in his SOTU address to make that assessment. Most people understand that we did not go for humanitarian reasons, but with no other reasons that pass the sniff test of the public, we have to take him at his word when he uses that as a justification for what has already been done.

Quote:

Being that terrorism has broken the mold of warfare--someone had to think up a new way to fight an assymetrical war.

I agree, but if the goal was to fight terrorism then the Iraq war and its timing doesn't really fit. But this has been tossed about on many a thread.

Quote:

Bush et al decided the best way to do his was to somehow drag them out of the 16th century. Modernization will kill stone age theocracy. Education will kill it. They are attacking it from the inside--because you can't drop a bomb on it.

Well, that works for Afghanistan but not Iraq. Iraq was quite modern and not a theocracy.

Quote:

Iraq was Realism. Humanitarian by-products were nice--but they weren't the primary goal---in the least.

But, if the Dems become smart, and regroup---yes, they can be a contender again.

I don't like either party with too much power. So, I'm hoping the Dems refashion into something appealing.

I agree that Iraq was realism. But I think all government is based in realism. The labels of idealist or realist are only used for political points and can be flipped on their ear depending on how an issue is presented. Iraq is one. Abortion is another. It's all in how it is presented.

But I agree. I would prefer a better balance of power. If a new party emerged to supplant the dems, that would be ok too, as long as they were not marginalized.

0 Replies

So interesting discussing this with you.

I agree-re flipping realism and idealism--quite easy.

As to your point--Iraq was not a theocracy--of course, you are right---but here is my point--(I really don't express well)--

A theocratic mindset-- as exists in Iraq--where people could kill their daughters with no legal/ political consequences...where secular Saddam surely reigned, but where the default law on the streets was theocratic---this is what I refer to.

If you take these people--educate them, give them free news sources, at least let them know there's another way--at the same time--empower them with votes, money, a sense of power over the Taliban-type Mullahs--they will not be frightened, obedient punching bags for a dictator---or a corrupt, murdering bunch of religious leaders.

Iraq wasn't modern. What would you base that on?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

So interesting discussing this with you.

I agree-re flipping realism and idealism--quite easy.

As to your point--Iraq was not a theocracy--of course, you are right---but here is my point--(I really don't express well)--

A theocratic mindset-- as exists in Iraq--where people could kill their daughters with no legal/ political consequences...where secular Saddam surely reigned, but where the default law on the streets was theocratic---this is what I refer to.

If you take these people--educate them, give them free news sources, at least let them know there's another way--at the same time--empower them with votes, money, a sense of power over the Taliban-type Mullahs--they will not be frightened, obedient punching bags for a dictator---or a corrupt, murdering bunch of religious leaders.

Gotcha.

Quote:

Iraq wasn't modern. What would you base that on?

Well, Iraqi's were/are quite educated. Note how many of them speak English. Iraq was the only country that developed higher education curriculums in the sciences in Arabic (that I know of) as opposed to English or French. Baghdad was quite modern. Folks from all over the middle east went there for medical care. They had industry and banking and telecommunications. As compared to Afghanistan they were practically first world.

But I'm pulling all of this from memory. I will dig up some references to make sure that I'm correct.

0 Replies

Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know