Democrat Anger

[sexy-girl]

some of these thoughts came from a tv programme i was watching


it seems that democrat anger is at a high not seen since vietnam and nixon ... candidates like howard dean are really tapping into that and getting a strong determined grass roots backing ... and a lot of democrats who were used to clintons middle of the road calm approach are enjoying this new way of attacking the republicans


however there is a danger with this anger style approach in that it makes it easier for the republicans to paint the democrats as desperate marginals


anyway i know im not american and its know of my business blah blah blah ... but what do americans think of this new democrat approach .......


do democrats enjoy it ?

do republicans fear it ?

 

[lobito]

I'm not sure if Democrats enjoy it, or Republicans fear it, but frankly, no matter who runs the U.S. Someone is gonna complain. It's a no win situation.

Lots of people wnat Bush gone, though by the polls on the News at night, they say he's "winning" over dean supporters. The very small amount of people in these polls doesn't exactly equal the nearly 300 million people in the U.S.'s thoughts.

 

[TWB]

For Dem's, it is excellent in the primary, and some of it in the general election in order to get out vote. However is will not win an election in itself. Watch for the anger to lead up to the convention, and then a more positive message about dems at that time.

Organizations like Moveon.com will continue to bash bush but you will hear more positive policy coming from the 'crats.

 

[Angler]

some of these thoughts came from a tv programme i was watching


it seems that democrat anger is at a high not seen since vietnam and nixon ... candidates like howard dean are really tapping into that and getting a strong determined grass roots backing ... and a lot of democrats who were used to clintons middle of the road calm approach are enjoying this new way of attacking the republicans


however there is a danger with this anger style approach in that it makes it easier for the republicans to paint the democrats as desperate marginals


anyway i know im not american and its know of my business blah blah blah ... but what do americans think of this new democrat approach .......


do democrats enjoy it ?

do republicans fear it ?

----
No disrespect meant ... do you understand the system you're asking about?


Do you understand us?


Like I said ... no disrespect meant.

Angler

 

[lobito]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

----
No disrespect meant ... do you understand the system you're asking about?


Do you understand us?


Like I said ... no disrespect meant.

Angler

How else does she find out about "US" if she doesn't ask?

 

[Angler]

Re: Re: Re: Democrat Anger

How else does she find out about "US" if she doesn't ask?

----

You're correct ... I'm just not quite sure about the question.

Maybe I'm not reading it properly. I'll read it again.

Angler

 

[Bob Peale]

it seems that democrat anger is at a high not seen since vietnam and nixon ...

actually, vietnam started with Johnson.

But this is nothing new - the Republicans were as fiery during the Clinton years, and the rhetoric flew as vitriolic during the Reagan years.

The reality is, the temperature raises when the party out of power detects a chink in the armor. Its never wise to pee on a popular president (just ask Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich). If GWB's ratings continue to rise, you'll see a reposturing - the fire and brimstone doesn't play as well with high numbers.

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

----
No disrespect meant ... do you understand the system you're asking about?


Do you understand us?


Like I said ... no disrespect meant.

Angler

do i understand americans ? ... i take the fifth

do i understand the system ? ... yes but i don't follow details of american politics so i usually have to relearn how things work each election


the programme i watched seemed to be saying that republicans usually are the anger party but how democrats supporters are actually enjoying this new style for their party

one off shoot of this was that democrats were trying to start up their own talk radio stations ... usually this is mostly a republican medium

 

[lobito]

Republicans are "generally" thought of as tightasses and people who arne't as accepting of other people not like them.

While Dem's are thought of as willing to accept the fact that their child is something different than what they'd hoped for.

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

actually, vietnam started with Johnson.

but nixon was the guy the democrats really dug their teeth into ... they had a real hatred for him and it seems the same with bush now


if someone like dean gets selected theres a danger that when he trys to capture the middle ground his grass roots supporters might feel betrayed ... or will he really try to carry on with his angry attacks on bush ... some of the shots i saw of him on this programme he really looked crazy (they were shown out of context though)

 

[Angler]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

actually, vietnam started with Johnson.

But this is nothing new - the Republicans were as fiery during the Clinton years, and the rhetoric flew as vitriolic during the Reagan years.

The reality is, the temperature raises when the party out of power detects a chink in the armor. Its never wise to pee on a popular president (just ask Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich). If GWB's ratings continue to rise, you'll see a reposturing - the fire and brimstone doesn't play as well with high numbers.

----
Incorrect.....
Viet Nam was the fault of Republicans & Democrats.

Republican President Eisenhower made the committment of military aid to South Viet Nam during his administration.

Democratic President Kennedy sent troops in as advisors ...and prepared for jungle warfare by creating a new Special Forces Unit in the Army called "The Green Berets".

Democratic President Johnson -- elected to office on the promise to pull advisors and all US troops out of South Viet Nam, escalated the war to major proportions.

Republican President Nixon elected to office on the promise to end the war swiftly with victory rather than a pull-out extended the scope of the war even further.

Republican President Ford did nothing as North Viet Nam openly broke the treaty which had ended our involvement and invaded South Viet Nam.

That's your history lesson for today ... in a nutshell.

Angler

 

[TWB]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

actually, vietnam started with Johnson.

But this is nothing new - the Republicans were as fiery during the Clinton years, and the rhetoric flew as vitriolic during the Reagan years.

The reality is, the temperature raises when the party out of power detects a chink in the armor. Its never wise to pee on a popular president (just ask Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich). If GWB's ratings continue to rise, you'll see a reposturing - the fire and brimstone doesn't play as well with high numbers.

Actually, Vietnam started with Eisenhower.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Democrat Anger

 

[Ishmael]

some of these thoughts came from a tv programme i was watching


it seems that democrat anger is at a high not seen since vietnam and nixon ... candidates like howard dean are really tapping into that and getting a strong determined grass roots backing ... and a lot of democrats who were used to clintons middle of the road calm approach are enjoying this new way of attacking the republicans


however there is a danger with this anger style approach in that it makes it easier for the republicans to paint the democrats as desperate marginals


anyway i know im not american and its know of my business blah blah blah ... but what do americans think of this new democrat approach .......


do democrats enjoy it ?

do republicans fear it ?

Well the article is right in one respect, the fringe left is enraged. You can see much of that on the board here.

It's the best thing since sliced bread for the Republicans. It makes the Dems appear as mouth frothing negativists. And the fringe that all of the candidates are trying to appeal to, except for Leiberman, are those that will be motivated as poll workers and in the primaries.

The problem is that once the candidates stake out that territory they have a hard time getting back to the center. Dean is really vulnerable here. The link below is an article that pretty clearly indicates the problems.

Bob Novak

The nation as a whole is trending to the right right now and has been for a while. This has brought about a schism in the Democratic party. The "centrist" wing that the Clintons control, and the fringe wing that is more or less driven by a coalition of extremist groups and it to this coalition that Dean has the most appeal.

The biggest problem SG is that after 9-11 most of the nation understands that we are at war and they aren't going to trust anyone that runs on a platform of appeasment.

The Rep. really are licking their chops at the prospect of a Dean nomination.

Ishmael

 

[Bob Peale]

Nixon was a much easier target - he was from the West Coast and had always been a Washington "Outsider" (the traditional power center had always been on the East Coast).

Plus, Watergate was a travesty that arguably is unequaled.

However, the Republicans turned around and gave it to Carter...so much so that they captured the White House for 12 years.

 

[Bob Peale]

Re: Re: Re: Democrat Anger

It started with France.

agreed

 

[zipman]

Democratic anger is probably the worst thing that they can do right now. Instead of saying what they are for, what they basically say is we are not for that, without presenting any kind of vision or plan.

Examples of this would be the plan of what to do with Iraq and how to phase out US involvement instead of saying "our soldiers shouldn't be there."

Another example is bad mouthing Homeland security (which I agree with) but not presenting their own plan on how to improve defense against terrorist attacks.

Saying "I'm against that" without having an alternative is not the kind of thing most people look for in a politician or in a party.

 

[Angler]

Re: Re: Re: Democrat Anger

It started with France.

-------

That's partially correct.

When Viet Namese revolutionaries pleaded with the US to help them again the French ... we turned them down ... because we didn't want to offend our old allies.

We literally forced the Vietnamese freedom fighters into the waiting arms of the Soviet Union.

What we did was astoundingly dumb!

Shoulda-coulda-woulda ----

Angler

 

[sexy-girl]

it seems to be agreed that anger isn't exactly the way to go ... but people especially democrats are angry at bush ... it makes it interesting anyway

thanks for the replies so far i wasn't sure people would be in the mood for a political thread

 

[Angler]

SG:

Back to what you were saying.

Remember in American politics it is very difficult to seperate rhetoric from real issues in open debate.

Things get pretty viscious on the campaign trail to the White House. Almost anything is fair game.

However the "Democratic Anger" you mention is not as organized as it appears.

There's an old political joke in the US and it comes from the late Will Rogers who said:
"I don't belong to any formally organized party ... I'm a Democrat."

Democrats traditionally do not close ranks as tightly as the Republicans do.

So you will see and hear many things from the Democratic side of the aisle during a presidential election campaign.

Now ... with that in mind, remember this. Democratic candidates are vying for their party's nomination to run for president.

They will make A LOT of noise as the primary votes are cast. They are trying to stand out among all the candidates in the field. Many things will be heard which will sound like war cries .. they's not.

You see...
The years when a presidential candidate is chose by delegate votes at conventions with deals made in back rooms, are over.
The primaries .... held through out the country took the choices out of the hands of the so called "back room politicians".

So all the noise and screaming and tough debates which used to be held at the conventions, now spill out on to the streets of America as Primary elections are held in various states.

The candidates winning the the most primary elections in those states go to the party convention with delegates informally committed to voting for the candidates at the convention.

So in this noisey, viscious, sloppy, lumbering method of doing things, many things are said out in the open which years ago would have been said behind closed doors at the convention hall.

Believe it or not ... this is a much better method. Voters have more say than ever before in American history about which candidates will get their party's nomination to run for president.

And like Forest Gump says ..."That's all I have t say about that."

Angler

 

[sexy-girl]

good post angler thanks ... i pretty much knew all that but its good to hear your (an americans) description of it



you should see how british partys pick their leader

 

[Angler]

good post angler thanks ... i pretty much knew all that but its good to hear your (an americans) description of it



you should see how british partys pick their leader

----

Isn't it amazing how different yet similar we are.

Have a Merry Christmas SG

Cheers,

Angler

 

[ma_guy]

it seems to be agreed that anger isn't exactly the way to go ... but people especially democrats are angry at bush ... it makes it interesting anyway

If you read the political rhetoric of the traditional Democratic Party supporters you'll hear that most of the ones that are active at this point are angry with their own party too.

Terry McCauliff, the DLC and the DNC aren't exactly the most loved people in the US right now.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

it seems to be agreed that anger isn't exactly the way to go ... but people especially democrats are angry at bush ... it makes it interesting anyway

thanks for the replies so far i wasn't sure people would be in the mood for a political thread

The Democrats are botching their chance to nab Bush on the specifics: the erosion of civil liberties, and of jobs, since he's come into office.

The Democrats need to admit Bill Clinton helped fuck up the economy when he gave money to Enron, while also pointing out Bush's looting of the economy as it started to falter. They need to focus on his attacks on civil liberties with CAPPS II and USAPATRIOT.

The Democrats are going to score major points offering a plan to slap punitive tariffs on products from companies that outsource overseas. That'll drive the hard right GOP insane, but oh well.

Unfortunately I do not count on the Democrats being very focused in 2004, because of their anger.

 

[Daedalus77]

In the US if a presidential candidate gets 55% of the vote it's considered a landslide election. That leaves 45% of the population ticked off. The nice thing is that all we have to do is wait a few years and we can try to replace them.