Forest, meet trees ...

[BlackShanglan]

From a CNN article on Moveon's demands for new Democratic leadership:

DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera declined to engage in a tit-for-tat with MoveOn, but praised McAuliffe's efforts.

"Call me crazy, but I think the fact that for the first time in party history we outraised the Republicans, and did so primarily through grass-roots fund raising is something to be proud of," Cabrera said.

Damned straight! In fact, so long as we overlook that little "losing the election" detail, it's wonderful work all 'round ...

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Take "demonstrated lack of focus" and "missing the point completely" and "misplaced goals" and add "mixed messages" and you've got the useless mess that is the DNC.

 

[minsue]

Take "demonstrated lack of focus" and "missing the point completely" and "misplaced goals" and add "mixed messages" and you've got the useless mess that is the DNC.

Don't forget "completely and regularly underestimating the competition".

 

[Lisa Denton]

Don't forget "completely and regularly underestimating the competition".

There really wasn't much competition, it was just that the DNC didn't seem to be marketing duck tape and plastic sheeting well, a must in any electoral competition.

 

[minsue]

There really wasn't much competition, it was just that the DNC didn't seem to be marketing duck tape and plastic sheeting well, a must in any electoral competition.

I must disagree with you there. I may hate almost everything that they stand for, but I must admit the Rep party is damned good at campaigning. Sure, it's usually dirty and almost always full of lies, but it's effective and they've got kicking Dem ass down to a science.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I must disagree with you there. I may hate almost everything that they stand for, but I must admit the Rep party is damned good at campaigning. Sure, it's usually dirty and almost always full of lies, but it's effective and they've got kicking Dem ass down to a science.

The real problem is the old saying "The best defense is a good offense." In campaining, the Dems couldn't kick a Repub ass if you painted it on a scocer ball for them.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I must disagree with you there. I may hate almost everything that they stand for, but I must admit the Rep party is damned good at campaigning. Sure, it's usually dirty and almost always full of lies, but it's effective and they've got kicking Dem ass down to a science.

Republicans stand for a lot of excellent things: limited government, private freedoms, etc. I think it dismissive to think they only stand for horrible things. It's like saying "Democrats are just Communists". Very unfair.

Past that, I don't think their campaigning is "usually dirty" or "almost always full of lies". I have many family members in politics and that's an entirely inaccurate, paranoid, and hateful thing to accuse Republicans of.

 

[minsue]

Republicans stand for a lot of excellent things: limited government, private freedoms, etc. I think it dismissive to think they only stand for horrible things. It's like saying "Democrats are just Communists". Very unfair.

Past that, I don't think their campaigning is "usually dirty" or "almost always full of lies". I have many family members in politics and that's an entirely inaccurate, paranoid, and hateful thing to accuse Republicans of.

Whoa there, Joe. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't recall saying that Republicans only stand for horrible things, simply that I hate much of what they stand for. There is a difference, albeit a slim one. I should point out that by "they" I am also referring to the current Neo-con party leadership and not the basic principles that the party used to stand for until recently.

I do stand by my judgement of the recent campaigns of Republicans. Keep in mind, I'm speaking only of the national campaigns and of some of the local ones here. (There are Democrats that do the same, but the GOP is much, much better at it. Dems fail miserably when they try to fight dirty.) I am sure there are plenty of party members that don't run dirty campaigns and don't lie about themselves or their opponents. In the current climate, though, I doubt those politicians will make it far in the party.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Whoa there, Joe. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't recall saying that Republicans only stand for horrible things, simply that I hate much of what they stand for. There is a difference, albeit a slim one. I should point out that by "they" I am also referring to the current Neo-con party leadership and not the basic principles that the party used to stand for until recently.

I do stand by my judgement of the recent campaigns of Republicans. Keep in mind, I'm speaking only of the national campaigns and of some of the local ones here. (There are Democrats that do the same, but the GOP is much, much better at it. Dems fail miserably when they try to fight dirty.) I am sure there are plenty of party members that don't run dirty campaigns and don't lie about themselves or their opponents. In the current climate, though, I doubt those politicians will make it far in the party.

Not to be argumentative, but I'd be curious to see a statistic or something that have Republicans as "dirtier".

 

[Lisa Denton]

Not to be argumentative, but I'd be curious to see a statistic or something that have Republicans as "dirtier".

Who won?

 

[minsue]

Not to be argumentative, but I'd be curious to see a statistic or something that have Republicans as "dirtier".

Don't have any, of course. Tis completely subjective. I'm sure I could dig some up on this lovely land of the internet, but you can find statistics to prove anything.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lisa Denton
Who won?

Winning is the necessary and direct product of corruption and fraud?

 

[minsue]

Winning is the necessary and direct product of corruption and fraud?

Sadly, in this day and age I think the answer is yes. For either party.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sadly, in this day and age I think the answer is yes. For either party.

In that case, I think it very decent of them to take turns at being the most dirty and underhanded.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Sadly, in this day and age I think the answer is yes. For either party.

So, John Kerry won the Democratic Nomination because he was the most corrupt and fraudulent?

 

[minsue]

So, John Kerry won the Democratic Nomination because he was the most corrupt and fraudulent?

Of that particular group, no I don't think he was. I do, however, believe that no one makes it that far in politics without doing things that they're ashamed of (if they have any consciences left). Does it always rise to the level of corruption? That really depends on who's judging.

I must say, Joe, you have the most lovely way of interpreting whatever I say.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Of that particular group, no I don't think he was. I do, however, believe that no one makes it that far in politics without doing things that they're ashamed of (if they have any consciences left). Does it always rise to the level of corruption? That really depends on who's judging.

I must say, Joe, you have the most lovely way of interpreting whatever I say.

I'm just drawing the inevitable conclusions from the premises you're giving me. I think it more likely that corruption and fraud isn't the cause to the effect of political success. That successful politicans can, but aren't necessarily predicated by that.

Either party.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Winning is the necessary and direct product of corruption and fraud?

In the presidential election? WTF Joe?

 

[minsue]

I'm just drawing the inevitable conclusions from the premises you're giving me. I think it more likely that corruption and fraud isn't the cause to the effect of political success. That successful politicans can, but aren't necessarily predicated by that.

Either party.

I've always thought it was more the effect of politics than the cause. I do believe that the majority of people start in politics out of an honest desire to serve. I think that desire gets warped in many to a desire to win, is all. And I'm sure many justify that to themselves by telling themselves that they can't serve unless they win, but it does seem as though many politicians reach a point where they're more concerned with self-preservation than the people they're representing. I didn't used to be so jaded, but somewhere along the line I've lost faith in those who represent me.

 

[shereads]

I'm devouring Keillor's "Homegrown Democrat" one flavorful tidbit at a sitting, like a starving person presented with a plate of prime rib and trying not to eat it all at once, because I'm unaccustomed to any food richer than lawn clippings.

Keillor defines the differences between Democrats and modern-day Republicans with a straightforward, unapologetic honesty that is making me forget why I wanted to give up.

"Despite our shortcomings, there has always been a river of compassion that runs through America. Democrats are still in the river....Liberalism is the politics of kindness...We believe in the social compact that says, if one of us is suffering and in need, the others will lend him a hand."

We can't fight as dirty as they do on a consistent basis, because we are not selfish by nature. Our rich guys vote against tax breaks for themselves because they know the money is desperately needed elsewhere. That's something people either get, or they don't. If they don't, they vote Republican.

We're the party of Paul Wellstone. We've been trying too hard not to be. It's time to tell moderates to screw themselves, stop pretending that John Kerry is a liberal, and remind America that without liberals, most of whom remain Democrats by default, there would still be separate restrooms for "Negros," and factories would still be allowed to lock their employees in and refuse them bathroom breaks, and our air and water would be poisonous, and there would be no public education, much less school lunches for kids who might otherwise not eat that day.

God help Republicans if they lived in the country they would have made without a liberal influence. What a mean, concrete-covered world it would be. Legally rascist, proudly sexist, a nation of plantation owners and cowering servants. As Keillor points out, a lot of people were able to survive the Depression and make something of themselves only because the New Deal gave them a chance. "It helped people get back on their feet and have a chance; some of them became successful and now vote to deny to others what they willingly accepted for themselves."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Unrelated but the DNC is gearing up for the change in leadership and will decide whether they want to continue being the party of special interest hacks or whether they want to recapture the rhetoric, raise the cultural awareness, and otherwise start winning for a change. dKos has a good scoop on that race. And it may mean seeing Dean weilding the power behind the party instead of being its hated pariah.



I'm in the mind of Kos and others that reform is desperately needed. How did Republicans capture the idea that they are "limited government"? (They are the prime proponents of a police state) Ditto on individual freedoms? Especially in a year where the main debate was on a war against individual freedoms. Again on Christianity? (If Christ campaigned in this day and age, he'd be unmistakably Green Party, far to the left of the so-called "most-liberal" Democrats) And on fiscal responsibility? (Bush Jr. and Reagan have been the prime proponents of fiscal immoderation and the only Democratic president worked to give us the first surplus in a long while)

Once the Dems regain the rhetoric and make people realize that the are overwhelmingly liberal despite their views on hot-button issues...well, that's when it'll get interesting for the Party of Ratfucking (Tricky Dick's term for underhanded and meanspirited campaign attacks and manipulations. Swift Boat is a prime example of ratfucking) and the anti-conservative, anti-Christ cabal that has turned the Republican Party into such a group.

This will not occur however unless the Dems get off their fucking asses and stand up for the values and beliefs that most of us hold and illuminate the damned truth. The Republicans no longer stand for anything decent they profess to stand for. It's time to say that. Loudly. And repeatedly. Above the siren wails of the Hateful Screechers. Above the cries of Traitor. Above the prejudices of the past. Above every little attack and dig. Cause "Together we stand, united we fall".

 

[FinePhilly]

Republicans stand for a lot of excellent things: limited government, private freedoms, etc. I think it dismissive to think they only stand for horrible things. It's like saying "Democrats are just Communists". Very unfair.

Past that, I don't think their campaigning is "usually dirty" or "almost always full of lies". I have many family members in politics and that's an entirely inaccurate, paranoid, and hateful thing to accuse Republicans of.

I really really like you!

 

[cantdog]

So, John Kerry won the Democratic Nomination because he was the most corrupt and fraudulent?

Except for Lieberman, yes. He was willing to support the war, and avoid mention of a great many things he could have, such as the torture connection. He allowed great limits on his campaign to win Party support. Dean was wading in and tackling the issues. His party stopped him.

His perceived lack of focus was the direct result of the national committee vetting his every word. His missing the point was the national committee doing so.

Then he conceded, folding up immediately, even though his VP had indicated otherwise the morning before, because the NC gave him the word.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

In my view, the National Committee is beholden to the multinationals. As is its opposite number. If not, and they all deny it, then why does everything that is done benefit those people? It is too much for mere coincidence to cover.

 

[cantdog]

I really really like you!

You're a partisan.

Limiting government is a noble idea. However, it is presently being limited by a cutback on every facet of it BUT the military, and limited even more greatly by its brand new and very deliberate deficit. Beggaring the country will indeed limit the government. What it does is to ruin it as an independent force. The multinationals already are little economies unto themselves of a size to rival most countries in the world. America used to be the biggest player on that field, but they've crippled it.

This is not the Republican party of my youth. These are radical anti-statists building a corporate empire.