Whatever Bob Shrum advises, the Dems should do the opposite.edesiderius said:
If you're against the plan, I know it must be a good one.alphamale said:What a laugh! :mrgreen: It's a suicide pact! I sure hope the dems follow it! It's based on attacking Bush, which is what the dems have done for six years, and americans are tired of it! The suggestion of Barack Obama is a real howler - when you look at his record, you'll see that he is nothing more than a big government liberal - the stuff that has been the dem mainstay since roosevelt's time. Also suicidal is the idea of stoking up the lunatic fringe of the democrat party - maybe they can get Howie Deane to give another primal scream at the convention! :2razz:
Same tired old rhetoric and no clue as to what they would do to reach the goals they state.hipsterdufus said:Whatever Bob Shrum advises, the Dems should do the opposite.
Seriously, Howard Dean sent out an e-mail giving details for a 50 state, grass roots canvas on April 29th. That kind of bottoms up neighbor to neighbor strategy is exactly what the party needs to focus on. It's also encouraging that Dem Senators are out fundraising Rep Senators for the 06 elections. That's amazing news for Dems. Usually we face 3-1 or 4-1 money odds with the big business' corporate oligarchy contributions to the GOP.
These are the main issues of the Dems. Hopefully the ideas can be fleshed out and debated on TV shows other than Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, but I'm not holding my breath. Luckily the netroots movement is giving us a voice were there wasn't one the past 6 years.My_name_is_not_Larry said:There isn't much difference between this plan and the plan the democrats had in '02 and '4. I doubt its going to help much.
I have to disagree, there ought to be little change in congress. The economy is doing much better, and the president is implementing his foriegn policy well. Katrina didn't help and the port deal wasn't good. But with the republicans just now begining to campaign and with elections several months from now, the republicans have plenty of time and potential to gain in the Senate. So it will likely be a small change. Whether or not it will change for the democrats is yet to be decided, but I'm looking at all the factors in this election and, right now, I'm predicting a small change in political power.Axismaster said:Its my belief that the Democrats will win in 2006. I think people are fed up with constant Republican corruption. I'm a Libertarian, but I'm just calling it as I see it, unbiasedly.
The problem with a lot of the liberal netroots activists here and on other boards is that they are so proudly committed to the Democratic Party, yet they are profoundly uncomfortable with playing the game of politics, which is ultimately how elections are won.
The point is that I am not suggestion a party devoid of ideas, and filled with tiresome partisan rhetoric. I'm suggestion a high-profile, national campaign to highlight some of the most disasterous and objectionable of the Republican failures in the last six years.
30 second issue spots:
- Medicare Reform
- The War in Iraq
- Saving Social Security
- Paying Down the National Debt
- Failure to develop alternative Energy/Energy Independence
- Safeguarding our chemical and nuclear plants
- Universal Health Care/ Health Care Reform
This is not a radical agenda, here. This is something that most Americans could get behind, that most Americans agree with and this are issues our country needs to address.
How is this a plan devoid of substance? How is that cheap party rhetoic? A national campaign like this is just what the Democrats need. They need to offer reasonable, intelligent, calm criticism of the most eggregious republican errors and oversights, and offer the American people another choice. And at the local level, they can define percisely what that choice is: Specific campaign pledges, specific issues for specific regions.
Tell me where I am wrong.
why would you waste your time and other people's time on this? It completely took the necessity away from your post.Issue spot:
"I'm Barak Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois. As of January of 2006, the Bush Administration's Medicare Part D Perscription Drug plan has been in effect. Hailed as a triumph for senior citizens, the plan has caused nothing but gaps in coverage, poor service and inefficent beaureacracy. Meanwhile, the bill is riddled with corporate handouts and subsidies, while our most vunerable seniors deal with confusing paperwork and the uncertainty of being covered. The Republicans say they stand for smaller government, but they've offered a tangled beauracratic nightmare. Vote for your local Democratic Congressman. With Democrats in Congress, you can count out a real perscription drug bill, without the red tape. [Insert Democratic 2006 Campaign Tag Line]."
"Paid for by the Democratic National Committee"
"Hi, I'm Tammy Duckworth, a veteran of the War in Iraq and candidate for Congress. The Bush Adminstration and the Republican Congress have spent the last five years convincing the American people that American lives were threatened by Iraqi weapons. They cobbled together war plan that didn't deploy enough troops to do the job on the ground, and didn't effectively supress the early insurgency. The administration has failed to provide the fighting men and women with proper armor, nor have they provided a clear or coherent strategy for victory. Mr. Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have continued to insist that the war is going well. I served our country bravely, and I payed the ultimate price for the Administration's incompetence. [Duckworth is paralyzed]. How many more fighting men and women will the administration leave in harm's way? Vote for a Democratic Congress in November. Together, we can achieve a plan for victory and ensure that no man, and no woman is left behind." [Insert Democratic 2006 slogan here] "Paid for by the Democratic National Committee"
"Hi, I'm former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. During the Clinton years, the Democratic administration worked tirelessly to address the budget problem, and pay down the national debt. We were sucessful and we left office with the first budget surplus in a great many years. In just six short years, rampant Republican spending has pushed the national debt beyond 9 trillion. It now stands at more than 80,000 dollars per family. And now the Republicans have begun to talk about fiscal responsibility, and claim that they are the party of finiancial restraint. A secure economic future for America means getting serious about taming the federal budget, and eliminated corrupt pork barrell spending. As baby boomers retire, more and more spending will be required to ensure that they recieve what was promised to the generation before them. Electing a Republican Congress will result in a less secure economic future for America, and more talk about being the part of financial restraint. Vote for Democratic Congress. Come November, cast a ballot for your local Democratic slate, and you cast a ballot for a prosperous future. [Insert tagline here].**
**Numbers are probably not right, I got them from memory.
The point was to spark a discussion on the future of the democratic party, and their strategy for the 2006 elections, and this was one of the only forums where I got any sort of coherent responses. People here seem to associated criticism with mudslinging, and I don't think that needs to be the case. I wanted to show what I had in mind when I said criticism. I don't see what was wrong with offering a few examples of issue spots. Imagine those ads running in Prime Time, while local news runs stories about the personable Democrats who are offering bold ideas, meanwhile the grassroot base of the party is fired up about the race.My_name_is_not_Larry said:why would you waste your time and other people's time on this? It completely took the necessity away from your post.
One of these days I'm going to read in one of your threads where you actually prove this. Until then, it's just slobbering lunacy. :shock:hipsterdufus said:Bubble Boy fooled/scared/cheated the country into voting for him and the neo-cons again.
Read on McDuff:KCConservative said:One of these days I'm going to read in one of your threads where you actually prove this. Until then, it's just slobbering lunacy. :shock:
BubbleBoy:Hipsterdufus said:Bubble Boy fooled/scared/cheated the country into voting for him and the neo-cons again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek/Bush in the Bubble
He has a tight circle of trust, and he likes it that way. But members of both parties are urging Bush to reach beyond the White House walls. How he governs—and how his M.O. stacks up historically.
Khue Bui for Newsweek
On Message: Bush often speaks before pre-screened crowds, with signs stressing his theme
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55518-2004Oct22.htmlThe Bush ad uses a previously aired charge against the Massachusetts senator against a backdrop of roving wolves: "In an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on America, John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence operations by $6 billion. Cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."
But Kerry's proposed 1994 reduction in the intelligence budget, which was rejected 75 to 20, would have been just $1 billion a year over six years. Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton noted that some Republicans were pushing even deeper intelligence cutbacks in that post-Cold War era, including then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), selected by Bush as the new director of the CIA. Goss had proposed at least a 4 percent cut in intelligence spending.
Edwards, campaigning in Florida, said: "The reason they're trying to scare people . . . is because of their failures." Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt responded that "the Kerry campaign's attempt to obscure his record from the American people cannot change the facts. John Kerry has been wrong on national security for 20 years."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=20665&mode=nested&order=0"We know that he (Saddam Hussein) has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-- Condoleezza Rice statement to Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002, hyping Bush's war.
G. W. Bush loved that remark so much he repeated it in a later speech he made. In an October 7, 2002 speech, Bush summarized the justification for war against Saddam Hussein: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
not Larry - that's where about 50% of the country is, so you're not alone.My_name_is_not_Larry said:Its so hard being a centrist. You can't take sides because you half agree with everyone
hipsterdufus said:not Larry - that's where about 50% of the country is, so you're not alone.
Probably 30% conservative, 20% Liberal and the rest is the Center.
Both sides need to reach out to the middle to win.
Bush ran in 2000 as a "Uniter not a Divider" (How's that workin ?)
Clinton was a master at reaching out to the middle.