Republican or Democrat?

[satalac]

being president isn't just relating to people and having good ideas.  you have to be a good administrator too.  i just don't see sharpton being that.  i would love to see him run for congress though.

i hated clinton.  he drove me away from the democratic party.  I have to admit though, those were pretty good years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well you can't administer anything without the people backing you and telling you what they want. that is the purpose of the president. clinton did both very well. i'll admit, sharpton would be a very different president, but right now i don't see that as a bad thing. i would love to see him in congress also. and how can you hate clinton when he gave you all those good years?

[monsoon]

I think monsoon's frustration comes out of the fact that he knows the south isn't Democratic territory and you can't just convert people here into thinking differently. So bashing all sides makes it feel better, I feel the frustration too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Last time I checked, it was a politician's job to perform the will of the people, not the other way around as you suggest. Your statement is pompous and presumes that you are better than the people who do not vote for ineffective Democrats. This is exactly the reason that not only Southerners, but most of the rest of the country are turning away from the national Democratic party.

My frustration with many Democrats is this prevailing attitude that Southerners are a lost cause and your comments, and others, reflect this. Democrats can certainly win here as they do in local elections, but they have to demonstrate they actually stand for something. But just this week a bunch of Democrats caved in and allowed the Senate to pass one of the most anti-consumer bills passed in quite some time.

I refuse to vote for any more national Democrats until they make some difficult and drastic changes. If you want to call me an ingnorant Southerner too for this, then fine. But I am another Southern voter they have lost. And it certainly wasn't because of Jesus.

[Brickell]

In the same vein as Metro's post...

If the democrats stood up and explained why the republican party was so bad for the average working man, be he from the north, south, east or west, then they would win in a landslide. The democrats won't do that though, because for the most part, they're beholden to the same big money donors as the rest of them.

I don't think the south is a lost cause, but i do think it's slipping. Give this war 4 more years and see how many southern boys and girls come home dead. See how many farmers support the bushes after continued subsidy cuts (which i actually support). See how many factory workers vote for bush when they are no manufacturing jobs left in the south and there is no welfare or social security left for them to depend on.

[knuckle50]

This is exactly the reason that not only Southerners, but most of the rest of the country are turning away from the national Democratic party. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, let's tackle this one head on. The country ISN'T turning away from the party. It's turning TOWARDS us where it's important. Let's see: we won New Hampshire this time - that's looking to be a blue state from now on.

We made big gains on the state legislative level - showing an underlying Democratic strength. Like I said, read up on the Christian Coalition. This is exactly what they did. Bottom-up, recruit from the local level and work your way up. Worked pretty well for them, eh? They've only TAKEN OVER the Republican Party.

We lost some ground in places like NM and the midwest - but much of that was because of Kerry's percieved "elitism" - and because he just wasn't a very good candidate. His campaign was an absolute disaster unprecedented since Dukakis. Yet he still won over 48% of the vote. If 75,000 voters in Ohio had switched their vote, we'd all be singing a very different tune right now.

If you factor in gerrymandering in Texas, we GAINED seats in the house. If all the districts in the country were made to be competitive, we'd have a house majority. Pennsylvania is 12-7 Republican because of the way the districts are set up. Illinois should be a lot better than 10-9 Dem. There are countless other states that are like this.

Now the Senate:

Let's see where the GOP made gains:

Georgia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina. All solid red states.

What we saw was further polarization between the South and the rest of the country. Nothing else. In fact, in ost of the swing states, Dems gained.

[knuckle50]

In the same vein as Metro's post...

The democrats won't do that though, because for the most part, they're beholden to the same big money donors as the rest of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read up on Dean, most of these donors are threatening to pull their contributions because he's going to fight and he's from the DEMOCRATIC wing of the Democratic Party.

[monsoon]

No doubt gerrymandering is a big problem in the House of Representatives. And this is done by cooperation of both parties to preserve as many seats as possible. This is a shameful act of both republicans and democrats.

As far as making gains I let the results speak for themselves. I will point out that we have a Republican President, a Republican House of Reps. and a Republican Senate. All with the strongest majorities they have ever had.

And the Vermont voters, Dean's supposedly place of success, just rejected his party and elected a Republican governer. Not a good success story at all.

[monsoon]

I've done everything you have done and don't see the South that way. You are expressing an "opinion" which is fine. But opinions are not facts and they are not going to get Democrats elected.

[knuckle50]

No doubt gerrymandering is a big problem in the House of Representatives.  And this is done by cooperation of both parties to preserve as many seats as possible.  This is a shameful act of both republicans and democrats.

As far as making gains I let the results speak for themselves.    I will point out that we have a Republican President, a Republican House of Reps. and a Republican Senate.  All with the strongest majorities they have ever had. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like you don't understand what gerrymandering is. It has nothing to do with the "cooperation of both parties". The Republicans, in NUMEROUS states, have gerrymandered the congressional districts so they can have many more seats than they should have. The Democrats have done this only in CA, and there it was more for the purpose of preserving incumbents rather than making pro-Dem districts.

And the Vermont voters, Dean's supposedly place of success, just rejected his party and elected a Republican governer.  Not a good success story at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a great idea to solve this problem! Let's go after the South, where they pretty much always elect Republicans! What a great idea...

Honestly, you're grasping at straws here. Who Vermont elected as governor is irrelevant. Dean has started a movement to take back the country. It's coming. Because of your regional bias, you think that the South is going to magically turn Democratic, with no evidence. What EXACTLY do we have to do to get it to turn. Tell me. In terms of rhetoric, policy, etc. What can we possibly do?

I think you've just eaten up the crap the Republican Noise Machine spews about the "liberal elite" and "starbucks crowd". And you grasp at straws to try to spin yourself into believing that anyone from the Northeast is bad, anyone from the South is good. If you honestly believe we can win in the South, tell me what to do. Because it seems to me that your "anyone from the Northeast is bad" attitude is worse than my attitude about the South.

[monsoon]

First I am well aware who is responsible for gerrymandering. Both parties do it and it is a shameful way to serve the people. Unlike your claim, the Democratically controlled NC Legislature has gerrymandered districts for 100 years. CA is not the only place this takes place. This is another of your incorrect statement yours that only confirms your misconceptions about the South and the Democrats.

I will repeat myself. Let the results speak for themselves. The Democrat's have become so out of touch with the average person, that GW Bush, the worst President since Nixon to hold office, wins re-election. And if that isn't bad enough, they take full control of the Senate and strengthen their strangle hold on the House. Something is seriously wrong with the party.

Dean's party's loss in Vermont is not irrelevant. It only goes to show that even people in the so called liberal NE no longer believe their message. If Dean's message doesn't even play in his home state anymore, then he has no chance nationally.

I do not listen to Republican's. Again if you believe this then you are really out of touch as well. The comments that I made about Starbucks and Liberal NE are from other Democrats, not republicans. Republican's are quite happy that Dean has been put in charge which is very telling. The only good thing about the bunch of idiots running the party now is they are quickly being voted out of office. When the route is finished, hopefully better voices in the party, which are being muted now, will be heard.

[knuckle50]

First I am well aware who is responsible for gerrymandering.  Both parties do it and it is a shameful way to serve the people.  Unlike your claim, the Democratically controlled NC Legislature has gerrymandered districts for 100 years.  CA is not the only place this takes place.  This is another of your incorrect statement yours that only confirms your misconceptions about the South and the Democrats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's do the math.

NC voted:

56% Bush 44% Kerry

13 congressional seats

13 x .56 = 7.28 = 7 expected Republican seats

13 x .44 = 5.72 = 6 expected Democratic seats

What a surprise! Guess what the actual makeup of the congressional caucus is? 7R, 6D!

I will repeat myself.  Let the results speak for themselves.  The Democrat's have become so out of touch with the average person, that GW Bush, the worst President since Nixon to hold office, wins re-election.  And if that isn't bad enough, they take full control of the Senate and strengthen their strangle hold on the House.  Something is seriously wrong with the party. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, Bush won because the Republican Noise Machine controls the media, and juicy lies trump boring facts in this media environment. What happens is that the Republicans bring up stupid, ridiculous questions that aren't backed up by facts. They're rumors, just like with celebrities. And since there's no fact to check, they just talk about it.

For example, Dan Rather fudgeed up in his journalism and there was a huge media fest - because he was lacking in fact checking.

But all the Republicans have to do is ask a question - Did John Kerry molest retarded babies in Vietnam? and then the media talks about it for three weeks with no fact checking. That's how they win.

On top of that, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE LOSSES WAS IN A DEEP RED STATE.

Dean's party's loss in Vermont is not irrelevant.  It only goes to show that even people in the so called liberal NE no longer believe their message.  If Dean's message doesn't even play in his home state anymore, then he has no chance nationally. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is irrelevant. Every race is different, different candidates, different dynamics. It's ridiculous to compare them, and you're once against grasping at straws. This isn't Britain. We don't have a parliamentary system. People vote for candidates, not ideas.

I do not listen to Republican's.  Again if you believe this then you are really out of touch as well.  The comments that I made about Starbucks and Liberal NE are from other Democrats, not republicans.  Republican's are quite happy that Dean has been put in charge which is very telling.  The only good thing about the bunch of idiots running the party now is they are quickly being voted out of office.  When the route is finished, hopefully better voices in the party, which are being muted now, will be heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you watch CNN, Fox News, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, or NBC, or Fox, yes, you do listen to the Republicans. I don't care who you heard it from, that "liberal Starbucks elitist" message originated with the Republican Noise machine, and every time you use it you're helping them. It's BULLSH1T. But they've fed it into everyone's psyche so much that people won't vote for Dems anymore.

The Republicans are not happy that Dean is in power. This just shows how ignorant you are about Dean and his policies. Because of your regional bias, you refuse to even attempt to listen to his message or find out what he's about. Can you consider that I might be right? You won't even consider Dean, just because he's from the Northeast. It's ignorant.

And I'll assume you're giving up on your message that we can win in the South if you don't respond to my question of "how can we win" this time. Because every time you respond, you ignore it, because you know you're wrong.

[monsoon]

Let's do the math.

NC voted:

56% Bush 44% Kerry

13 congressional seats

13 x .56 = 7.28 = 7 expected Republican seats

13 x .44 = 5.72 = 6 expected Democratic seats

What a surprise! Guess what the actual makeup of the congressional caucus is? 7R, 6D!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet the Legislature in NC is controlled by the Democrats and there is a Democratic Governer. Either there is cooperative gerrymandering going on with the republicans which you deny, or democrats can't even win in districts they have gerrymandered. And before you say there is nogerrymandering in NC, have a look at the court challenges that have involved the Federal courts for the apportionment that takes place here. Yes lets do the math, Democrats gerrymandered districts in NC, yet still can win a majority. LOL Thanks for bringing up this example.

I have already answered your question on what Democrats have to do to win elections in the South and for that matter anywhere in the USA. I did not repeat myself again because you are not willing to listen. Instead, you continue to blame the Democrat's failures on the Media, Bush, dirty Republicans, Stupid voters, yada yada yada. I find it very funny you dismiss Democratic losses in Vermont.

And since you brought it up, you did not answer my question earlier. If you don't believe Democrats can win in the South, then you don't believe that Dean has a chance of being a 50 state candidate. (hence a failure) Or you do infact believe this, but you were just generally South bashing. Which is it? Can you answer this question this time?

[knuckle50]

Yet the Legislature in NC is controlled by the Democrats and there is a Democratic Governer.  Either there is cooperative gerrymandering going on with the republicans which you deny, or democrats can't even win in districts they have gerrymandered.  And before you say there is nogerrymandering in NC, have a look at the court challenges that have involved the Federal courts for the apportionment that takes place here.  Yes lets do the math, Democrats gerrymandered districts in NC, yet still can win a majority.  LOL  Thanks for bringing up this example. 

I have already answered your question on what Democrats have to do to win elections in the South and for that matter anywhere in the USA.  I did not repeat myself again because you are not willing to listen.  Instead, you continue to blame the Democrat's failures on the Media, Bush, dirty Republicans, Stupid voters, yada yada yada.  I find it very funny you dismiss Democratic losses in Vermont. 

And since you brought it up, you did not answer my question earlier.  If you don't believe Democrats can win in the South, then you don't believe that Dean has a chance of being a 50 state candidate. (hence a failure)  Or you do infact believe this, but you were just generally South bashing.  Which is it?  Can you answer this question this time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because someone makes a lawsuit doesn't mean the districts are gerrymandered. I find it very funny that you dismiss Democratic gains in state legislatures across the country and Dem gains in the house after gerrymandering is factored in.

Just because I support someone doesn't mean I agree with them on every facet of their plan. I don't think we should focus our resources on the South, I do agree with 50-state campaigns. We have to recruit at the local level and get things moving. I don't think we will win in the South before 2030 at the earliest, but if we never get the process started, we will never have a chance to win ever.

Stop talking about Dean like he's running for anything. Do you not understand the position of DNC chair? He is there for organization, not message. They've already made an agreement with Senate Dems that the DNC takes care of organization and funding while the stick (SDCC - Senate Democratic Communications Center) takes care of message. Of course, you didn't know any of this, because you're so biased that you think that Dean is automatically bad because he's from the Northeast.

To say that I'm "dismissing" losses in Vermont is stupid. REPUBLICANS WIN IN BLUE STATES SOMETIMES, DEMOCRATS SOMETIMES WIN IN RED STATES. It's fudgeing irrelevant. Dean left, didn't run for governor again, and a Republican won over whoever the Democrats nominated. It seems you're pretty ignorant about this. Dean wasn't running. In America, we have a system where we vote for candidates. Maybe no strong Democratic candidate ran in Vermont for that election? Maybe the Republican was a popular moderate already involved in politics there? Maybe Dean isn't the campaign manager for every Democrat in Vermont? Maybe the Republican won by two points over the Democrat when Dean had already left to do other things?

[monsoon]

So let me get this straight. Southerners vote Republican because they are too ignorant or conservative to vote for the better candidate. But when they vote for Republicans in Vermont its because "Maybe no strong Democratic candidate ran in Vermont for that election?".

Call me stupid and ignorant if you like but even this dumb Southerner can see right through your bias. Sorry but your credibility on this issue just went to zero.

[Brickell]

Knuckle, you're not the only one who's heard of Dean. I donated to his campaign. You need to look at the world from where we're standing and not up on your high horse. I'm hopeful that Dean can turn things around, but I'm not holding my breath.

[knuckle50]

So let me get this straight.  Southerners vote Republican because they are too ignorant or conservative to vote for the better candidate.  But when they vote for Republicans in Vermont its because "Maybe no strong Democratic candidate ran in Vermont for that election?". 

Call me stupid and ignorant if you like but even this dumb Southerner can see right through your bias.  Sorry but your credibility on this issue just went to zero.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I knew you'd say something like that in response. Southerners sometimes vote for Democrats in local elections, people in Vermont sometimes vote GOP. But you're comparing apples and oranges.

The last time Vermont voted GOP for president was in 1984, when Regan got 51%. The South has consistently voted republican.

[monsoon]

I knew you'd say something like that in response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you suspect that because it happened to be absolutely true? LOL

[knuckle50]

{This was an e-mail from Dean - do you really think he's not for reform?}

Dear ___,

You run this party.

On Saturday, I was honored when your representatives on the Democratic National Committee elected me Chairman. And I can't wait to get started. But when they voted, it wasn't about me -- they were voting for a plan for the future of our party.

That plan came from people like you -- from conversations I had with ordinary Democrats across the country. When those 447 people voted in Washington this weekend, they united around that plan.

Now I'm asking you to do the same. Those 447 people were a good start, but make no mistake -- I know that this is also your party. And our plan to reform the party can only become a reality with your endorsement.

Please read our plan -- and commit to making it a reality:

http://www.democrats.org/plan

Your representatives in the DNC mandated bottom-up reform -- growing the Democratic Party in your neighborhood and every other community in America. They voted to compete in every state for every level of office. And they demanded a Democratic Party that stands up for itself and for an agenda that reflects our values.

They didn't elect me because they think I can accomplish these things. They elected me because I believe that only you can.

Every single one of us must take responsibility for building our party. It's not enough to simply vote for Democrats -- in order to win, every one of us must deliver our message and values into our own community.

That means changing the way we do business, and that's what this plan is about.

The Republicans' biggest victory has been to convince many Democrats that we can only win by abandoning our values and doing what they say.

It's one of their favorite tactics -- just watch how right-wing pundits talk endlessly about the internal politics of our party. They try to divide Democrats by ideology just as they divide all Americans by race or gender or faith.

But there is no crisis of ideology in the Democratic Party, only a crisis of confidence. Bill Clinton once described the Democratic Party's problems in the era of George W. Bush, saying that in uncertain times people would rather have a leader who is strong and wrong than weak and right.

He's exactly right. And we become both weak and wrong when we abandon our core values for short-term political gain. But when we Democrats talk straight and stand up for ourselves, we have a huge advantage: We are both strong and right.

We will only turn that advantage into victory if we make a concrete plan and work hard to execute it. Declare your support and offer feedback now on the plan to build an organization that will help us win everywhere, and win with pride.

Millions of Americans became Democrats last year. They sensed that they live in a society where ordinary people's problems and interests don't matter to our government. They chose the Democratic Party because we represent commonsense reform.

And millions more will become Democrats this year as we protect the Democratic Party's greatest achievement. We will not allow George Bush to phase out Social Security -- a Democratic policy that cured an epidemic of poverty among seniors and provides the guarantee of retirement with dignity.

Most importantly, millions of Democrats have become true stakeholders in our party. With grassroots action and small-dollar donations, you have taken our party's future into your own hands.

The stakes are too high to wait for others to lead. Every one of us has a personal responsibility for the future of our party -- and the future of our country.

This isn't my chairmanship -- it is ours. So let's get to work together.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Chairman, Democratic National Committee

[monsoon]

{This was an e-mail from Dean - do you really think he's not for reform?}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice letter but not one line of what the democrats are going to do for the people. Let me know when they come up with something that is going to make a difference.

[knuckle50]

Nice letter but not one line of what the democrats are going to do for the people.  Let me know when they come up with something that is going to make a difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Already got one.

They're pretty much united in their opposition to Bush's Social Security phase out plan. That's a pretty big deal, isn't it? Or does that not count?

[Brickell]

Opposing bush on social security is easy pickings.

I have no doubts that that Dean speaks with sincerity when saying he wants to reform the party, but wanting it and doing it are two completely different things.

The way Bush has it set up, the Dems will be opposing tax cuts, social program cuts and the war. It's just like the 80's. They'll be branded tax and spend liberals who are afraid to face the world.

I hope he/they can, but it's an uphill fight.

[monsoon]

Already got one.

They're pretty much united in their opposition to Bush's Social Security phase out plan. That's a pretty big deal, isn't it? Or does that not count?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet SS is in trouble so what are they proposing to get it fixed? What is in Dean's new plan for the Democratic party that would actually make a difference? I am totally against Bush's give away of SS funding to corporate America. Private accounts really means the federal government is buying stock.

Its easy to attack a program that many Republicans are against too.

People need to start voting for independants.

[knuckle50]

Opposing bush on social security is easy pickings.

They'll be branded tax and spend liberals who are afraid to face the world. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Clinton dispelled that notion for all time. Repubicans are the big spenders now.

[monsoon]

I think Clinton dispelled that notion for all time. Repubicans are the big spenders now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt. It amazes me the ineffective Democratic leadership alllowed themselves get branded with this label when when in fact the opposite is true.

[knuckle50]

No doubt.  It amazes me the ineffective Democratic leadership alllowed themselves get branded with this label when when in fact the opposite is true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er, no. Bush tried to brand Kerry,who in reality WAS a tax-and-spender, but it didn't work. Stop with this bullcrap, stop attacking the Democrats. If you care about your views you'll try to change the party instead o just complaining.

[Brickell]

in politics, it's not what you are, but how people see you. it's just how it is.

Bush won. It did work.