|  |
| Author |
The Decline and Fall of the Democratic Party |
SimonDodd
Posts: 6 |  Posted: Jan 28, 2005 - 03:58 PM |
Dang - forgot to log in for that last post. 
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Feb 07, 2005 - 05:04 PM |
SimonDodd,
Good point on the Pro-Choice verse Pro-Life positions. These two sides clearly do not understand each other and on this issue, there is no compromise. However, I believe the Dem problem is much bigger that the abortion issue. I believe them to be clearly out of touch with the mainstream while firmly believing their position to be mainstream. This is a very dangerous and destructive position for any party to be in. Believing themselves to be “mainstream” they cannot see their own positions as being viewed as extreme by the mainstream. Since they are incorrectly framing the problem, they continue to come up with the incorrect solutions, and leadership for that matter.
A great example will be when Howard Dean is named chairman f the DNC. Can there be a bigger statement made that says they don’t get it? Howard Dean? Karl Rove couldn’t have personally placed a better person in that job as far as the GOP is concerned.
If it wasn’t so positive for America I could feel sorry for these guys as the lead the Good Ship DNC full speed toward the rocks.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Feb 17, 2005 - 03:20 AM |
i have to agree with the general vibe i'm getting here. as an independent, i don't really want to see a one party system. if anything, i'd like to see more!
but can anyone name a democratic solution to any of our most pressing issues? on terrorism, what is their answer? they just spout vague platitidues about doing it smarter and involving our friends more. or take something like school vouchers. who knows if this is a good idea or not, it hasn't even been tried because even pilto programs have been blocked by the dems. and what is their answer to our failing schools? they tend to see no problem as they are in the pocket of one of the most powerful unions in the country, the teachers.
i know this will read as a pro-repub rant, but i could go on and on pointing out their failed programs that i don't agree with as well. yet, you have to give them credit for having programs. they have ideas, they are trying to solve these problems. the dems just seem to be vacant of any ideas at all. and isn't that what a political party is all about?
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Feb 17, 2005 - 11:49 AM |
Good post my friend,
Quote:
| i have to agree with the general vibe i'm getting here. as an independent, i don't really want to see a one party system. if anything, i'd like to see more!
but can anyone name a democratic solution to any of our most pressing issues? on terrorism, what is their answer? they just spout vague platitidues about doing it smarter and involving our friends more. or take something like school vouchers. who knows if this is a good idea or not, it hasn't even been tried because even pilto programs have been blocked by the dems. and what is their answer to our failing schools? they tend to see no problem as they are in the pocket of one of the most powerful unions in the country, the teachers.
i know this will read as a pro-repub rant, but i could go on and on pointing out their failed programs that i don't agree with as well. yet, you have to give them credit for having programs. they have ideas, they are trying to solve these problems. the dems just seem to be vacant of any ideas at all. and isn't that what a political party is all about?
|
|
I am a former Democrat, and am now a Reagan Republican. I do not agree with many things things the GOP puts forth but I also see them has having more and better ideas.
The DNC has lost it's way and is gropping in the dark. All we heard from Kerry was , "I have a plan", with no specifics, and critcism of Bush's plans and actions without offering alternatives.
How many in the DNC hold the views of Joe Liberman? How many elected Democrats hold Joe's views.
I believe we will se the almost complete distruction of the DNC before it is over. It will take that to get it out of the control of the Michael Moore wing. It won't be pretty but necessary.
Let's face it, Bush was vulerable in the last election and they still couldn't get it done. if ever a third-party had a chance to blast onto the scene, t is now.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Mar 12, 2005 - 01:26 AM |
Hillary Clinton's recent overtures to the political right are making me nervous. Between her support for Bush's Iraq War and faith based initiatives and her recent softening of her abortion stance and criticism of sex and violence in video games, many pundits are arguing that Clinton's rightward shift in her rhetoric is proof of her intention to run for president in 2008.
I dread the possibility of a Hillary versus Republican-to-be-determined matchup for so many reasons:
First, there's the whole dynasty aspect of it all. Whether you like George W. Bush or not, there's no question that he wouldn't be where he is now if it weren't for the fact that his daddy was the 41st president. Similarly, whether you like Hillary or not, there's no question that she wouldn't be a sitting U.S. senator if it weren't for the fact that her husband was the 42nd president. The Democratic Party is in desperate need of fresh ideas and grassworks development. What better way to stifle both of these than by having the heir apparent of the party run for president?
Second, all this triangulation and pandering to the right isn't going to get the Democrats anywhere. Hillary is as about as polarizing a figure as they come, and Republicans will turn out in huge numbers to make sure that she is not going to be elected.
Thirdly, and most importantly, Democrats have to stake out positions that they believe in, and moving to the right isn't the answer. Certainly, they need to abandon kneejerk leftist positions that are untenable, but on the other hand, they should not be narrowing the scope of political debate by co-opting some of the GOP's bad ideas.
I already have a bad feeling about how the 2008 election is going to shape up. Clinton's widespread name recognition and fund-raising abilities combined with her move-to-the-right strategy is already steering her toward becoming the frontrunner. Once she declares her candidacy, the DLC is going to fall in line and support her. There will be a modest backlash against her candidacy among those on the left who are tired of watching Democratic Party leaders sell out to special interests and pander to the right, and you'll see a progressive candidate emerge. The Dems will probably field a few other candidates, including the token Southern Democrat, but in the end, I foresee the the 2008 Democratic Primaries being a battle between the Centrist and Progressive wings of the Democratic Party.
Hillary will attempt to paint herself as moderate with strong war on terrorism credentials while her opponent will position him/herself as the antiwar progressive alternative. In the ensuing battle, she'll brand her opponent as an out-of-touch leftist, and her opponent will tag her as being a pandering corporatist Democrat, and they'll probably end up discrediting each other much the way John Kerry and Howard Dean did before the 2004 primaries.
In the three years we have before those primaries, I'm not holding my breath for the Democrats to come up with any fresh ideas, and I doubt that a libertarian wing of the party will emerge to challenge the other two factions.
The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue to ride the War on Terrorism hysteria and unite behind a single candidate, who like George W. Bush before him/her, will offer up a seemingly innoculous right-of-center platform while proclaiming him/herself a compassionate conservative and then go on to find new ways for the government to restrict our personal freedoms and further war abroad.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Mar 12, 2005 - 09:23 AM |
Where does one draw the line between abandoning kneejerk liberal policies and co-op'ing GOP stances? I'd be interested in knowing how far (or near) nicrivera would go. Can a move to the center be accomplished without being accused of pandering to the GOP Right?
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Mar 12, 2005 - 02:05 PM |
Quote:
| Where does one draw the line between abandoning kneejerk liberal policies and co-op'ing GOP stances? I'd be interested in knowing how far (or near) nicrivera would go. Can a move to the center be accomplished without being accused of pandering to the GOP Right? |
|
I think that's a fair question. The distinction between abandoning kneejerk liberal policies and pandering to the right is going to be somewhat arbitrary based upon how one defines these kind of things. That's what I get for using loaded words such as "kneejerk" and "pandering."
I do think, however, that there are certain positions and rhetoric that fall into the "kneejerk" and "pandering" categories quite easily once everyone agrees to a basic definition of what these terms mean.
What constitutes kneejerk liberal policies? It's too simplistic to simply claim that kneejerk liberal policies are those policies which are embraced by the far-left. I'm thinking of the policies that those on the left embrace without regards to whether such policies actually work or positions that fail to even consider the other point of view. Kneejerk liberal policies are the type of polcies which result from "the way to improve a government program is by spending more money" or "the rich need to pay their fair share of the taxes" type thinking. This type of thinking just isn't based upon sound logic. Where is all the money going to come from to support this increased government spending? Just who gets to define what constitutes a "fair share" of the tax burden?
What constitutes pandering to the right? I don't think moving towards the political center or embracing the views held by the other side constitutes pandering. However, adopting positions for the sole purpose of trying to appeal to the other side is definitely pandering. Adopting new positions that contradict one's underlying philosophy constitutes pandering. Holding two contradictory positions at the same time (as John Kerry tried to do on the Iraq War) constitutes pandering.
A politician shouldn't have to walk a tightrope between kneejerk liberalism and pandering to the right. Politicians should simply speak and vote in a manner that reflects their position on the way government should work. At the same time, those politicians should constantly be asking themselves whether the logic behind their positions is sound, and if they change their position on an issue, they should acknowledge that they have changed their position and explain the underlying reasons why they were wrong before and managed to arrive at the right position.
I could go on and point to all of the ways in which I believe the Democrats are either pushing kneejerk liberal policies or pandering to the right, but that would make for a rather long and tedious post, and it would be colored by my own political views--many of which fall outside what we might consider "centrist" policies.
In regards to the growing prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008, I'll merely say this. I have nothing personal against her. I'm not out to demonize her. However, I really question the strategies the Democratic Party is mulling over to win the election in 2008. One of the challenges it has to overcome in order to win in 2008 is to gain the support of both moderates and progressive. Some pundits have made the claim that progressives have nowhere else to go, and so the Democrats can afford to shift towards the right in order to appeal to more moderate and conservative Americans. I certainly feel that the Democrats need to rethink their stances and adopt more moderate/conservative views on certain issues. However, there is a vast difference in my mind between agreeing to compromise on tax cuts or social secruity or Medicaid/Medicare versus abandoning issues of social tolerance, civil liberties, and peaceful foreign policy in order to apeal towards social conservatives in the red states.
I want to make it clear that I'm not promoting the progressive wing of the party (I think that their positions on fiscal policy are rather naive). I just don't think that they should borrow failed GOP policies and called them "centrist." If Democrats won't provide a sensible coherent counter-argument to the right's rampant militarism and assault on civil liberties, then we should not be surprised when moderates begin to embrace these positions and denounce civil libertarians as radicals outside the mainstream.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Mar 12, 2005 - 02:09 PM |
My last post was just way too vague.
Give me two or three specific issues on which the Democrats should reconsider their position, and we can all debate what constitutes kneejerk liberalism versus pandering to the right.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Mar 12, 2005 - 03:05 PM |
Nic,
I do not often agree with you but believe you nailed this one. I am tired of politicians who will becoem who and whatever they beleive they need to be to win. Where are principles and values in that? I also do not believe the American people, by-and-large, will buy Hillary's move to the right. To me, the differnce between a move to the center and a pndering to the other side is the difference between a compromise on an issue verses a complete reversal. For example, check Hillary's record on abortion compare to her new rethoric. That is both pandering and waffling. The only way she won't be the nominee in 2008 is if Rudy beats her in 2006, or she dies. It will be interesting to see the politic marriage between Hillary and Howard Dean. Looks like at least four more years of the GOP holding the executive office to me.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Mar 13, 2005 - 09:04 AM |
How does Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council's successful strategy in 1992 (which put Clinton in the White House) compare with the above definition/discussion of "pandering?" Clearly, the Clinton/DLC strategy was to win from the center (and it worked), a piece of real estate not successfully occupied by the Dems in quite a number of years (1980-92).
Is it "pandering" if significant legislation based on a policy shift/campaign issue results after the election? If so (or if not), how does the Bush administration's courting of the Religious Right during election cycles stack up against what the RR has gotten for their support?
Did Condi Rice "pander" by saying she was mildly pro-choice? Isn't that kind of like being "kind of pregnant?" And - a little off topic here - is there reason to ponder the integrity of a Secretary of State who supports (directly or indirectly) the administration's position on international birth control program funding while she's personally "mildly pro-choice?" Who do you think Condi is "pandering" to?
What's worse? "Pandering" or this system of legal bribery we call "campaign finance?" Does one cause the other? Does the other cause the one?
Pandering causes pondering.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Mar 14, 2005 - 10:24 AM |
Ponder this,
Maybe Condi Rice was being honest about her position. She has a right to her personal believe but as a cabinet level official, she is obligated to push the President's views and policies.
What does "mildly pro-choice" mean? I would guess that it is a position that would allow an abortion in the case of rape and/or incest. I believe that is also the position of President Bush.
Pandering is when you are pro-life and then change your view to pro-abortion to run for national office like gore did to run with Clinton and Lieberman did to run with Gore, and like Hillary is now trying to do.
Bill Clinton is a master politician who successfully recreated himself as a centrist and then cooped and took credit for much of the changed caused by the "Contract with America".
Where does one draw the line with Bill Clinton between compromise, pandering, and just good politics? That will vary according to many factors, not of the least of which will be one's political views and leanings.
Richard Nixon had an amazing capacity to recreate and rehabilitate himself and rise from the ashes of defeat but nobody in the history of American has attempted the seismic shift that Hillary is attempting. Moving to the center is one thing, going from far left to far right is another.
| | |
nicrivera
Posts: 235 | Posted: Mar 19, 2005 - 10:46 PM |
The New Yorker has an article regarding the daunting challenge that the hawkish "national-security Democrats" (Joseph Biden, Joseph Leiberman, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, Bill Richarson) have of convincing the rest of the country that Democrats are strong on issues of national security. The article goes on to describe the recent schism between the pro-war and antiwar wings of the Democratic Party.
Notable quotes from the hawkish wing of the party:
Dean was wrong on the war and what he was talking about was bad for the country. We’ll see what he does as chairman. If he devotes his energies to building a party at the base, as he talked about doing, good for him. If he continues to be a prominent spokesman on defense policy, I would regret it.
- Senator Joseph Lieberman's reaction to Howard Dean being named DNC Chairman.
No goddam chairman’s ever made a difference in the history of the Democratic Party.
- Senator Joseph Biden's reaction to Howard Dean being named DNC Chairman.
The Democrats need to stand with the President when he’s right. His emphasis on being more pro-democracy in the Middle East seems to have galvanized some movement. The Democrats need to establish their credentials on national security, and we get hurt by reflexive negativism.
- Governor Bill Richardson in response to criticism of the Iraq War by antiwar Democrats.
These Democrats have been outspoken in their support of the president's decision to go to war in Iraq, and yet, when things are going wrong in Iraq, they criticize the administration's handling of the war without acknowledging that they too share responsibility for this military venture.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Mar 21, 2005 - 01:43 PM |
I'd be interested in knowing Hillary Clinton's "far left" credentials. Please, illuminate me.
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: May 19, 2005 - 08:19 AM |
As the base slowly erodes:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050518-101030-3854r.htm
| | |
Guest
Unregistered User | Posted: Jun 06, 2005 - 10:11 AM |
Big Al just isn't going to let it go. Global warming is pure pseudo-science based upon assumptions and a review of about 100 year of recorded weather. Putting global warming on the same level as terrorist is just another sign that the DNC is completely out of ideas and is trying to create something so they can continue to use their scare tactics to gain votes. Give it up Al, the greatest threat to our society isn't the internal combustion engine, it is wacko liberism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600393_pf.html
| | |
|
|
|
|
