A Little Information For the Democrats

on Feb 05, 2005

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

17

DNCdude

on Feb 05, 2005

Okay, you guys were daft for not picking him.

The hole system is daft I'm afraid, no matter who one in this election(In my opinion) the next four years weren't going to be something I looke forward to.

Whoman69 inadvertently let it slip. They think the only reason they lost is that their candidate wasn't "exciting" enough. And they obsess about the "narrow margin of victory" while they ignore the elephant (small 'e') sitting in the corner - the remarkable Republican gains in the Senate and House, not to mention governorships & state legislatures.

This was all again close though in general, most of those victories you seem so proud of were close, and most of the places Republicans picked up in were in the south, and in Texas(thanks in large part if I'm told right to Delay) When yo look at many other places Dems did remarkably well. Colorado for example, a Bush state, sent Ken Salazar a Democrat to the senate, the only change of hands in the representative races went to the Dems and they picked up both house in our state legislature, or Montana,(yes Montana) now has a Democrat Gov. a pickup for the party.

"Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"

You keep thinking that okay.

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

Right on!

18

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

I'm sorry but she's right, Lieberman would never make it through the primaries, simply because he is dull and boring to listen to. Though I respect him a great deal, I myself would have a hard time voting for someone who basically laughed at the Dems. loss in the Senate and Presidency, acting almost like he was so far above everyone that we were daft not to pick him. (Go ahead and say we were daft not to pick him[I dare you!j/k)

I agree and disagree. he would not have made it through the primaries, but not because he is dull and boring, but because the kooks have hijacked the party. And that is why I dont fear a democrat in the white house in the forseeable future. As long as you let the kooks pick the nominee (Mondull, Dukaki, Gore, Kerry), you are going to loose. You got one in there with Clinton, thanks to Perot.

But Perot is gone, and Clinton cant run. SO you got just your hate and idiocy left. Who's next? Robert KKK Byrd?

19

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

Whoman69 inadvertently let it slip. They think the only reason they lost is that their candidate wasn't "exciting" enough. And they obsess about the "narrow margin of victory" while they ignore the elephant (small 'e') sitting in the corner - the remarkable Republican gains in the Senate and House, not to mention governorships & state legislatures.

Look, Bush is anything but "exciting" - God knows the left reminds us relentlessly - but he got elected, and with some "serious" coattails.

That gets an insightful! And so very true!

20

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

And they can't seem to figure out that Camelot never really existed - it is the media myth of Kennedy that grew from his assassination that lives on in their minds. No one really revisits the real-world political problems that Kennedy was facing or stops to ponder what might have happened in the next election had he lived.

No, I disagree in one respect. Great presidents are presented with crisies, and they chose the right decision. Kennedy did in oct 62. That is his legacy.

21

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

While Lieberman may not be exciting, those in the middle (mostly none partisans or Moderate Republican) was looking for a person with integrity. But with the fewer and fewer moderates joining the Democrat party and the party getting smaller, the Radicals will continue to gain a higher voting percentage. No matter what the Republicans say about Clinton, he was really a moderate. But I don't think even Clinton would have won this last primary, if it was his first time running this last year.

Another Insightful! This brought out a lot of great comments!

22

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

in the 2000 election, if there was a mandate at all, it was for Gore, but the electoral system put Bush in office.

No, what made 2000 so unique was the last minute surprise (DUI). Bush was crusiing, but in all honesty, it was not a mandate for bush, but an Anti Clinton reaction. That and the Campaign finance scandal. If Gore had been elected, quite likely he would have been impeached and had to resign or thrown out of office due to that scandal. Since he lost, they just buried it.

23

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

A President is more than a series of policies. He was also be a leader that inspires people to follow him. Despite being known as the VP candidate in 2004, Lieberman did not even make a run at the Iowa caucus. Why, it wasn't name recognition. It was the fact the man is duller than your grampa's bowling ball. He generated zero excitement in the Gore campaign and even less in his own. He decided to make a stand in NH and it resembled very much the stand that Custer put in at Little Big Horn.

You should qualify that and say he did not generate any excitement on the kook left. Many in the middle were very energized by his candicacy, but since they are not registered, had no say.

Dont assume based upon the kook fringe of the party, or you will always be a fringe party.

24

Dr Guy

on Feb 06, 2005

This was all again close though in general, most of those victories you seem so proud of were close, and most of the places Republicans picked up in were in the south, and in Texas(thanks in large part if I'm told right to Delay) When yo look at many other places Dems did remarkably well. Colorado for example, a Bush state, sent Ken Salazar a Democrat to the senate, the only change of hands in the representative races went to the Dems and they picked up both house in our state legislature, or Montana,(yes Montana) now has a Democrat Gov. a pickup for the party

I will only say that if that is your only solace, you are doomed to failure. On a local level, we have democrat governor. Why? Because he ran as a conservative and had the money(self made). But since every other elected office is conservative as well, that does not mean the democrats (nationally) did any thing.

Democrats get elected on a state level (and BTW< you forgot Daschle) by running as conservatives. Not the kook fringe that has taken over the presidential nominating part.

25

Daiwa

on Feb 06, 2005

Dr. Guy -

Wasn't referring to his concrete successes or failures, just the Camelot myth, which the party and the media has been glorifying and feeding off of ever since his assassination ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine."). The Cuban Missile Crisis was indeed his best moment, but there were other, rather less glorious moments (Bay of Pigs fiasco comes to mind), not to mention the circumstances of his election. It can't be denied that, by the left's own current definition, Kennedy was an illegitimate President.

Cheers,
Daiwa

26

whoman69

on Feb 06, 2005

I agree and disagree. he would not have made it through the primaries, but not because he is dull and boring, but because the kooks have hijacked the party. And that is why I dont fear a democrat in the white house in the forseeable future. As long as you let the kooks pick the nominee (Mondull, Dukaki, Gore, Kerry), you are going to loose. You got one in there with Clinton, thanks to Perot.

In a vote in which he put all his eggs in the basket in what is his own area of the country, the man with the most name recognition of all the candidates got a big 8.6% in that whacked out kooky state of New Hampshire. In that way out of the mainstream state of Iowa, his moderate views got him exactly zero delegates.
Its very insulting you call the Democrats ruled by kooks and zero based in fact. The same claim was made of Republicans in 1964 and they won the next presidential election.

27

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2005

Its very insulting you call the Democrats ruled by kooks and zero based in fact. The same claim was made of Republicans in 1964 and they won the next presidential election.

Me thinks he doth protest too much. The difference between 64 and 04 is that the Republicans did not allow the kooks to keep the party. However your denial, and the tone of the leadership of the democrat party indicates that you did not learn the lesson of 64. Indeed, you seem to think that any lesson that can be learned from anyone but your kooks must be wrong.

28

Daiwa

on Feb 07, 2005

whoman69 -

I suspect Johnson's implosion & Humphrey's convention riots had as much to do with that Republican victory in '68. But goes to show ya that "events on the ground" can throw all bets out at any time. And sometimes today's kook is tomorrow's visionary iconic statesman - just look at Goldwater. I still consider mysef a Goldwater Republican and that's anything but a "right wing kook" anymore. Well, maybe for Tim Robbins & Babs Streisand.

Cheers,
Daiwa

29

whoman69

on Feb 07, 2005

The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words. Somehow the right has painted Michael Moore to be the sage of the left, while Ann Coulter is nothing more than a sexy funny girl who writes articles that Republicans never read, Rush Limbaugh has a show that noone listens to, and that the evangelical right was just fraught with frustration when they said the America was to blame for 9/11 for allowing homosexuality. Kerry didn't lose because he was the kook running the party. He lost because he could not use charisma to gain a following, because he could not stay on message with the war, and let Republicans take the front seat in making all his policies flip flop.

30

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2005

The only people who give creedence to kooks controlling the Democratic party are the Republicans, who promote everything that the kooks say so they can label the whole party with their words. Somehow the right has painted Michael Moore to be the sage of the left, while Ann Coulter is nothing more than a sexy funny girl who writes articles that Republicans never read, Rush Limbaugh has a show that noone listens to, and that the evangelical right was just fraught with frustration when they said the America was to blame for 9/11 for allowing homosexuality. Kerry didn't lose because he was the kook running the party. He lost because he could not use charisma to gain a following, because he could not stay on message with the war, and let Republicans take the front seat in making all his policies flip flop.

First, Ann Coulter did not sit in the VIP Box next to Bush I. Second, 20 million people listen to Rush Limbaugh.

No one ever said that ALL the democrats were kooks, just that the kooks are running the party. That is evident by the fact that the top 3 candidates were all left of Mikey Moore (edwards, Kerry and Dean). You want the democrats to be taken seriously? Take your party back from the kooks. Otherwise, get use to losing.

You can point to conspiracies and such, but you are the one that dismisses Liberman out of hand, instead of trying to work with him to win back the white house.