If you're a hypocrit calling someone a hypocrit, is that like holding two mirrors up facing each other and seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each other and seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each other and seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each other and seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each otherand seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each other and seeing yourself holding two mirrors up facing each other...
Because it is a pointless red herring? Because my personal views on Bush's decisions shouldn't dictate - or for that matter have anything to do whatsoever - with a party doing a better job of identifying and articulating their own core ideals? Or because I just thought it was a stupid ass question? Take your pick.
Actually, I think Claymore asked you a valid question and was looking for an answer. You could just get it out of the way and answer it here and now, or gas up the station wagon and head on over to this thread and answer it there.
If not for Florida election shenanigans in 2000, we're having an entirely different conversation right now. Dumb point after a very, very close election. Better alternative? You're essentially asking "Bush wants to make smoking crack mandatory. I didn't see Kerry's better alternative." You're right. Because its not necessary to suggest it. Kerry would have lowered the deficit, thus the limit shouldn't be necessary. DUH Actually, the analogy is perfect. The Democrats have connected with 48% of the population in this election, the Republicans with 51%. You're suggesting they target your vote, despite the fact that you're a Republican. For them to do that, they would have to become the Republican party. The parties shouldn't exist to give you a perfect choice in an election. They should exist to represent two different views. Thus, you're a stupid head. All the Democrats needed was an extra 100,000 votes in Ohio, and we'd be talking about what the Republicans need to do. Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Kerry came within 100,000 votes of the Presidency this year, running against a wartime incumbent (quick, who was the last wartime President to lose an election? Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?) But somehow its the Democrats that need to target a constituency who's hero is Ronald Regan? Hell.
Dumb? You just declared Gore the president of Hypotheticalville and you're calling me dumb? Why stop at president. Hell - where's my mail in ballot. I want Gore to be the fooking king - no God - in Hypotheticalville. As long as it keeps your party's collective head in the sand, my party will keep kicking your exposed ass. Oh. Yes. Because we have all seen how raising tax brackets will make the rich pay their fair share (see Heinz-Kerry, Teresa). Ah, name calling. John Kerry wasn't even this clear when he conceded that he'd lost. Thanks for the surrender. And here's what you are not getting. Kerry didn't clearly present a different view. It didn't happen. Get it through your f---ing head. That's what this thread is all about. I'm not the only one saying it - far from it. Your own party is saying it. Even Guliani is saying it. People have no idea where Kerry or the Democrat party really stands. That's the problem. Ah yes, when you get your ass handed to you in reality, retreat back to Hypotheticalville. Have your His Holiness Al Gore execute my Hypotheticalville alter-ego when you get back to town. Maybe Hypotheticalville's Al JaHypotheticalville TV will televise it. Good times.
OK, that's great. What does it have to do with the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000? Do you actually understand the tax system? If you want to make Teresa pay more, go lobby for an end to muny bond preferential tax treatment, and for higher taxation of capital gains. Wake the ******** up. We've been saying for months on this board that Kerry ran as a the anti-Bush. He just wasn't very good at it. Reagan ran as the anti-Carter. He was just a lot better at it. In any election with an incumbent, its ALWAYS about the incumbent. No, Kerry didn't present an ideal. However, and you may not have noticed this, we've been debating for months now over what the Democratic party's ideals actually are. And no one knows. You're hardly original in this, dumbfvuck. You're 2 days late to a kegger with the tap. Apparently 100,000 votes=crushing loss for Democrats. Would you be bitching about this if only 100,000 votes had gone for Kerry in Ohio? No. And I wouldn't be lecturing you on how to move your party closer to me exact viewpoints.
Agreed, especially in how they run campaigns. However, "weeniness" is an equal opportunity. You should read some of the totally whiney letters to the editor of the local slightly liberal biased newspaper coming from crybaby conservatives. These conservatives lift whining to a high art. So, assuming you actually do share the ideal of helping the poor (and that's a big "IF"), what are your methods in accomplishing that ideal? And what is your proof that your methods work? Granted, the "New Deal" total welfare state has in many cases failed. But so has "trickle down economics". "Trickle down" failed under Reagan, and is failing under Dubya (more people are in fact under the poverty line, more people have no healthcare insurance, while Dubya has given massive tax breaks, mostly to the rich). My methods, while I don't know for sure if they would work fully, would include "workfare" (recipients would have to do work of some sort, or charity work), job training, increasing the minimum wage, subsidized childcare for single parents who work (getting them off welfare), and big tax breaks for businesses that expand into impoverished areas. So what are your methods, Nutmeg?
IMO, you're almost there. Democratic core voters and activists aren't weenies. For some reason, Kerry was a weenie. Clinton wasn't, that's why he won, as much as anything.
I won't be a smartass on this point. I'll just say, you're nuts. It's not like Kerry ran on a "nationalization of industry" platform. And then there's you. You're incoherent. Says the man supporting the guys who rode homophobia to victory. You're incoherent. Says the man supporting the guys that want to invade our bedrooms.
I've made this point a million times. Polls show that Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush. If you wanna show who helped Clinton, a picture of Lawrence Walsh would be better. A picture of James Carville would be better still.
So that's it, huh? Messenger/Message. Is the distinction really that difficult? Nice cheap shot, though.
I don't dispute that. What I am saying though, instead of worrying about what the other side does as much as Dems have recently, maybe they should instead focus on what the Dems really believe. Well, for starters, I absolutely do believe in helping less-privileged. I espouse that ideal, and it is one I am willing to fight for. I cannot lay claim, though, to the method that I think might actually work. I've said this many times in these parts, but I really believe that the first step that we should be taking is effective land-use planning. Right now, our land-use laws in the USA allows the rich folk to simply move away from, and consequently ignore, the problems of poor people. I base this on what I've seen in other parts of the world, particularly Spain. You can't ignore the poor guy when he's your next door neighbor and you see him every day, when his kids go to school with your kids, and when his "trash" is cluttering up your own backyard. I think an effective way to get people to act and to really want to help is to make people uncomfortable. Make them face the realities around them. Right now, too many Americans can escape to their uncomfortable suburbs where the problems of the impoverished can't reach them. So that's where I'd start. Of course, that also feeds into another ideal that is #1 on my list - the environment. And of course it has a radical effect on long-term foreign policy as people become less and less dependent on personal vehicles for transportation and then of course oil. Why aren't Dems fighting harder on this issue? It's a universal ideal that everyone can agree upon, and it doesn't require a radical stance of people hiding in Redwoods. Another tact I might throw out there is to quit asking for people for more money, and instead provide incentives for them to give more time and effort. Instead of asking for another $25/month for public schools, would it be better to provide incentives for businesses to release workers to volunteer 1-3 hours a month in school? Then if more money is needed, voters have seen for themselves exactly how it would benefit they and their neighbors children's education. I don't know for sure that it would absolutely work. Seems like it might, and I think it would be worth discussion. Anyway, I'm glad you asked because it is the first time on this thread that someone actually started talking about solutions instead of simply shooting the messenger and assume that what I am really saying is that all you have to do is become Republican. As you can see, neither one of the methods I've proposed here would appeal to the Reep platform in the slightest.
Well, so was Gore. And I am guessing that at least a couple of seats that were lost to Reeps in the Senate and House were lost by weenies who didn't do a good job of identifying and articulating their ideals, too. But yes, there are those in the Democratic party who aren't at all weenies. Obama (sp?) is in part so damn compelling because he is so damn good at articulating his ideals adn appealing to his base. Unfortunately for your side of the aisle, either none of the non-weenie Dems are in your party's leadership, or they are a very quiet minority.
There's a growing movement on the left to "marry" blogs, and independent but Dem-loyal rich people behind 1) organizing and 2) thinktanks. The GOPs are way, way ahead of the left on this. We just aren't generating enough ideas, not because there aren't any good ideas within liberalism, but because we're not putting the effort into it, and we lack the PR infrastructure to boost our ideas. Imagine a couple of AEI/Heritage type thinktanks on the left, and marry them with bloggers hyping the best ideas and getting them into the mainstream discourse. Right now, we "have" the PPI, but at this point, they're like any of the hundred bands that put out one or two good albums, and are out of good music. Plus, right now they are too focused on attacking the left side of the Dem. party to be helpful anyway. This would be good for all Americans, left, right, and center.
Good ideas. I want to explore this. How do we get the rich or upper middle class to live next door to the poor, so it's not "outa sight, outa mind"? I'm not being rhetorical, I really want to explore it. Perhaps it's a matter of making property taxes exempt in "troubled" neighborhoods, perhaps something else. I also love the idea of providing incentives (tax breaks, probably) for businesses to donate 1-3 hours (whatever) of employee time to volunteer in schools, or a charity. I do think, being a slightly left-leaning moderate registerred independant, that we need fresh ideas to long standing problems. I don't think Democrat New Dealism works, nor do I think Republican trickle down economics works. You're right, we do need more of an open dialogue between the lefties and righties on these boards. It's easy to get sarcastic, inflammatory and partisan here.
The biggest part of it is already underway - rising gas prices. Basic economics tell you that while in the short run people will simply eat the extra costs, in the long run they'll find alternatives - meaning, living closer together. But there are ways to expedite the process: Stop investing in incredibly expensive new freeway construction that gets them to and from the suburbs each day. Imagine what spending that money in other areas could mean... Give massive tax breaks to people who move back into what have been considered less desirable neighborhoods (in some of Portland's neighborhoods, people simply don't pay property tax for x number of years as long as they agree to make certain improvements on the homes). Set population density goals, and depending on your level of support, enforce them through urban growth boundaries. If you come to Portland, there are areas where you are driving in rural farmland, and all the sudden it looks like the road goes into a wall of construction. You've just hit the boundary, and no new construction can happen beyond that point. Invest heavily in parks, architecture, and the arts. Make urban areas places where people want to be. Nobody is going to be excited about moving into a dump, but if they see that there is real potential to either (a) live in a great neighborhood themselves or (b) invest in property that will make them a lot of money or best yet (c) both of the above, they'll come. Provide incentives (meaning tax breaks) for certain types of construction. Make strip malls and massive parking lots prohibitively expensive. Make joint work/living spaces economically attractive. Develop a public transportation plan, whether it be buses, lightrail, subways, whatever as part of your core urban development plan. Build your community around that plan. Those are some ways that come quickly to mind. There are some knowledgeable folks on this board in this area. Ask Segroves - this is his profession. I do, too. Of course I stole that idea from public schools in the military, where in some parts those in the service are required to spend a certain amount of time at their children's schools. My understanding is that if you're looking to get rich, enlisting in the military may not be your best bet, but those schools are consistently in the top 1-2% in the nation. Is it really all about more money? I'm not convinced. It could simply be that we need to ask more from the citizens of our country, instead of the other way around. I can't remember who said something like that. Oh yeah - Kennedy. What was his party again? Thanks. More importantly, I think Democrats in general need open dialog not entirely centered on why they hate the right, but what their core ideals really are, and what might be better ways to achieve them.
Damn straight it would. And yet, you bring a similar idea to BS, and get shot down by the left. Oh well, some people are getting it, according to my rep and email inbox anyway. Glad to see there's more of a movement underway to really identify new ideas and how to get them out to the greater population. Anytime people actively engage in solution-solving instead of mudslinging, I can only see a positive effect. I'm seeing some of this myself, BTW. I'm on the board of an environmental trust fund that has recently invested in a "thinktank," so to speak. We'll see how it pans out.
Same to you - nice to see you pull out of the argument when the going gets tough. Guess the Republicans are pvssies after all.