I'm beginning to think we're seeing the gameplan unfold...

[Rosco T.]

... as it was meant to unfold all along.

Kerry was more than strong enought candidate to win in a FAIR ELECTION. Kerry ran more than a strong enough campaign to win in a FAIR ELECTION.

We didn't have one. We knew it. We saw it coming. We expected shenagians in Florida and Ohio.

So did Kerry & Co.

What MAY not have been quite as expected was the 'little flips' around the rest of the country to give BushCo that extra 3 million votes.

Florida was not as blatent, Ohio was so blatent it wasn't even trying to hide.

But, the BushCo licking media didn't show what was happening in Ohio (the massive lines, the people yelling foul while it was happening).

When it came down to election night.
When the numbers were added up.
It was obvious there was fraud, rampent fraud.

So Rampent that no one could be made to believe it in the few days they had avaliable to MAKE the MSM believe it.

So, what to do...

Kerry & Company start screaming from every rooftop,
Blackwell & Company stonewalling every turn,
MSM saying 'soreloserman, take 2',
Dems discredited

or

Plan B.

The 'official' stance... be gracious, let Chimp have it.
Then let Chimp have it.

What's happened since then -

BushCo thinks it has 'a mandate'...
and starts to run roughshod over everything this country holds dear.
and starts to alienate a good portion of 'his base' (farmers, etc..)
and becomes obvious his ideas are bankrupting the country.

and people are starting to wake up.

a little chink in the armor here (Boxer), a crack there (Florida & Ohio SOS refusing to show up for Congerssional hearing on voting issues), a chip here (Blackwell saying he won't be interviewed), a flake there (GannonGate)....

it's all starting to come unwraveled...

the moderated Republicans starting to distance themselves...

Dean taking on the DNC Chair...

How CONVENIENT that Kerry has money left over from the campaign.. he got slammed for that, but I'll be willing to wager that most of that money will be spent by '06 on the DNC and House/Senate campaigns.. money that no one can touch....

Kerry staying the point man of 'the opposition'.... in a highly visable but 'un official' position... so that Chimpy can't touch him.

I'm thinking that Kerry & Company really did want to win the election... but when they saw how bad it was... they went to plan B.

The destruction of the NeoCon faction.

What happens when '06 comes around and the 'pugs lose control of the House and Senate. That's the current goal. Which means that Dems are now Speaker and President Pro Tempore.

Impeachment hearings. And ALL the rats get pulled out kicking and screaming to the light of day.

Chimpy goes down.
Crashcart goes down.

You figure it out from there.

It's ugly. It's complicated. But I think it's the plan, and has been thought out since before 11/04/04.

[bryant69]

1. It's a nice theory

I don't buy that they knew that this would happen before the election, but i do buy that they conceded with the idea that the Bush Presidency would turn out to be an albatross around the necks of the Republican Party.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Rosco T.]

3. I think they knew it COULD happen.... and planned ahead...

Worst Case Scenario planning. Something a good military commander would do.

[Skittles]

10. too bad it's around all of OUR necks too

:(

[Skink]

2. Now's the time to hit back

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Class-War Budget
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 11, 2005


It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action. And it offers the Democrats an opportunity, if they're willing to take it.


First, the facts: the budget proposal really does take food from the mouths of babes. One of the proposed spending cuts would make it harder for working families with children to receive food stamps, terminating aid for about 300,000 people. Another would deny child care assistance to about 300,000 children, again in low-income working families.

And the budget really does shower largesse on millionaires even as it punishes the needy. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities informs us that even as the administration demands spending cuts, it will proceed with the phaseout of two little-known tax provisions - originally put in place under the first President George Bush - that limit deductions and exemptions for high-income households.

More than half of the benefits from this backdoor tax cut would go to people with incomes of more than a million dollars; 97 percent would go to people with incomes exceeding $200,000.

It so happens that the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million in annual income is about the same as the number of people who would have their food stamps cut off under the Bush proposal. But it costs a lot more to give a millionaire a break than to put food on a low-income family's table: eliminating limits on deductions and exemptions would give taxpayers with incomes over $1 million an average tax cut of more than $19,000.

It's like that all the way through. On one side, the budget calls for program cuts that are small change compared with the budget deficit, yet will harm hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans. On the other side, it calls for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and for new tax breaks for the affluent in the form of tax-sheltered accounts and more liberal rules for deductions.

The question is whether the relentless mean-spiritedness of this budget finally awakens the public to the true cost of Mr. Bush's tax policy.

Until now, the administration has been able to get away with the pretense that it can offset the revenue loss from tax cuts with benign spending restraint. That's because until now, "restraint" was an abstract concept, not tied to specific actions, making it seem as if spending cuts would hurt only a few special interest groups.

But here we are with the first demonstration of restraint in action, and look what's on the chopping block, selected for big cuts: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health insurance for children and aid to law enforcement. (Yes, Mr. Bush proposes to cut farm subsidies, which are truly wasteful. Let's see how much political capital he spends on that proposal.)

Until now, the administration has also been able to pretend that the budget deficit isn't an important issue so the role of tax cuts in causing that deficit can be ignored. But Mr. Bush has at last conceded that the deficit is indeed a major problem.

Why shouldn't the affluent, who have done so well from Mr. Bush's policies, pay part of the price of dealing with that problem?

Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.

On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)

Why, then, shouldn't a rollback of high-end tax cuts be on the table?

Democrats have surprised the Bush administration, and themselves, by effectively pushing back against Mr. Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security. It's time for them to broaden their opposition, and push back against Mr. Bush's tax policy.

[Lindacooks]

6. Do you have a link to that?

I need to see that whole article - it's fantastic.

[fishwax]

50. link here

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?th

Great column, but I've come to expect that from PK. :)

[Lindacooks]

66. Thanks!

[paineinthearse]

15. Nancy's Pelosi's address to the DNC winter meeting echoed these words. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Was that the program on this morning?

If so do you know when it'll reair? If you know PM me.

[paineinthearse]

49. Yes. It was the DNC Winter Meeting.

It is sure to be rebroadcast. Go to the CSPAN schedule at www.cspan.org

[SnowGoose]

22. Great article, thanks - but longer than DU recommendation...

what is it... 3 paragraphs?

But again, I sure did enjoy reading it. Thanks.

[paineinthearse]

27. I thought the 4 paragraph limit applied only to copyrighted material....

...not original thought.

??

[SnowGoose]

29. Skink's post looked like it was an Op-Ed piece by

Krugman - so I figured it was pasted from some other source. Unless Skink is Krugman, in which case pay no attention to me.


OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Class-War Budget
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 11, 2005


Again, great article.

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. GREED PIGS!

How disgusting! Incomes over one million, an average tax cut of $19,000? :grr: :mad: :nuke: Tax cuts for the GREED PIGS on the backs of the working poor, taking food out the mouths of babes.. SHAME ON bush** and the Mepublicans! GREEDY POS! How do these rich a$$holes sleep at night? :argh:

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. But we still have to put the brakes on the fraud, or all this

won't matter at all.

[Why Syzygy]

5. From your lips

to the gods' ears.

[dalloway]

7. Bravo! I believe. I believe they knew what was happening

and believed taking them all down and discreding the neocons is more important than any one election.

[Skink]

9. I think it started with conyers...

The dems are finally growing some balls.
We couldn't stop Condi but we didn't let up. We've gone all out over SS. Dean is about to become chair of the DNC, all this sends the message we will stand up for what we believe.

[rocktivity]

8. Nominated for post of the day

Sounds really really good.

President Mightymouse and Co. are just arrogant enough to believe that we liberals are either too passive, too dumb or too "honorable" to know when it's time to stoop to their level. And with the mainstream media in their pockets, no one could question anything they did, anyway. Thank you, Jeff Gannon, for being so full of yourself that you pissed off "the liberal bloggers!"

:headbang:
rocknation

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Hey now don't diss

Mightymouse. He was my favorite cartoon when I was a kid. ;)

[rocktivity]

51. If you hate me, Freedom Angel, you'll DESPISE Dave Scott

because he authored this mess-terpiece--just click on the pic.



:headbang:
rocknation

[paineinthearse]

11. OK, I buy scenerio "B"

Kerry knew if he challenged in the federal and supreme couts that the result would be the same as 2000.

This makes the 2006 midterms even more important. We need to win back control of the House so that Conyers can lead the impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee.

or can BushCo be brought down by judicial action sooner than 2006 (the Congress certainly will not investigate).

So what else lies ahead? What do you see, oh wise one?

[Rosco T.]

14. What else, well I can dream some...

- Dems take control back of House/Senate.
- Chimp and Crashcart impeached.
- Speaker of the House 'steps aside' in the line and passes it to
- the newly elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate... John Kerry.

[ginnyinWI]

17. here's my list

1. win back majorities in Congress
2. Impeach Bush and Cheney
3. Win back White House in 2008 (preferably John Kerry, our true president).
4. Like FDR after Hoover, JK turns out to be a great president, going a long way toward restoring America.

[Why Syzygy]

19. I'm of the opinion

that Al Gore is our true president.
His two terms should run consecutively.

[cindyw]

12. It would be nice if it were true. I'm not sure, but if the Dems take the

control back of the congress, I think impeachments are a serious possibility.

[Suziq]

13. My Question Is . . .

How did they know way before the election that there was going to be problems in Ohio???? The Rethugs obviously knew the "fix is in".

If election fraud is not addressed NOW, Dems can kiss the 2006 and 2008 elections good bye!


:hippie:

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Maybe they saw that

Wasn't that on Nancy Pelosi's daughters DNC campaign diary thing? So maybe she showed it to her mother who showed it to Kerry and his people? I also heard that Kerry met with Nader after he won the primaries. Does anybody know about that?

[ctaylor]

16. you've got to be kidding me

"Kerry was more than strong enought candidate to win in a FAIR ELECTION. Kerry ran more than a strong enough campaign to win in a FAIR ELECTION."

What Kerry were you watching? I think we were lucky it wasn't worse.

The Democrats aren't going to be winning any more national elections until we get some conservative Dems. back on the ticket that can pick up Southern states. Fantasies like this may warm your heart, but they're only going to encourage people to keep their heads buried in the sand and postpone the needed un-pinko-crazyification of the party. The longer we postpone it, the further behind we have to come from to become competititve again.

[ginnyinWI]

18. No, going to the right won't work anymore

This is not 1992.

We just need to let people know what we stand for as Democrats, because most people are fuzzy on that. When the Democratic Party is stronger it will be able to handle the media and its message--that was what we were missing this time--brand identity.

[ctaylor]

25. I agree...

... sort of.

I'm not saying run as "Republicans-lite" instead of the Democrats. I'm saying start running as Democrats again and stop running as the "We're not the Republicans" or the "Socialist professors with patches on our sleeves who disdane real working people for their backwardness". So yes, bring back the "big D" brand.

We don't need to be right wingers to do that; but we do need to stop running headlong for the whacko cliff on the left and back away from the ledge. If Truman or JFK were alive today I doubt they'd be able to win a primary. That's not because they were right wingers, but because they'd be battered down from the vocal extreme left wingers of the party. And we aren't getting any more candidates like that until we tell that crowd that we are happy for them to vote for us instead of wasting their ballot on a Green or Communist protest vote thank you very much, but that they don't get to control the agenda or define our image.

[itzamirakul]

80. Gosh ctaylor..

your language remidns me SOOOOO much of rightwing NY Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin. He is forever calling the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party "wackadoos."

Any relation?

[JoMama49]

20. I disagree with you, CTaylor, and I tend to agree more with

Rosco. I believe Kerry/Edwards totally won the election on 11/2/04, and if the votes had been counted fairly, and if everyone who wanted to cast a vote was given a fair chance to cast a vote, the *ies would already be off somewhere licking their wounds and hopefully being prosecuted for war crimes.

And, unless we get paper receipts and automatic recounts (by hand) of this next election in '06, we'll be in the exact same boat then as now, no matter how much activism and campaigning for the Dems we do in the meantime.

[Why Syzygy]

21. Have to disagree

Right wing Democrats are not the answer.
We've got too many of them as it is.

Cannot believe ANYONE would imply that John Kerry was not/is not 'conservative' enough! sheesh!

[tsuki]

23. We have conservative democrats. They act like repubs. Allen Boyd could

not wait to get to Washington and jump across the aisle and "loud and proudly" offer help to dismantle social security, aka make it more solvent.

Nelson couldn't wait to vote for kindasleezy & al.the.pal.

They think the Republicans will vote for them, and the Democrats will HAVE to vote for them. Wrong. They have lost any constituency.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Conservative, as in Republican conservativism?

* Taking a 500BB surplus and turning it into a $500BB deficit?
* Doubling the debt in 4 years and accelerating?
* Dismantling Social Security?
* Waging wars of aggression?
* Destroying our civil liberties?
* Corporate welfare?


No, I don't think we need to follow your advice. In fact, the best thing that will happen to progressive politics and liberalism is that the entire country will eventually repudiate all things connected to Republicanism, their "Contract on America", and the Great Lie "compassionate conservativism".

You'll figure it out eventually.

[ctaylor]

28. Conservative Democrats don't have to be Republicans!

That's what I'm saying. Stop thinking about the Rs. Stop obsessing over being the anti-Rs. Stop defining ourselves relative to THEM. Imagine for one freakin' moment that there aren't any Republicans and there never have been... Ok. Now that we can't define ourselves as "not Republicans". What do we stand for?

I think a conservative Democrat that would win elections and do a good job managing the gov't would NOT try to waste $1trillion dollars and run up our national debt. They'd be fiscally responsible with the people's tax dollars. But, they also wouldn't consider "fiscal responsibility" to mean fund-wealth redistribution schemes with the loads of cash we can get by gutting the military, and then stand around a few years later wondering why a meaningful dialog in the United Nations wasn't able to help protect the liberty of our friends in Taiwan?

I think protecting our own civil liberties and allowing state and local gov'ts to make their own decisions would be very popular. But people have to believe that we aren't just saying it because we are the minority party at the federal level right now and once we get back the white house and congress it'll be federally-mandated-gay-marraiges-and-abortions-for-everyone-screw-you-other-levels-of-govt. People aren't going to believe that until we come out with our own agenda, instead of just saying un-"whatever he said".

And yes, sometimes that agenda will agree with the Rs. When it does, we don't need to freak out and ostrasize our own members as "traitors". We need to say "Yes, President Bush is right when he says 2+2=4. We completely back Pres. Bush's 4 agenda. Of, course we have been saying 2+2=4 from the beginning, and now that the Republicans have come around to our way of thinking we can move forward in a bipartisan way to secure 4 for all Americans. We hope to see more similar sensible proposals from this adminsitration on other issues in the future." and not feel like we're in league with the devil.

[CANDO]

31. The problem is the "C" word.

Look it up in the dictionary and apply it to History and figure out just what has conservatism ever done to benefit mankind. Do the same for Liberal. Liberal wins hands down! Forward looking and not afraid of change are pretty much what Liberal Democrats have always been about. I'll give you an example of a "conservative Democrat.... Zell Miller! No thank you! Not in my Democratic Party! Respectfully yours...

[ctaylor]

33. and that's why we're losing elections

"Not in my Democratic Party!"

We're saying that to too many people.



" Forward looking and not afraid of change are pretty much what Liberal Democrats have always been about."

Change, Change, Change. Must keep Changing everything. And what do we say when someone says. "Wait, no, right there was better." Kick him out of the party. After all HE'S NOT CHANGING THINGS!!!

Just out of curiosity? Are you wanting to change TO something? When you get that something, are you going to then be conservative and want to protect it? Or are you just about chaos? New Stuff. Early adopter. Can't talk sense, gotta change, man... Cuz I gotta tell you that is going to ailientate a lot of voters. Me among them.

[Griffy]

39. LOSING?? we won the will of the people.. fraud stole the election...

not to mention the propaganda, MILLIONS would have voted for Kerry if they knew the whole truth, or even some! Faux news, O'liely and Lintball have many Americans confused, we need to help them, and they will help us!

[Old and In the Way]

53. Exactly.

If FDR had been a conservative Democrat, would we have done the New Deal? I think not. We'd still be fighting for the crumbs in the breadline.

What made this country great in the 2nd half of the 20th century were progressive/liberal programs (GI Bill, Civil Rights Act ring any bells?) that empowered ALL Americans.

Conservatism is regressivism. It's fear of the future. It's "I got mine, screw you".

The corporate welfare queens who want the status quote to benefit themselves are the beig promoters of "conservative" politics. Look how conservative $24MM/year Rush Limbaugh is.

And they got people like ctaylor trying to tell us how great "conservativism" is as they take this country down the shitter.

[ctaylor]

60. Conservative is not the opposite of Liberal.

And I'm not trying to saying liberalism is wrong. In fact, I consider myself to be a liberal. But I guess I'm not a neo-Liberal. Maybe I'm a paleo-Liberal... From back when Liberal was derived from LIBERTY, not "We're for whatever The Chimp is against, no matter how stupid that makes us look." I notice that conservative is not the opposite of liberal, when you look at what the words Really Mean instead of just using them to label politicians. I see no reason we can't have people who want to change what's wrong in this country fighting (and voting) on the same side as people who want to preserve what we're doing right... as long as we both agree on what is wrong and what is right. Saying "We're going to exclude anyone from the tent who isn't for tearing down 100% what the Republican's like" is going to make for a pretty small tent. What if the Republican's like ice cream. I like ice cream. A lot of people like ice cream. But I guess you'll just blame the next election loss on fraud too.

"The corporate welfare queens who want the status quote to benefit themselves are the beig promoters of "conservative" politics."

I notice you had to put conservative in quotes there. Why? Probably because you realize that just because they say it is conservative doesn't make it so. So instead of agreeing to let them win the war of words and hide under the definition of conservative, why can't we just explain that while we are for traditional American values like liberty and minority rights and making sure the deck isn't stacked against the little guy, corprate welfare isn't a traditional American value, it isn't conservative... it's stealing from the till. Maybe that would win more elections than disowning Zell Miller and giving up on winning any Southern states.


"Conservatism is regressivism. It's fear of the future. It's "I got mine, screw you"."

So what is this future you want? Wouldn't we win more support for our changes if we explained what they were leading to instead of ceding the ideological debate to the other side and just promoting change for change's sake. And when you get there are you going to want to defend it? Wouldn't that make you a conservative? Isn't wanting to keep Social Security conservative? The program is sixty freakin' years old, after all. Why don't you want to throw it out and try something untested? You're not a little conservative are you?

Of course I asked you before what future you wanted these changes to lead to, and you have declined to answer. I wonder if it is "protection of minority rights and an end to favoritism toward companies big enough to buy senators" or "a 22 long rifle round in the back of every capitalist dog's skull and nationalization of all wealth to be redistributed as you see fit." How can I tell? I can't. And voter's can't either. And unless we define what we are for in some other way than "Bush Lied", people aren't going to just trust that we'll change the bad things and keep the good ones. No body's going to want to trust you to drive them to a destination that is only defined as "not here." Of course it would also help if some Conservative! Old School Democrats who believe the former destination were put in the national spotlight and the extremists who believe the latter destination are not allowed to define our image. But we aren't going to get that on the road we're on.

[Old and In the Way]

70. That's the problem with the future. It's unknown.

But those with a mind set to change are adaptable. Liberals/progressives are open minded and can change as the facts change. Of course, since we don't have a fair and balanced media, that ability to adapt gets distorted as flip-flopping.

OK, here's a real liberal concept, right out of Kerry's policy position. Divesting our economy out of oil. We recognize that it is a major future problem, this administration (tied to Big Oil) does not. Kerry's plan would have created 500,000 new jobs and lessened our national security problems with oil dependence from the ME.

You started the thread by pining that we have to become more conservative. You're the one who starts putting artifical labels on our political positions. In fact, I'd argue that Democrats ARE the true political conservatives today. We are for balanced budgets, we are for privacy rights, we are for civil liberties, we are for limits to military adventurism.

But we are liberal because we trust each other and we understand the importance of community in our national life. We understand that federalism does have value (Social Security, transportation, education, defense, and environment are some of the areas where a federal approach is extremely important for our national well-being). We understand human nature and are not hung up about sex. We accept and believe in the right to choose. We can accept other social concepts of theism that don't conform to the absolutist school of Robertson-Falwall Christianity.

The problem you have is that Bush Republicanism has distorted the label 'conservatism' into something that is morally, socially, and spiritually bankrupt. While the RW strives to make liberal and progressive evil words in our society, it is by their actions that they are destroying the term conservatism.

Since the Radical Right wishes to have ownership of the word conservatism, I have no problem letting them own it. And within 10 years, the word will synonymous with evil. Sorry, that's not my problem, that's the people who have hijacked the label and are misusing it.

So I don't want to confuse and muddy where I stand. I'll proudly say I am a progressive Democrat....because that is diametrically opposite from today's version of a conservative Republican.

[ctaylor]

73. another example: I'm not anti-puppy!

"Kerry's plan would have created 500,000 new jobs and lessened our national security problems with oil dependence from the ME. " So much for the future being unknown... I don't suppose we know how many jobs would be lost indirectly due to increased energy costs? But that's not my main point...

Here is my main point:

If "conservative" becomes synonymous with evil, then we don't have to use the word. But whatever you call it, we don't need to exclude it.

I'll give an example. Howard Dean. Everybody picks on him as a Liberal (big L). But guess what. He's pro-gun. The NRA likes the guy. That is a conservative position (and a liberal one in that it promotes and seeks to preserve individual liberty). I also think it is the right, er... I mean correct position. And, what do you know, it will justly appeal to a lot of Southern and rural voters who both consider themselves conservative and would be (used to be in fact) Democrat voters if they haven't become convinced that Dems are a bunch of elitist busybodies who look down on them as untrustworth hicks who should be disarmed for the betterment of society. Sure, part of that is due to Republican demonising. But a lot of it is also due to us allowing the non-conservative (notice I didn't say liberal) anti-gunners in the party (who do match the elitist busybody description) to define our image and push policy on the rest. Suprise, suprise, the Southern and rural voters don't like it and they don't turn out to vote Democrat anymore. That is exactly the sort of change we need to become a competative party again, and I hope Dean pushes for it. But if everyone freaks out and thinks: "We can't be pro-gun. The Republicans are pro-gun and they're evil. We must differentiate ourselves from the Republicans by being anti-gun." Then we have allowed our obsession with avoiding anything "conservative" or "Republican lite" to put us in a position that is both wrong and also turns away voters we need (and used to get). There are other issues like this that we could beat the Republicans on, if we weren't racing to appease the wrong elements in the party.

I agree with you that in many ways we are now the conservative (small c) party. Unfortunatly it is often areas where I wish we were more progressive. And, again, I think it is due to the obession of being the anti-Republicans instead of trying to be Democrats. Reread Bush's 2nd innaugural address, but imagine you didn't know who said it. It is liberal. It is progressive. Heck, the thing could have been written by a great Democrat. But we try to disprove it instead of just saying:

"This has been the Democrat's position since the Wilson administration. We are happy that Pres. Bush and the Republicans have finally given up on trying to install sympathetic dictators like Pinochet, and have come over to our philosphy that liberty and representative gov't are always in America's long term interests even if it is sometimes harder in the short-term. We look forward to the president working with us now to secure freedom, not only for Americans and Iraqis but for all mankind to whom freedom is their birthright. Though, frankly, while Bush's speech was a welcome change I thought it sounded better when John F. Kennedy gave it."

It's true. It takes the wind out of their sails and shows the policy to be a victory for our position. Most importantly it puts us on the right, er... correct side of the issue. And, incidently it'll get us more votes than attacking the speech on principle as a knee-jerk anti-Bush reaction. Instead of attacking what is, honestly, a liberal and progressive policy we can then focus on showing how the Bush administration is cheating on and selling-short the idealism behind that policy. We can point out that they can talk-the-talk but not walk-the-walk... that if the American people want a progressive (small p) and liberal (small l) foriegn policy of spreading liberty and democracy around the globe then they should trust the party of Wilson and FDR and Truman and JFK to do it right. Not Johnny-come-lately.

I confess that despite my earlier tip of the hat to Dean, this is actually an issue where Kerry ought to have an advantage. But instead of getting the best of both worlds with liberal/conservative pro-gun values and liberal/progressive spread democracy foriegn policy, what do we do? The exact freakin' opposite. It's like we can't get on the wrong side of issues and lose elections fast enough. We can blame fraud or demonization if we want, but I think the fact is that we play to our weaknesses too often. And, again, I think it's because we get obsessed with being "not them" instead of being "us." The longer we go blaming the voters or the media or the oppostion or the man-in-the moon instead of doing some soul searching for why we keep listenting to the wrong elements of the party on any issue, the further behind we are going to sink. All the Chimp=Hitler in the world isn't going to make up for not telling the electorate "HERE IS WHAT WE ARE FOR AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE." And until we do that, voters aren't going to trust us. But, I suppose, taking stands like that might make it difficult to run around the opposite side of the Republicans all the time.

"I am a progressive Democrat....because that is diametrically opposite from today's version of a conservative Republican."

And you just gave me a prefect example of that. You aren't "you" you are "anti-them". At least you're being honest. I see the Bush family got a new puppy. They seem to like puppies. Are you anti-puppy? I hope to God that Sen. Kennedy doesn't go on TV and proclaim that Democrats are now anti-puppy. These days, it wouldn't suprise me though.

[Old and In the Way]

75. Good points.

First off, though, I think the problem with Democrats is threefold-

(1) We've been playing defense for so long, we have no time to articulate an offense. Really, the last great Democratic initiative was Hillary's healthcare....and we know what happened to that. Too bad, too.

(2) The corporate media has been distorting our message for years....when we get any media oxygen at all. Any objective analysis of the medium shows that the Republican viewpoint is way overly represented while our message is contained to a few designated Democrats (Colmes and Lieberman come to mind) that are the acceptable representitives, usually responding defensively to the latest Republican offense.

(3) Until we get verifiable and auditable paper trails, I think Democrats are in big trouble. The worse things get, the more the Republicans win....hmmmm.

As far as Dean goes, I've never harbored any illusions about his "purity". Since I live in rural Maine, I understand the culture that he was talking to. And he was right.

But here's the rub...."gun rights" should be a local issue. When the Constitution was formulated, then was no real concept of "urban". That's not the case today. Democrats living in big cities (and Republicans, too) understand the value of gun control. "Gun rights" should be a local issue. If you don't like what the majority wants and demands....move to a place when your views match the majority.

And you're wrong about the energy issue. Dial in the total costs of running an oil based energy policy (including most of our $400BB/year defense) and a future where demand for oil outstrips supply. No more pricing games. Meanwhile, our economy, which sorely needs a New Deal type of vision to re-employ Americans in good paying jobs rebuilding our infrastructure to reflect a post-Peak Oil world, is unable to make that investment because that $500BB surplus got overspent on taxcuts and war without end. Now, there's no option to keeping us dependent on oil. Just the way Bush and his Big Oil Party wants to keep things.


On edit:

Oh yeah, regarding my personal politics. I've been a life-long Democrat which I blame on my liberal arts education. I was politically active in college and worked on George McGovern's campaign. But I got away from politics when other things got me distracted (having a good time -> career ->family). I was, of course, outraged by the Guns For Hostages/Iran-Contra/BCCI scandals, but I got lulled back into complacency when Clinton came to office. But I began waking up when the Inquisition got into full swing and the Republican Revolution swept Congress. Since the 2000 Selection, I've become more engaged with politics....and far more cynical about their designs. I freely admit that I've become radicalized about my politics....I thank George Bush for that, but I'm not a purist in any sense. On the other hand, I really can't think of any Republican/conservative legislation that's been passed that I can point to and say "this is good for the country". Above all, my #1 priority is getting these criminal fascists out of power. Because I have 2 teenage kids that are going to live in the country George Bush is trying to remake. When we drive them from office, I'll be happy to debate policy minutae. Until then, I'll be voting straight Democrat and helping to push the national political dialogue to the Left and back to the middle where it belongs.

[loudsue]

77. ctaylor, you're misinformed about the problems in the South, & why

southern voters switched parties IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's because the Democrats are responsible for Civil Rights Legislation (starting with the Kennedy's policies, and then to LBJ.)

All the old time "southern Democrats" were democrats to begin with because Lincoln (republican) stopped the hideous practice of slavery. Southerners hated Lincoln, and therefore republicans, for that little move, and for all of their sons that were killed in the Civil War. The Southern Democrats had always voted conservatively. After LBJ, Reagan came in and was able to get them all to switch to the party that backed their more conservative ideology. That's when the south went republican.

Democrats will NEVER be the primary party of the south again until they institutionalize racism, and do away with civil rights... which ain't gonna happen!! Short of the "doing away w/ civil rights" scenario, it will take generations before the south will quit fighting that 'I hate you for giving black folks equal rights' thing. I live here. I know how this goes.

It will take time before enough genuinely decent, non-racist people either move to the south, or bring their kids up to be non-racist that will break the republican majority in the south.

The GOOD news is, that the republicans have wiped out so much of the livelihood of so many southerners, and have TRASHED education sufficiently, that currently, there's not that big of a spread between Dems & republicans in much of the south. Dems are gaining strength all the time because they support the old "new deal" type policies that help southerners....the "populist" issues that the republicans in the democratic party (the DLC) and the republicans are trying to label as "too liberal". In fact, if it hadn't been for the fraudulent voting machines, North Carolina, Florida, and PROBABLY Georgia would have gone for Kerry.... or at least NC & Georgia would have come mighty damned close. We all already know Florida would have gone Kerry if not for the fraud.

So....NO! We don't need to lean to the right. The Democratic Party has NEVER BEEN so much to the right, as they are now, since I can remember.

The truth is....we've been winning the last 3 elections! So the ONLY thing we need to change about what we're doing, is we need to get corruption OUT of our elections systems.



:kick::kick::kick:

[itzamirakul]

82. Great post, LoudSue...

You said what really needed to be said and exactly what ctaylor has been skirting around. We could promise the South everything in the world except a return to segregation and they would turn us down.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Ever been to Taiwan? I have.

It's like America a decade from now under Bush "conservativism". Talk about a military fascist dictatorship. You are brainwashed my friend.

[ctaylor]

58. No, but I've been to the PRC

So, when exactly were you in Taiwan? Back when pretty much everyone agreed they were really a military dictatorship, or have you been there recently?

[Old and In the Way]

63. Last time, 2 years ago.

And I've been going to the PRC since '89. From my perspective, I think the Chinese people are far less militaristic than the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese remind me of us in their attitudes about their Chinese brethern. The Taiwanese (22MM people) spend about as much on defense as China (1300MM people). They are both extremely arrogant in their views of the Chinese people and paranoid about their intentions....but the Chinese I've met don't spend a lot of time thinking about Taiwan....they're too busy hustling to make a buck. Go figure.

[Patchuli]

81. Hahahahaa ! Good Freudian Slip

Old and in the Way! "Contract ON America" was a hellova lot closer to the truth than "Contract WITH America!" That never rang quite true because it was assuming that THEY were AMERICA and WE (who support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without others denying it to you) were NOT America! This last four years of HELL has sure felt like we had a contract ON us!

Down with the * Administration...it's starting to crumble and we can sure help it!

I wonder how long before all those 'red state' farmers start to protest their hero?

[cidliz2004]

35. Are YOU kidding?

Conservative Democrats????? Since when are Conservative Democrats going to overcome ELECTION FRAUD? MEDIA BIAS? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! Kerry's campaign was no more attributable to Kerry than Bush's campaign was attributable to Bush, furthermore, KERRY WON! BUSH LOST! ELECTION FRAUD PREVAILED!!!!!!!!! With those FACTS in mind, what you just said doesn't make any sense!

[cidliz2004]

36. I can only hope!

[MsTryska]

41. this entire country has skewed to the right, thinking it's

moved to the center.


fuck republican lite.

fuck lieberman
fuck hilary
fuck zell fucking miller.



it's time we grabbed back what's rightfully ours, and stop thinking "Left-leaning", "liberal", "democrat" are some sort of bad words, and we should be aping the right to get ahead since they've got the winning formula.



guess what? they don't. they never did. matter of fact this whole war they've been waging since the 60s is aping what they thought WE were doing. But all they did was adopt our alleged tactics. Never our positions.


fuck them and fuck "moving to the right". america has to wake up eventually, and hopefully getting screwed out of house and home will be that wake up call.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. I disagree ctaylor

I don't think going to the right will work. We've tried it and it didn't work. Why should we be like the republicans when we're democrats? If I wanted to be like the republicans I'd be one, but I don't and we're not. We have to stay true to our party and it's ideals.
None of this republican-lite b.s.

[ctaylor]

61. perhaps you should read my post

entitled "Conservative Democrats don't have to be Republicans!"

[Zhade]

64. Man, you guys just don't give up, do you?

Here, let me spell it out for you:

FUCK MOVING RIGHT. THE CENTER IS NOW WHERE THE RIGHT USED TO BE. DEMS WILL NEVER WIN MOVING TO THE RIGHT. DEMS ARE ALSO NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO FALL FOR 'DEMS' LIKE YOU TRYING TO STEER THEM AWAY FROM THEIR PRINCIPLES.

[Old and In the Way]

71. There can be no argument as to where you stand.

Perfectly clear to me.

;-)

[welshTerrier2]

24. neo-cons unravelling? YES ... Kerry intentionally lost? NO

many will die and many more will suffer because bush has another 4 years (maybe) ... i don't for a minute believe the idea that Kerry chose to lose ...

but you are correct that the corner has been turned ... the bush administration is springing more leaks than Boston's "Big Dig" ...

[Demit]

30. er...he didn't say Kerry intentionally lost.

He said Kerry's quick concession was to "let him have it" so that later the Dems could really "let him have it."

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Also because Kerry conceded so quick

People were able to uncover fraud and a lot of it to where we had the debates. If Kerry was in the spotlight fighting like with Gore he'd have all this "sore loser" stuff labeled on him and their would've been "riots" and all that all over again. This time we were able to prove those machines don't work and can't work and we have to get paper ballots. Now Mr. Conyers is working on that and I'm happy and excited and think that in 2006 there's a big chance we can get rid of the machines if Mr. Conyers and those working with him stay on it and demand it. On this board I used to go to with republicans on there they all were saying how honorable Kerry was for not staying and fighting like Gore. It really pissed me off how they called him that after all the smearing. :eyes: But it does make sense.

[borg5575]

55. Are you kidding me?

Now Mr. Conyers is working on that and I'm happy and excited and think that in 2006 there's a big chance we can get rid of the machines if Mr. Conyers and those working with him stay on it and demand it.

Are you kidding me? Conyers and any other Democrat have zero power to do anything the way the House is set up. Delay and his thugs will make sure that nothing that Conyers ever tries will see the light of day.

I hate to seem so pessimistic but I think it's too late. We have already lost it and there will be hell to pay trying to get it back.

[LittleClarkie]

56. I agree with most of what you say, but still dispute the "so quick"

"Didn't take as long as Gore" doesn't equal "so quick."

It was the second slowest concession in recent memory. But I'm also glad he didn't take a month to conceed. It would have served no good purpose, and indeed on Jan 6th the Congresspeople were able to highlight the vote, not Kerry, much as the Republicans tried to twist it back to that again. I understand from William Pitt that Kerry was asked not to be involved by those selfsame Congressmen who stood up for the voting process. And yet he will still occasionally get flak for it.

I'm just a bit sensitive to the "quick concession" meme. But the rest of your post makes a good point. Hope you don't mind the digression too much.

[Withywindle]

59. THANK YOU!

Every Presidential election I can remember except 2000 had the "loser" conceding on the very night. Of course most of them were more clearcut than this one, but I still don't understand why so many people seem to think Kerry's was lightning quick.

Mind you, there is a HUGE problem with that instant-gratification expectation that we know who "won" ASAP. Personally, I think every single vote in every single county in every single state needs to be counted by an actual human (fuck "projections") before anybody concedes or claims victory, and if it takes a month, so be it. There's a reason the inauguration isn't til almost three months later, after all, and it's not about caterer bidding. But the NOWNOWNOW expectation was there long before Kerry, it's not his fault. And as far as Kerry knew on November 3rd, he had either (a) lost fair and square or (b) lost by theft but it couldn't be proven. The effect is unfortunately exactly the same: he lost. Or "lost." Either way, Chimp takes office unless Kerry wants to provoke a Cold Civil War and destroy the Democratic Party for a generation. Occam's Razor. No frickin' Skull & Bones, no cowardice, no invisible master plan of any kind is required to explain this!

But I do think the story described in the OP is very close to the truth, if a bit optimistic. Taking the White House was Plan A. That didn't happen. I trust Kerry, and the current rapidly spine-growing Democratic leadership, to be smart enough to know there ALWAYS needs to be a Plan B.

[flobee1kenobi]

32. How did they know?

Diebold: I will deliver Ohio for GWB (the big one!)
Blackwell: Only rgeistrations that are on 80# paper will be accepted
Mysterious terrorist threat in ONE county in Ohio
Repug poll workers challenging the validity of voters

I saw it coming 2 months away and voted absentee
Although I don't think Kerry tried to lose, he knew exactly what was going on.

Somehow after the election, Asskrak states that there is no longer a threat of terrorism in America. All those people in Ohio stood in line for hours to make sure we have 4 more years of the same. and the count in Ohio may have been close enough that one county could have made a difference.

[bvar22]

38. Many of us here (DU)...

...saw it coming (election rigging) two (2) years ago.
We repeatedly informed the Democratic Party at all levels through:

1)repeated coordinated Massive E-Mail campaigns to ALL Democratic Representatives,

2) HardMail (snail mail) campaigns directly to ALL Democratic representatives,

3) Coordinated Public Awareness campaigns (letters to Eds, Media, and DU members demanding and getting Media interviews concerning BBV)

4) Telephone campaigns

5) Spreading the word to E-Media and Communities.


The WORD was OUT. Any Democratic Representative (especially the DNC and the Kerry Campaign who says,"Gee, We didn't know they would cheat!" is LYING!!!

Check our archives. The WORD is there!

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Has Kerry or anybody in the DNC

said they didn't know? I was wondering because I haven't heard any of them talking about it. Except last night when Clinton said how we won in 2000.

[borg5575]

57. Clinton also said

Clinton also said on Larry King Live on CNN that Bush won the 2004 election "fair and square."

I don't buy this theory. If Kerry and company had seen it coming they would have been screaming bloody murder about it.

[Sir Jeffrey]

34. I think what you're saying is true, but...

none of this matters if we don't get away from black box voting and gerrymandering the districts to favor Repubs. These should be our number one and number two priorities, or else I fear we will be under a Republican government for many years.

I would also like to say that I think what MMoore said is true: the party membership is moving left and the party leadership is trying to move right. With Dean in charge I tend to think we can win.

[tom_paine]

37. Sigh. I hope you're right, but I see no reason to think so

And do you REALIZE how many people would be crushed (and more than a few will actually literally die, meeting with 'accidents') before Tiberius Bunnypants* even got close to being INVESTIGATED?

Puh-leeze! The Busheviks would nuke New York AND San Francisco before allowing that to happen, of that I am convinced.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. I could see it

After all Kerry is a brilliant guy. And also remember if it wasn't for what happened in Ohio and Florida we wouldn't have been able to get rid of the voting machines and take over in 2006. I thought it was so strange at how fast Bush started working after the election. It was really surprising and he is taking away all this stuff that the democratic party stands for like to rub it in our faces and put his faith-based crap in. There's nothing wrong with that but it doesn't belong in the government and take over government programs. If people ever want to hold Bush accountable for his actions he would've had to have re-election. Look at the new 9/11 information for example. I would love if in 2006 we do take over and we do impeach him and have trials of war crimes and we should get all who participated in the stealings of 2000 and 2004. Then we can get a democrat in there as President in 2008 to clean up the mess, and who knows, maybe he'd (or she) would even have another term like Clinton did to clean up Bush senior's mess. It does make a lot of sense and I could see it. We're slowly taking over our country and getting more organized and taking over local elections as well. The neocons are slowly and surely coming down. Look at what happened with "Gannon." I think that was a start for many things to come. So it does make sense on your theory. I could see it. We'll all probably have to suffer and have some hardships with everything until 2006 but it's not that far away if you think about it. It's already February of 2005 so we just have to hold on a little more and work our butts off to get local people into the House. Then we can go after the big dogs.

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. Spell Check is a terrible thing to waste! n/t

[AuntiBush]

52. I tend to agree with you and

have been thinking the exact same thoughts. I'm still unsure if it's wishful thinking on my end's part or it is part of the bigger picture.

Yet, I must agree, you've made some astounding points and if it does unfold, as I too see it as such... you very well have made the most positive assumptional posting yet.

Thanks for the positive outlook. Yet, I dunno.

:think:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

62. kick

[LibertyorDeath]

65. I will say this until hell freezes over

This is the decider in ALL Future Elections

ES&S Diebold Sequoia Voting Systems all Owned by Republicans
All in the RNC's back pocket.

You vote and THEY decide.

"Those who cast
the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything"

Josef Stalin

[Disturbed]

67. ES&S Diebold Sequoia

will have paper now. The could have had those for the elction but puposefully dragged on providing them.

[LibertyorDeath]

69. Thanks do you have a link for that? I'm obviously out of touch.

[Number_6]

79. Beware the loopholes

The Rethugs are strongly, strongly motivated to go along
with something that has the appearance of election reform
while leaving in back doors that nullify the election
methods being trustworthy. Sadly, I'm a purist and I've
read things such as that the law may read: That paper receipts
are optional--individual voter may choose to get a receipt or not,
that the paper receipts can only be counted in a recount scenario (and
thus the State Mafioso like Blackwell have only to block a recount or
have a sham recount), these kinds of scenarios. Pay close attention
to what the professors and the computer specialists are saying...
basically that if a computer's involved anywhere there needs to
be an ungodly number of safeguards.

[dandrhesse]

68. Thanks! I needed that post.

I have felt the same way all along as well, but I still have down days, because even with a "game plan" and I believe also an eventual take down, what about everything that happens between now and the day that happens. I know its good strategy, but that doesn't help the person who is dying today because they don't have healthcare or the kids that won't get headstart, or a college education. Campaigning in my own neighborhood, I really feel how much people need help. It is really tough to wait, but we have no choice.

[bush_is_wacko]

72. I have been thinking the exact same thing!

It's funny you should mention this. Last night my local television news was talking about the Ward Churchill thing. Our thug governor (Bill Owens), a POSTER CHILD for right-wing fanatics, is trying to create legislation to make it easier to fire tenured professors. In an OPINION piece one of the reporters said something to the effect that since our state House and Senate are controlled by Democrat's there is NO CHANCE this legislation will pass, however, if we had a Republican controlled state House and Senate this bill would already be on the books!

At first I thought it was a plug to fundies to get the Dem's out of office, but when I really watched the story I realized that the reporter was CLEARLY making our Governor look like a whining pratt. They followed up with Dem's basically saying the Governor could kiss their :kick:'s and then a story on Churchill's appearance at CU Boulder the day before yesterday, saying that Churchill had WIDE support from students, faculty, AND our Dem leader's!

I think EVEN the MSM is starting to get ticked at bushitler!

[Dr Fate]

74. No- Kerry's "strategists" are idiots.

Plain & simple. They refused to tell the blunt, unvarnished truth about the GOP/media forfear that it would "confuse swing voters."

End of story.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EST]

78. I like your analysis and hope you're onto something.

Now, I don't wish to nit pick and I hope you accept this in the spirit in which it is intended. Please, please use the spell checker when you start a thread. That would make it so much easier to read, as well as support the notion that we are a bit different from that awful opposing site that starts with an "F."
This is especially true if your thread happens to show up on the front page, keeping in mind that this forum is highly prized reading by many in the "media" as well as in government. Perception is, after all, so very important. Thanks.

[John_H]

83. The truth, sadly, is more prosaic

Since the only way to beat thugs is to fight harder than them, Team Kerry and the people at the DNC needed to fight exactly like the rethugs fight. They didn't. They lost. They're still not fighting. They can't fight, don't know how. They need to go away.

[eek MD]

85. I firmly believe the only way that us dems will get back into power

I believe the only way we'll ever get back into power is to let the repubs ruin it for themselves.

With the Media problems that are going on in this country right now, i don't think it's possible to have a fair election on the national level.

Every dem that rises in standing, and becomes a prominent figure will be smeared by the media, leaving us with weak-kneed moderately conservative dem candidates that the repubs like to run against.

Until the repubs ruin it for themselves (which it's difficult to judge how "far" they have to go, before the american public wakes up and sees past the propaganda) they'll be in total control....

(then again, i'm a "glass half-empty" kinda guy)... =)

[Paradise]

86. ;) Have I told you, lately, that I love you... ;) n/t