Reply #38: explained!... here's my rebuttle...

[Finch]

"Our nominee supports a 5% corp. tax cut (not liberal, in any sense of the word)"

Not Liberal However it does boost Middle and Working Class Spending power and that will help reduce the deficit unlike the Bush tax cuts which favour the Rich. So no it’s not Liberal, will it be popular? Yes, Will it help the economy and the budget deficit? Yes.

"Our nominee and a lot of his Democratic buddies supported Bush's war."

Almost every Dem in the senate supported the Iraq War Resolution Bill. And with the evidence which the Bush administration presented to them I would be worried if someone hadn't given voting for it some serious thought. That Evidence we now know to have been flawed.

"Our nominee would rather keep most of Bush's tax cuts rather than balance the budget or save social security"

See what I said at the top, tax cuts when properly targeted (unlike Bush's) produce revenue and help the economy by boosting spending, saving and investment.

"The Dem party is deathly afraid to stand up for gay marriage"

Personally I think Gay Marriage is a good thing as it promotes stable and loving relationships. But the Federal government does not have the right to impose a specific line on the issue what the Dems have done and what many republicans have done also is oppose the constitutional amendment proposed by Bush. It is a state issue but Civil Unions within one state should have some bearing in all other states. But you just can't legislate either way not Kerry or Bush.

"Tom Daschle is our senate leader, and from a red state."

So what he's from a Republican State. That means nothing. He has a solid Voting record and has done quite well. He should not be Majority Leader he just isn't suited to it... but there is little wrong with Daschle as a Senator from a conservative state.

"Dick Gephardt was our house leader for several years, and is from a red state"

He's one of the most economically leftwing members of congress he's on a par with Tom Harkin. Socially He's also a pretty mainstream Liberal, problem was economically he is little different to Mondale or Humphrey the last to "Big Labour" nominees. Also MO is not a red state it’s a swing state, it leans towards the GOP this time around, but its voted for the winner in every election since 1956 (JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton included).

"The Dem party fell in line to support the Patriot Act."

In the immediate wake of 9/11 you can understand this. And it has helped in part to prevent terrorist action. Much of what has been done as a result of the PA was already used by federal agencies in other actions. However I think a review is in order, but a nee-jerk reaction would be silly. That said I don't trust Ashcroft one bit with the power the PA gives him.

"Our nominee is open to appointing anti-choice judges"

He said so long as they uphold the Roe v Wade ruling. I'm Fine with that; nothing would be altered from how things stand now. I'm pro-life but I think a woman should have the option of aborting the pregnancy in the first trimmest, Even though I would argue against every having an abortion except in exceptional circumstances. Personally While I think a person has a right to end their life (Suicide or Euthanasia) I simply cannot say a person has the right to end a child's life.

"Our nominee voted with President Bush 72% of the time in 2002, while paradoxically managing to vote with his party leadership 92% of the time."

Figures like that are meaningless, just as Bush and Co saying that Kerry voted against something 70 times without explaining it was amendments. This is a non-issue.

"In 2002 the Dems were afraid to run against the President, or stand for anything different than the Republicans, and ended up getting slaughtered at the polls."

Hardly. The Dems ran hard against Bush on the economy and poll indicated that they would do well. However Bush's intervention (at a time when he was a big boost for the GOP amongst moderates) turned the debate to national security something that in the wake of 9/11 and the destruction of the Taliban. It would have seemed silly to as a national party take issue with. Some Democrats did (Wellstone for example, who was in a very tight race right up until he died) but overall and in places like GA, MO, NC etc... The suggestion of opposition to the president’s foreign policy was well exploited by the GOP to assist their candidates. So suggesting that we should have been the "antiwar party" in 2002 is silly and ill-advised. On the Economic and Social issues we lead the GOP all the way through but towards the end Bush got heavily involved and turned the debate to Foreign Policy and Defence, we had not way of dealing this he was attacking us, some turned to the left and attacked Bush and that didn't help some where quite and managed to either lose to claw their way to a win but generally it was not because we failed in out message it was because we had no unified message on that issue, but opposing what? The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? The war on terror? All of this wouldn't have worked and where it was tried in MN and to an extent in MO it didn't work even Cleland got attacked for it. In Conclusion the failures of the Dems in the 2002 midterms where down to a failure to keep the issue the "economy" and allowing Bush (With circumstances greatly favouring him)to move the emphasis of the campaign on to foreign policy and the "war on terror"... being the "anti-war party" would not have helped at all.

So there you go...explained :)