What would you do to revive the Democratic Party?

[twindouble]

Besides dumping Kennedy, Shummer, Dean, Hilary, Finstine, Boxer, Biden and Kerry right off. Jackson and Sharpton should be exiled to Darfur.

Theres no way they will take the White House back runing Biden or H.Clinton.

I have to admit, Hilary is playing her cards right taking the middle because the far left would vote for anything that's not Republican. They will never take their heads out of their ass anyway.

What do you all think of Mitt Romney for president? Having a name like Mitt will garner at least 30 % of the vote right off. The fact he's young and good looking makes him almost a shoe in to get the nod. Another camelot in the works. :jump:


T.D.

[Tee]

TD,

The question for some (or better yet the answer from) might be what would u do to not revive the Democratic Party? :lol:

[twindouble]

TD,

The question for some (or better yet the answer from) might be what would u do to not revive the Democratic Party? :lol:

I thought I gave everyone a start but what do you expect from a dumb ass horse player. :D

[Suff]

Has no one seen the Futures pool on the 2006 House race?


As I mentioned before. 35 Iraqi and Persian Gulf Combat veterans have announced campiagns for congressional seats this November.

33 will run as Democrats

2 will run as Republicans.

Those are Combat veterans of our War on terror for those who missed the morning paper.


I read everything from News Max and Free Republic, DailyKos all the way out to Al Jazeera.

Has no one advised you that the Democrats are 3 to 5 to win the house?

[twindouble]

TD,

The question for some (or better yet the answer from) might be what would u do to not revive the Democratic Party? :lol:

Seriously, there's so many other things they could be doing it bogles the mind beause they have done nothing to speak of, no balls at all.

They can't do anything about immigration and national security operating from their existing base. They are anti everything when it comes common sense solutions.

With the exception of the war on terror our foreign policy sucks to no end. We are getting shit on by Russia, France, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia (Morales), Venezuela (Chavez).

The existing mimum wage is a joke beyond belief.

Health costs have gone up 30% over the last year. 40 some odd million people with no coverage.

There's no accountablity for the Billions we are spending here and all over the world.

The UN is beyond repair.

SS, Medcare and the new Drug progam will guarntee failure sooner than later.

Our Justice system is falling apart.

Corruption on every level of government.

Hell, I could go on all night, there's plenty of issues the Dems could be chewing on other than their own cud or someone elses.

T.D.

[lsbets]

Suff - from Tradesports. This is their market on control of the House and Senate:

Senate GOP control Bid: 76.5 Ask 77.8
House GOP Control Bid: 71.0 Ask 72.8

Not quite 3/5 in favor of the Dems. Any serious analysis of the potentially contentious races says it would be very difficult for the Dems to take the House.

BTW - tradesports futures had every state right in the 2004 Pres election. Its funny what happens when people speculate with real money.

Suff - if you think it's 3/5 for Dems can I take action on the Reps with you? That's one hell of an overlay.

[Dave Schwartz]

Has no one advised you that the Democrats are 3 to 5 to win the house?

LOL

[rastajenk]

What's the Dems' record of running out vets as candidates? Wesley Clark was a non-starter, Kerry was an embarassment, Paul Hackett in Ohio lost to a weak candidate....how many of those 33 vets are running in districts they actually have a chance to win? Just like in the speed ratings thread, you gotta get beneath the surface before you can make blanket statements. Three-to-five? Only in the reality-based world of Kos and Dhimmi Underground.

[Suff]

What's the Dems' record of running out vets as candidates? Wesley Clark was a non-starter, Kerry was an embarassment, Paul Hackett in Ohio lost to a weak candidate....how many of those 33 vets are running in districts they actually have a chance to win? Just like in the speed ratings thread, you gotta get beneath the surface before you can make blanket statements. Three-to-five? Only in the reality-based world of Kos and Dhimmi Underground.

Not quite 3/5. None the less, I've seen them favored in many polls. I also evaluate thier chances very well. I find peoples reactions to this as somewhere between humorous and disappointing.

I also find the minimizing of Combat veterans contributions, coupled with thier politica aspirations extremely troubling. It's one thing to be on Polticians Band wagon and Jump when they go against you. Its another entirely different thing when a Man goes to war for you, then disagrees with you poltically and you jump. Mininmizing, and/or insulting a man that fought for you is the lowest of low.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Registered Independent. When I evaluate the Democrats chances of winning the Election, I'm not insulting the Republican Party, (or your Mother), so its not required to come back over the top. imho

[Overlay]

I believe I've heard more than one commentator note that the only presidential elections the Democrats have been able to win recently were when they had a Southerner somewhere on the ticket (Johnson, Carter, Clinton) who wasn't as lockstep liberal as the party's New England/Kennedy/Dukakis/Kerry base. The party needs to broaden its regional appeal to a more nationwide basis. Did anyone see a map with a county-by-county breakdown of the last presidential election? Many of the red states had every single county carried by Bush. It seems like there are widely-shared concerns in the country as a whole that the Democrats just aren't reaching the voters on.

[Tom]

Leaving Howard Screamin' Dean in charge is just fine with me....it is a form of euthanasia.

But if you really want to revive it, try finding some candidates that represent what the majority of Americans believe, not the fringe wackos that are feeding off its carcass right now.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Bar white males from running for any office as a Democrat. They are all phonys anyway!

[JustRalph]

What's the Dems' record of running out vets as candidates? Wesley Clark was a non-starter, Kerry was an embarassment, Paul Hackett in Ohio lost to a weak candidate....how many of those 33 vets are running in districts they actually have a chance to win? Just like in the speed ratings thread, you gotta get beneath the surface before you can make blanket statements. Three-to-five? Only in the reality-based world of Kos and Dhimmi Underground.

http://www.hackettforohio.com/sync/images/140.jpg
Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

I told the voters from the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be – that I was about leadership, service and commitment.

Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

Thus ends my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political cliche, I really will be spending more time with my family, something I wasn’t able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my return from Iraq.

[ljb]

Just off the top of my head we can:
Take money from crooked lobbyists, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Tell the christain zealots we are going to ban gay marriage, oops pre-empted by repubs.
Create a false fear in the American public, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Pretend to give a damn about such things as the Schaivo case, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Appoint judges that favor corporations elimination of retiree benifits, oops pre-empted by repubs.
Lie like hell, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Well you get my drift.

[Tom]

Ljb,

Your post, while I assume tounge-in-cheek, kind of points out just what is wrong with the dems - if the repubs are that crooked, that bad, how can it be the dems cannot beat them?
Tell you what, you guys find a candidate that will not suckle up to lobbyists, will seriously address the broken border issues, will admit our ports are dangerously vunerable and do something about it, will have the guts to stand up to both sides of congress and veto bills full of pork, and go public, naming names and amounts as to why, and one who is not afraid to call a spade a spade and create an appropriate foreign policy to deal with the illegal chinnese trade practice, address the seriousness of the loss of manufacturing jobs and do something about it, and will address the health care problems we face, I will vote for him, HELL, I will campaign for him.
But I want a guy who will, before the election, define what his measurables will be, sign up to specific deliverables, and provide not only a general timeline, but a strategy for achieving it.

I know of no republicans that will sign to that. And I am sure none ever will.

[Bala]

Tom wrote: ".........But I want a guy who will, before the election, define what his measurables will be, sign up to specific deliverables, and provide not only a general timeline, but a strategy for achieving it."
__________________________________________________ ______

This is precisely the problem. Recall John Kerry “I have a plan…”

What plan? The democrats are absolutely clueless. All the dems do
is spew vitriol and venom. The dems are in a perpetual state of confusion.
First get a clue and than run for something. Dems will get the disenfranchised
vote…. Come to think of it, this is more reason not to rebuild N.O.

__________________________________________
Outsource congress to India.

[GaryG]

Their only chance is to find someone who is relatively conservative and not a wild-eyed ultra leftist like McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc. Look what happened to them, they got skewered. That would be someone similar to Clinton (Bill not Hillary) but that understands the meaning of the word "is". Otherwise it's back to the scrap heap in 2008.

[kenwoodallpromos]

From the NY Times:
"By IAN URBINA
Published: February 14, 2006
Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders."
That is exactly why Repubs will control the Congress in 2007- 2 face lying anarchist Demo party leaders who want brainwashed sheep following them and toeing the line. Just a tiny bit worse than the Repubs in that respect!
:bang:

[Indulto]

If Hacket is not forthcoming about what influenced his decision, he will be harming all Democrats. Like the Cheney story, a news vacuum will only raise more questions.

[lsbets]

According to the NY Times, Hacket was urged by Reid and Shumer not to run, and when he resisted their urging, they began calling his donors to get them to urge Hacket not to run. They told him to run for Congress instead, but he stated that he already promised the primary candidates he was not going to. Their reply was that promises are broken in politics all the time.

[JustRalph]

You can read about hackett here

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Don't forget to check out the article about the guy who rolled a 900 series last night.............I found it much more entertaining than Hacket running his mouth about being betrayed

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPT/399990052

[GaryG]

You can read about hackett here

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

Don't forget to check out the article about the guy who rolled a 900 series last night.............I found it much more entertaining than Hacket running his mouth about being betrayed

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPT/399990052JR I was worried....when I saw that link I thought you got your news the same place as Bobby. Wonder when he gets out of the penalty box...

[DJofSD]

Revive the democratic party? Get McCain to switch parties. That'll raise the IQ of both parties.

Go fish.

[JustRalph]

JR I was worried....when I saw that link I thought you got your news the same place as Bobby. ..

Naw, but I do read way too much crap, most of the time.

[michiken]

Tell the Dems to be pro USA and get rid of all the cheap foreign labor that cost me the best job I have ever had. It's sad that I have to interview with them just to keep my handicapping lifestyle.

[Lefty]

I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Registered Independent. When I evaluate the Democrats chances of winning the Election, I'm not insulting the Republican Party, (or your Mother), so its not required to come back over the top. imho
______________________
Tell it to the Dems. They withdrew their support for Hackett.

[Lefty]

Maybe if they actually had solutions to the probs they keep outlining. We all know the probs. So far in the past few yrs the only solution the dems have is raise taxes; and that just adds to the problem. During Clinton yrs I never heard the word crisis so many times in my life. They said then SS was in Crisis. But did they work to fix it? No. Did they work with Bush to fix it? Hell no. They just said it's not a problem. Dems, get an agenda besides Bush bashing...

[betchatoo]

For the Democrats to revive, they need a candidate that has a combination of charisma and intelligence. They need someone who speaks with common sense, not in sound bites. They need someone who will address the problems of this nation and outline solutions. They need a candidate that is centrist (the control of the Republican party is far enough right that even a centrist will appear to be far left) because a far left winger will not have a message that reaches the people. They require a candidate who will remain cool under pressure and will respond that way when he is attacked by hard core members of the right (it's going to happen, accept it and be ready for it).

Although I am not a great believer in polls all signs indicate that the American people are ready for a change in leadership. Then DUH!, get someone who has proven leadership skills. And have this candidate tell America, "This is the direction I'm going and this is how I'm going to get there."

Of course, finding a Presidential candidate is just the tip of the iceberg. The Democratic party must also install leadership at all levels that fit this same pattern. If you want to be a leader, lead. Stop trying to find out where people are heading and then rushing to get ahead of the crowd. It doesn't work

[Tom]

Betchatoo,

Unfortunately, Katrina pointed out that corruption, ineffectivness, and outright incompetence exist at every level of both parties. The two party sysem is killing this country - we don' thav eleaders anymore, we settle for popularity contests amoung low lifes who serve the party, not the country, the lobbyists, not the people. I don't see anyone in either party who is committed to representing the people and could ever get elected. No one will ever win a major election without huge funding - real Americans have no chance in this governement anymore.

[GaryG]

They need a candidate that is centrist (the control of the Republican party is far enough right that even a centrist will appear to be far left) because a far left winger will not have a message that reaches the people. This is my point exactly. They will still get the votes from the lunatic left and blacks, like they always do, but that won't win many elections. Even if the ultra liberal dems get all hot and sweaty because they are being ignored they will still vote a dem ticket. Until the peace and freedom party is revived anyway. :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

And how much longer can the dems count on the black people? More and more they are waking up. More voted for GW than in the prev election. And in this adm black home ownership rose to an alltime high. With people like Kennedy and Dean at the head of the party and ALGORE out there making speeches for them; the dems in trble.

[Lefty]

lbj, you rant. On gay marriage: What Dem supports it? None I know of, yet you attribute it only to the Repubs. Wasn't it Clinton that introduced the defensive marriage act?
The rest of your points are smug, opinionated, and wrong!

[GaryG]

Just off the top of my head we can:
Take money from crooked lobbyists, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Tell the christain zealots we are going to ban gay marriage, oops pre-empted by repubs.
Create a false fear in the American public, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Pretend to give a damn about such things as the Schaivo case, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Appoint judges that favor corporations elimination of retiree benifits, oops pre-empted by repubs.
Lie like hell, oops pre-empted by the repubs.
Well you get my drift.The only drift I get from all of this bs is that y'all don't have a chance. The time is near when the dems need to come up with something positive. This is just sad as Ross Perot would say.

[NoDayJob]

Ljb,

Tell you what, you guys find a candidate that will not suckle up to lobbyists, will seriously address the broken border issues, will admit our ports are dangerously vunerable and do something about it, will have the guts to stand up to both sides of congress and veto bills full of pork, and go public, naming names and amounts as to why, and one who is not afraid to call a spade a spade and create an appropriate foreign policy to deal with the illegal chinnese trade practice, address the seriousness of the loss of manufacturing jobs and do something about it, and will address the health care problems we face, I will vote for him, HELL, I will campaign for him.
But I want a guy who will, before the election, define what his measurables will be, sign up to specific deliverables, and provide not only a general timeline, but a strategy for achieving it.

I know of no republicans that will sign to that. And I am sure none ever will.


:lol: Surely you jest. Full time politicians will never, never do anything but continue to feather their own nests. It's their job. We need to go back to an unpaid part-time Congress. Let them get real jobs and find out how the "great unwashed" have to deal with the laws they legislate, but ignore themselves. This time I'm voting for myself, because I'm the only one I can trust and I ain't too sure about that on some days. :lol:

[Lefty]

Term limits would be nice. Repubs d vote fot it in a majority and Dems vote against it in a majority. That's the bottom line.

[andicap]

As briefly as I can because I can write on this for hours --

The country is centrist== Conservatives and libs will both scream to the contrary but every poll shows people tend to take middle of the road stands on our biggest issues. Not every issue but most. Like abortion for example.

So the Dems to win need to realize that nominating perceived liberals from northeastern states is a recipe for disaster in a national election. I mean, look at JFK. He barely won and he ran as a moderate to Humphrey's liberal. (OK, a lot of people didn't like Catholics back then too.) Still a liberal has never really won although I don't know how Truman ran in '48 except by bashing a GOP Congress that had been extremely passive and using his energy and charisma against a colorless, personality free candidate in Thomas Dewey. Being from Missouri helped.

So liberals can't win (I perceive myself as a moderate liberal -- no doubt to many here I'd be a raving, terrorist sympathizing, Commie-loving lefty, but I tend to be pragmatic on many issues). No matter what Michael Moore will tell you. Unless they get as good as Republicans in mobilizing poor and young people to vote (Bush won in 2004 for one reason: They mobilized 9 million conservative Christians to register to vote and got pastors to campaign for them on Sundays; gay marriage referendums also killed the Dems as it spurred people who otherwise didn't feel strongly about Bush to vote against a socially liberal party; the Demos only mobilized 3 million new voters. )

I think the country tilts a bit left on social issues (with the exception maybe of gay rights but even here I bet you could get 45% of the country to say gay unions should get the same protections as marriage as long as they dont actually marry. That's the centrist view in my opinion. The liberal view is pro marriage. The conservative one is not to recognize gay unions. The ultra conservative one is to bring back anti-sodomy laws.) and the public is more conservative on fiscal issues.

In the final analysis most people dont vote on fringe topics like the environment. They vote a) their pocketbook including taxes, jobs, and the overall economy. A feeling of "confidence." b) foreign policy, namely someone who won't get us blown up and who people feel will stand up to the terrorists. and c) social issues like abortion, gay rights -- mainly a kind of anti-Hollywood/anti pop-culture MTV/permissiveness/anti-PC backlash Bill O'Reilly really taps into (even tho he takes liberal stances on some social issues his demeanor and rhetoric is all right-wing.) .

Remember its not like the Dems have gotten blown out in the last two elections -- they don't to move up much in the vote to win. Of course that depends on whether Bush and the GOP Congress can rebound from their low approval ratings.

Too, the Dems have to run a candidate that the media likes. The media loved Clinton -- until he got elected. But hated Gore and Kerry. Stiff and stiffer. When I say the media I also include late night comedians like Leno and Jon Stewart who help set the tone for how people feel viscerally and emotionally about candidates.

Centrist is definitely where the media is -- when people say the media is Liberal, they mean most journalists are pro-choice and pro-gay, pro complete seperation of church and state, and tend not to sympathize with evangical/fundamental Christians on their social issues. But reporters pay taxes too and they get mugged so they are not always as liberal as you think.
The media always, and I mean always reflects the country's point of view.

And the candidate must be from the South or a midwestern state preferably a border one like Missouri. Of course Gore was from Tennessee, but I wont replay the mechanics of the 2000 election vote count here.l

Finally the Dems have to take a page from James Carville's playbook and counter GOP attack ads as quickly as possible. They were way too passive and wimpy in 2004. Two words: Swift boats.

Who does that leave for 2008?

Hillary? Forget it? She's a phony who would get killed. Completely lacks her husband's charisma and political instincts (like pushing him to a diastrous position on health care in 1993).

Biden -- No way -- he ran before, he too lacks charisma. He's from Delaware for chrissake and although he's a moderate liberal (you'd be surprised some of the stands he takes) with a strong background in foreign policy he wont capture anyone's imagination.

Russel Feingold -- Wisoonsin senator. For the last time, NO ONE gets elected President from the Senate. Has happened about twice in 120 years the last one being JFK. Too many controversial votes and stands on the record and too easy to label someone a flip flopper since you often have to vote on both sides of an issue for reasons of procedure, amendments, symbolism, politics, log-rolling, etc. And he's probably too liberal. A jewish candidate could win but only if he were as conservative as Lieberman.

Evan Bayh -- probably would have a good chance of winning a national election as he's a conservative Democrat from Indiana but no way will he win a primary. While I dont mind runing a centrist he's a bit too far to the right and I think the left wing of the party might refuse to vote for him. In New York he'd be a Republican. Again he's a senator.

John Edwards -- From the south, moderate liberal, charismatic and has the experience of running for national office. But there's a feeling he has peaked and still lacks the gravitas in important foreign affairs to get elected. Fact he couldn't carry N.C. in 2004 hurts him.

Barack Obama -- Will definitely not run for national office for a few cycles. Too new.

Bill Richardson -- Finally a governor who's not from the Northeast. A former ambassador and energy dept secretary he has the resume for the job, can capture the incredibly important Hispanic vote and is not too liberal. Kind of in the Clinton mode a bit.
Problems -- a lingering feeling he's got skeletons in his closet. Flaky. He put on his bio that he played minor league ball for the KC Royals. I mean a really easy thing to check. That's just dumb. And he's from a very small state in New Mexico.

Wesley Clark -- Couldn't get it done in 2004 -- maybe the experience taught him something. He's running around now trying to build his repuation and could be a dark horse. Most people still don't know what he really stands for though.
A possibility if he learned from his mistakes and runs a better campaign.

Tom Vilasick (sp?) Iowa governor and a centrist, but to the left of Bayh. Don't know enough about him but definitely an intriguing possibility if he has any personalty at all and no problems in his background. He would not have to campaign that hard in the Iowa caucuses so could concentrate on New Hamphsire and the following round of southern primaries.
Lot will depend on if can raise money.


Maybe there are some other Democratic governors who could emerge as party leaders in the next year or out of left field the way Carter did. But the Dems major problem is they haven't elected enough governors over the past eight years to build tomorrow's leaders.












The Dems won when they nominated perceived centrists (Carter, Clinton, who ran in the center on a campaign saying Big Government can't solve all our problems.)

[lsbets]

Andy - I agree with everything you said, and a lot of it I've said here before (and been jumped all over). Especially the point about no outright liberal candidate winning a national election, and the other one about Senators. They are terrible candidates.

The winners tend to come from the governors ranks. I didn't know about Richardson's bio, but he seems to be a strong candidate because he brings to the table foreign policy experience and a sense of toughness vis a vis his actions on the border.

The thing the Democrats need to do is make sure they put up a candidate who is not perceived as wimpy, whiny, or shrill (like when Hillary starts screaching - it fires up the base, but the tapes of that will remind everyone of how much they hate "that time of the month" and will turn centrist voters off).

I don't think any of the obvious choices will be there in 08 once the primaries are over with. If I were betting the futures like the Derby, I'd probably look at the field.

[betchatoo]

In addition the Democrats need a candidate who can make the people feel safe, good about themselves and optimistic about where the country is heading. Inthe last election Bush kept saying that everything was great and people weren't necessarily buying it, but it was a lot better than Kerry's message that the USA was all messed up and he really didn't know what to do about it. Late polls before the election showed Bush would lose if he ran against no one, yet he still beat Kerry.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Good thing I read youir whole post and did not just skim it- otherwise I would think Demos blame their losses on churches, the media, and the lack of charisma. (But Jackson and Sharpton never did very well).
You consider anyone who supports anti-sodaomy laws (against anal sex) to be ultra-right wing? Like I said, good thing I read your entire post and know better!
Funny you seemed to mention only old tried candidates for 2008- I am sticking with Gov. Warner as my Demop choice!
You (newly converted?) ultra-right wing conservative buddy, Ken. LOL!

[GaryG]

You consider anyone who supports anti-sodaomy laws (against anal sex) to be ultra-right wing?Can you imaigine what would happen to a candidate that said he was pro sodomy? He might be hailed as a free thinker by people like Jon Stwart but would get his head handed to him worse than McGovern did (not saying McG was pro sodomy). Ken, I am also a newly converted conservative....since Barry Goldwater.

[lsbets]

Anti-sodomy laws rank right up there at the top with things the government should keep its nose out of. Simply put, its none of the government's business. And, when read literally, those laws not only apply to gay sex, they apply to many heterosexual activities which I would bet most folks here are not opposed to engaging in.

[lsbets]

Guys like this would have broad appeal nationally:

"Ford said he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, he is against partial birth abortion, he argues we have to stay in Iraq until we get the job done and he says he was encouraged on his most recent of four visits to the war zone. He wants to end pork barrel spending and balance the budget by making every department cut spending, and he wants to reform the tax code.

It was in the area of entitlements that Ford made his boldest statements. He says we need to notify people 40 and under right now that they won’t be getting Social Security until they are 70. Increased life expectancy is threatening the solvency of the program. He also favors means testing so that those making over $300,000 a year would not receive a Social Security check. He is opposed to private accounts."

http://metropulse.com/articles/2006/16_07/frank_talk.shtml

One of his problems is the activist base of his party hates him with a passion, because he is a slightly left of center African American Democrat (which means conservative to them). He is in the DLC mold that worked so well for Clinton. He is articulate and well spoken, and does not come across as unreasonable.

Gary - what are his chances of winning the Senate race there in TN?

[Tom]

Anti-sodomy laws rank right up there at the top with things the government should keep its nose out of. Simply put, its none of the government's business. And, when read literally, those laws not only apply to gay sex, they apply to many heterosexual activities which I would bet most folks here are not opposed to engaging in.

Where did you meet my BOSS?:eek:

[Suff]

As briefly as I can because I can write on this for hours --


The Dems won when they nominated perceived centrists (Carter, Clinton, who ran in the center on a campaign saying Big Government can't solve all our problems.)

I think we will see unprecedented world events in the next 24 months that make it difficult to gauge where Middle America will be for 2008.

The Economics of Globalization have just begun to boil. Put me down as one who believes George Bush and Company have put us in a very exposed position.

Where do you stand poltically with the famous and infamous leaders of Mankind?

We know where Ghandi stood, Hitler, Stalin, POL POT, Thatcher, Reagan, et al...

All these people have exstensive writings, and gave many speech's and lectures on thier belief system. So we're able to definately answer questions about them, and score them, or rank them using the traditional monikers such as Liberal, Or leftist, or Facist, or Conservative.

Here's a 6 page test that takes about 10 minutes that will rank you, and show you where you stand in relation to the Worlds More Popular , or influential leaders.

They use a Graph, its fairly simple, but reading and disecting where you are on the graph and how it relates to America's current poltical climate takes a minute.


Non-profit, Non-Partisian.

http://politicalcompass.org/






A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif

[Suff]

The US Presidential Election 2004

We've scrutinised the statements and, more tellingly, the voting records of the hopefuls of some of the parties, in response to requests from many of our American visitors. If you're unhappy because a particular candidate isn't included, spare a thought for the rest of the world who don't have a Political Compass chart for any of their national figures yet ! And please, don't even mention the vice presidential candidates !

Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the mainstream candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USelection2004.gif

[shanta]

I think we will see unprecedented world events in the next 24 months that make it difficult to gauge where Middle America will be for 2008.

The Economics of Globalization have just begun to boil. Put me down as one who believes George Bush and Company have put us in a very exposed position.

Where do you stand poltically with the famous and infamous leaders of Mankind?

We know where Ghandi stood, Hitler, Stalin, POL POT, Thatcher, Reagan, et al...

All these people have exstensive writings, and gave many speech's and lectures on thier belief system. So we're able to definately answer questions about them, and score them, or rank them using the traditional monikers such as Liberal, Or leftist, or Facist, or Conservative.

Here's a 6 page test that takes about 10 minutes that will rank you, and show you where you stand in relation to the Worlds More Popular , or influential leaders.

They use a Graph, its fairly simple, but reading and disecting where you are on the graph and how it relates to America's current poltical climate takes a minute.


Non-profit, Non-Partisian.

http://politicalcompass.org/






A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif

Just took the test Suff. ok my graph shows nothing too radical man lol

stay cool
Rich

[lsbets]

Shanta -

Flip mine over to the right side and down a little bit more on the libertarian side and that's what I got. Which doesn't surprise me, since I joke around that I am a conservatarian.

[JustRalph]

mine. Not sure what this proves.........interesting though

[Tom]

Me.....

[Steve 'StatMan']

Thanks for showing us this, Suff! Very interesting!

I couldn't get mine to graph large enough so anyone could read it,

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49

Graphed at 1 point to the right and up, although more closer to 1 to the right and 1.5 up.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Mine is about -2 by -2.

[GaryG]

Oops.....mine went off the scale...:eek:

[kenwoodallpromos]

To the south of the Dolly llama?!

[GaryG]

To the right of Attila the Hun...:eek:

[shanta]

To the right of Attila the Hun...:eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DJofSD]

Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.38

[andicap]

hoo-boy!


Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.8


I swear I answered some questions conservatively.
BTW you understand they are referring to "neo-liberalism" in the classic, 19th Century sense not the American 20th Century ideal.

[andicap]

Good thing I read youir whole post and did not just skim it- otherwise I would think Demos blame their losses on churches, the media, and the lack of charisma. (But Jackson and Sharpton never did very well).
You consider anyone who supports anti-sodaomy laws (against anal sex) to be ultra-right wing? Like I said, good thing I read your entire post and know better!
Funny you seemed to mention only old tried candidates for 2008- I am sticking with Gov. Warner as my Demop choice!
You (newly converted?) ultra-right wing conservative buddy, Ken. LOL!

My apologies, I forgot about Gov. Warner -- definitely a contender but I don't know much about his personality or politics.
And as I Dem I don't blame the party's losses on those things. It's a complicated idea that goes back to many Dems' weasling on Communism. Unfortunately you ended up in a box in the 60s of supporting the war if you were anti-Communist and opposing it if you were "soft" on Communism.
Also too many well-meaning people naively believed in the absolute good of the government to solve problems just by throwing money at it with little or no planning and terrible corruption and waste. Good programs got labeled as "muddle-headed" as well as poorly run ones.

[kenwoodallpromos]

OK, I understand. I pick and chose the war I support. Libs call me neo-con, neo-cons call me lib. A few actually understand depends on the issue.
Warner is considered a centrist. Va Gov. has to be I guess.

[hcap]

Makes sense.

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

[betchatoo]

Economic Left/Right: -5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5

I'm consistent

[ljb]

Well I'll be dammend I'm close to my buddy.
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

[Tom]

My real one.... I'm further LEFT than Ljb!:eek:

[chickenhead]

Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

[DJofSD]

Tom,

Say it ain't so!

Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Plus, I fine you 10,000 posting points and go back to the end of the line!

[Dave Schwartz]

LOL - LJB, I guess we're buddies now.

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/DaveS-LRNS.jpg

[so.cal.fan]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.51

Whatever that means???


Andicap?
What do you think of Rep. Jane Harmon of California?

[ljb]

My real one.... I'm further LEFT than Ljb!:eek:
See Tom I've told you all along you were more Democrat then Republican. ;)

[so.cal.fan]

Don't worry about it, Tom, you are an integrous liberal.
The difference is.....a non-integrous liberal....hates America.
You don't.
A non-integrous liberal would be Teddy Kennedy. He hates America. He is bitter, and it shows up constantly in his sophomoric rants.

[PaceAdvantage]

No wonder I make such a damn good board moderator!

Anyone want to contribute to my political campaign war chest? :lol:

[ljb]

I'd be happy to just have you vote like you answered the questioneer.

[Tom]

See Tom I've told you all along you were more Democrat then Republican. ;)

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[DJofSD]

Tom, it's OK, you can come out of the closet now.

[so.cal.fan]

Oh, balls ( are we allowed to use that term, PA)?

I wonder? Could we all be more confused about issues because of the media being more fallacious than truthful? Have we all been brainwashed in both directions, we don't even have our own opinion????
I didn't like taking that test, because every answer had a "but" or a "question mark" behind it, at least in my mind they did.
Only two answers did I put STRONGLY AGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE.
Only two questions were clear answers for me.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'd be happy to just have you vote like you answered the questioneer.

Based on my results, I think my vote wasn't all that unexpected.

[hcap]

Tom,

Me---Economic Left/Right: -4.75
You--Economic Left/Right: -4.63

My feeling is that the bush presidency is moving you a bit to the left.
Me too. Now if you would only put a peace sign on your avatar. :D

I take it all back. :lol: :lol: Welcome

[GaryG]

Tom,

Me---Economic Left/Right: -4.75
You--Economic Left/Right: -4.63

My feeling is that the bush presidency is moving you a bit to the left.
Me too. Now if you would only put a peace sign on your avatar. :D

I take it all back. :lol: :lol: WelcomeWhat about me?

[hcap]

GaryGOops.....mine went off the scale...I assumed this meant right and up, not left and down.
I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

However it is never too late.
Welcome in advance. :D

[ljb]

Based on my results, I think my vote wasn't all that unexpected.
Well then, I guess results were a surprise.

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I found more than one question ambiguously leaning one way or the other, kind of like those poll questions that you used to get on the telephone: "Does it bother you that so-and-so was a draft dodger?"

[GameTheory]

No wonder I feel like such an outsider -- I'm in the quadrant where NO ONE is listed. Come on people, my way has never even been tried!

[so.cal.fan]

Game Theory!
I'll bet you share the same quadrant as MSNBC's Tucker Carlson!

[GameTheory]

Game Theory!
I'll bet you share the same quadrant as MSNBC's Tucker Carlson!Oh God, I hope not. That guy is such a lightweight, plus he wears a bow-tie!

[lsbets]

No wonder I feel like such an outsider -- I'm in the quadrant where NO ONE is listed. Come on people, my way has never even been tried!

GT - finally someone else who ended up where I did!

[so.cal.fan]

I like Tucker....... :(
I think he is a nice man.
Maybe you're a nice man too, GT and just don't know it. ;)

[GameTheory]

I like Tucker....... :(
I think he is a nice man.
Maybe you're a nice man too, GT and just don't know it. ;)Yeah, he's nice. I'm nice too. But if you're going to be on TV debating politics, you've got to be able to hold your ground. In truth I've seen very little of the guy, so maybe I've got the wrong impression. But he does wear that bow-tie; he definitely deserves some demerits for that...

[GameTheory]

GT - finally someone else who ended up where I did!Awesome -- a military man on my side. Now let's create an army and take over.

Whoops...getting out of my quadrant...

[so.cal.fan]

Tucker Carlson is a good looking man. He can wear a bow tie, and he still is a good looking man. It's just a trademark gimmick on his part....bet he doesn't wear one off camera.
Watch is show on MSNBC, GT.....you may get a better opinion of him.

[highnote]

Hey, PA, I'm not as far apart from others on this board as I thought I'd be. Still, looks like I'm opposite Bush and right there with Dali Lama.

I didn't really like the questions though. They required me to think too much. :D

I get the impressing that my answers to the death penalty and criminal justice questions got more weight than my financial answers.

I thought I'd see more people over there near Bush. Of course, he probably never took the test. Someone else had to fill in answers they thought he'd give. Maybe not too accurate. He's probably a little more left on some issues than people think and vice-versa on others.

[highnote]

No wonder I make such a damn good board moderator!

Anyone want to contribute to my political campaign war chest? :lol:


No. You'll piss off just about everyone! :D