Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I think moderates have a great chance in 2008. As I've said before, I think the Dems will nominate one of the moderate governors or ex-governors: Warner, Bayh or Vilsack. And I think the Republicans will be hard-pressed to go with someone who was too far-right or too rah-rah about the war, unless things get better fast.< If only I thought this was true -- that would be great -- I really believe the Dems are getting set to put that further left ticket out there are two stinging defeats, and then the GOP will counter with even further right ticket - and we, the voter get stuck with that. I do agree with that fact that if the Dems really put up a guy like Bayh - the GOP would be forced more to the middle also, or face a beating due to cross over voters to the Dem candidate --I know if the Dems put up Bayh and the GOP goes right - I will be voting for the Dem
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <How much further to the right can the Republicans get already? < the same can be asked of a lot of Dems right now -- answer here would be Ann Coulter ..answer on the other side Michael Moore -- there's plenty of room in those wings
Originally Posted By jonvn Yeah, but the rooms in those wings come with padded walls. Or they should.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper People saying that Lieberman's defeat is a sign that "the electorate" is angry are way-oversimplyfing thing. Lieberman was voted down by Democrats in ONE state. I see the Dems making the same mistakes they made in presidential races of 2000 and 2004. They wanted an instant winner ... and they would grab onto the most hip canidate at the moment as "The One" who could unseat Bush. (The more vitriolic the attacks against Bush, the better.) But they didn't bother to examine the long-term records and demeanors of their would-be heroes. Gore was their shoe-in in ... the man with experience and incumbancy. But his arrogance and aloofness put-off more than Republicans. Dean was the first golden boy in 2004. The Dems ignored his frenzied behavior until he embarrassed himself out of the race. Then Kerry came to the rescue. Again, the Dems cared only about popularity and pollability. They didn't think his long-term reliability and character mattered. In the end, his failure to take a stand on anything and his desparation to be on the popular side of any given issue sunk his boat swiftly. Even now, the Democrats continue to make this a popularity contest instead of a character and principle debate. It's all about who can do away with Bush the Bad Guy, and anyone who can breathe seems to fit the bill. Few people know a thing about Lieberman's Democratic challenger, where he stands, or what he will do. But in the Democratic party, it seems substance matters much less than image. In the presidential race, the Democratic hubbub was (and is) all about Hillary Clinton. She's got the nomination all but wrapped-up ... Why? Because she is a proven executive? Because of her record on and understanding of security and war issues? Because of her fiscal acumen? No. Because she's a woman, Clinton's wife, former First Lady and currently the most popular senator. Some Democrats have already picked-up on this suicidal trend, and are desparately calling for their party to examine Hillary alternatives. But it won't happen. The modern Democratic party is all about polls and popularity. Even when the polls are against their agenda, they will selectively present only those polls that favor their agenda. Some will buy into bandwagon-style politics, but most voting citizens look deeper than that. They want someone solid, someone who will be consistent and determined, even if there is disagreement on this issue or that. Bush will not be a handicap for the Republicans in 2008 because, despite differences on how the war is being managed, most people still want a president with determination and initiative when it comes to national security and THAT is what matters most. It is why Bush was picked over Kerry, in spite of the fact that people had questions about the war back then too. Lieberman was the one Democratic politician who really gets the security issue, and the Dems have dumped him because they want this to be a hate-fest against Bush instead of a debate on ideas. It is astonishing how the left refuses to learn from past mistakes. It looks like the Democratic defeat in 2008 has already begun.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Ann coulter and michael moore are "pundits" - not politicians. People seem in a big hurry to peg them as the example of where the two parties stand - I don't believe it in either case.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Um, it's one state, a 52-48% vote, and the "Democratic defeat in 2008 has already begun." Alrighty then. No spin there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I think moderates have a great chance in 2008. As I've said before, I think the Dems will nominate one of the moderate governors or ex-governors: Warner, Bayh or Vilsack. And I think the Republicans will be hard-pressed to go with someone who was too far-right or too rah-rah about the war, unless things get better fast.<> <If only I thought this was true -- that would be great -- I really believe the Dems are getting set to put that further left ticket out there are two stinging defeats, and then the GOP will counter with even further right ticket - and we, the voter get stuck with that.> Hey - either one of us could be right. The two parties could veer hard left and right, or they could go towards the center. I think it'll be the latter, but we'll see. For one thing, for the Dems, one additional reason I think a governor is likely is because he won't HAVE a record/vote towards Iraq one way or the other.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It wasn't logic, IMO - it was filtered through his very predictible filter. What is "logical," for instance, about "Lieberman was the one Democratic politician who really gets the security issue, and the Dems have dumped him because they want this to be a hate-fest against Bush instead of a debate on ideas. " Um, yeah. Connecticut Democrats went to the polls thinking "let's dump Lieberman because I want a hate-fest against Bush, not a debate on ideas." Right. 52% of CT Dems voted for Lamont, largely (since it was Lamont's big issue) because they don't approve of the war. That puts them in line with MOST American voters, who haven't approved for some time now. That doesn't mean they "hate Bush." Many people who voted for Bush now oppose the war - we have some of them right here on these boards, and they're not "haters," they're people who changed their minds. If anything, #46 is nothing more than illogical animus towards Democrats.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Ann coulter and michael moore are "pundits" - not politicians. People seem in a big hurry to peg them as the example of where the two parties stand - I don't believe it in either case. < then you are simply not listening to the people around you on either side. If they were unimportant than Moore would not have been at the last convention with Jimmy Carter -- he is a face of the new deomcrats whether you want to claim him or not....no more than I want Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh - but to ignore their influence over the electorate is sticking ones head in the sand.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Um, it's one state, a 52-48% vote, and the "Democratic defeat in 2008 has already begun." Alrighty then. No spin there. tell me how it differs from the spin that anyone associated with the war is done....you have Michael Moore 'THREATENING' Hillary Clinton already -- let's not pretend spin exists from only one side of this defeat - just because you don;t like the spin doesn;t make the chest thumping from the Dem side on how they have defeating the war anything but spin.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Hey - either one of us could be right. The two parties could veer hard left and right, or they could go towards the center. I think it'll be the latter, but we'll see. For one thing, for the Dems, one additional reason I think a governor is likely is because he won't HAVE a record/vote towards Iraq one way or the other. , not that someone won't find a way to make one up, but yes I agree with you. But again, if the war is the only issue the Dem's run on -- they will not win...they need to address the faltering economy and job picture-- and in more detail than " we can;t be wose than Bush" - that just won't fly to attract new voters... don't get me wrong, I hope one party of the other actually grows some stones and takes on the economy - but I am doubting it right about now
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <That puts them in line with MOST American voters, who haven't approved for some time now. That doesn't mean they "hate Bush." Many people who voted for Bush now oppose the war - we have some of them right here on these boards, and they're not "haters," they're people who changed their minds. < you're right, and those votes are there for the taking, but the Dem party needs to move center and put some actual ideas out there....the next election is there's for the taking if they only show some initiative and not just anti'Bush sentiment
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Ah, but vbdad...the economy is boring. Why does it surprise anyone when politicians get dirty and only focus on sensationalistic topics such as war, abortion, etc? After all, it is what Americans want. We like our Jerry Springer, "Murder at 6 O'Clock", Slow-Down-To-See-The-Accident lives. We live for it and they dish it out to us. We get what we deserve...bad, unimaginative, gutless politicians.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Um, it's one state, a 52-48% vote, and the "Democratic defeat in 2008 has already begun." Alrighty then. No spin there.>> <tell me how it differs from the spin that anyone associated with the war is done....you have Michael Moore 'THREATENING' Hillary Clinton already -- let's not pretend spin exists from only one side of this defeat - just because you don;t like the spin doesn;t make the chest thumping from the Dem side on how they have defeating the war anything but spin.> If you'll notice, that's not my spin, so I'm not sure why you directed that at me. In fact, I said earlier that: "Pundits love to look at a race like this where a high-profile incumbent loses and try to read all sorts of national implications into it, but I think they're reading entirely too much into it - both those who applaud the Lamont win and those who decry it." I think the Michael Moores who are trying to spin this into "this means you can't support the war in any way" are doing just as big a spin job as the GOP spin I was responding to earlier from a post here. And I said so. <not that someone won't find a way to make one up, but yes I agree with you. But again, if the war is the only issue the Dem's run on -- they will not win...they need to address the faltering economy and job picture-- and in more detail than " we can;t be wose than Bush" - that just won't fly to attract new voters...> But again, if they pick a governor who hasn't had much to DO with the war one way or another, the war becomes less on an issue to begin with. <don't get me wrong, I hope one party of the other actually grows some stones and takes on the economy - but I am doubting it right about now> I hope so too. I think the state of Iraq in 2008 will have a lot to do with it - rightly or wrongly, when we're at war that normally IS the big issue - but I hope BOTH parties do not focus on that to the exclusion of all else. <you're right, and those votes are there for the taking, but the Dem party needs to move center and put some actual ideas out there....the next election is there's for the taking if they only show some initiative and not just anti'Bush sentiment> I totally agree.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "then you are simply not listening to the people around you on either side. If they were unimportant than Moore would not have been at the last convention with Jimmy Carter" People keep citing like it means something. Since when has Carter been a power broker in the Democratic party? Making Moore sit with Carter sounds to me like Moore was made to sit at the children's table.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting comments from Slate..... <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/214739 5/nav/tap1/</a> >>Dead With Ned Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster. Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War. The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded, well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly about his support for it..... Whether Democrats can avoid playing their Vietnam video to the end depends on their ability to project military and diplomatic toughness in place of the elitism and anti-war purity represented in 2004 by Howard Dean and now by Ned Lamont. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2008, is trying to walk this difficult line, continuing to express support for the war in principle while becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of its execution. As the congressional elections approach, many Republican candidates are fleeing Bush's embrace because of his Iraq-induced unpopularity. But Lamont's victory points to a way in which Bush's disastrous war could turn into an even bigger liability for the Democrats.<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux And it's not much of a surprise that he 'attended' the democratic convention. I'm pretty progressive, and I can tell you confidently that I seldom hear anything about michael moore - except from conservatives on this board. Quick - when was the last time you actually saw or heard michael moore on mainstream media? I can't remember having any sighting in months and maybe years. Now cindy sheehan - she does a better job of staying in the spotlight. Recently she purchased the land in crawford texas just to PO bush (I loved that manuever, by the way). And of course there was the 'incident' during this year's SOTU - where she completely overshadowed bush's "big moment" (loved that one too).
