I have to get this off my chest....

[cboy4]

I watched Bill Maher's show on HBO this morning and as you probably know, he interviewed DMC chairman Terry McAuliffe via satellite.

I am an avid, loyal Democrat who would rather have sex with Ann Coulter (hold on while I throw up) before I'd vote for ANY Republican. Ever.

But here's the deal. McAuliffe annoys the f**k out of me. Even though he's on our side, I just can't even stand the sight of him.....it's so weird. Maybe it's because I think he's incompetent (just look at the disasterous mid term elections!).

Or maybe it's because I think Al Franken would rock as his replacement! :bounce: Oh well, I guess it's nice to dream?!

[kstewart33]

1. You're right

He IS annoying, and I can't figure out why either. He just grates. I wish we had someone more likeable in such a prominent, up-front role.

[lindashaw]

3. The camera never lies, and it sees something wrong.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. "I am an avid loyal Democrat"???

hmmmmmm????

[cboy4]

4. Are you saying I can't be

loyal because I disapprove of someone within the party,
or are you mocking my grammar or what?

[Stuckinthebush]

10. I'm an avid, loyal Democrat

and Terry grates on my nerves.

I don't think someone is suspect for pointing that out.

[ikojo]

5. McCaullife may grate on people's nerves

because he places fundraising over political ideology. He will sacrifice Democratic ideals if it means raising more and more money. He did not rise throught the political ranks of the Dem party but through being successful at raising enormous amounts of money.

I think the midterm election failures need to be laid at the feet of the DLC for running candidates who had a difficult time differentiating themselves from their Republican rival. I know that was true here in Missouri. Jean Carnahan bragged in her ads and in interviews about how she supported Bush's then planned war on Iraq. She ran on the same conservative family values plank as Jim (no)Talent. Is it any wonder she lost?

[hang a left]

24. do you think thay maybe midterms were

effected by computer voting fraud?

[ixion]

6. I might get flamed for saying this....

but I'm not entirely sure he's on 'our' side, as it were. Many times he has simply rolled over while the Bush junta has moved forward with their evil plan. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, when possible, but the true verdict as to whether or not he's one of us reamins to be seen, IMHO.

[bryant69]

7. I agree

I think that he is mainly interested in fund raising. He doesn't ever want to do anything that would upset the applecart, so to speak.

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

[Dude_CalmDown]

8. I agree 99.9 percent

My disagreement with what you wrote comes from the fact that I would not under any circumstances fuck Ann Coulter. Even to save the country I wouldn't - I have my limits.

[cboy4]

23. That is F'ing hilarious!!!

:bounce:

[karlschneider]

27. But would you let her suck your

toe?
:evilgrin:

[Dude_CalmDown]

33. Only if it were dipped in poison.

And yes when I read toe I laughed my ass off.

[spooky3]

9. why not create 2 jobs out of 1 then?

Have McAuliffe responsible only for fundraising and get someone else to do the role of representing the party and possibly to make management decisions that affect elections.

[AlabamaYankee]

13. Except that politics follows the money

Tehre's a saying in Academe that research follows the money, and the same is true for politics. McAuliffe was brought on board to counter the Republican monopoly on corporate fundraising; his mission was to out-republican the other side. He succeeded, but at the expense of grassroots organizing, and the traditional Democratic base has withered.

He and his corporation-pandering policies must go if the Democratic party is to be anythin but Republican-lite.

[mandyky]

11. The next act by the Dem president in January 2005, after

putting dumbya on his one way bus ride to Crawford is to hand Terry MacAuliffe his pink tutu (I mean slip).

[peabody71]

12. Disasterous midterms was due to fraud.

Not a doubt in my mind that the Dems would have done better in a real Democracy.

[recidivist]

14. No. You underestimate the opposition.

Democrats who want to live in denial can prattle on about fraud all they want, but Democrats who want to win elections have to look at realities.

There has been a long-running realignment going on in American politics for at least a generation. It came to a head in 1994 when the pubbies swept everything in sight and captured the U.S. House for the first time in 40 years.

Including 1994, the pubbies have now had a majority of the congressional vote -- the best indicator of baseline Party strength -- in five straight elections. A narrow majority to be sure, but real nonetheless.

They also have a majority of state legislators and 26 of the governorships, which is actually down a bit. Basically the country is close to 50-50, with a slight tilt to the right.

Never underestimate the opposition.

P.S. On edit: this is relevant for more reasons than simple historical understanding. Many of the "run hard to the left" folks are fundamentally in denial about where the electorate is, and that's a prescription for defeat. Moreover, when approximately half the electorate is voting consistently for the other Party, it is tactically foolish to energize them with a constant whine that pubbies can only win by cheating.

Wise up: the fact is, the pubbies have about half the vote. The idea is to persuade some to switch. Persuasion begins with understanding and respect, not with constant insult. It's old fashioned, I know, but I still favor civility in political discourse.

[einsteins stein]

15. Your civility is admirable, and I'm sure we'll all be civil

as the Repugs extend their victories in another election.

Civility is nice, but only when both parties are civil. You may think that the Repugs are just winning the war on the issues, but you ignore the fact that fraud HAS been committed.

How do you suggest we deal with these political criminals? With civility?

Let's just be nice to them, try to win the hearts of the voters, right? Fine, we do that, and add 25% to the left (WOW, that would be awesome, right?). Then the Repugs steal that 25% back, add another 10% (hey, there are no rules to FRAUD), and claim a landslide victory!

WOOHOO! The Dems are history, but we died a civil death.

I feel so much more...civil. Thanks!

[recidivist]

20. By all means, let's deal with fraud.

We need better ballot security. States should do a better job of purging the rolls to eliminate ghost voters. We should require a photo ID of all voters. Hell, if it were possible, I'd fingerprint everyone at the polls.

Fingerprinting is probably not possible (though the way scanners are going, that could change sooner rather than later), but perhaps we could hook up a surveillance camera and take everyone's picture. Why not, if you want to reduce fraud?

Absentee ballots are tougher to police. I'm open to your suggestions.

[denverbill]

22. Disallow absentee ballots.

Problem solved.

I don't understand why Repukies are deadset against vote-by-mail, but why absentee ballots usually disproportionately favor Republicans. Maybe because they realize how easy it is to cheat.

Wife in a coma? No problem, just fill out her ballot for her. Who's gonna know?

[einsteins stein]

26. Yes, Let's DEAL with it

Let's NOT be rash call those of us who are concerned about fraud the
"Democrats who want to live in denial" and trivialize it by saying we "prattle on about fraud."

The very worst bit, was when you added "Democrats who want to win elections have to look at realities."

So, according to you, Dems who are very concerned about fraud don't actually want to win any elections, and we live in some kind of tin foil-voting fraud fantasy world.

Now you turn around and act as if fraud were a concern of yours. Excuse me if I find your turn around tone a bit dubious.

I guess you don't apply your highly toted political civility to yourself, at least when you deal with Democrats, eh? I question where your party loyalties rest, when you seem to have gone out of your way to sound like such a Republican.

[recidivist]

38. Yes, I think denial is the clinically appropriate term.

Listen to yourself. You've gotten all heated up because I pointed out some arithmetical facts, but you studiously avoided dealing with the electoral math.

To reprise: the Republicans have gotten a majority of the congressional vote in five straight elections. They have 26 governors and a majority of the state legislators. The basic Democratic problem is not fraud that may or may not have occured in a couple or three races; it is the fact that the opposition has been getting more people to the polls.

Does fraud occur? Of course, but I don't think it is pervasive or one-sided. The basic check on it is effective two-party supervision of elections, which is taken for granted in most communities. Where the system is vulnerable is in the scattered pockets of one-Party control where the opposition is so weak on the ground that basic oversight is not performed.

If you look hard enough around the country, you can find suspicious activity on both sides. I have never met a Republican who didn't devoutly believe that Democrats were cheating in inner city precincts. While I tend not to jump at speculation (as my earlier responses on this thread indicate), even I have difficulty explaining Philadelphia precincts that turn out over 100% of registered voters, or precincts that report six hours later than the surrounding area with 50% higher turnouts, etc. For every Democrat steamed about 2002 Georgia, there is a Republican steamed about the 2002 South Dakota Senate race.

Where does the balance lie? I don't know. I do think mindless partisans on both sides are tempted to cheat when they get the chance. As noted above, I think we should insist on scrupulous purging of the voter rolls to get rid of ghost voters, plus 100% photo ids at the polls.

It is frankly embarassing that it is generally Republicans who advocate these measures, and generally Democrats who oppose them. You, however, seem to be an anti-fraud zealot, which IMO is a good thing. Even at the risk of breaking with Party orthodoxy, would you agree with me on at least these minimal steps?

[denverbill]

21. Bull. You think the pukies did this by playing nice?

The idea is to persuade some to switch. Persuasion begins with understanding and respect, not with constant insult. It's old fashioned, I know, but I still favor civility in political discourse.

No, they did it by convincing voters that Democrats are taxing them to death and that the words 'tax and spend' are inseparable from Liberal.

Republicans have seized control by billionaires financing conservative talk shows and publications, and creating a reliable, structured spin machine. Democrats can't make a typo without it being endlessly repeated and improved on by the Scaife spin-doctors.

The problem with Democrats for the last 15 years is that they haven't learned that you can't beat propaganda with reason.

[vision]

37. 50% or less vote

instead of trying to get a 2-10% of those committed to voting Repub right now it would make more sense to bring in another 5-10% of those that don't currently vote. Engauge them and you are more likely to have a winning hand than trying to win over those predisposed to vote against you. If 90% of the voting age public did vote I would agree with you but with the numbers currently there is too much opportunity that is being missed just so we can be civil.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Fraud only helped; Dems were spineless

Someone should have countered Junior's claim by saying: "this President is so greedily hell-bent on destroying workers' rights and unions that he'd risk the country's safety by stonewalling the Homeland Defense Department until he's allowed to crush them." That could have been an outcry, if handled correctly, but they were scared.

Fraud gave them Georgia, and Minnesota was...well, questionable.

[hang a left]

25. sorry, i posted then saw your response

continuing down the thread. i have to agree with you.

[Terwilliger]

32. of course

who could POSSIBLY not vote for such a stand-up group of folks like Democrats?!?!?! :shrug:

[einsteins stein]

35. Terwilliger, why are you so damn happy all the time?

Its really annoying, all this HAPPY-HAPPY-HAPPY-JOY-JOY-JOY! crap from you. Why don't you get a little serious, ok? sheeesh...

/sarcasm

[SoCalDem]

16. McAuliffe oozes insincerity from every pore..

He may be a great fund raiser, but I do not like the guy.. I would much rather see a "policy person" as the spokesperson..Let the money guys work in the background..

Never liked Terry.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Can I say...TONY BLAIR?

Anyone else get that sense? He's an operator when we really need a standard bearer.

He's hardly that annoying to me as he seems to many others, but he certainly dropped a clunker with his line about not being able to afford cable. Yikes.

Does he remind anyone else of Blair, either by looks or demeanor? It's always frustrating when one on your side is transparently slippery...

Ah well...

[ryharrin]

19. He went to the high school that my girlfriend went to.

And she hates him too. Don't worry, he's not the most popular guy around. And yeah, Franken would be great, though Sharpton would also be quite entertaining. Al and Al, how about that?

[Gman]

28. Just bear with it for a while

there were many chairs before him, and there'll be many more after him. He will not be there forever.

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. I did hear him

on some show today actually talking about the Electronic Voting Machines and how they can't be trusted. A step forward, me thinks.
:-) :bounce:

[cboy4]

30. He generally says the right things.....

but, I just don't trust him to lead the party.

[Oracle]

31. !

[Creideiki]

34. I don't trust him either

I think the main thing, though, is that his methods of campaigning are sapping the will of our base, and making it look like we're the watered down Republicans. It drives me insane because when my independent and anti-political friends and civil libertarians start referring to Democrats as Republicrats, I simultaneously want to punch them in the face for lying and punch someone in the Democratic organization in the face for allowing the appearance that this is true.

A lot of it, I think, is exemplified in Carnahan's race. Emphasizing the virtues of the Republicans just makes people want to get the real thing. Why not trumpet OUR values. Say that social security is important to us, and needs to not be privatized and why it's too risky to throw people's potential welfare onto a spin of the Wheel of Fortune. Explain why "Leave No Child Behind" leaves too many children behind and how we would want to fix that. Explain the value of the tax money people pay, how important paying back some of the debt is (obviously you don't want to pay it all back, but some at least would have been good), and how you negatively impact cities and states when you cut their source of funding. That extra money in your pocket means that you lose your library--is that such a good idea now?

Instead we get attacks on peoples' character and Republican-Lite. Blech. We've got the quality and character to re-energize the American people and instead we waste it because McAuliffe has no sense of vision.

[cboy4]

36. One man who doesn't put up with repub. crap is:

"...California Democratic Party spokesperson and staunch Davis supporter, Bob Mulholland, made the following comment recently,"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them."

Of course, all of the right-wingers were outraged about that comment, which is ironic coming from a bunch of assault weapon and bullet loving nuts.

I listen to Bob on the news and on talk shows and he fires me up! When I listen to McAuliffe, I have to run to the medicine cabinet to find No-doze!! ;-) (no offense because I'm sure he's a nice man).