When GOP was "out of power"--they kicked Clinton and Carter ass.

[European Socialist]

I'm tired of lame excuses--Democrats are losing because they think a speech on C-Span is all that's required of them. They need to kick down the rotten doors of the M$M, and in unison demand investigation of the past 5 years of Bush misdeeds.

[okieinpain]

1. sorry, but they would lose funding for their states. it's best that they

allow the silent msm to bring all of those crimes to the front.

:~)

[H5N1]

2. we need to start doing a lot more, and soon

[shaniqua6392]

3. GOP acts like Dobermans

and DEM'S have been acting like Poodles. Sorry but I had to say it.

[jobycom]

4. No they didn't. Turncoat Democrats kicked Carter's and Clinton's ass

Carter's ass was kicked by purist liberals who didn't like what Carter was doing. That's why Kennedy ran against Carter in the first place. Democrats in Congress didn't support Carter or Clinton enough. Carter had more vetoes overriden than any other president except George HW Bush, and the vetoes were overridden by the DEMOCRATS.

Under Clinton, the GOP had the majority of the House, and they had several turncoat Democratic Senators. That's how they won now and then. But they didn't kick Clinton's ass. They managed an impeachment trial that was so weak even many Republicans voted against it in the end.

It's not the Republicans who kick our ass. It's the Democrats who turn on our own party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. That I agree with wholeheartedly.

We have too many "purists" here. But unlike the GOP purists, ours have too many different interests. GOP has taxes, god, and guns. We have civil rights, civil liberties, labor unions, pacifists, gun control, fiscal conservatives, and that's just off the top of my head. Too many people claim one of those issues as their bottom line and won't support candidate who doesn't support that one issue, even if they agree with 95% of everything else that person might say or do. To me, that's lunacy. We need Democrats of all colors and ideologies, because it's the Landrieu and Nelsons of the world that allow the Kennedys and Boxers to do run the country.

And that is not to say our moderate Democrats aren't guilty of bashing others too. I've seen FAR too many shots taken at Chairman Dean by members of our own party. That is equally idiotic. We need to learn that strong central leadership benefits all of us, even if we aren't quite in sync with what is being said. You can distance yourself from particular comments without completely spurning your party.

[blondeatlast]

10. BINGO. 'Nuff said, IMHO. thank you. nt

[Q]

11. Liberals loved Carter...

...and your revisionism is noted. We loved his environmental awareness and his call for renewable energies...way before his time.

Despite your hyperbole...the thread author is right about Clinton.

Clinton campaigned as a progressive and governed as a DLCer. That is...he sold the soul of the Democratic party in exchange for putting the DLC's agenda in the forefront.

The GOP didn't have a majority in the house until 96. They didn't get the Senate until much later.

And you're just plain wrong about them not 'kicking Clinton's ass'. They kicked it constantly for a full eight years. And he WAS impeached...just not convicted and removed from office.

Clinton's DLC to this day encourages Dems to say nothing as the Bushie RWingers walk all over our party. Sorry...but this is something you can't blame on the liberals...who are the only fighters left in the party.

[jobycom]

12. Wrong

First, I said "impeachment trial," not impeachment.

Clinton was elected in 92, and in 94 (not 96, as you claim) Newt Gingrich led his "Contract with America" campaign and won the House for the Republicans. Clinton campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" with such catch phrases as "Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out." He campaigned as a centrist leaning left on social issues, but not on spending.

As president he tried to sign an executive order allowing gays in the military, for instance. Congress, led by Democrat Sam Nunn, threatened to pass a law banning gays in the military altogether to counter Clinton's executive order. Clinton then came up with DODT, to head off Nunn's law (and Nunn had the votes to pass it, through a combination of Repubs and turncoat Dems). Clinton preserved what he could of his original intention, but it was the Democrat Nunn who kicked his ass--even though liberals now blame Clinton for DODT as though it were what he wanted. That's a common method against Clinton--so-called "liberals" blaming him for supporting a bad policy even though the policy was more leftist than what would have been passed otherwise.

That was in 93. The Dems in Congress turned against Clinton on both sides. In 94 Clinton had a 38% approval rating, and Gingrich turned the House Republican, and weakened our lead in the Senate. In 96 Clinton won re-election, but the House stayed Republican. In 98, we actually made some gains, but not many, and those gains drove Gingrich from power.

So the OP was wrong when it claimed the GOP did not have power under Clinton, and it was wrong when it claimed the "powerless GOP" kicked Clinton's butt. The Dems kicked Clinton's butt from 93-95, and then the GOP, no longer powerless, held the House, so THEY kicked his butt. They impeached him, and the Senate, still held by the Dems, cleared him after an impeachment trial.

As for Carter, I have no idea where you get your opinion. Ted Kennedy opposed Carter in 1980 because he wasn't liberal enough, and his 1980 convention speech called for a more liberal Democratic agenda. The reason Carter chose Mondale was to give the ticket a liberal edge. Carter's liberal icon status came after he left office, and partially as a result of Reagan's ultra-right agenda, which made liberals pine for the Carter days. Kind of like Al Gore--after 2000 Gore was attacked as a DLC sellout, now he's considered a liberal champion. Carter won the nomination in 1980, but was opposed by liberals Kennedy and Jerry Brown.

Carter had more vetoes overridden than any other president except George HW Bush, and he had a Democratic Congress over-riding them. His own party is the one that kicked his ass.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. After Gore's defeat he moved to the left...

His anti-war speeches for Moveon really impressed me....that's why I think of Gore as more liberal these days.

IMHO the DLC gatekeepers told Gore that he had to be a DLC democrat if he wanted to survive the primary. I have no doubt if he had been his own man, as he was after the election he would have won. I know people who voted for Nader over Gore b/c he seemed so Republican-lite.

[jobycom]

16. Bullshit. He was the same before and after

While Gore was running, he was campaigning to win the middle, but he was doing it from the left. Many so-called liberals just couldn't grasp the distinction. Same as Kerry. Same as Hillary. Same as most DLCers. Gore didn't change--these so-called liberals just thought he did.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. Have you read his speeches? He was fired up. He didn't show any of that

During the campaign...it was strict...DLC Safe Centrism/Swing Voter Fellatio

[wyldwolf]

22. I believe Al Gore - as much I respect him - hitched his wagon to...

..Howard Dean. Nothing wrong with that.

But Gore became - at least in public - a one issue (Iraq War) spokesman.

I have seen no evidence that Gore's position on other issues have changed since his campaign and before.

[iconoclastNYC]

29. He's not a candidate

All i'm saying is that he showed a fire in those speeches that i think would have got him the job if he hadn't been listneing so much to the DLC consultancy corps

[tritsofme]

27. Good analysis, but the GOP took both the House and the Senate in 94

nt

[QC]

17. You should take a look at Walter Karp's Liberty Under Seige

for some much needed information on Carter's dealings with congressional liberals. The leadership opposed Carter without reservation and the Ted Kennedy ran a primary challenge against him, softening him up for Reagan.

Liberals love Carter now, but it was quite a different story back then.

[bemildred]

26. Don't forget "Inseparable Enemies" either. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I think that liberals love Carter NOW...

Because Carter's politics are considered much farther left now than they were back in the 1970's. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that liberals hated Carter, but I think that some of them were uneasy with him. I think that's why he chose Walter Mondale to be his running mate.

[TankLV]

31. That's true - and I flinched - but I supported the lib dems then

and I support them today.

[ladylibertee]

38. It's not the Republicans who kick our ass. It's the Democrats who turn on

DITTO That....But I am confident they will start growing backbones that are firm by 2006-2008.I can only hope. its all i got.

[Andromeda]

39. Yep.

.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You're vastly oversimplifying matters.

1) Pre-1994, Republicans held the White House for 12 years. They'd only been out of it for 2. That's a long time in the bully pulpit, and that goes a long way towards building momentum.

2) Bush lost in 1992 in large part due to Ross Perot and the economy. Also, Bill Clinton was/is a legendary campaigner. Never lose sight of that.

3) Carter kicked his own ass, by even most liberal standards. Oh, and don't forget the Iran Contra Scandal. Unless you're asking us to commit treason like Reagan did, I don't think you're taking that into account.

4) The 1994 upheaval also had heavily to do with population and redistricting trends working into Republicans' favor. Similarly, we will be very hard pressed to take back the House until 2012/2014, during our next redistricting faze, and even then, we need to start working NOW to take back state legislatures. The GOP seizing power did not have as much to do with bashing Clinton as it did with getting control of state legislatures prior to the 1990 census. To wit: Clinton's re-election and strong disapproval of his impeachment.

5) Media deregulation under Reagan set the stage for our current media blackout. With the influx of large corporate media outlets, there has been a vastly higher conservative bias to the coverage of our political events. It was much easier for Republicans to bash Clinton with impunity because the media never called them out on it. Try doing that today with Bush and see how far you get.

6) I'm not sure how one merely "kicks down the rotten doors of the M$M". This is real life, not the "West Wing". That shit doesn't happen, and we wouldn't get very far if we tried.

[European Socialist]

8. no, you over complicate...

We have a very unpopular president, and he would be more so if the public knew half of what he has done. It's the job of democrats to see that info gets on the nightly news.

[pushycat]

9. Get the info on nightly news - yes

The republicans behave badly in plain sight and still the DEMS have remained splintered and a mix of loyalties. Public exposure of this admins corruption is what we need - are they too involved themselves to ever do this? Why are they so timid if they are the good guys?

[wyldwolf]

18. you're almost deadly accurate - I do have a few points of contention

1. Perot didn't play a factor in Clinton's win.

2. The left did indeed turn on Carter. I remember it well. Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter, his own party's sitting President, for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy brought his fight to the convention, did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave. Carter was nominated for re-election, but the party's divisions brought on by Kennedy contributed to the victory won by Reagan.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I don't dispute the left turned on Carter.

I actually think I did say the left turned on Carter, but also I meant to say he deserved to be turned upon. I also implied he was fucked by Reagan and company who made a deal with Iran to keep the hostages until he was President.

And Perot absolutely, positively played a HUGE factor in Clinton's win. I guarantee you there were far more fiscal conservative Republicans that voted for Perot than did Democrats. But still, the bigger reason for Bill Clinton's win was Bill Clinton's ability to reach out to the average American. It should be apparent that the Presidential election is little more a beauty contest than American Idol is (to wit, why is it a good thing that Bush is a guy you'd "want to have a beer with"?) Either way you look at it, Clinton didn't win with a majority, which definitely opened him up to being hammered. And hammered he was, quite unfairly.

[wyldwolf]

21. no, Perot played no factor

It's a myth with very little or no evidence to support it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. That's funny.

I didn't know myths with a decidedly conservative slant could win 19% of the popular vote. :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

30. myths are funny that way

Whereas Perot won 19% of the popular vote, there is no evidence that more of that would have voted Bush has Perot not been in it.

No evidence. Nada.

However, loads to suggest otherwise.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Exit polls showed Perot voters split evenly between Clinton and Bush

Actually it was 1/3 Clinton, 1/3 Bush, 1/3 would've stayed home.

With these figures, Clinton wins approximately 52.5% of the vote (I punched some quick figures on a calculator with the date on this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992).

Where Perot may have made a serious impact is on Clinton's electoral college victory. There is little evidence that Clinton would've lost the electoral college without Perot, but he probably would not have won 370 electoral votes.

Also remember that while Perot was fiscally conservative, he was also pro-choice.

[TankLV]

32. What fucking dreamworld do you live in?

It was a HUGE factor.

Clinton never got a clear majority of the votes - only a less than 50% plurality.

[tritsofme]

34. Exit polls indicated that Perot voters would have split more or less

evenly between Clinton and Bush.

That is not to say Perot didn't change the dynamic of the race, but his absence probably wouldn't have been enough to propel a President with an approval rating under 40% back into a second term.

[wyldwolf]

37. I live in reality... unless... you have some proof... I mean...

no one else does so you'd be the first.

[rniel]

6. pink tutu democrats

Someone had to do it!!

[jobycom]

13. You should have a picture of the neo-lefts there

The ones who would rather see Bush elected than Gore or Kerry. Those are the pink tutus. Too weak to support a candidate who doesn't pat them on the head and tell them they are right and perfect in their every thought and desire.

[ElectroPrincess]

25. Boogie boogie! yes LIBERALS with our "help the poor and disenfranchised"

views. How dare we care about the poor when we can vote for corporate loving DINOs?!? :puke:

No, these RICH boyz pictured above will do quite nicely, thank you.

[Q]

Yeah...those nasty 'liberals'...the enemies of...

...both the corporate right and 'third way' Democrats in America. Liberals have become the convenient scapegoat for failed policies and politicians that can't quite rationalize their trickle-down economics and why they have to take from the poor and give to the rich.

Yet...here we are...fast approaching the 2008 election and there still isn't a guarantee that free and fair elections exist in America. Neither the Right or the Third Wayers seem interested making sure that all ballots are counted...perhaps because electoral chaos works to their advantage.

We have both the Right the the Third Wayers telling us that the 'era of big government is over'...meaning that government is no longer of, by and for the people and that you're on your own. The corporate state is now alive and well and working to rid our nation of the last remnants of the liberal ideology of putting people first.

This is why liberals are the enemy in New America. The Neocons and Neodems have found a common ground in their hatred of the 'left'.

[Q]

40. dupe

dupe













dupe

[ElectroPrincess]

24. ALL wealthy, spoiled and BLOATED pink tu-tu Democratic Reps! /eom

[Jade Fox]

14. That is true but, during the Carter & Clinton era....

we were all a lot more naive, the Democratic Party too.

Much has since been revealed about the ruthless determination of the
Neocon wing of the Republican Party, and about is careful organization
and its access to vast amounts of cash.

I remember so well reading an except from David Brock's book "Blinded
by the Right" before it was published, where he stated that those who
brought Clinton down were people who knew that the majority of
Americans did not agree with them ideologically, and so had made the
decision to do whatever it took to grab power in this country, ethical or
otherwise. I remember thinking, "holy crap, we are in serious trouble".
It sent a chill down my spine which has never left.

I agree with your assertions of what the Democrats need to do, however.

[dsc]

23. wrong on its face

Carter was done in by Democrats in Congress not Republicans. Remember he had a primary challenger in 80 by the name of Kennedy. The Republicans weren't out of power under Clinton. They had both houses of Congress from 95 on.

[Dr Fate]

36. Or they could have their PR people call the TV booking agents.

And then go on the show and talk like Howard Dean did on CNN's Wolf Blitzer last Friday.

I agree that going on CSPAN is not enough- there needs to be more sound bites for the echo chamber...