The fact that elections are even close enough to be stolen

[Ron Green]

says volumes about the muddled thinking of American voters. If billionaires, the religiously insane and ignorami who somehow manage to find their way to a polling place can come anywhere close to the numbers of thoughtful, tolerant, hard-working Americans, then we ARE getting the government we deserve.

Do you disagree?

[FloridaPat]

1. 36% of eligible voters bothered to vote. The country is being

run by 18%. The other 64% I guess just watch reality tv and could care less. 82% are getting the government they deserve.

[formernaderite]

22. But why don't they care? Because the differences are

seen as so subtle, particularly with democrats running to the right every chance they get. Certainly no democrat has inspired a populist movement. What does that say about us? Look at last nights democratic response...it wasn't we're heading in the wrong direction...the direction is fine, but we just have a better way.

[Burning Water]

2. I think it says more

about the muddled message of the Democratic Party, as a whole.

Until the Dems can clarify what they stand for, to themselves first, and then to the American voter, I think elections will continue to be close enough.

Look at the mess on DU today. It's nothing short of calling for the political lynching of 'moderate' Dems or red-state Dems who didn't vote for cloture. People. Let some reality sink in. We can't win all of the time. We can't win any of the time if we are not in positions of power. Some 'moderates' out there will vote 50/50 on liberal/conservative issues. That's how they earn the title 'moderate'.

If they voted what they think their constituents wanted, and it wasn't what we wanted, well, half a loaf is better than no bread. That is not a popular position around here. Some folks would rather lose 100% of the time than sully the virgin purity of their beliefs. these folks belong on a commune or monastery somewhere, not in the dirty world of politics.

[Ron Green]

3. That's where the "big tent" is a liability.

The very tolerance that makes us fully human dilutes the message to the point where it can't compete with the pure message of Fear that powers the right-wing machine. As long as Democrats appeal to the cerebral cortex while Republicans address the lizard brain, we cannot prevail.

[Burning Water]

4. That's why

I think the Dems should have a strong "national security" message. We need to show the American people that not only can we protect them as well as the Repukes, we can do it better.

I also think, and this may not be the most popular thing to say around here, but this message must be separated from any civil rights issues. I'm not saying back off on civil rights, I'm saying it is a separate message that needs to be addressed separately. When we talk civil rights let's talk civil rights. When we talk national security, let's talk national security.

I got lot's of ideas. I'm waiting for someone to offer the large consulting fee. :)

[Ron Green]

7. You're probably right about that, and what that says to me is

that the fear-based message (national security) will always be better received than the love-based one (civil rights). And here may be the crux of the matter: Democrats have always tried to push a message of inclusion and tolerance which, while the right thing to do, doesn't resonate with most people like a warning does. Even our warning of one-party government, failing economy, environmental ruin and vanished health care doesn't grab people like a swarthy terrorist, even if the terrorist is a fake.

edit for typo

[sendero]

27. When you cannot even muster your forces...

... to defeat an odious SC appointment, how is anyone going to trust you to be tough and resolute enough to defeat terrorism?

Fuck this red-state blue-state bullshit. There is no LEADERSHIP in the Dem party. Repugs would have made it clear, this vote is important, vote like we say and they would have done it.

Dems cannot win with the milktoast way they handle everything, they can only wait for the Republicans to lose.

[Greyhound]

5. Hey flaming H2O, in case you haven't been paying atention...

The Dems have been capitulating and modifying their stance for 20+ years with the result being a steady diminution of their power in each and every election cycle. We are saying enough is too much, we came to power in the 30's by offering the people a real alternative to the status quo. We won't get back into power until we repeat that offer. :kick:

[Ron Green]

6. Right, but what is the real alternative today's status quo?

Tell them that they can't continue to drive big SUV's and build big ol' energy-wasteful houses? Tell them that they've got to quit buying made-in-China crap they don't need, even though they want it every day? Tell them to shop at the Farmers' Market instead of eating Twinkies that have been trucked across the country? Tell them to turn off "Survivor Idol" and read a book?

My point is that the corporate suppliers of goods, services and messages depend upon a status quo of exquisite comfort and sloth, and voting for any goverment who will prescribe the bitter pill is not gonna be very popular.

[Greyhound]

9. No, prohibition just doesn't work, period. You're right that they want

these things, but what the government has a duty to do is to ensure that they pay the freight for those decisions. SUVs for example; We can't (or at least shouldn't) tell them they can't have it, but like the children they are, we must point out the true cost for such unwise decisions. Yes, you can drive an Escalade, but you'll have to pay an excise tax of $25,000 ($5,000 per year for 5 years) in addition to what GM charges to pay for the excessive damage that it will do to our public roadways. You want Twinkies? Fine, but we're not subsidizing sugar or HFCS anymore so you'll have to pay the real price for it.
The alternative is to make sure those that make bad decisions bear the costs/consequences of those decisions. I believe this will work. :shrug:

[Burning Water]

8. I question

if you carefully read my post. I did not suggest capitulating on anything. Only to realistically recognize where we stand in terms of power, and adjust our tactics accordingly.

[Greyhound]

11. When you propose that the traitors should get a pass because

otherwise it would be "nothing short of calling for the political lynching of 'moderate' Dems or red-state Dems who didn't vote for cloture", that is capitulation. "Well we couldn't stop it so I may as well go along" is not acceptable, generally, and especially not when the issue is so fundamentally important as this nomination and confirmation is/was.
Where we realistically stand is nowhere, our only power is to obstruct their agenda as much as possible. The only strategy that has any chance of success is to constantly and consistently point out the fallacies and failures of their delusional plans. Always, at every opportunity. Every talk show. Every newspaper article. Every single time.
The media can only get away with its charade of delivering news as long as at least some on the other side are willing to go along. How quickly do you imagine the Sunday morning shows, for example, would disappear if every Dem that appeared refused to address the propaganda and insisted on hammering them on the real activities of the majority? Every time. Every show. The right-wing propaganda machine cannot exist with out the cooperation of a few traitors to lend an air of legitimacy to their spew.

[Burning Water]

14. OK, we can do it your way.

When we have just 2 senators from Massachusetts left, can we try it mine?

Ranting never yet has changed one single person's mind. Not in the entire history of the world. Yeah, it feels good. I do it, too. And, yes, I think we should bring forth the facts in what public forums we can get on.. But still, we don't need t cut off our noses to spite our faces. Not until we have the plastic surgeon available, anyway.

By the way, "treason" is defined in the US Constitution, and a political opponent, or even a "moderate" Dem (or Repuke) does not meet that definition. "Backstabbers", I could maybe agree with.

:)

[Greyhound]

16. The Democratic party has been your way for quite some time now and their

power has steadily declined. The basic problem is they/we offer no alternative, re:puke: lite is still re:puke:.
So maybe I'm misunderstanding what you suggested, because it sounds to me like more of the same strategy of failure. Hopefully we can revive and rally around the winning strategies and positions that served us in the 30's.

[Burning Water]

17. We can't , though.

The issues were almost totally economic in the 30s. We had the best ideas and won. Today, they are the "social issues". The same consensus does not exist. The same tactics will not work.

We don't need to back off our issues. I think honesty is always the best policy. But we don't need to emphasize them, either. Work on the issues where we are clearly dominant. Get into power. Then bring these other issues forward. When we have the "bully pulpit".

Avoid using the courts to advance the agenda. This, more than the issues themselves, has set off the RW. Amazingly, they think of it as "undemocratic". The abortion issue was going our way when the court decided RvW. The pot has been stirred ever since. Another 5, 10 years max (IMO), and the issue would have been settled for all time in our favor.

TReat the enemy with respect as human beings, even if you can't respect their views. It keeps the hostility down. And when you know you're going to lose, do what you canny to win anyway, but then accept it and move on until the chance comes to reverse the decision.

Any way, that's my style. Other people seem to have theirs. But I don't think"revolution" is going to work.

[Greyhound]

18. First the issues were not "almost totally economic". The economic

problems were huge, but the issues that resonated with the voters were the human issues. The millions of out-of-work, out-of-hope, citizens that were dumped on and ignored by the re:puke: administration (sound at all familiar?).
I agree that de-emphasizing the more divisive issues (guns, gays, etc.) while emphasizing the issues were we have a clear majority opinion (abortion, social safety net, etc.) is good strategy.
Where you really lose me is when you write about "using the courts to advance the agenda". WTF? This is just a made up RW lie that has been spouted for so long many, including you, have bought it. Roe v. Wade was a completely rational, non-partisan, decision that was latched onto by the amerikan taliban to divide the country for their own purposes. The overwhelming majority of citizens has supported womens right to privacy forever. Every (honest) poll for 30+ years has shown support for this is around 70%. It is only an issue because we allow the wackos to keep bringing it up. It is already a completely settled non-issue that is simply used to divide a constituency for ulterior motives in an attempt to impose the will of a small minority on the majority because of their professed belief in a plagiarized and badly written work of fiction. Please don't forget that for a hundred years prior to preznit raygun, administrations made SCOTUS appointments based on qualifications and character (even Nixon recognized the importance of this and made nominations accordingly). It was raygun and the neo-cons that politicized SCOTUS nominations.
Well, I'd love to continue this, but got to get some work done. BBL.

[Burning Water]

19. How is

The millions of out-of-work, out-of-hope, citizens that were dumped on and ignored by the re administration (sound at all familiar?). not economic issues. Semantics is not the answer to our problems.


Roe v. Wade was a completely rational, non-partisan, decision that was latched onto by the amerikan taliban to divide the country for their own purposes. The overwhelming majority of citizens has supported womens right to privacy forever.

OK, didn't I say this?? Didn't I say that the issue was going our way? Yes, I think that I did. So. Why didn't we do it politically? WE WERE WINNING. And the issue would have been settled forever long ago. Is there a reading comprehension problem here, or is my writing unclear?

Instead, it is still a festering sore on the body politic. Many more people oppose choice today than did in the 70s. It couldn't be used to divide the public, if it had been settled politically. Screw the polls, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Each side runs its own polls and call them honest. Maybe ours are, but it's still a lot of people, not a small minority. Enough to get * elected, legit or not.

The issue is not settled, else why all the fuss about Alito.

We need to win back the Senate in 2006.

[Greyhound]

20. I'll choose to believe that I'm just not making myself clear, rather than

you being purposely obtuse.

The election of '32 was technically about economic issues, but what got FDR elected was not the unemployment rate or Hoovers (lack of a) monetary policy, it was the face of suffering and hopelessness that the population could see in their streets and neighborhoods. It was FDRs exceptional ability to draw a picture in the minds of the voters (radio), not the economy, but the human results of the economy.

The right to privacy issue was brought to the SCOTUS because the amerikan taliban had a firm grip on the legislature of TX (I think it was TX, where else?) and abortion was illegal in that state. There was no chance for a legislative solution, the fact is that the existing legislation was an invasion of privacy (4th amendment) and in violation of the equal protection clause (14th amendment) and therefore, unconstitutional. That is the sole purpose of the SCOTUS. You write as if it was a political strategy to bring it to the Court, it was not, it was the system working just as it was designed to. The fascists just didn't like the way it went.

"Many more people oppose choice today than did in the 70s" - This is just plain wrong (well, I suppose in terms of actual numbers it may be right since there are twice as many people here now, but in terms of percentages, they have been remarkably consistent since we first started asking)

"...but it's still a lot of people, not a small minority." - Again this is just factually incorrect. The hard-core anti-choice fascists are less than 10% of the populace, the folks that are "personally opposed" to abortion rights don't vote one way or the other solely on this issue, they'll go along with whatever the rest decide. It is the RW that is attempting to "legislate from the bench", to use their propaganda.

Why do you insist on spreading the lies they spew?

[Burning Water]

24. "Why do you insist on spreading the lies they spew?"

Ok, I'm wrong about everything. Roberts isn't on the court. Alito is unknown to the world outside his immediate circle. George Bush isn't President of the United States.

Man, I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not trying to push a conservative agenda here. I'm trying to figure out how we keep losing elections. You say the system worked like it was supposed to. Fine. I agree. But the conservatives can work the system, too. And they seem to do it better than us. The didn't like the way the results went, and they got up and did something about it. And now their plans are beginning to come to fruition.

Recognizing this undeniable fact, does not mean that I have bought into the conservative agenda, or swallowed their Kool-Aid.

[Greyhound]

26. Dude, you're not wrong about anything. You started this saying

the Dems didn't have a message (had a muddled message) I responded that the Dems had been moderating, and the result of that strategy have been more re:puke:s. I posited that indeed, you were correct about the bad message but differed on what the message should be. That's it.
The lie was the phrase "legislating from the bench".

[Burning Water]

30. I did a

search on this page. I could not find where I used the phrase "legislating from the bench". Please acquit me of that.

[frieguy]

28. OK, so I hopped into this one a little (very) late....

....Here's the thing

'The issue is not settled, else why all the fuss about Alito.'

There is a serious possibility that Roe v. Wade will be reviewed. If another conservative judge gets on the court, then very possibly overturned. It will be a long, hard fought battle before the Court, though. Public opinion polls will be all over the place. In the end, if overturned, the issue of abortion would have to come before the Congress. I think the only way that it will be made a constitutional right or prohibition after that will be through Amending the Constitution itself. With the way things are now...just not possible. There won't be enough on either side of the aisle to amend the Constitution for years to come.

BTW.. I think Congressional Acts supporting abortion would be overturned quickly if argued before a constuctionist SCOTUS.

At the same time, I can't see Roe coming before the Supreme court anytime soon. Other pro-choice decisions by lower benches will be overturned though. The recent decision by the 9th Circuit probably won't stand. So I agree, not a dead issue.

[Burning Water]

31. Not a dead issue at all.

Therefore, as we cannot depend on the SC to protect RvW, we must protect it politically, if we can. But that's the way it should have been all along. By using the courts, we A) handed the RW an issue. Not just RvW itself. that was going to be an issue, anyway. But "what is the role of the Supreme Court in American Life? And they've used it well. And B) while we coasted comfortably along, secure in the knowledge that the Constitution protected the "right to choose", they worked and sharpened their political skills. they swayed voters, they brought forth other issues. While we got lazy. Now we're paying the price, politically.

End the end, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, only as strong as the men and institutions that support and uphold it. You may believe, with the Founding Fathers, that certain rights are inalienable, given by God, not the state. Tell it to the North Koreans. Maybe the state can't grant rights inherent to being a human being. But they sure as hell can violate them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. You think we don't have economic issues NOW?

If you think abortion and guns are the only issues, then you aren't aware of what's going on.

What about something beyond patches for our absurd non-system of a health care system? (And don't tell me Hillary already tried it. She didn't. She just wanted to add more patches when the whole garment needed to be taken apart and resewn.)

What about disincentives for sending American jobs overseas instead of tax breaks for shutting down manufacturing plants?

What about affordable housing instead of cutting back on Section 8?

What about subsidies for adapting houses so that they won't need so much heat and/or air conditioning?

What about research into alternatives to petroleum in every area, including plastics?

What about calling the Republican "war on terror" exactly what it is--bullshit? (Terrorism is a tactic used by many groups of all political stripes. A "war on terror" is by definition unwinnable, and therefore can be carried on indefinitely.)

[Burning Water]

25. Certainly we have economic issues now.

We're not in the Great Depression, though.

[Jose Diablo]

10. Well, yes, I do disagree

This has been studied and restudied yet we still hear people stating other reasons for Bu$h's 'winning' in 2004. With variations as high as 16% between exit polls and actual vote tabulations in swing states with electronic voting versus tracking of variations around 2% between exit polls and ballots in non-electronic voting, this shows me election fraud occurred on a massive scale. Enough fraud to give the appearance of being close.

As for voter participation, I don't have the statistics available, but I seem to remember this last election had the highest turnout in recent history, as well as a very high, some would say disproportionate rejecting of 'new' voter registrations, especially among precincts that traditionally vote Democratic Party. If you wish to use a percentage of eligible versus actually voting rather than a more telling statistic of people actually voting, you are welcome to do so. But to me, how many actually voted tells me the people were interested, but they didn't have the opportunity to have their votes counted accurately.

So slamming the voters and the bemoaning 'poor voter turnout' is not justified. The election was a fraud on the peoples instructions about who they choose for representation.

But all this is moot, because the problems are still there and bemoaning the wrong reasons for what happened in 2004, helps insure that it will again happen in 2006. Try a trip to the DU forum that deals with these election fraud issues. State your case there.

[Ron Green]

12. The Election Fraud Forum

is a more technical place than I want to post this idea, though. My point is that there should be a landslide for candidates who espouse, legislate and vote for what we need: peace, good health care, public transportation, progressive taxation, sustainable energy and agriculture policy, and so on. There IS NOT such a landslide; there is a squeaker between those who would very weakly espouse the causes I've mentioned and those who would install permanent war, fascism at home and imperialism abroad.

Maybe the elections of '00 and '04 were both stolen; I won't deny it. My point is that, if people had their heads out their asses, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

[Jose Diablo]

13. The point of political discourse is that people have different views

I'm progressive, so I am not dissing the views that you hold dear. Yes, we should do all those things you mentioned.

But the thing is, not all people, even sane ones, hold those same values as we do. I won't go into the reasons some don't other than to say I think our country has been subjected to a continuous onslaught of right wing propaganda for the last 55 years. So it's no wonder that people who would hold humanitarian ideas would see a world view of 'law of the jungle'. Thats the point, people are different, even within our party.

Our imperialism abroad has not been framed that way here, ever. When discussed in the news media for example, it's we are 'spreading democracy'. So it's understandable how people get confused. Look at Vietnam, even today people say we should have won that war. So even when confronted with truth, they just don't get it that Vietnam didn't want us to help them with their democracy, just like they didn't want the French 'helping' them. It's the same way with Iraq. I would think our leaders know what the Iraqi people want, but our leaders are more concerned with keeping the illusion alive, so they posture about how great Iraq is going and what a wonderful thing we are doing helping those poor Iraqi people. This is just how it was done with 'Nam. And don't kid yourself, there are plenty of war hawks in our party also.

And thats the point of politics, to reach consensus when everyone has a different view of the world. But whats going on today is not really politics, it's theft pure and simple. And thats what I was saying. No matter how often people say, "isn't that thing on the ground beautiful, so well shaped and a deep brown, what is it"? Others will say it for what it is "Mame, thats a dog turd".

[Telly Savalas]

29. It would certainly help if more Democrats would speak out on these issues

It's not like the issues you raise are very radical, but they get perceived as being radical when the only people that wanna talk about them are goofs who dress up as Uncle Sam on stilts and perform guerilla theater.

The public would be pretty receptive to a liberal agenda if it were marketed even half as effectively as the far right sells its ideology. Hell, even Bush last night conceded that the market is failing when it comes to promoting alternative energy and that the government should step up. That's liberalism in its purest form.

[IdaBriggs]

15. Yes. Precincts in New Mexico w/80% reg Dems = 0 votes for Kerry.

Its not about "close elections" -- its about election fraud, and no one really giving a shit. :(

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Yes, Ron, I do. It could never have been described as close

in a month of Sundays. In fact, it couldn't have been stolen, such grand larceny in broad daylight couldn't have even been contemplated, anywhere else in the world with such a massive margin in favor of the Democrats (least of all in the Ukraine, of course). In fact, the good Mayor Daly notwithstanding, it couldn't even have been contemplated in the US!