I am a true blue Democrat,but I am PISSED OFF at the Democratic Party.The Republicans now control the White House,The Senate and The House.This means that,at least for the next two years,the Democrats are now irrelevent in U.S. politics.And you know what? They DESERVED to get their asses kicked in this election!! Ever since Bill Clinton left office,these Dems have become weak,spineless,political WIMPS who don't have the balls to stand up to Bush and his stupid policies.They don't even know what they stand for anymore!! They just basically roll over and play dead,unwilling to show some backbone.Bill Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.Unlike Richard Gephardt,Tom Daschle and Al Gore,former President Clinton actually EXCITED people and he had a message and a vision for America.But now that he's gone,the Dems don't have ANY of that.

The latest word is that Richard Gephardt may now retire and I say "Not a moment too soon!".The Democrats need to re-group,re-organize and give people a reason to actually vote for them!!! This is a sad day in America.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 6 1:02:12 PST 2002 by DavidEye]

I'm not tryin' to upset the flow of your outrage, David, but I'd like to find out the percentage of those eligible to vote that didn't vote. I'll prepare myself to be appalled.

Supernova said:

I'll bet it's over 50%...of REGISTERED VOTERS. Sad, sad apathy.

Supernova said:

TO ALL OF YOU DUMB IDIOTS WHO DIDN'T VOTE...


(Snip...No flames please)

I must say, I am surprised that my party didn't do more 2 get our country further away from the idiot in the oval office... now, he'll have 2 years of uninterupted power 2 fuck up our country even more.

Expect:

* more wars
* more defense spending
* more sympathy 4 corporations
* more union busting
* more placing of conservatives in positions of power


Sidenote: (Thank God) Govenor Gray Davis won re-election in California, but at a very slim margin! It scares me that a "Reagan Republican" like Bill Simon could garner up so many votes, being the dip-shit, crook that he is.

I agree with u DavidEye and Supernova... those that didn't vote... don't bitch!

You have every right to be ticked.

The Dems haven't presented a strong pool of candidates in years -- since Clinton, it seems. Why, even the nail-biter of a gubernatorial race here in Maryland involved a pitifully week lieutenant governor whose aides muscled out every other viable Democratic candidate by the primary. She was horrible. She only carried Baltimore City, Prince George's and Montgomery counties -- Democratic strongholds. weak.

ThreadBare said:

Bill Clinton was the last great Democratic politician.Unless the Dems can find someone with his intelligence and skill,they can go ahead and kiss the next presidential election good-bye because they will lose.

I feel your outrage DavidEye.

The Democrats lost because they have failed to distinguish themselves from the Republican party over the years. They are too busy out-Republicaning the Republicans. They punked out on many issues in the last few years, and since 9/11 they have been too afraid to stand up to Bush & Co. As a result, they have failed to inspire even their core constituencies.

Two party system my behind! We just have one party that goes by two names. They need to stopy trying to be the "lesser evil" and better come WITH IT for 04 otherwise we'll have to put up with Bush for a second term.

If it is any consolation (which it isn't) most of them have been such punks in the last term, that I doubt that they would have really posed much of a challenge to what this administration wants to do anyway even if they had won.

NuPwrSoul said:

I hear ya! Hopefully some good will come out of this.Maybe the Dems will WAKE UP,re-energize and transform themselves into a kickass political party again.The first thing they should do is hire Bill Clinton (and the people who ran HIS campaigns) as the leaders of the Democratic National Committee.Where's James Carville when you need him??

David, I'm not surprised at the results. Bush is personally popular in his role as commander-in-chief, and he has parlayed that popularity into a win for his party. I am convinced that the GOP went all out on the Iraq question precisely so Bush could appear to be needing the support of every patriotic American. Even though the Dems supported Bush on Iraq, it was still enough drama to sway the necessary number of voters in his favor. In the final days of the campaign, Bush personally asked Americans to give him control of both Houses, and the tone was unmistakable : "I need more friends in Congress "-- so that I can be your Commander-in-chief (not an actual quote, but to that effect anyhoo).

The other factor is that Democrats do not have a strong leadership figure. It's a strange aspect of the american democratic system that the defeated party in the presidentials has no real leader unless someone charismatic comes forward early and stakes that claim. While the Republicans could send their main attraction - Bush -- on tour to galvanize the crowds, the Democrats had no one to counter-balance this aspect. Clinton was the closest thing, but he's ineffective as a former president -- you guys force your best leaders into retirement.

The good news is that now that the GOP has total control, they are free to become too ideological and mess up - perhaps in time for the presidentials. However, I KNOW that Bush will continue his present strategy of "you need to stand behind me, your Commander-in-Chief" by creating situations where that role is center stage. The ideal would be to have another Saddam on stand-by for 2004. Some time before the 9/11 anniversary, Bush would start talking about the urgency of getting rid of a particular regime, seize the 9/11 anniversary to his advantage while a couple of spectacular arrests and flashy bombings of terrorists in foreign states would heighten the tension just so.

Those who say there's no difference between the two parties will have to eat their words, because you are going to see an unprecedented push to make America even more conservative, especially its judges.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 6 5:17:33 PST 2002 by Aerogram]

Moonbeam said:

In Australia it's compulsary to vote!
.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 6 4:46:09 PST 2002 by Diva]

Aerogram said:

EXACTLY!!! Ever since Bill Clinton left office,the Democrats seem lost,confused and clueless.They have no leader to guide them anymore.Al Gore is going around making silly speeches that nobody is listening to...Richard Gephardt and Tom Daschle both appear to be brain-dead...nobody else in the party seems to "excite" people the way Bill Clinton did.If they wanna take back the White House in 2004,they'd BETTER start looking for a kickass,take-no-prisoners guy with the charm,intelligence and skill of Clinton.Otherwise,they're gonna remain irrelevent during the rest of this decade!

im a bit bummed...but oh well...Hopefully this will be the wake up call that we need. Not only does Richard need to go, but Daschle too...These guys refused to get focused and come up with our own agenda. We have great candidates (for the most part)...they were just muffled because our party leaders didnt want us to step on Dubya's feet..

I say, we go out and attack Dubya..Its appearant that his approval ratings are shacky..thats why they seem to go up and down and up and down...

I really hope this will be the "wake up call" that the Democrats need.They need to basically start all over,fire all the folks in charge,and bring in some aggressive,kickass consultants/leaders and potential candidates for 2004.

Remember a year or so ago,Barbra Streisand wrote that STINGING memo to Gephardt,basically telling the Dems to get some BALLS and stand up to Bush?? I bet she's working on a new memo as we speak...lol...perhaps they should just hire her as their new leader!

SkletonKee said:

With all due respect, my friend, I believe that attacking the president is not the proper method to bolster approval for the Democratic party.

Call me an idealist, but I do not appreciate attacks or mud slinging in politics. If anything is to be done by any party it should not be done through attacks on people, but rather through discussion of real issues without attacking other politicians. The personal attacks and mud slinging does nothing but make the attacker/mud slinger look like the inferior party.

This is the reason that I don't like the fact that political races play out in the sensationalized media. The real issues never discussed, all that we get to hear about is each party's spin on the position of the other party. This kind of shit is stupid and counter-productive.

A little co-operation is what is needed between all parties, not attack.

IceNine said:

I understand what you're saying,but let's face it,politics is always dirty and ugly.You have to draw a sharp CONTRAST between your party and the other party.That's what Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott did during most of Clinton's term and it worked for them.Well,sometimes it backfired (remember the 1998 mid-term election?) but for the most part,you gotta stand your ground and attack the other side and stay true to your party's own beliefs and ideas.That's something that the Democrats haven't been doing lately,and they are now paying the price.

DavidEye said:

I would prefer seeing Barbara Streisand used as an anchor on a mid-sea oil platform.

IceNine said:

IceNine said:

ohhh..no no no...i dont mean attack him personally...I think the we need to go out and talk to people and inform them about Dubya's policy and how they are *wrong* for our country...

personal attacks would be a republican thang..the democrats need to get out and educate and make people intrested in politics again...its the only way we are going to win...

SkletonKee said:

So true! But in order to make people interested in politics again,they will need a new leader,somehow who can INSPIRE the masses to vote Democratic again.

SkletonKee said:

Okay... that's a much better idea. Unfortunately, propaganda is much more powerful than truth and ideas.

As Adolf Hitler said:

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."

and

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

One thing is for sure, I think you will see DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe retire in the next few days.

sag10 said:

and thank the lord for that...this guy understood one thing, negativity...

I am impressed by the many thoughtful comments on this thread. I, for one, tend to vote democrat, but do not see a huge difference between the 2 parties when it comes time to "work" in D.C. The Republicans are the "A-Team" for the major MNC's (Multi-National Corporations) and the Democrats the "B-Team". I love living in the U.S. and do not want to belittle the country because the country is the citizens, who by the way if we were to get up off of our collective booties could actually do something about the situation. But unlike so many people who have died for the right to vote...we here...if we have time, or interest will vote. The numbers are appalling. I would be surprised if it was near 50% voter turnout in a non-presidential year.

The government on the other hand has shown time and time again, that it is the Benjamin, and not Franklin himself, but that little green piece of paper, which actually has no REAL value by the way, which is the bottom line. What is the percentage of children (under 6) who live in poverty in the U.S.? I recently saw that it was 25% at the end of the last decade! How about education cuts? Levy's/Referendums failing all over the place, combined with cuts in aid...and I don't want to hear the "spend the money wisely" argument. Larger class size...my daughter is going to private school! Can U imagine making minimum wage, ($5.50 an hour I believe) working full-time...and not even making $12,000 before taxes? :hrmpfh: But I suppose, why should so many manufacturers pay union type wages, when they can go to China and pay...up to $1,000 annual salary to workers. By the way...doesn't China have weapons of mass destruction? And have NUMBEROUS human rights violations? Oooops, so does the U.S.A...God Bless America! Hmmm...

...anyway, I agree that the democrats have messed up, have acquisced to Bush and that's why, at least in Minnesota, the Independent and Green party actually get a percentage of the votes. No clear, concise vision. Now we have at least 2 years of unbridled reign from W. And don't worry U Republicans out there...he will win in 2004. Our little vacation 2 the land many consider the original Eden will still be going strong. And we wouldn't want 2 change leadership during a critical time like that...would we? Besides...who is going 2 step up for the democrats? Al Gore will...that's who! Anyone know of any democrats with a Yale connection? Or even an available skull and bones member who may happen to be democrat? Oh, wait...is there really that big of a difference? Enough ranting...time 2 go do something meaningful...like play hoops! Peace!

We need 2 come 2gether, come 2gether as one

IceNine said:

LMAO.

Yeah, the Democrats have in fact been spineless wimps. To say the very least. I'm hoping now that they have left themselves with NOTHING to lose, they will throw a fit at Bush's policies.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

IceNine said:

I think you are right about personal attacks... up to a point. And dead wrong about "cooperation" between parties.

Right to a point on personal attacks. First, it is perfectly alright to attack a candidate personally for his record. The US has a very personality-based democracy, meaning that the politicians are elected as much for how they are personally (or appear to be) than for their program, if not more. If I find out a politician is lying to me repeatdly and knowingly about something important, I want him personally attached for being a liar.

Private matters are different. It depends how much the politician moralizes. I have absolutely no qualms about attacking a politician who constantly lectures on family values if he's caught with hookers. No problem whatsoever

The problem with the emphasis on "personal attacks" today is that often the facts are not convincing. Anything that might look bad is exploited even if it's known it's not that way at all. So the formula is getting less convincing with each election. The other problem I have is that it does nothing to inform the public on the candidate's own program. Money is spent attacking the other guy, and the platform is obscured. Those who mostly run attack ads have to admit that it looks like they came into politics to purge something, rather than bring something to it (with their ideas).

---

"Cooperation between parties" is the death of debate. Yes, I love harmony, but when it's used to silence voices that are not "middle-of-the-road", I think something is lost. Nothing against moderates themselves (I consider myself to be one), but politics urgently needs real, tangible tensions so that the scope of options is as wide as possible. With "cooperation", you get diluted stuff or worse, extreme policies that are not opposed in the name of "being cooperative".

Actually, I'm kinda surprised you say this, because I don't see a place for a third party in a era of docile, timid collaboration. I think it has killed creativity and innovation in policy making. It leads to a conservative culture that is not necessarily in the best interest of the country. If you look at the issues facing the USA and most industrialized countries, these often used to be pet "liberal" causes, like the environment and health care. We will see in time what the cost will be for treating those issues "conservatively" and harmoniously (in line with the White House).
[This message was edited Wed Nov 6 14:44:04 PST 2002 by Aerogram]

I've started a thread about the apparent death of liberal politics in Minnesota (after the tragic death of Wellstone). Many of the same themes are being discussed there. If you would like to read it, or even contribute, please come to http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=27272.

One condition, though. I ask that you please be respectful of any dissenting viewpoints that might be expressed. If you flame a politician's policies or their corrupt identity, then more power to you. But don't flame other .Orgers. Let's get a real debate going here...I want to know what people around the country think about how then DFL is EVER going to find its voice again. Not pundits, not politicians, not columnists...but REAL, average people. So, please contribute thoughts if you have time. Overseas opinions would be great, too. What are other states saying about the current scene in American politics? Have people made any suggestions about how we can recover our liberal voice, and bring America back to what it should, and indeed CAN, be??!?

Okay, okay...I apparently ruined the conversation...blah blah blah... ...I fucking suck; everything I say is totally full of shitty shit...I like to smell my own butt and stick things in my butt...I'll never try to add to these types of threads again...in fact, I'll leave the .Org...you know what? Fuck you people! You're all a bunch of nut-scrunchin', ass-tweakin', butt-chuggin' toddler-rapin' fuck-residue!


(In other words..."Up." )

From http://www.alternet.org/s...ryID=14480

Time For Dems To Clean House

By Stephen Pizzo, AlterNet
November 6, 2002

As I watched the election results roll in last night and it became clear that Republicans were on their way to an historic win, it occurred to me that America was joining a worldwide political trend. From Israel to Palestine to Russia to Turkey, voters are casting their ballots for candidates who talk loudly and carry big sticks. While electing such leaders makes them feel more secure in the short term, history teaches us that such nationalistic trends usually end badly -- very badly.

But clearly, such a trend is underway and Democrats must now figure out how to move their agenda back to mainstream acceptance. I don't believe anyone in the Democratic Party is going to argue this election was anything but a massive defeat. Some will try to rationalize it by saying the races were close, but politics isn't horseshoes and close just doesn't cut it.

When Jack Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon, an aide asked if he thought they could govern without a strong mandate from the voters. Karl Rove would agree with Kennedy's reply: "We don't need a mandate. We have the White House." Rove can add, "And we have the House, the Senate, and a growing chunk of the federal judiciary."

So, where do we go from here? First, it might be useful to consider whether the traditional two-party lock on politics is going to continue. So far, third parties have failed. They lack money, a national infrastructure and seem to attract more colorful wingnuts per capita than the two main parties.

Even in those rare cases when third-party candidates prevail, it's not clear what it means. When voters turn to third-party candidates like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura I suspect they are not saying "That's my kind of candidate." Instead I believe they are simply sending a big "screw you" to Democrats for failing to offer them any real alternative. If Democrats continue to play policy pandering, eventually a viable third-party alternative will emerge because politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

What do Democrats need to do between now and 2004 to convince voters they are worthy of their support? They can begin by cleaning house at the top of the party. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe needs to be shown the door. Besides failing to deliver in this election, McAuliffe is the DNC's own Harvey Pitt, having come from the same corporate swamp that produced Kenneth Lay, Andy Fastow and Gary Winnick. Like Pitt, McAuliffe is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time.

McAuliffe's defense on Wednesday? "We raised a record amount of money for this election." Voters sent a different message: "It's not about the money, Terry, it's about the message."

After a house cleaning the party needs to clearly define what it stands for. To justify its existence, a political party must first articulate a set of principles and policies its candidates are willing to die for, politically speaking. What did Democrats fight for in this election? Well, I can't say; and that's the problem, neither could anyone else.

How about the Bush tax cuts? Well, Democrats could have made real hay on that issue, but they didn't. Why? Because some Democrats got tangled in their own Machiavellian maneuvering. Some Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts hoping that doing so would prove to voters back home that they were not one of those "tax and spend liberals."

After those tax cuts began ballooning the federal deficit, Democrats -- even those who voted against the cuts -- were too timid to suggest postponing some of those cuts, at least until the national checkbook is back in balance. Again, they were terrified that Republicans would use their comments to paint them as old-fashioned "tax and spend liberals."

Well, there's always the war, right? Forget about it. Historically polls have shown that voters consider Republicans stronger on defense than Democrats. So Democrats transfixed by Bush's poll numbers rushed to enlist. The more Bush rattled his saber, the higher his poll numbers went. Instead of engaging the nation in a lively dialogue about war, Democrats instead straddled the fence. They insinuated that, while they personally might have some misgivings about an unprovoked attack on another country, they felt it was important the nation be unified behind the President.

Who needs principles when you can have it both ways. Right?

Well, voters didn't see it that way.

Agree with them or not, at least Republicans had a message. Republicans were saying, "When you vote for me you are voting for this, this and this." Democrats were saying only, "Vote for me."

This is not to say that the Democrat party is devoid of strong honorable men and women. They're around but they were muzzled by those within their party who believed they could prevail with realpolitik -- a cautious strategy of delay, avoidance and harassment rather than direct confrontation.

I hope this election helps those real Democrats rediscover their voices. America is always at its best when public policy is first subjected to the white-hot cauldron of partisan debate.

Stephen Pizzo is a freelance writer and Democratic political analyst.