Donovan wrote:
Agreed. But the fact remains that the Republicans ran a successful campaign based entirely on the "We hate Clinton Nyah Nyah" ticket, and pandered to the hardcore moral right for their votes.
So with that in mind, the Democrats think they can win on a similar ticket. I see your point. I just don't see the DNC doing anything different than they did in 2002 and 2004. They're going to lose if they don't get some positive candidates who say "Vote for me because I'll do this", not "Vote for me or the GOP will kill you all and irradiate the soil, and pollute the whales and kill baby seals for Halliburton". I mean come on, that's hysterically funny. But that's the DNC platform as far as can be discerned.
The voting booth shenanigans aside, Repubs won on the very "agendas" they now whine about from Dems: accusations of lying, office improprieties, and a higher "moral stance".
We do have a higher moral stance. Take Newt Gingrich, he didn't get caught until it was way too late.
The fact that Gore was afraid to use Clinton as a support base was his own mistake, added to the fact that the Clintons would not benefit from a democratic white house if Hillary was entertaining her eventual run.
I think you've nailed it. Only an honest appraisal of Democrat mistakes will win the White House back. Michael Moore won't do it for them.
Politics is a very tangled web, and generally very entertaining.
Yes! Because most politicians are idiots. They're fun to watch, all of them.
Meanwhile, this administration is rapidly becoming known as the most corrupt at all levels since Nixon, and daily revelations about new lies and war crimes by this regime will make this a very dark period in our country's history.
Well... The problem with that contention is that you've convinced the Mainstream Media, but not America. The Mainstream Media already had Karl Rove convicted, sentenced, and wearing an orange jump suit. When it didn't come true, (he's not going to be charged with anything) we had increduous reporters demanding Bush comment on Rove's criminality. It was proven to the journalists, so his guilt was obvious, right? Only in their fantasy world.
It is that fantasy world the left has about Bush (He's a dummy, a neocon conspirator (note the two are a complete contradiction), selected not elected, etc.) that has led to their defeat in every election. And I am happy they are still in that fantasy! It means we'll never lose, we don't even have to try hard.
But that wasn't what was presented to the world as cause for war. There are hundreds of despotic regimes in existence, many of whom are actively killing their citizens right now.
It is true that the Democrat Mantra is that WMD was the sole reason for going to war in Iraq. They've repeated it to themselves for three years until they believe it. Sadly for that fantasy, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumseld, and Powell cited a very long list of real crimes by Saddam Hussein to warrant his removal. When Clinton was president, every Democrat believed these crimes. When Bush took office, suddenly it was all a lie. The only lying going on came from the two-faced Democrats, who only changed their minds because it was a Republican in the White House and not Gore, Clinton, or Kerry. That's silly and laughable.
Technically, the ongoing war of attrition Israel wages against Palestine puts them squarely in the "needs removal" camp as well, not to mention the Saudi Regime which is nearly as totalitarian as pre-war Iraq.
In a perfect world, Israel and Palestine would be forced to craft a united government and live together. Their neighbors are sick of their struggle, and they are too. Sadly, I know of no way of speeding up the peace process. (Not unless we rope off the whole area as a nature preserve and evict every living person from the region.)
You cannot successfully argue that the ends justify the means unless a) you are consistent in your ideals and b) you are supported by the majority of the world in your actions.
The official policy of the United States since 1998 has been regime change for Iraq. You can look it up for yourself on the internet under the "1998 Iraq Liberation Act" signed into law by President Clinton. It's how we got into bed with Ahmed Chalabi.
Very likely, a democratic presidency would have led to NOT going to war in Iraq, and a focus on the actual perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, assuming they would have been successful at all.
I disagree. With the intelligence reports that a President Gore or President Kerry received, they would have dealt finally with Saddam Hussein. And 100% of the river of hate we're seeing from the left over Iraq would disappear like magic! The "we hate Bush" crowd will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that their insane hatred of Bush is not the main source of their Iraq criticism. Look at the "Bush=Hitler" pictures all over this board!
Reagan did not destroy the USSR.
Reagan did everything he could to help them into the grave. Whether the Soviet Union would have fallen now or 50 years from now will have to be decided by future historians. But his record is clear, if your opponent is on his knees, you cut off his knees. You don't wait around and hope for the best. (Which has been the Democrat foreign policy for the past 50 years.)
As opposed to before 9-11, when we suffered a disaster every month and were at war on several fronts and carrying the biggest deficit in our nation's history: Oh wait, we weren't then either. Damn that Bush is so Godlike he even prevented attacks before his presidency! Bullshit rhetoric is a wasted effort.
As HeroicFool accurately pointed out, President Clinton repeatedly said, year after year, that he could not balance the budget. Until the Republican congress forced him to sign it, along with welfare reform. The left grumbled, but Clinton happily took credit for everything. What a hero!
How lucky and convenient for Bush and the Repubs that right before a major election that many are saying they will lose in, a so-called "Figurehead" of the badguys who can't fire a weapon unaided is suddenly found and killed, and just HAPPENS to leave behind a readable copy of a detailed account describing how Bush is one scary motherfucker to the enemy.
And you've just proven precisely why we can discount every Democrat complaint that we haven't captured Bin Laden. Because if we do (assuming he's not dead), you can bet what you just wrote will be on the mouths of every Democrat who is carping, whining, and complaining to this day on how the war on terror is being handled. Funny how not a one of them can specify how they'd do it better, other than consulting with France as Kerry promised to do. But he'll never get that chance, will he?
This also happens to coincide with a deep downward spiral in the Great Warchief's approval rating, where he is seen as anything BUT a success to 80% of his own country.
We saw the same inflated (deflated?) numbers for Election 2004, where every Democrat journalist was convinced that since they hated Bush, so the whole country must have too. And when Bush won with several MILLION MORE VOTES than he did in 2000 (elected not selected), the left was stunned and muttered that it was all a GOP dirty trick. Prepare to be tricked again if you believe those polls today! Bush doesn't read them, and he keeps winning.
It's not a coincidence, it's not luck, it's not a neocon conspiracy. Bush is not a dummy, his critics are, and they prove it every election where he wipes the floor with them.
Thank goodness the DNC will never change their election strategy. Bank on it.
-Ogami
