Ruthless democrats

[Samildanach]

The main reason the dem's lost is they aren't as ruthless as the republicans. To win the election the democrats are going to have to develop the same kind of ruthless political structure as the republican election machine. It maybe highly distasteful but in this case its a matter of fighting fire with fire.

[Technosoul]

They need to take out the Barbara BOXER GLOVES for sure. I think I am seeing a new trend that might effect the next election, which is the rise in respect for women as potential political leaders, eveyone seems to favor Mrs Bush over Mr Bush, and likewise Mrs Clinton is favored, perhaps more so then the former President Clinton. And most of our mainstream political families have produced daughters, which we saw during the last election - the daughtes and grandaughters of Kennedy, Bush daughters, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, and others, all who seemed interested in the limelight of politics. Plus the gay daughter of the Vice President who was very active for her father's re-election effort in spite of not being much in front of the cameras. I think I shall call this the "girly man factor".

We saw where Oprah got poltical at the lost moment. And even Mrs Reagan voiced her views about stem-cell reseach.
And I should also mention Miss Rice.

Historically we have Mrs John Kennedy and Diana and other role models that the news media has favored.

What might happen if women turn the age old concept that men should be the head of the hosehold uoside down and with determination take the driving wheel as more then as a fisrt lady, but as a President with a "first man"?

Now I know that a while back the Democrats ran with a woman for Vice President and lost, and they might be a bit paranoid about that still, but that was back then, so I wonder if in four years the time might be ripe for taking advantage of this slowly developing trend towards female leadership. Imagine a ticket with Mrs Clinton and Babara Boxer - hmmm? Or will the Repubicans be first to see that trend and go searching for more women to hold important offices in the White House like Bush did with Rice?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Samildanach, The main reason the dem's lost is they aren't as ruthless as the republicans. To win the election the democrats are going to have to develop the same kind of ruthless political structure as the republican election machine. It maybe highly distasteful but in this case its a matter of fighting fire with fire.

blame blame blame...excuses excuses excuses....jeeezz, did it ever occur to anyone that the mojority of people just didn't like what the democrats had to offer??
There also seem to be quite a few more areas in the US that were for Bush -

[bishop]

the democrats need a more solid message.. they need to do all they can to shift focus away from cultural issues and onto the truly important issues - the economy and national security. they need to marry themselves to these two issues, and keep it as simple as possible - because middle/southern america responds favorably to simple messages.

for the economy, they need to actively advocate balanced budgets - and their support must be reflected in their votes. they need to show how the budget deficit creates inflation which IS a tax increase on the public. they need to show people what future taxes would look like if we did nothing about the deficit. and then, they need to explain in simple terms, what they will do to reduce the deficit.

the opportunity is theirs right now. especially in light of the fact that bush and his party don't have a clue about how they're going to do that. case in point: inflation is rising despite the fact that the fed has been raising interest rates.


on national security.. they should end support for all foreign dictatorships - including ending weapon sales to them. they should do this while including bush's own philosophy of freedom throughout the world. they need to get serious on stopping proliferation.

[samsara15]

A simple message is easier to sell, and politics is selling. Economics issues certainly would be a good thing to use as a base. Working class people are not doing well, and good-paying jobs are not being created in large enough numbers to maintain American living standards, so some people are going to begin to get angry very soon.

Democrats need the rural vote. The rural vote loves jesus, and thinks he belongs in government. The liberals cannot give the rural vote what they want IMO.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by Technosoul, They need to take out the Barbara BOXER GLOVES for sure. I think I am seeing a new trend that might effect the next election, which is the rise in respect for women as potential political leaders, eveyone seems to favor Mrs Bush over Mr Bush, and likewise Mrs Clinton is favored, perhaps more so then the former President Clinton. And most of our mainstream political families have produced daughters, which we saw during the last election - the daughtes and grandaughters of Kennedy, Bush daughters, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, and others, all who seemed interested in the limelight of politics. Plus the gay daughter of the Vice President who was very active for her father's re-election effort in spite of not being much in front of the cameras. I think I shall call this the "girly man factor". We saw where Oprah got poltical at the lost moment. And even Mrs Reagan voiced her views about stem-cell reseach. And I should also mention Miss Rice. Historically we have Mrs John Kennedy and Diana and other role models that the news media has favored. What might happen if women turn the age old concept that men should be the head of the hosehold uoside down and with determination take the driving wheel as more then as a fisrt lady, but as a President with a "first man"? Now I know that a while back the Democrats ran with a woman for Vice President and lost, and they might be a bit paranoid about that still, but that was back then, so I wonder if in four years the time might be ripe for taking advantage of this slowly developing trend towards female leadership. Imagine a ticket with Mrs Clinton and Babara Boxer - hmmm? Or will the Repubicans be first to see that trend and go searching for more women to hold important offices in the White House like Bush did with Rice?

Well, yeah...I used to be all about "girl power" and how women would make this world better if they were the ones to rule it. Because if women stayed what they are, they maybe could GIVE this world a different face.

But NOT if women who get to lead are just hawkish men in disguise. And if you thought Hillary Clinton was such a thing (NOT!!!!)...then ...my "Good Lord in the Good Heavens"...what do you call a woman like that crass monster whose name I can barely mention without having my stomach turned upside down( Anne Coulter) ?
Or that nasty transvestite that is Bush's campaign advisor?

Hillary Clinton is a sweet fairy compared to these anomalies.

It is so much more disturbing to see these "good ol' conservative women" being so agressive, ruthlessly political and career-oriented when their very platform and "traditional" beliefs actually dictate that they should be standing by a man, cooking, raising children, being sweet and nurturing... in one word, being the exact opposite of what they are.

Hypocrisy is the almighty core characteristic of the schizophrenic right.

The more I look into the beliefs and the actions of the right, the sicker to my stomach I become....and the less "pacifistic" I feel towards them.

Make no mistake about it, when the cycle of hate was first initiated on this Planet, it was a human with a right-wing mentality that put the first stone to the works.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by dotComa, Democrats need the rural vote. The rural vote loves jesus, and thinks he belongs in government. The liberals cannot give the rural vote what they want IMO.

The rural vote does not love any Jesus. They are only schizophrenic, insensitive animals, that's all.
Jesus himself would puke his guts out to see people with such hateful, compassionless and war mongering minds use his name to sanctify their evils ways.

Let's not dirty up the name of this Saint whose teachings and ways were meant to make people into better human beings - as opposed to selfish, narrow-minded bastards.
They were supposed to open both the hearts and the minds...the US rurals have none of this - they are just dumb and cold as a rock.

Let's just leave Christ out of this dirty game.

[caspian88]

The Democrats need to shift more to the center in order to stand chance - they are too far to the left, and that seriously hurts them in a nation that tends to be conservative.

[Sonart]

There also seem to be quite a few more areas in the US that were for Bush -

We went through this four years ago, Dieval. You map proves that the Republicans won far more rocks, bushes and trees than Kerry. Among actual people, it was far closer.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Sonart, You map proves that the Republicans won far more rocks, bushes and trees than Kerry.

When did they get the ability to vote??

[Sonart]

When did they get the ability to vote??

Apparently when you decided that a map painted 85% red represented 53% of Americans.

[bishop]

again... notice how our bush supporters can't comment on the economy/deficit..

all they can do is gloat.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, again... notice how our bush supporters can't comment on the economy/deficit.. all they can do is gloat.

Talk economy/deficit in a thread about "Ruthless Democrats"?? What would be the point in that?

Atleast I'm not crying FRAUD.

caspian88, good point. The democrats have drifted very far to the left. The premise of the thread is surprising since, on the contrary, it is the Democrats who are vicious when it comes to campaining and the Republicans are too afraid to get tough for fear of being called names by the Democrats and their supporters that control the mainstream media.

[kharmajunkie]

Originally posted by Snouter, it is the Democrats who are vicious when it comes to campaining and the Republicans are too afraid to get tough for fear of being called names by the Democrats and their supporters that control the mainstream media.

What election did you just watch? Both sides employ the biggest shit flinging chimps they can find and watch the antics ensue. How does it feel to be part of a constituency that is manipulated and pandered to the way Vince McMahon does to his pro wrestling audience?

[bishop]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, again... notice how our bush supporters can't comment on the economy/deficit.. all they can do is gloat.

Talk economy/deficit in a thread about "Ruthless Democrats"?? What would be the point in that?

Atleast I'm not crying FRAUD.[/b][/quote]


care to give it a try?

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...?showtopic=3620

[Dieval]

I post in threads I feel like it...I will not be goaded into posting in a topic I don't want to.

[bishop]

imo, you only post in threads that are purely partisan, rather than substantive.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by bishop, imo, you only post in threads that are purely partisan, rather than substantive.

I post in threads that interest me.