Some thoughts about Dean...his recent comments and the DP in general

[Adam D]

Dean recently made a lot of comments about the Democratic Party being more central to the values of "moral voters" than the Republicans. Clearly an effort to capture some of these prized votes, no doubt. (Interestingly enough, studies of the trends of this same group of voters has not substantially increased or decreased since before Clinton came to office in 1992...why they are suddenly so important is more media blitz than anything factual.)

Politically, it makes a great deal of sense. If the DP becomes suddenly very pro-Jesus and anti-abortion, it closes the two major social cleavages popularly used to define the differences between the two parties. That in turn will force the two parties to cleave based on other issues, which the DP holds more popularity on...assuming they could suddenly become effective at politicizing them. It's a smart strategy if the party cares more about winning elections than advancing a particular platform.

Personally, I think it will blow up in their faces because it will only reify the image that the DP is just Republican-lite. Instead it would make a lot more sense for the DP to revitalize it's traditional base of blue collar workers, the middle class, women, etc. who are voting less for the DP...and even worse, are voting fewer and fewer at all. That, I think, proves that the DP really isn't different from the RP is performance. Neither party wants to energize new voters or voters outside of their safe groups unless they can be completely certain they will approve of pro-corporate, pro-military expenditure policies.

[Satchel]

I don't think he means the DP will go anti-abortion, but I do agree with your assessment otherwise. I really think it going to come down to having a strong candidate this time though and less about platform positioning. People just didn't like Kerry or Gore and there is no getting around that. and to be honest I'm not sure I see one on the horizon. Hillary might be the best chance.

[Deff Gordon]

and FTR: Diet DP doesn't taste anything like regular DP.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by Satchel

I don't think he means the DP will go anti-abortion, but I do agree with your assessment otherwise. I really think it going to come down to having a strong candidate this time though and less about platform positioning. People just didn't like Kerry or Gore and there is no getting around that. and to be honest I'm not sure I see one on the horizon. Hillary might be the best chance.

I think he intends to make the DP go softer on abortion and highlight the anti-abortion Dems.

[bfp]

I think that's one of the few things he's ever said that wasn't distorted or void of any intelligent thought.

I see him stepping down as DNC Chair some time soon. Under pressure of course.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/MNdean07.TMP

[Satchel]

I think he is trying to say that democrats lead on the moral issues, they are just different issues.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Satchel

I think he is trying to say that democrats lead on the moral issues, they are just different issues.

I agree with this. While yes, the democratic party traditionally appealed to the blue collar worker, etc but the fact is that until recent memory the DP was the party of morality and the republicans were the party of business. It was really Reagan who changed this and made the Republicans the Christian Business party and the Democrats were dragged away from the positions of "morality" becoming the Liberal party disconnected from its moral roots.

[bfp]

I think he is trying to say that democrats lead on the moral issues, they are just different issues.

I've been waiting for someone to catch onto that one, however, ignoring some moral issues while propping other ones up in order to claim that they have moral values, is faulty at best. Especially when the argument of morality is that the Republicans want children to go to sleep hungry at night.

[bfp]

I agree with this. While yes, the democratic party traditionally appealed to the blue collar worker, etc but the fact is that until recent memory the DP was the party of morality and the republicans were the party of business. It was really Reagan who changed this and made the Republicans the Christian Business party and the Democrats were dragged away from the positions of "morality" becoming the Liberal party disconnected from its moral roots.

I don't consider the pre-60's era recent memory. The social revolution, which was propped up by the Democratic party had everything to do with rejecting establishment values, traditions, and welcomed moral debasement. The Democratic party(the huge majority of them) today still carries those values.

[bfp]

Also, what does everyone think of his remarks about the Rep party being a white Christian party?

[DataBass]

Originally Posted by spoony m

and FTR: Diet DP doesn't taste anything like regular DP.

Diet Double Penetration?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by bfp

Also, what does everyone think of his remarks about the Rep party being a white Christian party?

The party as a whole consistently works toward the white Christian agenda. That's not to say it represents real Christian ethics or that all caucasions of the Christian faith are represented. But it does push forward the anti-freedom, backward-thinking, big-government nanny state that the white, Christian, suburban mainstream seems to want so badly.

[bfp]

The party as a whole consistently works toward the white Christian agenda. That's not to say it represents real Christian ethics or that all caucasions of the Christian faith are represented. But it does push forward the anti-freedom, backward-thinking, big-government nanny state that the white, Christian, suburban mainstream seems to want so badly.

Fourty two percent of hispanics voted for Bush. So did 41 percent of asian americans. The black vote nearly doubled over the last election. What about the rise of Jewish voters? What about the black conservatives that are slowly rising out of the republican party? Condoleeza Rice? Rod Paige? Ken Blackwell? Colin Powell? Lt Gov. Michael Steele from Maryland? What about Ken Mehlmen, the RNC Chair. He's Jewish. His comments about an all white christian party was an act of desperation because it's the last pack of individuals he can pick on; pure propoganda in order to stop the influx of minorities into the republican party, and you, as well as the other stereotypical white christian haters took it hook, line and sinker. He actually said in a speech last week that the only minorities that would attend a RNC gathering were the actual hotel workers. That very comment stinks of racism.

And anti-freedom, backward-thinking? What is backward thinking anyway? The fact that the huge number of conservatives want to stick to the foundations of how our founding fathers wanted this country to apply in the future? All of this backward-thinking rhetoric started on the fact that we want the constitutional document to stay how it is, and how it was written re the 'evolving constitution' that is supposed to somehow give new individuals new rights through the courts. It's not an organism; it's a document. We already have a bill of rights. Also, if we want to talk about a big-government nanny-state, let's look at who started this nonsense. Roosevelt started the snowball back in 1937 by trying to implement his second bill of rights(with his court-packing), by laying out a social security program, and by starting a tax system that would inevitably end up where it is now - look to The Road to Serfdom. Frederick Hayek stated that it would be virtually impossible in reversing the governmental tidal wave once it starts. I'm not blaming it all on Roosevelt, but it's nice to know where this all started, and what type of ideology produced this nonsense.

Bush has indeed spent alot of money, and has put us into debt, but in regards to the war on terror, most of the 427 billion dollars is due to the military spending that has been pushed through. The tax cuts, which are a main chunk as well, have just started to pay off. Last months federal receipts paid off the full first quarters debt, and will continue to bring in receipts.

Where is Bush trying to take us though? To an eventual smaller government by switching off the massive ever-growing multi-trillion dollar transfer mechanism known as Social Security? And what is the democrats solution? Raise taxes of course.

White Christian Agenda <sarcasm off>

[Satchel]

blaming the gays for 9-11 is hardly something I'd call moral either

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by bfp

I've been waiting for someone to catch onto that one, however, ignoring some moral issues while propping other ones up in order to claim that they have moral values, is faulty at best. Especially when the argument of morality is that the Republicans want children to go to sleep hungry at night.

pot/kettle.