Jump to content

Electile dysfunction


Recommended Posts

So, the Dems have chosen Howeird Dean to be the party leader (and a hopeful for 2008). Ah yes, the old "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" philosophy. We'll trump your Bozo with one of our own".

Will the Dems ever learn? Because America has elected Bush twice doesn't mean that that's all America wants. Instead of giving us weak choices like Gore and Kerry or no choices like Dean why not offer real change? You had the right ideas in 2000 and 2004, just not the right candidates.

Kerry's sad approach was to say he'd do many things the same as Bush only he'd do them better. Yet he never really explained what he'd do or how. Weak! And his explanations for the things he'd do differently were poorly presented.

I don't know who the Republicans will run in 2008 but it's beginning to look like deja vu all over again.

Will the Dems ever overcome their electile dysfunction? Doesn't appear so. Come on researchers! Invent some electile viagra for these guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't think of a better candidate, could you? And that's sad to say about the democratic party. I wouldn't vote for Guiliani (unless Shrillary ran for prez, then anything goes!), but if McCain ran again, what could the dems muster to counter him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't think of a better candidate, could you? And that's sad to say about the democratic party. I wouldn't vote for Guiliani (unless Shrillary ran for prez, then anything goes!), but if McCain ran again, what could the dems muster to counter him?

Oh wow, a political thread on my first night back to Songfacts after my trip and new boyfriend, how fun. There were better guy, Kirk, Frost, Richardson but the Dems chose to ignore the moderates, as usual, and went for the extreme left, again, as usual. Now some will say that Dean's only extreme position is on the war but who cares, perception is everything and people think of him as a northeast liberal and they don't do very well in national elections, Teddy, Michael D, and Kerry the moron. I saw a man yesterday that looked just like John Kerry and I almost started to run him over with my car, but that wouldn't have been very nice.

The problem with the Dems is that they have lost touch with average people. I wrote an op-ed piece on what is wrong with the Democrats back during the campaign. Some of the points might seem superficial but they do point to part of the problem that the Dems have had. They once stood for things, now they only stand against them. There are many other problems than the ones I mentioned in the piece. I posted it in the Creative Writing section , although it might not receive the most favorable reviews. McCain, Rudy, Arnold, if they amend the constitution, will beat anyone the Dems have to offer. Hillary is extremely popular with about 40% of the country, problem is the other 60% would like to see her burned at the stake for the communist witch she is. "We will take things away from you on behalf of the common good." HC in San Francisco, June '04 In that last sentence if you change things to land her Marxist agenda is clearly shown.

The one hope for the Democratic Party is the Republican core. Now that the Reps have control of every branch of government, including the statehouses, the core will want many of it's right wing ideas to get passed. Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans will never pass some of the ideas of the far right, closed boarders, no abortions ever, no welfare, prayer in schools, national language, things like that. So they will get discouraged and possibly not vote. They will never be called Clinton or Kerry Republicans like the Democrats were in the 80's with Reagan but they will stop voting and allow the Dems to regain some of their former positions.

The biggest problem for the Dems is the idea that it's the government's responsibility to solve people's problems. Republicans care about people also only they feel that people can care about people better than the government. One example would be Bush's faith-based initiatives. Where would you rather have your child spending time after school, a welfare office or a Baptist church? When I was young I spent a lot of time playing tennis, earlier in life I went to the Methodist church where they had video games. There was no 'indoctrination of the youth' as some liberals talk about, it was just a safe environment where kids could hang out after school. It didn't make me avoid drugs (I still smoke pot) or do better at school but it was a place where I could meet up with my friends after school to have a good time. There are many other examples of this type of thing with the main point being that the private sector is much more able to solve public problems than the public (government). Dems need to take this point to heart.

And finally, on the question of Social Security, and to sound like I know what I'm talking about, the Washington Post recently posted a short paragraph I wrote on privatization that might make things clearer about that issue; it reads:

------------------------------------------------

The proposed privatization of Social Security comes down to one issue, the rate of return on the money that is paid into the system. Currently the trust fund earns a 2% return; under the Bush plan that would allow for stock market investments the rate of return would be 8%, the historic ROR of the S&P 500 since 1910. While this seems like a small difference, when considered over the lifetime of a worker the results are staggering. Take the extreme example of a worker making only 20k a year for 45 years (ages 20-65). Under the current plan that worker would have accumulated close to $150,000 by age 65. Under the Bush plan of privatization that same worker would have a retirement account worth over $800,000. Clearly Bush?s plan works better. The real beauty of the plan is the money that is left over can be left to family members once the beneficiary dies. Under the current system the family is only left a ?death benefit? of around $300 dollars to cover burial expenses. Bush?s plan would allow for even the poorest workers to leave a large nest egg to their families. This would provide money for children to buy homes, for grandchildren to go to college and would actually decrease the wealth gap that exists in this country rather than increase it as the Democrats have warned. While very few people will work their entire lives for only $20,000 dollars a year the example makes it clear that not only is privatization the only way to save Social Security, but it is also the best way to help the working poor move into a more financially stable position in life with a secure retirement and an inheritance to pass along to their children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the democrats should do in 2008, it depends on the candidate. In this election, Kerry should have been meaner, angrier, and more different than Bush. Saying the war was a good idea but Bush did it wrong was a bad idea, and I think that's why he lost. He never said what his stances on things were, without adding "Go to my website" which is like getting a code on the cap of a coke, where you could win a million dollars, but you are too lazy to go and see if you did on the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been out on a beer night with an old mate, to open up this topic (my typing is slow), to find that XXX has gotten in before me. There is nothing sexier than a woman with conviction and the power to communicate it well. Cindy, right now you could have my babies - that is until I go to bed as my wife whom I love dearly may object!

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'm going to offer a Canadian perspective on this subject. Let me begin by saying, I'm a small c conservative on some issues (lower taxes, smaller government, fiscal responsibility) and a liberal on others (the environment, social programs). I don't think I've ever seen the American electorate as polarized as it seems to be today. It seems most Americans belong to one of two camps:

1) The camp that thinks George Bush is a bozo and a dangerous one at that.

2) The camp that thinks Bush can do no wrong.

Personally, I think Bush, like any politician, has his good and bad points. Like Cindy, I like the President's ideas about reforming Social Security. I may not agree with some of his policies, but I admire the way he sticks to his guns.

I'm not going to get into the Iraq war debate except to say that I think Bush needs to find a way to extricate America from that nasty situation before it becomes an economic millstone around the neck of the American taxpayer. What frightens me about Bush, is his apparent disregard for the staggering deficit budgets he continues to run and the rapidly mounting American national debt.

As for the Democrats, I agree that Kerry was not a good choice to oppose Bush in the last election. As Uncle Joe said, Kerry did not have a clearly articulated election platform and he did not act quickly or aggressively enough to counter the Republican attack ads. I don't know much about Howard Dean, so it would not be fair to offer an opinion about his suitability to lead the Democrats into the next election. I think John Edwards would have been a better choice than Kerry to lead the Democrats in the last election campaign. I don't know a lot about him (other than what I saw during the last few months of the campaign), but he is certainly bright and articulate and has more charm and charisma than Kerry. Of course, that's not saying a lot.

Other than Edwards, the Democrats don't seem to have any credible leadership candidates on the horizon. The Republicans, on the other hand, have McCain and Guiliani(sp?) among others. I sincerely hope that you do not amend your Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to become President if for no other reason than to keep the Gropenator out of the White House. Having him as the governor of California is quite enough, thank-you.

For those of you who think Bush is a dimwit, you may derive some solace from the knowledge that your Canadian neighbours routinely elect morons to lead our country. Jean Chretien springs instantly to mind. He is basically illiterate in both official languages and was guilty of arrogance, nepotism, cronyism, corruption and almost criminal stupidity. Blessedly, he retired and was replaced with Paul Martin, who is a slightly less intelligent and competent version of Bill Clinton, albeit with better morals.

Perhaps if Tony Blair gets tired of running the Labour Party in Britain, he can come to Canada to lead our Liberal Party. He has to be better than the rogues who make up our ruling party.

:stars:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:sleepy:

(don't be offended CanAm. This is my standard reply to any political talk in here. Every one of them are crooks, and it never fails to amuse me and snooze me at the lengths people go to prove their guy is the best. Every politician is as crooked as the next)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:sleepy:

(don't be offended CanAm. This is my standard reply to any political talk in here. Every one of them are crooks, and it never fails to amuse me and snooze me at the lengths people go to prove their guy is the best. Every politician is as crooked as the next)

I'm not offended jr. To the contrary, one of the things I like about this forum is the respectful way people treat one another, even when they disagree. Like most Pisceans, I'm just a cockeyed optimist. I still believe some bright, capable and relatively honest politicians exist somewhere, even though heartless reality

strives everyday to prove me wrong. Cheers! :shades:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...