My Advice to the Democratic Party

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:41 am

(Note: For the purposes of the post, I am setting ideology aside and giving my best, most honest, advice to the Democrats about what they need to do revive their political fortunes.)

This is going to be hard for a lot of Democrats to accept, particularly liberals, but quite simply put, today's Democratic Party is very out of step with the majority of Americans.

Are you a Democrat who doesn't buy that?

Well then, why is it George Bush was openly calling himself a "compassionate conservative" while John Kerry had to hide his liberalism? Why is it that George Bush was able to run successful attack ads that did little more than in effect say, "John Kerry is a liberal"? Did you notice that at the end of the campaign John Kerry was giving speeches about his "faith," hunting, waving semi-automatic shotguns around, and desperately trying to convince the country that there was nothing that he loved doing more than killing terrorists? Come on, let's be honest here--if Democrats really thought that's what John Kerry was like, he could have never won the nomination.

Furthermore, have you Dems taken five minutes to consider how some of the things you say and do look sound to people who aren't other hard core Democrats? What does it say when you have a guy like Michael Moore who compared Iraqi insurgents to the Minutemen and has said over and over than Americans are "stupid" sitting beside of President Carter at the Democratic National Convention? You think Rush Limbaugh is venomous? Have you ever listened to or read Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Ted Rall, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Molly Ivins, Robert Scheer, Mark Morford, Eric Alterman, and dozens of dozens of other liberals and asked yourself how vicious they sound in comparison? Hey, people don't trust a party that has so many prominent members who seem to spend most of their time sputtering in rage and showing complete contempt for people who disagree with....

That's enough examples, let's get to the crux of the problem.

The Democratic Party is probably roughly split 40/60 between libs and moderates. However, all the energy, excitement, and enthusiasm is on the left side of the party. The problem is that those same people are POLITICAL POISON.

In fact, they're so extreme and out of touch that they're driving a lot of moderates out of your party. That's part of the reason why more Republicans than Democrats voted in an election for the first time in Nov of 2004. It's also why the South, which used to be full of yellow dog Democrats who'd never dream of voting for a Republican, has now for the most part gone red. They didn't really leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left them.

And you know what the real danger is? That the Democratic party goes into a "death spiral" which features moderates leaving the party for the GOP because they can't deal with the extremism of the liberals, which allows liberals to get stronger in the party, which causes more moderates to leave the party, which allows liberals to get stronger, and so on, and so on, and so on until the Democratic party is completely marginalized.

You Dems want to get back into it? Stop running liberals like John Kerry who have to run from their record. Get serious about national defense and start getting behind "John Kennedys" and "Scoop Jacksons" instead of "Jimmy Carters" and "Walter Mondales". Stop drooling over ultra-libs like Michael Moore and a bunch of Hollywood actors who turn off middle-America. Find some issues that your liberal base can live with, that you think will resonate with the American people, and that you feel comfortable defending intellectually with something other than a variation of "you're mean," & you'll start to make some progress. But continuing to run as "not Republicans" isn't going to cut it.

Republicans are far from invulnerable, but a bunch of bile-spewing liberals who pretend to be quasi-conservatives for a few months around election time aren't going to beat the GOP for long. So if the Democratic Party wants to win and keep winning, it's going to have to change.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:51 am

You act as if we have any choice who gets the nomination for President. I support the basic Democratic ideals, but to generalize all Democrats with the famous peoples opinions on the democratic ideal is silly. I don't vote by party. I vote for whoever I think is going to be best for the country as a whole. Most people I know who voted for Kerry would consider themselves "Democrats" in the broad sense, but didn't in particular suppport Kerry. I was a bit more of a Howard Dean supporter myself. But I do not vote by party, I would vote any party if I felt the candidate would do a good job. Bush had his chance, and in my honest opinion, is one of the top 3 worst presidents this country has ever seen. I honestly lost faith in a lot of the American people when they voted that buffoon back into office.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:35 am

The problem with democrats is they try to present themselves as "republican light". The last four years were a disaster, and most americans don't support ROVEw's policies, but they are straight with their positions, no matter how stupid, and people respected that. Kerry was too timid in criticizing a very corrupt status quo, and lost respect for not being clear. He shouldn't have voted to allow the invasion of Iraq; that hurt democrats enthusiasm for his candidacy. Americans voted for a clear, but deceptive, message, against an overly complex message, no matter how rational. People really didn't pay attention to facts, probably because they're sick of the process and corruption. We need to make Tom DeLay the poster child for corruption, but most people don't even know who he is. They're numb to corruption; juicy sex scandals are so much more fun.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:44 pm

Why is it that Bush pretty much ran 100% negative Kerry ads and offered nothing postive/goals for the country in the next 4 years? Besides 9/11, is there anything this president tackled/led the country in besided a false pretense war in Iraq? The Democrats don't need to do anything, they were outsmarted in key states by a Gay Marriage referrendum that was put on the ballot. That pretty much won the election for GW. It was a smart move on his part.

Of this so called leadership for U.S. citizens? Show us some proof on some domestic issues he has tackled for OUR CITIZENS of this country while in office his first 4 years. I'm not talking about supporting the local TEXAS golf courses either

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:52 pm

It's laughable that anyone thinks that voting against invading Iraq would have resulted in winning this election. Heck, the one guy that actually did vote against the invasion couldn't even win his own party's nomination.

Cardiac - the incumbent runs on the status quo, not a new deal. It doesn't matter which party is the incumbent.

Velo - with all due respect. You are sooooo full of hate of conservatives that you don't even realize that you come across as a raving lunatic. You remind me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House in the riot scene at the end of the movie.

Nobody wins the Presidency by being exclusive - they win by being INCLUSIVE - and in case your memory is too clouded, that is EXACTLY how Clinton won 2 terms. I don't know what happened to you, or how you've been so wronged, but man, you need a vacation or something.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:13 pm

This is the last one, I promise:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=3119

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:45 pm

The word conservative would imply careful, prudent spending, cautious, etc. Today's republican party is not conservative. I'm in the mainstream of thought in the world today. I would describe our country at this moment as radical and out of the mainstream in it's official acts. If that makes me a loony, I'm in good company.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:48 pm

Yes, HCat 93. I'm a liberal who agrees with your 'theory' that liberals are out of touch with the majority of Americans. But only in the sense that being out of touch means not thinking the way they do. I think liberals are in touch with why conservatives come to their conclusions politically. What I can't buy into is that these so called conservatives from rural America are really paying attention to, and are boning up, on the issues.

Of the upper 5% - in terms of income - in America an overwhelming majority vote republican. As we all know, they do this to maintain their wealth, but they are smart and very aware that if they don't win over some other pockets of Americana they won't stay in that position for long.

This where the moral right comes in handy. The overwhelming majority of these people have bought into what the Cs say they can give them (ban abortion, prayer in school, tax cuts, ban on gay marriage). All the Cs want in return is their vote and their bodies on the front line. I don't really believe that this gang in the top 5% really cares about these issues.

I feel that the only true Cs in this country are in that overwhelming portion in the upper strata. I have many friends, most of my friends, who are Cs and via some subtle questioning I don't think they are any more conservative than I am. So what I'm real out of touch with is their inability to get in touch. (Why do they just accept this right wing word? Do they just not try to find out why people are pro-choice, ...) And then I see the things the upper strata is doing to manipulate them (keep them out of touch) and I get this real bad feeling in my stomach.

It's such a large and long running conspiracy that this self-appointed chosen few have been able to maintain that many of the poor, less educated, and downtrodden seem to have just given up and accepted it.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:50 am

WOW.

What a load of bull.

Sorry you are so out of touch, iaa. I'm neither in the 5% nor a "mindless right-winger" being led around by the social issues you mentioned and I believe that MOST conservatives are similar to me.

To me, the "liberal" mind-set is this: given enough time & money, "we" (via the government) can solve ALL of societies ills, be they social, moral, or economic. Can you PLEASE give me a successful example of this?

I'm too tired to really tackle your skewed view of the country, but for now I'll simply close with this:

The top 5% you mentioned pays something like 50% of all income taxes in this country (don't have the exact # but I'm in the ballpark). I'm pretty sure I will NEVER get into that "club" but you know what? I feel they pay MORE than their fair share and if I WERE making that much money, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep as much of it as possible as well if I knew how much of the "burden" I and my fellow "members" were carrying.

Here's the "test" I've developed to determine whether you are a fiscal conservative or a liberal:

You're standing in line at the grocery store right behind Bill Gates, the world's richest man. Gates pays for his goods, walks out, and starts to get into his limo. About this time, the clerk looks up & says "Oh, I just realized I short-changed Mr. Gates $20." He turns to you & says "Here, you take it; he doesn't need it & won't miss it. I'm sure it will help you more than it would him" and hands you the $20.

The moral of the story: If you keep the $20, you're a liberal. If you would take it out & try to return it to Mr. Gates, you're a conservative.

IT IS NO AMERICAN'S RIGHT TO TELL ANY OTHER AMERICAN WHEN THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. Our punitive tax code does just that and is simply wrong.

iaa, we should be striving for a society that doesn't NEED all the money we send to DC, rather than focusing our attention on WHO actually has to foot the bill for that ever-growing, always-ravenous monster we call the Federal Government...

More to come; stay tuned...

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:39 am

Yeah, more to come.

Ooops. Forgot to start MY load of bull by saying "This is going to be hard for a lot of Republicans to accept, particularly conservatives, but quite simply put, today's Republican Party is very out of step with the majority of Americans."

Top 1% makes about 98% of the money in this country, but pays ONLY 10% of the taxes. Of that 10% Pres. Bush gave back a big chunk to his buddies. Of the other 90% he hired a lot his pals (with no competitive bid process) to go to Iraq and do less work than the military personnel there and make 5 times as much money.

I don't make that much much money, but feel I should be paying more in taxes for things like education, welfare, social and rehabilitative services. Not that would couldn't just take a small slice of the Defense budget and do that.

Actually a liberal would tell the clerk to keep Mr. Gates' $20. A conservative would return it to Gates and expecting a %$250,000/year job at Microsoft as a reward.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:43 am

....and OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH by the way. I didn't plagiarize. Sans the first line of my second post, but I guess it's OK considering WHO I plagiarized.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:08 pm

iaafan: I would be curious to see the support for the 1%/98%/10% figures. Those don't really make much sense in my mind, but I have no real way of working through them without seeing the full evidence.

In the ongoing debate between you two, I fall somewhere in the middle, so I can't really even join in on one side or the other.

Good original content, though. That's always good to see.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:13 pm

Although it does still crack me up when I hear "red" state people railing against the federal tax burden, but don't utter a peep when their own states load up on the pork at a disproportionate rate.

I'm assuming all of the true conservatives will be campaigning against Burns from here on out in light of his statements in this article:

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articl ... ontana.txt

I'm personally all in favor of MT getting federal money -- especially when it ends up in MSU's research budget. But then, I don't whine too much about paying taxes, except to do an obligatory mention of the anti-single guy with no kids and no house nature of the tax code. I can live with that, though, I guess.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Yes, those pcts are way off. In 1998 the upper 1.3% made 20% of all the money and paid 36% of the taxes. I'm just pissed.

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.

The Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting.

For a family of five, the US poverty line is at $21,180. The US has 32 million below the poverty line. Black people have a history of high poverty percentages in our nation, along with Hispanics. Differences in economic situations between races are rooted in a history of inequality and prejudice. Whatever the reasons, it is indisputable that one's economic situation is influenced by one's race. It is also indisputable that one's economic situation is influenced by one's economic situation.

Concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:05 pm

iaafan wrote:Yes, those pcts are way off. In 1998 the upper 1.3% made 20% of all the money and paid 36% of the taxes. I'm just pissed.

According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.

The Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting.

For a family of five, the US poverty line is at $21,180. The US has 32 million below the poverty line. Black people have a history of high poverty percentages in our nation, along with Hispanics. Differences in economic situations between races are rooted in a history of inequality and prejudice. Whatever the reasons, it is indisputable that one's economic situation is influenced by one's race. It is also indisputable that one's economic situation is influenced by one's economic situation.

Concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart. We support and help build social movements for greater equality.

I definitely agree with you in principle on your last two paragraphs. Trying to figure out how to level the playing field to provide opportunities for everyone while at the same time not socializing things to the point of removing incentives for individuals to achieve success... that's the tough part. The easy answer seems to be education, but that is, in itself, a huge task that nobody seems to have mastered quite yet.

I'm with you on a top level -- I just don't know what the perfect way is to achieve those ends, and so far nobody in D.C. has aced it yet, either. I'm all for paying taxes as long as they go towards programs that work. Right now (as always, as it will always be in anything that resembles a democracy) we also spend a lot of money on things that do little good to anyone except for a select few. But that's how people get re-elected.

I also agree with your criticisms of the Bush tax cuts, to some extent. Some were definitely stimulative, particuarly the business tax incentives for capital expenditures and extensions of NOL carryback periods. However, the dividend tax cuts (which probably explain a lot of the top-loading of the average tax cut towards the rich end of the spectrum) were not stimulative in nature. Wealthy people aren't going to spend that marginal free cash flow at the same rate as a moderate or low income family. I don't disagree with the philosophy behind the tax cut, but for them to advance it as part of a stimulus package was disingenuous at best. "Stimulus" was kind of an inside joke at tax seminars for a long time that was a euphemism for "Any tax break you have been wanting for a long time, but haven't had a good opportunity to get it through."