AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:55 pm

I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who's been reading some of the liberal blogs on the Internet.

What's clear to me is that there are great many Democrats who are now disgusted with the failure of 19 Democratic Senators to join with their 25 brethren to stop the cloture vote against the attempted filibuster of Judge Alito's confirmation vote by Sen. Kerry and friends.

I've even read that the Green Party might be a sanctuary for at least one of these disaffected Democrats.

Some say that there are really only 25 true Democrats in the Senate -- the 25 who voted against cloture.

Is the Democratic Party in a worst crisis now than ever before? Is this the fault of Kerry and friends? What are your opinions on this matter?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful comments.
What's fair is fair.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:57 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Is the Democratic Party in a worst crisis now than ever before?

ROTFL. Another fantasy by AerospaceFan.

No. The Democrats were in a bigger pickle in 1968, with the murder of RFK and the riots at the DNC in Chicago.

If anyone is sweating right now, it's the GOP, dude. The president's numbers are in the toilet. Two top leaders, Frist and Delay are either under indictment or being investigated for wrong-doing. The Abramoff scandal is on the horizon, and the war in Iraq isn't carrying the American people anymore.

But, again, you're entitled to your fantasies.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:16 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
No. The Democrats were in a bigger pickle in 1968, with the murder of RFK and the riots at the DNC in Chicago

Why would you say that the Democrats were in a pickle? Was there internal dissension within the party, or simply a sense of chaos from the assassination? If the latter, that's quite a different thing.

Moreover, consider this: The Democrats were in control of the Presidency, the courts, and the Congress in the late 1960's. Today, the Democratic Party controls none of these. Would you truly prefer the position of the Democratic Party today than thirty-odd years ago?
What's fair is fair.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6576
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:28 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who's been reading some of the liberal blogs on the Internet.

Well there are reports that DNC chairman Howard "the scream" Dean is in the hotseat over reports that the DNC is down to just 5 million in cash.

Also, rumours are floating that Harry Reid may be replaced from his senate post due to eveidence that his donation, of 60 million from tribal Casino owners came from clients of Jack Abramoff.
Made from jets!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:33 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
Why would you say that the Democrats were in a pickle? Was there internal dissension within the party, or simply a sense of chaos from the assassination? If the latter, that's quite a different thing.

The murder of JFK was just the preamble. The '68 DNC was surrounded by anti-war protests, that turned violent, and Mayor Daly sent the police in and basically clubbed the protesters. If I remember right, a few of the protesters were killed.

Inside the convention hall, there was a clash between those who wanted to vacate Vietnam, and those who wanted to continue the war. Humphrey was for the continuing LBJ's continuation of the floor. There was a lot of chaos on the floor.

Those events, as much as the third-party candidacy by George Wallace, helped elevate Nixon to the presidency. The specter of the turmoil within the building, along with the melee outside, really cast a pall over the Democrats that year. It was an image a lot of voters did not easily forget.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
Moreover, consider this: The Democrats were in control of the Presidency, the courts, and the Congress in the late 1960's.

But they were also "in charge", as it were, of what had become an unpopular war. Interesting correlation between then and now, isn't it?

The GOP wasn't exactly thrilled with having to bring Nixon back, after he lost the '60 presidential election, and then lost the California governor's race in '62. He wasn't seen as a winner. But, he promised to end the war-which he didn't, he expaned it-but he made that promise. Most of the country was ready to listen to anyone who said they would end the war (which is why I think RFK would have won the '68 election had he lived).

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
Would you truly prefer the position of the Democratic Party today than thirty-odd years ago?

Absolutely. Because it's almost exactly the same position the GOP was back in '68. The irony is historically and ironically delicious, as far as someone like myself, who is interested in history and current events.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:34 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
Harry Reid may be replaced from his senate post due to eveidence that his donation, of 60 million from tribal Casino owners came from clients of Jack Abramoff.

Harry Reid gave $60 million? Got $60 million? What?
International Homo of Mystery
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:40 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
The '68 DNC was surrounded by anti-war protests, that turned violent, and Mayor Daly sent the police in and basically clubbed the protesters. If I remember right, a few of the protesters were killed.

Point taken.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Most of the country was ready to listen to anyone who said they would end the war (which is why I think RFK would have won the '68 election had he lived).

Now, here, I'm not sure this supports your point. Had RFK won, he would simply have taken most of the Democratic Party in his direction. I doubt that he would have had to prevail over a conservative challenger in a subsequent election from within his own party, had he never been assassinated.

This is the party that did nominate, after all, Hubert Humphrey as Vice President under President Johnson, not to mention George McGovern for President in 1972. If the Dixiecrats had had much influence by the late 1960's on the national level, how did McGovern manage to get on the ticket?

[Edited 2006-01-31 05:46:12]
What's fair is fair.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:49 pm

Anyone who spent 10 minutes listening to Kennedy today make a total fool out of not only himself but the entire Democratic Party knows they are in trouble.

Yes, a vote will happen for Alito tomorrow, and strangely enough, as some here say, even if the MAJORITY of the people in this country are Democrats. And the MAJORITY of the people in this country are pro-abortion. And the MAJORITY of the people in this country support John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Cindy Sheehan, they continue to lose elections, and thus, lose the Supreme Court.

Yes, folks, tomorrow marks yet another nail in the coffin of today's Liberal Party with the turning of the court. Yet not only that, other great news continues to happen. The Democratic party, as stated above, is almost broke. Cindy Sheehan is considering a run against one the parties most well known. Abramoff is now liked to the Democratic leader of the house. Hell, even Brokeback Mountain didn't win a thing...

Yep.. Ted Kennedy today showed his ass.. and it looked remarkably like the Democratic Party in general.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3937
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:58 pm

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Yes, folks, tomorrow marks yet another nail in the coffin of today's Liberal Party with the turning of the court.

Whoa, thats news to me. Don't be a drama queen, ok?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Cindy Sheehan is considering a run against one the parties most well known.

??? What is your point? Cindy Sheehan doesn't even merit a mention in this discussion, and she will not be a factor if she runs.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Abramoff is now liked to the Democratic leader of the house.

Everyone knows the Abramoff scandal is unequally linked to Republicans. That said, its effect will be felt more on the outlook of Congress and Washington politics in general, and certainly will not prove to be a bad thing for the Democratic party. It will give incumbents in general some headaches.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Hell, even Brokeback Mountain didn't win a thing...

O........k.......
I guess this is sort of a semi-joke, but it doesn't make any sense anyway. Sure of the screen actors guild awards, but if the hollywood foreign press is any indication (which it usually is), brokeback will do well at the academy. Not that this is relevant in any way to this discussion.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:10 pm

how can there be a CIVIL war among uncivilised people? Big grin
I wish I were flying
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:52 pm

I've got an idea, replace Dean with Cindy Sheehan so that the party can get back to its roots!
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:05 pm

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
I've got an idea, replace Dean with Cindy Sheehan so that the party can get back to its roots!

Strangely, the Democratic Party is soon to face even more pressure from its left flank. There is, on C-SPAN, coverage of an impeachment movement against President Bush.

To be honest with you, I was so appalled at the notion that I quickly switched the channel. Impeachment? In a time of war?

I realize that this sounds awfully complacent. I should be ever vigilant against Presidential abuse of power, etc. The basis for this impeachment movement, by appearances, is that the President allegedly "lied" to get us into the Iraq war. And if so, then we're deep into Cindy Sheehan territory, a.k.a. the land of the weeping willies, darkness at noon, etc., etc., and so forth.

Will impeachment be the next wedge issue driven into the Democratic Party?

Only Howard Dean knows for sure. Or not.
What's fair is fair.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:17 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 11):
There is, on C-SPAN, coverage of an impeachment movement against President Bush.

 rotfl 

Let me guess . . . . Kerry? Kennedy? Reid? Pelosi?

The sound - and I mean SOUND defeat of the uber-partisan attempt by Kerry and his pal Kennedy to derail Judge Alito's confirmation might cause some serious rumbles in the Senate. I was disappointed to see Evan Bayh voting in favor of the fillibuster - but hey - he might have White House eyes in '08 and he doesn't want to piss off the extremists that will have to help get him nominated. Namely . . . Kerry? Kennedy? Reid? Pelosi? I'd toss Clinton's name in there too, except I don't view her as an extremist.

So - what's going on in the Democratic Party?

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Anyone who spent 10 minutes listening to Kennedy today make a total fool out of not only himself but the entire Democratic Party knows they are in trouble.

After that diatribe at the Alito hearings, anynoe that still thinks Teddy Kennedy is worth a tinker's dam has a serious problem. He's old, he's worn out, he's passe'. But, go ahead Massechusetts, send him (and Kerry) back to the Senate again . . . the entertainment is excellent.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:18 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 11):
There is, on C-SPAN, coverage of an impeachment movement against President Bush.

I feel that I'm a hardcore conservative and I don't have any problem with an investigation of the President. However, the investigation has to be for the right thing. This BS about him lying about WMD's even if true is not an impeachable offense. Lying in and of itself is not a crime, therefore the "high crimes and misdemeanors" requirement of the Constitution is not met.

But, the whole NSA spying mess might be. We live in a constitutional republic and congress has the obligation to investigate claims that the President broke the law. Personally, I think that this is a very grey area but the questions should be asked because nobody is above the law. If a statute made spying on citizens without a search warrant illegal and the president ordered that action without a sufficient legal basis, then he broke the law. From what I've read he's got a position to take that his actions had a legal basis.

Let's have the debate.

I think too often we allow ourselves to believe that dissent weakens our country. I'm of the school of thought that the opposite is true. Opposing ideas need to be debated and tested to see which ones can survive scrutiny. I think that the current behavior of the US Senate is an example of how a tradition of debate over ideas has been replaced by political grandstanding an has resulted in a weaker institution.

IMO, if democrats opposed Alito, then what they should have done is had a real debate about his opinions, not two days of opening statements where everyone lectured the judge in order to get their 30 second sound bite for the evening news. They should have picked 5 or 6 opinions he had written and really entered into a back and forth over what principles these opinions expressed.

If a nominee to the US Supreme Court can't have his opinions stand the scrutiny of the US Senate, well then may be he shouldn't be on the court. But our senators failed us because they didn't really care what his opinions said.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:26 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Some say that there are really only 25 true Democrats in the Senate -- the 25 who voted against cloture.

I would say that the left-wing loons, those voting against cloture, are NOT the true democrats. The true democrats are much more moderate and willing to work things out in a civilized manner. These guys are ideologues who want everything their way, or nothing at all. Same mentality as Al Qaeda, if you think about it, although thankfully they have not started blowing themselves up in congress. Maybe Michael Moore should volunteer... Imagine the blubber going all over the place.

To be fair, the right has its share of ideologues, but they don't seem to be as virolent as the ones on the left. Of course that is just my perspective.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
Anyone who spent 10 minutes listening to Kennedy today make a total fool out of not only himself but the entire Democratic Party knows they are in trouble.

 checkmark 

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 8):
Everyone knows the Abramoff scandal is unequally linked to Republicans.

That's right, but the more loony democrats have again managed to shoot themselves in the foot over this scandal, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (or at the very least diminishing the victory greatly.

Howard Dean and other democrats have been going around saying that "the Abramoff scandal is a 100% republican scandal, and that Abramoff did not give a dime to the democrats". And many people believe them, just out of sheer repetition. But it is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

The fact is that the organization for which Abramoff worked gave about 35% of the money to Democrats, and 65% to Republicans. But Abramoff's PERSONAL donations were 100% to republicans. Whenever Dean or others are asked to explain their statements, they say that they are talking about Abramoff's personal contributions.

The problem is 1) that the explaination is rarely if ever included in the interview, the original soundbyte is much more fun for the media, and 2) Abramoff's personal donations are not in question, as far as I know. They were perfectly legal. It was the organization's donations that are under the spotlight, and they included democrats.

Whenever the democrats come out knowingly distorting facts, it turns people off. Ironically, they are doing the exact same thing as they accused Bush of doing before the Iraq war. The difference is that 3 years later nobody has been able to show any evidence that Bush did lie, and in fact the evidence seems to point that he was being honest. But then the democrats get caught trying to pull a fast one of their own, and so incompetantly as well.

I say the Dems have a serious problem. They need to lose the ideological left side of the party (the Moore, Kennedy, Sheehan section) in order to get some credibility back. But at the same time they have to be careful to maintain critical mass so that they have the numbers to challenge the Republicans, which they cannot do if the wacky third of their members leave.

Frankly, the Dems are in a serious bind, and I don't know how they can get out.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:32 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
So - what's going on in the Democratic Party?

Only Shiva may know. This particular dance of destruction has gone on for quite a while, I reckon.

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
But, the whole NSA spying mess might be

Perhaps, and perhaps not. But I'm much more practical: To not only change one's horse in mid-battle, but figuratively unholster the Constitutional gun and aim squarely between its eyes, for "principle", would seem rather the wrong thing to do.

I'm all for principle, but oftentimes, principle works best when there is a nation that exists in which it can be contemplated.

In other words, were we not at war, the NSA measures would not be tolerated. But I'm of the school that says that the President is, in fact, entitled to push the Constitutional limits during times of war. Lincoln, after all, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. And Truman, years after the end of World War II, attempted to nationalize the steel mills.

Neither were impeached, even though both actions were unconstitutional.

America can be defeated in this war against terror, but only if we defeat ourselves. And the surest way to defeat is to pretend that we can afford it in the name of gazing intently deep into our collective navel.

[Edited 2006-01-31 11:42:59]
What's fair is fair.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:53 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
I say the Dems have a serious problem. They need to lose the ideological left side of the party (the Moore, Kennedy, Sheehan section) in order to get some credibility back.

The funny thing, to me, is that it's actually the ideological left that has historically appealed to "the masses" in the Democratic Party. In other words, FDR and LBJ found it politically profitable to expand government at the expense of the rich in the name of helping those who were disadvantaged.

But FDR and LBJ were men of a different era. Even JFK, LBJ's immediate predecessor, had begun to embark upon a trajectory more intent on advancing an abstract national interest than the more common redistributivist approach. Apollo was the brainchild of a man whose vision encompassed more than our affairs here on Earth.

Compare them, shall we, with the left of today, whose Vietnam protest-style anachronisms stand out almost as starkly as the judicial hypocrisy of its two Senators from Massachusetts. Or compare the sheer machismo of nation-building, to say nothing of stairways to heaven, to the abortion-fixated left of NARAL and NOW, or the sexual politics of gay marriage proponents. It may be said, with humor, that in a mere four decades, the Democratic Party has gone from exploring to exfoliating.

This being so, to use their own parlance, it may be time for a complete makeover.

[Edited 2006-01-31 11:58:51]
What's fair is fair.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12360
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:34 pm

There is a terrible division within the Democratic Party today. Too much of the party is controlled by those whom are more interested in a particular view of unpopular issues, especially as to Abortion, Affirmative Action, Gay rights/marriage, Blacks and other minority people, attitudes toward those illegally in the USA, use of our military, expanding government and taxing higher to pay for it. This alienates the huge center of White Male Middle Class voters and encourages them to vote Republican, even if it isn't in their real economic interest. Republicans also have played into those emotional issues, bypassing the real economic interests of most Americans that most cannot understand the Government's part in it.
Perhaps the best thing would be for the Social left extremist to spin off into their own party and return the Democratic party to a party of the working class, and focusing on the issues of them.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:43 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
Howard Dean and other democrats have been going around saying that "the Abramoff scandal is a 100% republican scandal, and that Abramoff did not give a dime to the democrats". And many people believe them, just out of sheer repetition. But it is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

The fact is that the organization for which Abramoff worked gave about 35% of the money to Democrats, and 65% to Republicans. But Abramoff's PERSONAL donations were 100% to republicans. Whenever Dean or others are asked to explain their statements, they say that they are talking about Abramoff's personal contributions.

The problem is 1) that the explaination is rarely if ever included in the interview, the original soundbyte is much more fun for the media, and 2) Abramoff's personal donations are not in question, as far as I know. They were perfectly legal. It was the organization's donations that are under the spotlight, and they included democrats.

That just about sums it up, well said......
NO URLS in signature
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:57 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16):
It may be said, with humor, that in a mere four decades, the Democratic Party has gone from exploring to exfoliating

And it may be said, with humor, that in a mere three decades, the Republican Party is all going back to jail.
International Homo of Mystery
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:01 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Is the Democratic Party in a worst crisis now than ever before? Is this the fault of Kerry and friends? What are your opinions on this matter?

No, this is not the worst crisis for the Democratic Party. No, it is not the fault of Kerry.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has strayed. The Democratic Party used to be the party of the people, the party of the common man. Now they are the exact same as the Republicans and have been for a while. Everyone is bought and paid for and the people are shafted. I firmly believe there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans, but there are more Republican voters than there are Democratic voters. If you preach almost the exact same message as your opponent, there is no reason to get off one's butt and vote for that person. Both parties have shifted noticeably to the right: the Republican Party embodied by the politicians in DC that Richard Nixon is too left wing for them now, and the Democratic Party has moved to the ground the Republican Party used to occupy. If you look at the basic platforms of the two parties, they have mostly the same ideas, they just differ on how they want to implement the plans.

If the gods had meant for us to vote, they would have given us candidates. Vote Kinky for Governor!

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:24 pm

Quoting Texan (Reply 20):
The problem is that the Democratic Party has strayed. The Democratic Party used to be the party of the people, the party of the common man. Now they are the exact same as the Republicans and have been for a while. Everyone is bought and paid for and the people are shafted.

 checkmark 

Quoting Texan (Reply 20):
Both parties have shifted noticeably to the right:

I think the opposite. Both parties have moved sharply to the left.

- One of the basic principles of conservatism is small government. Neither party now even pretends to support that concept. That's a shift left.

- 30 years ago nobody would have dreamed of prayer in school or having a christian cross in a public park or even around a teacher's neck being a symptom of government coersion. That's a shift left.

- Nobody questions anymore the moral validity of the government being the principle guarantor of people's retirements and medical care. Shift left.

There are tons more examples.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
But, again, you're entitled to your fantasies.

Evidently some at the Washington Post share Aerospace's fantasies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/01/30/AR2006013001319.html

Quote:
Tasting Victory, Liberals Instead Have a Food Fight

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A02

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds congressional Democrats in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting President Bush and Republican lawmakers on Iraq, the economy, health care, immigration, ethics and more.

All of which can mean only one thing: It is time for the Democrats to eat their own.

Right on cue, liberal activists including Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark gathered yesterday at the Busboys & Poets restaurant and bookshop at 14th and V streets NW for what they billed as a forum on "The Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." But the participants, while charging the administration with "crimes against humanity," a "war of aggression" and even "the supreme international crime," inevitably turned their wrath on congressional Democrats, whom they regarded as a bunch of wimps.

I tend to agree with you, though - the democrats were in much worse shape in 1968.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:39 pm

Okay, this is getting really bizarre:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Is the Democratic Party in a worst crisis now than ever before?



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
Evidently some at the Washington Post share Aerospace's fantasies.



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
The new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds congressional Democrats in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting President Bush and Republican lawmakers on Iraq, the economy, health care, immigration, ethics and more.

So what is it group? If you can't even agree upon if the Dems are in their worst crisis or not in under 25 posts, I dunno ... seems like the WaPo got it right in their opening paragraph, then went on a Cindy Sheehan hate-fest. Like she represents much in politics at the moment.
International Homo of Mystery
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:50 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23):
So what is it group? If you can't even agree upon if the Dems are in their worst crisis or not in under 25 posts,

That's the whole point, Westy. With all the republican screwups in Iraq, scandals in congress, Katrina screwups, etc. etc., the democrats ARE perfectly placed to take over the country. They SHOULD be able to. But the democratic party is so screwed up itself that it is doubtful that they can get their collective fingers out of each others' asses long enough to do what has to be done in order to sieze the opportunity. They are grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory (so far, anyway)
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:52 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
the democratic party is so screwed up itself that it is doubtful that they can get their collective fingers out of each others' asses long enough to do what has to be done in order to sieze the opportunity.

The Republicans hold both houses of Congress, the White House, and the next set of elections isn't until November. Everytime the Dems take a stand, everyone runs around calling them a bunch of sore losers.

What exactly did you want the Dems to do currently?
International Homo of Mystery
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:59 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 25):
What exactly did you want the Dems to do currently?

1) Stop looking in the past ("Bush lied") and start looking forward ("This is what we what to do"). The democrats appear to be driving using only the rear-view mirrors.

2) Stop being so ideological. Feinstein showed her colors when she stated that she had a litmus test for the supreme court - abortion. That is out of the question.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:02 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
Stop looking in the past ("Bush lied")

They have. They've moved right along to "Bush broke the law".

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
Feinstein showed her colors when she stated that she had a litmus test for the supreme court - abortion.

There are similar comparisons that can be made for the actions of those in the Republican party.

Don't see anything here worthwhile.
International Homo of Mystery
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:29 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
I think the opposite. Both parties have moved sharply to the left.

Well, economically the "Conservatives" in Congress have moved to god knows where, following the same pattern as Reagan and Bush I. It has been a long term change that only seems like a move to the left in the sense that money is being spent and the left are (sometimes rightly) accused of being free spenders. But the ideas behind the spending are different, which is why I referred to it as a movement to the right. If we look at where the money is being spent and where government waste is highest, it has shifted from programs that people on the "left" support to programs the people on the "right" support. Either way, both parties spend recklessly, not going to disagree with you there.

Socially, in my opinion, the parties have also shifted to the right. Richard Nixon floated a comprehensive health care plan in the 1970s. Dwight Eisenhower raised taxes to their highest level ever. The issue of religion in schools did not really take fire until the 1980s when the idea started floating around in Congress. Well, at least on a large political scale (ignoring the Scopes trial period). Nixon was not an ardent environmentalist, but he was still more in tune with environmental needs than Reagan or the Bushes. The left has moved closer to where the right was socially, except without that crazy silver standard stuff  Smile

Well, this has rambled on for too long and off topic. Sorry about that.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
That's the whole point, Westy. With all the republican screwups in Iraq, scandals in congress, Katrina screwups, etc. etc., the democrats ARE perfectly placed to take over the country. They SHOULD be able to. But the democratic party is so screwed up itself that it is doubtful that they can get their collective fingers out of each others' asses long enough to do what has to be done in order to sieze the opportunity. They are grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory (so far, anyway)

I agree. Kennedy and Kerry's absolutely USELESS fight last night to prolong the debate on Alito was incredibly stupid, and will be used against democratic candidates in the upcoming 06 elections. While I never vote party line - I vote for the candidate, not his or her party - many people who don't belong to either party (like me) look at the public face of both parties when making their decisions. And right now, while the republican face is lack of competency, the democratic face is the inmates are running the asylum.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 25):
What exactly did you want the Dems to do currently?

Stop the partisan fights over nominees. Demonstrate that the party is in control of the moderates instead of the left wing fringe. Start telling me what the party stands for and will accomplish if they are given the keys to the castle, and how they intend to do it, instead of just telling me how Bush and the GOP are screwing things up.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 11):
To be honest with you, I was so appalled at the notion that I quickly switched the channel. Impeachment? In a time of war?

Bush isn't God; he isn't the whole country; he's one man, and the war will go on whether he is there or not. He isn't Omnipotent. Chill out.

Besides, I'd rather have Bush there than that scumbag Cheney. If you want to impeach someone, impeach the real power in this administration, and that's Cheney. God help the nation if he became President.

As for GuitrThree's comments, it's just the ramblings of someone with delusions of grandeur.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
Feinstein showed her colors when she stated that she had a litmus test for the supreme court - abortion.

There are similar comparisons that can be made for the actions of those in the Republican party.

Yes, like who can and cannot get married. And if they don't get their way, they go and try for a Constitutional Ameindment nationalizing discrimination. So, it's the Pot calling the kettle black.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:52 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30):
Yes, like who can and cannot get married. And if they don't get their way, they go and try for a Constitutional Ameindment nationalizing discrimination. So, it's the Pot calling the kettle black.

We already have a constitutional amendment which nationalizes discrimination. The 14th. That amendment doesn't say you can't discriminate, it says that if you do discriminate you must have a reason for doing so. Depending on the type of discrimination, the reason can be a relatively easy burden for the government to meet (age discrimination) or a very hard burden for the government to meet (race).

So instead of ranting, why don't we analyze what the Constitution does and doesn't allow. A little bit of education will go a long way.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:17 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 31):
We already have a constitutional amendment which nationalizes discrimination. The 14th. That amendment doesn't say you can't discriminate, it says that if you do discriminate you must have a reason for doing so.

Fair enough. Then why do you need an amendment saying that certain Americans aren't as equal as others, Pope? Is this amendment SO NECESSARY to the preservation of the Republic? I don't think it is? It's a hate-driven, ignorant-driven thing, nothing else. I just don't see the need for such an amendment.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:22 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 32):
Fair enough. Then why do you need an amendment saying that certain Americans aren't as equal as others, Pope? Is this amendment SO NECESSARY to the preservation of the Republic? I don't think it is? It's a hate-driven, ignorant-driven thing, nothing else. I just don't see the need for such an amendment.

Wait wait wait. I'm not for the anti-marriage amendment at all. In fact, in separate posts I've come out in complete opposition to it. To me that's just one more example of the federal government run out of control.

IMO I believe that the right to gay civil marriage is already protected by the 5th and 14th amendments.

I'm just saying that we need to be careful how we pick our words because there is no unqualified protection against discrimination of any sort in our Constitution.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:24 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
Stop the partisan fights over nominees.

I agree with you there, and as I've stated before, this country has become paralyzed over the abortion issue, and will continue to be from both the left and right until someone, somewhere, sorts out how the constitution should be interpreted on privacy issues.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:28 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 34):
I agree with you there, and as I've stated before, this country has become paralyzed over the abortion issue, and will continue to be from both the left and right until someone, somewhere, sorts out how the constitution should be interpreted on privacy issues.

That's not entirely correct, in my opinion. It is the Democrats who have become paralyzed by the abortion issue -- using it as the litmus test for the most recent judicial nominee that previously they disclaimed should be the case.

The Republicans are to a much lesser extent beholden to anti-abortion forces. Republicans are more interested in matters of economics than of the lives of fetuses, and you can certain see this from the fact that there exists a prominent pro-choice Republican -- Sen. Specter, who chaired the Judiciary Committee -- and yet no equivalent pro-life Democrat who has made his or her mark on the national scene.
What's fair is fair.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 35):
It is the Democrats who have become paralyzed by the abortion issue -- using it as the litmus test for the most recent judicial nominee that previously they disclaimed should be the case.



Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 35):
The Republicans are to a much lesser extent beholden to anti-abortion forces.

Sir, put down the bottle. Two words: Harriet Miers. The uproar within the Republican party was even louder than from the Democrats over just this issue.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:32 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 33):
Wait wait wait. I'm not for the anti-marriage amendment at all. In fact, in separate posts I've come out in complete opposition to it. To me that's just one more example of the federal government run out of control.

I just read that on that other post, Pope, and I think you're dead on in what you said there. My apology for jumping the gun on that one.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:35 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 36):
Sir, put down the bottle. Two words: Harriet Miers. The uproar within the Republican party was even louder than from the Democrats over just this issue.

The uproar within the Republican Party over Harriet Miers was unusual, and not entirely framed within the terms you imply. Miers was simply not in the mold of Roberts.

In fact, I publicly stated on a completely unrelated website that the Republicans' argument against Miers was weak, and that I supported Miers and believed that she should be appointed and confirmed to the Court. I could be mistaken, but at no point, other than on the part of evangelicals within it, did the party say that Miers could not be confirmed because of her position on Roe. Nor could it, since Miers was actively against the practice of abortion!

Of greater interest to me is why you have not commented on the issue of the absence of prominent pro-life Democrats on the national scene, as if I am incorrect in this characterization, I would like to know.
What's fair is fair.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 38):
Miers was simply not in the mold of Roberts.

The process brought us Miers. IMO that selection was made in order to present a candidate that had no record to critize instead of the best possible choice.

If the parties are going to attack anyone with a record, combing over it with a fine tooth comb for anything that can be used against them, well then we're going to get more Miers and less experienced jurists.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:39 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 38):
The uproar within the Republican Party over Harriet Miers was unusual

We are talking about the same Republicans as in the ones in the United States of America, correct?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 38):
Of greater interest to me is why you have not commented on the issue of the absence of prominent pro-life Democrats on the national scene

I'm curious where this was a question in this thread. Merely spouting to dead air on topics I make up as I go along isn't my thing.
International Homo of Mystery
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 39):
If the parties are going to attack anyone with a record, combing over it with a fine tooth comb for anything that can be used against them, well then we're going to get more Miers and less experienced jurists.

I agree with you. It was polemicists like Ann Coulter who led the most public charge against Miers, and Coulter essentially "ratted her out" on the lack of judicial experience.

Miers, a lawyer of national renown and White House Counsel, was seen as second rate by some because she had never held the position of judge. I found, and find, Coulter's arguments in this regard, as I do many of her other positions, unpersuasive.

Nevertheless, from my point of view, all's well that ends well. Probability indicates that Samuel Alito, as it turns out, will be and is a better, and more solid, Justice than Miers might have been.

[Edited 2006-01-31 18:46:13]
What's fair is fair.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
They have. They've moved right along to "Bush broke the law".

Still looking at the past. Not that they should not do it at all, but that is all they seem to do.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 26):
Feinstein showed her colors when she stated that she had a litmus test for the supreme court - abortion.

There are similar comparisons that can be made for the actions of those in the Republican party.

Yes, like who can and cannot get married.

I don't remember any republicans on the comittee grilling him over the issue, nor did anyone say that he would vote against a nominee that might support "gay rights" - which I think is a misnomer anyway.

The point is that a judge's personal views are supposed to be completely irrelevant. The judge is supposed to rule according to the law, even if he disagrees with the law. This is what seperates a proper judge from an activist judge, who will twist the law to suit what he wants it to say, if he can.

A judge can believe in polygamy, free love, and the elimination of the welfare state, for all I care. As long as he has a track history of not being an activist, that's fine with me.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30):
And if they don't get their way, they go and try for a Constitutional Ameindment nationalizing discrimination.

As you are supposed to do. If you want to make a basic change in the way the country is run, you gather the votes to make the amendment and/or change the law. You don't find some activist judge to say that blue is now yellow.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
If we look at where the money is being spent and where government waste is highest, it has shifted from programs that people on the "left" support to programs the people on the "right" support.

I disagree. Check out the historical federal budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

In 1960, military spending amounted to 52.2% of the federal budget, declining to 42% in 1970, 22.7% in 1980, 23.9% in 1990, 16.5% in 2000. in 2005 it was 18%, in spite of a very costly war.

In terms of GDP, which I believe is much more relevant, the corresponding numbers are 9.3%, 8.1%, 4.9%, 5.2%, 3.0%, and and 3.8% in 2005.

Social Security and other entitlements have gone from 5.1% of GDP in 1960 to 13% last year. BTW, it was 11.5% in 2000, Clinton's last year.

Quoting Texan (Reply 28):
Socially, in my opinion, the parties have also shifted to the right. Richard Nixon floated a comprehensive health care plan in the 1970s. Dwight Eisenhower raised taxes to their highest level ever. The issue of religion in schools did not really take fire until the 1980s when the idea started floating around in Congress.

Eisenhower raised taxes mainly to pay for the cold war. But even then, total government revenue (taxes) was 17.9% of GDP in 1960, and is now 16.8%. Taxes were 20.9% in 2000. You think that Clinton got a surplus due to good management? Hell no - he raised taxes to its highest level since 1943!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
And right now, while the republican face is lack of competency, the democratic face is the inmates are running the asylum.

 checkmark 
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 27):They have. They've moved right along to "Bush broke the law".

Still looking at the past. Not that they should not do it at all, but that is all they seem to do.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/02/news/web.0102bush.php

"Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has already pledged to make hearings into the program one of his highest priorities."

Not even Sen. Arlen Specter is happy about it ... or are you calling him a rear-view mirror Democrat too?
International Homo of Mystery
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
Not even Sen. Arlen Specter is happy about it ... or are you calling him a rear-view mirror Democrat too?

Let me repeat: Not that they should not do it at all, but that is all they seem to do.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:41 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 44):
Let me repeat: Not that they should not do it at all, but that is all they seem to do.

Right you are. Democrats should align themselves with these forward-thinking Republicans.  Wink

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/politics/29health.html

"The White House has indicated that Mr. Bush will propose tax deductions for out-of-pocket medical expenses, rules to encourage the use of health savings accounts and incentives for small businesses across the country to band together and buy health insurance, exempt from state regulation."

Wasn't this Kerry's plan to create voluntary purchase pools? Who would have thought?
International Homo of Mystery
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 45):
Wasn't this Kerry's plan to create voluntary purchase pools?

Really? I never heard him say that. All I heard from him was Bush-bashing and vague ideas like "work together with our allies".

And that is his fault too. He has media consultants, and they should have told him that media looks for sound bytes, and attacks make good sound bytes. If he concentrated on his program, maybe things would have been different.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:09 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
You think that Clinton got a surplus due to good management? Hell no - he raised taxes to its highest level since 1943!



Quote:
Other economic fundamentals such as low inflation and low interest rates, an improved international picture with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new information technologies led to a strong economic performance throughout the 1990s. This, in turn, led to an extraordinary increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20.8 percent in 2000.

Source: U.S. Treasury Department

While income tax rates did rise slightly during Clinton's tenure, he also passed a tax cut in 1997 which reduced tax rates by a decent amount.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 42):
But even then, total government revenue (taxes) was 17.9% of GDP in 1960, and is now 16.8%.

The maximum income tax rate in 1954 and through Ike's time was 87%! Surely you are not suggesting that taxes were higher under Clinton, are you? The reason tax revenue in the mid 1990s equaled 20.8% of GDP was because of lower prices being of goods being available elsewhere in the world, leading to decreased purchasing of domestic goods by foreign countries. In other words, we were receiving less money from other sources. The result is that while the tax rate remained basically the same, the decreased amount of incoming money made taxes become a greater percentage of GDP. When the price of US goods decreases and our income from trade is higher, our percentage of GDP from taxes is lower.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 46):
Really? I never heard him say that

Okay, now I have to borrow a symbol from our friend in Anchorage.  redflag 

Just Google "Kerry" and "health care". Honestly, such short memories.
International Homo of Mystery
 
JetJock22
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: Civil War Within Democratic Party?

Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting Texan (Reply 20):
I firmly believe there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans

That's a ballsy call, especially being from Texas. Kudos to that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BartSimpson, DocLightning, kngkyle and 33 guests