 |
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:33
|
|
In my opinion, Dean should go Left and stay there.
In talking to my wife yesterday I said that the Democrats are in danger of becoming akin to 1970s-era Republicans - politicians who say "Me too, but not as much." It isn't until the Repubs moved right (Reagan-Gingrich) that a truly discernable difference between the two parties became apparent for the first time since the '50s. Now the Democrats have to go through the same painful process... and I'd prefer it to be sooner rather than later.
Why? Because difference of opinion is good, because change is good, and a world where everybody kinda, sorta, holds the same opinion is a world of stagnation and paralyzation, a place where boldness recedes and solutions are not based upon ideas but upon friendships.
The worst thing that can happen to the Democratic primary is for Lieberman (or another Bush-lite) candidate to win. And it won't begin to be rejuvinated until they decide to re-energize their base and stop being Conservative-Lite, as the Repubs did in the 80s/early 90s when they decided to be (or claim to be) truly "conservative" rather than Liberal-Lite.
However, I don't think that Dean will win the election if he follows the above strategy, but it can be something the Dems can build on, rather than sitting around saying "What went wrong? Why, we're just not as popular as those other guys - let's act even more like them!" 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
JohnT, those were two of the more insightful posts I've read in a while, especially on this subject. And certainly coming from a non-liberal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JohnT
And the man did wonders for the Repubs and squat for the Dems. I think this, in terms of the Democratic Party at least, that Bill Clinton is the perfect example of what's wrong with them: His "me too, but not as much" conservatism has led the Dems to believe that is the way to go.... unfortunately, they don't have the charm or the political skill to pull it off. And while Bill Clinton might've been good for Bill Clinton, he hasn't really been good for the Democratic Party precisely for the reason I articulated above. |
I certainly wouldn't argue. Frankly, I think Clinton's worst legacy wrt the Democrats is his crony Terry McAuliffe running the DNC. He's a complete knee-biter, and should have been run out on a rail after the 2002 midterm elections.
That, and the Clintons' certain behind-the-scenes operating to thwart Dean, are two of the biggest problems with the Dems right now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I think the only problem for Bush now is unemployment levels. He has to get that turned around but if he does, he is unbeatable. Landslide.
Looking ahead I'll peg Edwards as a possible VP nominee and Mrs. Clinton's main opponent for the White House next time round.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
"Crushes"?
Not likely. I think he has a good chance to win, roughly 50/50, but no way anybody gets crushed in November--barring a last-minute revealation of cannibalism and virgin sacrifice.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
I might take that bet too; when you say "crush", what are we talking about here? What's your point spread? Is it electoral votes or popular votes?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
I'll take Bush + 5 percentage points for $20.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|