08-02-2005 09:02									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But he's not far left. What he is is militant, which most people mistake for extremism. Kerry was to the left of Dean, but because he's mild mannered, he seemed more centrist.

Well, yes. He is not a communist if that is what you mean but you must agree that he cannot win a national election, which is my point. Why don't the Democrats choose a man like Joeseph Liberman? I might even consider voting for him.

	08-02-2005 09:04									#32
	Tired of ads?

FYI, Kerry's considerably more liberal than Dean.

	08-02-2005 09:04									#33
	Re: Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Do the Democrats ever learn anything?

I am afraid we must lose a few more before we kick out the idiots.

	08-02-2005 09:06									#34
	Re: Re: Howard Dean new Democrat party chairman Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I am afraid we must lose a few more before we kick out the idiots.

The only idiots in the Democratic party are the ones who think the party should define itself as a kinder, gentler GOP. Dean, thankfully, is not one of those.

	08-02-2005 09:07									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes, you are right. Clinton was an election losing idiot. Extremism is so much better.

	08-02-2005 09:10									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Just curious Lincoln, what aspects of Dean's record do you believe make him a "far left nut case" or a "far left radical?"

He did not support the troops during war time. If that is his view then good for him but he will not be a national leader with that position. I guess he forgot all the American flags after 9/11. If he has the guts to stand for unpopular issues then he is to be commended but he will drag the Democrat party out of relevance to the great majority of Americans. That is just the way it is. If he want to be another Ralph Nader of Pat Buchanan then good for him but the Democrat party is nuts for choosing him to lead their party.

	08-02-2005 09:10									#37
	Tired of ads?

Clinton lost Congress in a landslide.

	08-02-2005 09:11									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: He did not support the troops during war time.

What the hell does that mean?

	08-02-2005 09:12									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln He did not support the troops during war time.

What do you define as supporting the troops?

EDIT: We posted that question almost simultaneously, Ramo.

	08-02-2005 09:12									#40
	Inflate your Upload Space

He wanted to bring them home while sugesting their work was for nothing and they died in vain.

	08-02-2005 09:17									#41
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln He wanted to bring them home while sugesting their work was for nothing and they died in vain.

Isn't that an oversimplification? As I recall, Dean was against Iraq, not Afghanistan.

	08-02-2005 09:21									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And Dean wanted to keep the troops there after the invasion took place, and in fact supported having more troops than Bush has, in Iraq. He had a very similar position to Kerry, in fact.

	08-02-2005 09:24									#43
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Yes, you are right. Clinton was an election losing idiot. Extremism is so much better.

Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson.

But beyond that, the Dems real problem is that they -- moderates and liberals alike -- only define themselves in terms of the GOP. When the GOP is doing well, the Dems runs as "nicer than the GOP"; when the GOP is screwing up, they run as "not the GOP." But LBJ was probably the last Dem who actually ran as a Democrat, instead of a not-Republican. The Dems can't win if they won't define themselves. Dean gets that. Too few other Dems do.

	08-02-2005 09:42									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

I remember him wanting to bring them home after the invasion. That's one thing that impressed me. I beleive the troops cause the problems over there.

	08-02-2005 09:54									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson.

No, it's that they've been losing consistently except for him.

Hello, McFly! You have to get people to vote for you, a majority of them, if you want to win elections. You can hold all the crustless-sandwhich, tea and knitting meetings that you want. You will lose until you appeal to the majority of the electorate.

Ironically, I find myself a Tory who is similarly shut out of power where I am from by a bunch of leaders who don't seem to be able to rent a clue about what it takes to get elected to power.

	08-02-2005 10:11									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I used to think Dean was a far left nutcase. But I may have been listening to too much Bill O'Reilly a the time.

I actually like the guy now.

	08-02-2005 10:19									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Clinton was Clinton -- best campaigner to ever run for president. And even he would have lost if Perot hadn't split the GOP vote. Plus, as Ramo points out, the Dems under Clinton finally completely lost control of Congress, and never got it back. The only lesson to be drawn from Clinton is that teh Dems win when they run Clinton. It's not much of a lesson. But beyond that, the Dems real problem is that they -- moderates and liberals alike -- only define themselves in terms of the GOP. When the GOP is doing well, the Dems runs as "nicer than the GOP"; when the GOP is screwing up, they run as "not the GOP." But LBJ was probably the last Dem who actually ran as a Democrat, instead of a not-Republican. The Dems can't win if they won't define themselves. Dean gets that. Too few other Dems do.

This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up.
My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult?
This language came about because of Republican infrastructure. For the past thirty years, the Republicans have been funding think tanks, and conducting long-term research so that they could dominate the political scene. They have been conducting a unified approach, with weekly meetings between the important think tanks, and have been incorporating the media into their strategy in a fashion that the Democrats have not been emulating. 80% of tv pundits come out of conservative think tanks.
Some people have been asking, "how could the Democrats have lost the last election?" I think that its incredible that we did as well as we did.
So, in response to the topic, moving to the center is pointless. They made liberal into a dirty word, and we are currently responding by calling ourselves progressives. But how long is it going to be before "progressive" becomes just as dirty as liberal is now? Howard Dean, in fact, is the perfect example. He has an A+ rating from the NRA, is a supporter of states over the federal bureaucracy, and probably wouldn't have signed the civil union bill if he was not forced to. He is also a fiscal moderate. And yet people like Lincoln call him a crazy left-wing nutcase. Now, I'd like to just say that Lincoln is an idiot who wouldn't recognize reality if it walked up to him and was like, "yo, i'm reality, go make me a sandwich," but that would be kidding myself. Of course Lincoln believes that. The Republicans just have such an infrastructure/media advantage that they can, right now, define the language.
Really, our only option is to follow suit. We know what the Republicans have done, but right now, there is only one left-wing think-tank actually dealing with the issues of framing the debate, as opposed to a host of conservative groups. In the strictest sense, our positions do not matter, so much as how we frame them, and if our party is to have any success in the future, we will work on the language and media-savviness on a level that we have not yet begun to consider.

	08-02-2005 10:20									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I used to think Dean was a far left nutcase. But I may have been listening to too much Bill O'Reilly a the time. I actually like the guy now.

Yes, Diss, but you change your mind like some people change their shorts.

Not saying the guy is a far left nut bar, I think the scream was a very unfair adventure in media manipulation, just saying that you have the steadfastness of a limp noodle.

	08-02-2005 10:24									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Admiral This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up. My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult? This language came about because of Republican infrastructure.

Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

	08-02-2005 10:32									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

The conservative platform is not a nice platform. It is a platform of greed, of bigotry, and of short-sightedness. The reason that so many people embrace it is because they are kept ignorant about the condition of the world, and the platform itself. For the first, remember how many Bush supporters believe in the connection between Saddam and al Qaida, and the existence of WMD in Iraq, and the like. For the second, the Republicans deliberately mislead. For instance, the "healthy forests" bill allows for basically unhindered clear-cutting by logging companies. The "clear skies act" lowers emissions standards for corporations. But, Bush can say, "I passed the clear skies act," and people will think that he is environmentally friendly. If the two platforms were laid out, side by side, with neutral language, and no posturing on the part of the Republicans, the majority would not agree with that party.

	08-02-2005 10:38									#51
	Suffering from ads?

Blah, blah, blah. And they eat babies too, yes?

Give your head a shake. What is it that they tap into that your guys do not?

Answer that and win back the Congress and the White House for your party.

Just stop demonising the oppo. All that will will do is convince you that your losing strategies are 'right' even if they lose. Oh, and you'll have a poisoned public discourse.

	08-02-2005 10:59									#52
	Inflate your Upload Space

I look foward to more expressions of Deaniac power as evidenced by their sweeping sucesses in the 04 election.

	08-02-2005 11:00									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Blah, blah, blah. And they eat babies too, yes?

They're way too gamey for my tastes.

	08-02-2005 11:07									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I look foward to more expressions of Deaniac power as evidenced by their sweeping sucesses in the 04 election.

Exactly, Dino. Reagan's campaign for the nomination in '76 against Ford showed how totally disastrous his political skills were, and how ineffective grass-roots movements are. If Reagan stayed in a party leadership role after that, the Republicans would be dead as a party today.

	08-02-2005 11:12									#55
	Support Apolyton

quote: Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment?

Or maybe the new language wins because the Republicans have invested billions of dollars into changing it for the past 30 years, while the Democrats haven't?

Check out a linguist George Lakoff, he has very interesting ideas about this sort of thing.

	08-02-2005 11:14									#56
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Deaniacs don't vote. I'm not even talking about the primaries here but the general election. Hardly the stuff of major grass roots power.

	08-02-2005 11:15									#57
	Support Apolyton

Reaganites didn't vote. Ford's loss to Carter demonstrates their impotence. Hardly the stuff of major grass-roots power.

	08-02-2005 11:18									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't see the basis for the comparison

	08-02-2005 11:19									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't say how you can seriously say that Deaniacs "don't vote" given the massive increases in Democratic turnout. The problem was the Kerry failed to harness this energy, and the Republicans did it better.

	08-02-2005 11:20									#60
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I don't see the basis for the comparison

Why? It's 1980, and I'm arguing against Reagan getting the nomination. Using the same arguments you are: his primary loss to Ford, and Ford's loss to Carter.