What a fascinating agenda

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2687 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 7:49 pm:        Change the Subject The Republican strategy for 2006. by Fred Barnes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 "... House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion." So they are just trolling for opposition, basically. Some vision for America. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/987ykuud.asp   kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 160 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:48 am:        ...and they say that the Republican party is intellectually bankrupt..... But in the interest of bipartisanship, just watch how many Democrats rush to embrace certain ideas, a la carte.   Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3128 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:08 am:        Let me take a page from Strawberry--libs, you just don't get it. The GOP understands that the battleground has shifted from economic issues to cultural issues. The economy is relatively healthy, for now inflation is under control, the economic problems of the Bush deficit and trade imbalance will not be felt for a few more years. The war is bleak, but remains at a distance from most Americans. Terrorism has not hit our soil since 9/11; there is no draft imperiling everyone's kids--the war has no real traction with the majority of voters. Dems can talk about economic issues and the war until they are blue (state) in the face--right now, more Americans vote on values issues than on economic issues. And the GOP is going to run hard to its strength. The Dems need to figure out some way to grab the reins or they will continue to be taken along for the ride.   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4577 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:21 am:        I wonder how long the GOP can run the values shell game with red state voters? The constitutional amendment on gay marriage, for example. They've had two years of solid majorities in the house and senate, and a majority of state legislative bodies too if I'm not correct. So what are they waiting for? Ditto the amendment on abortion that's been on the party platform for thirty-odd years. Voters are starting to see that whatever they say during the election cycle, the Republicans' real agenda lies elsewhere, and it's not working for them. I think the Dems have a real opening to grab the values agenda for themselves. They're not going to go anti-abortion or anti-gay, but there are real moral and pocketbook values that they represent much better than the Republicans do.   Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3129 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:34 am:        You know from my previous posts, Tom, that I agree with you. Heck, I am sure most of the Cons on this board agree with you that the Dems need to get a real message with traction. The devil is in the details and the follow-through. The Dems need leaders who are willing to lose but go down fighting for what they believe in (as opposed to simply being willing to lose while parroting the other side). The issue-attention cycle will change, but it could take a long time--look how long the Dem coalition held from Roosevelt through LBJ. The Dems need to take a page from the GOP on how to hold the core and develop stars while in the netherworld of being in the opposition.   themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2689 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:13 am:        Will my grandchildren have to hear the phrase "flag-burning ammendment" every election cycle?   kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 161 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:24 am:        ES&L: As long as we are advising Democrat leaders, I would add this: they can not dismiss anxiety over social issues out of hand. In the last few election cycles, Republicans have effectively exploited a sense that Democrats are elitist social liberals that don't care about "American" values but pander to their ties to special interest groups. Those candidates that can express a spiritual point of view on social issues can often express the same progressive ideals as other Democrats but more effectively. I think that is something Clinton did brilliantly- and then lost credibility for obvious reasons. There are liberal Dems that are willing to discuss social issues from this point of view. I think of Obama and Mark Warner. It is not pandering-- it is simply a sign of repect to discuss an issue on the voter's terms. I mean, if you want their vote.   Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3132 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:39 am:        Absolutely agree, Kendalbill. Although I think you might find Mark Warner to be a whole lot more conservative than Barak Obama. Dems thought that by playing to the middle to slight left on social issues (abortion, school prayer, gay marriage) they could attract more money from middle to upper middle class people--they aimed for Maplewood and Santa Cruz. In chasing the money, however, they lost touch with their traditional core--working class, blacks, hispanics, urban areas. In this way, the Dems did become elite social liberals, although they also raised tons of money. I'll also say that sometimes even a folksy, more down-to-earth approach will not work--as evidenced by Dean and Edwards who created some sparks but never were able to really take hold of the public's imagination. Sometimes the issue attention cycle simply will not go in the Dems' favor, no matter who is playing the message.   kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 162 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:54 am:        I find both Barak and Warner intriguing and genuine, even if they differ on some issues. And I think Edwards can get a second act in 2008 if he holds on.   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5387 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:04 pm:        Edwards isn't going anywhere.   kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 163 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 2:10 pm:        cjc: we probably agree, but its early enough that perceptions can change quickly. I think a candidate that can speak directly and deal with issues people are really dealing with will be heard above everyone else. Edwards, when he's good, isn't afraid to talk about class and race and seems intelligent, sincere and likable. I also think he is still finding his way, and might not be ready for prime time yet. cjc, where do you see the front runners coming from on the Republican side? Are any capable of stepping out from the party organization and exciting voters outside the party?   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3360 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:52 pm:        Edwards espouses the original Democratic mantra, and does it well. This mantra, about helping the poor with jobs programs, education, health care, were awkwardly co-opted by the "compassionate conservative" in the WH and driven awry. Why doesn't the Democratic Party go back to its social programs of the seventies, that got Carter and Clinton elected? We had that agenda first, for goodness sake, with (dare I say it) the New Deal. Let's reclaim the New Deal. Not the Real Deal of Kerry, but something like it, without the waffling. I mean, we have a gap between rich and poor that makes France look like a vacation. Why don't Dems go back to that great civil rights message? Not to mention, backing or revamping the UN and the World Court, so they work well. That's the platform. It's been created by the vacuum delivered by the Bush Administration, and Edwards usually captures it in his speeches. Oh, I know....boring!!!   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3361 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 4:53 pm:        Edwards espouses the original Democratic mantra, and does it well. This mantra, about helping the poor with jobs programs, education, health care, were awkwardly co-opted by the "compassionate conservative" in the WH and driven awry. Why doesn't the Democratic Party go back to its social programs of the seventies, that got Carter and Clinton elected? We had that agenda first, for goodness sake, with (dare I say it) the New Deal. Let's reclaim the New Deal. Not the Real Deal of Kerry, but something like it, without the waffling. I mean, we have a gap between rich and poor that makes France look like a vacation. Why don't Dems go back to that great civil rights message? Not to mention, backing or revamping the UN and the World Court, so they work well. That's the platform. It's been created by the vacuum delivered by the Bush Administration, and Edwards usually captures it in his speeches. By the way, Hoops, I do agree with your view that what Fred Barnes says will be the Republican agenda is really a selection of issues that they know the Dems would NOT like, and are throwing these all together in troll-like fashion. But then, it seems that the Republicans having been going after Democratic nerve-endings since about 1966 as a major part of their agenda. Absolutely.   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3362 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:07 pm:        oops. I guess it was a good post!   sac Supporter Username: Sac Post Number: 3246 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:15 pm:        You know you can delete duplicate posts or edit your posts for a little while (30 minutes, 60 minutes) after posting ... Click on one of the little icons over to the right of the date/time on the posting. (The paper/pencil to edit, the "X" to delete.)   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3364 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 5:18 pm:        Thanks.   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 835 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 6:52 pm:        Why would she want to delete such a brilliant post. Yes, the Dems should go back to the tactics of Carter (one termer) and Clinton (Republican Congress). Those two have done more for the Republicans than most Republicans have ever done for themselves.   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3367 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:57 pm:        You...I tried to delete it. It was too late.   sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14755 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:45 pm:        Is the hostage crisis over yet?