I'm fairly new to politics. Have the republicans always led the Democrats

[patricia92243]

around by the nose? I'm shocked at how the Democrats just lay down and let the republican party run right over them.

[demnan]

1. No

We used to have a President who kicked their ass but that was long ago. Maybe he couldn't walk unassisted, but he could eat a Congress full of Republicans for Sunday Brunch.

His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

3. Around the Civil war

the Democrats represented the southerners who wanted an end to "the Negro Vote" amongst other things while the repubs (Lincoln's party) sort of represented the liberal position. This is an extreme oversimplification meant to demonstrate that the political dynamic between these two parties has shifted many times.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

4. oops - meant to respond to original post

[damnraddem]

12. Well, actually, by 1868, the GOP came to increasingly represent ...

the interests of the dominant corporate capitalists. The ran around and over U.S. Grant, and dealt away African-American rights (Reconstruction) in return for retaining the presidency after the election of 1876 (which was similar to that of 2000, but settled by Congress after the deal).

Still, Dixiecrats were powerful in the Dem Party until well into the Civil Rights movement.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

18. was that "the Big Betrayal"? or something like that

I thought both parties cut a backroom deal for the repubs to yank the troops and the dems would give them the whitehouse - or something to that effect- leaving black people screwed and doomed to suffer lynchings and Jim Crow for generations to come. Am I on the right track here?

[Silverhair]

9. FDR has a Democratic congress. He didn't worry about the Reps. n/t

[liberalnurse]

2. Since 2000 it has been the norm....

When we lost the Senate too in 2002, it reinforced the weakness of the DLC gang.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman to name a few of the " boys club" in the DLC" are proven loosers/failures for the party. They also want to be President.....

[ikojo]

8. It's been this way since at least 1993

When corporate America did not approve of Clinton's ambitious healthcare plan they ran ads against it. The Republicans attacked it as more "big government" (why is it called big government only when it will help people but not when it's used to bail out corporations?)
Clinton and the other Dems backed down.

In 1993 when Clinton talked about giving gays in the military equal rights, the Republicans and their attack dogs in the media went after him with horror stories of men preying on men (I guess it's OK for male sailors to prey on female sailors). Clinton signed don't ask don't tell and more people were dishonorably discharged.

Clinton continued to work the Bush I agenda by pulling out all the stops to get NAFTA passed through a Democratic controlled congress in 1993.

Continuing to allow the Republicans to set the agenda, in 1996 Clinton signed onto "Welfare Reform" and removed many poor people from the welfare rolls if not from poverty. There are still poor people but now they don't qualify for welfare thanks in large part to the DLC led Democrats.

Since I was just a kid when Carter was president I really don't know if the Dems in the 1970s were as conservative as they appear to be now. Perhaps someone who was older can tell us about those times. I do know that of all the former presidents he is the one that makes me proud he's a Dem.

[demsrule4life]

The biggest problem is that most of us think

that Bush is a stupid retard. I don't think he is, he plays the "rope a dope" perfectly, until everyone comes to terms with this, we aren't going to beat him.

[demsrule4life]

5. The biggest problem is that most of us think

that Bush is a stupid retard. I don't think he is, he plays the "rope a dope" perfectly, until everyone comes to terms with this, we aren't going to beat him.

[demsrule4life]

7. There are times I hate having

quick finger. :)

[Sandpiper]

6. For some mad reason

Known only to God and themselves, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt decided that "go along to get along" was the best way to deal with congressional Republicans. And thus came the age of the pink tu tu Democrats in which we now find ourselves.

[damnraddem]

10. No. Until the late 1960s, the Dems ruled, even with the GOP prez, Ike.

And there were liberal Republicans. Conservatives complained of the intellectual hegemony of liberalism. Then LBJ got bogged down in Vietnam, shattering the liberal consensus. After that, the GOP made inroads, and conservatives increasingly managed to get their ideas accepted. Dems still controlled Congress but couldn't seem to win the presidency very often (Carter 1976-80, otherwise GOP prez from 1968-1992). It wasn't until 1994 that the GOP got a majority in Congress, and by then there was a Dem prez. It has only been since 2000 that the GOP has really ruled the roost, and since 2002 that they have had a clear majority in the Senate. But the situation was long in coming, and may be painfully long in being reversed.

[tom_paine]

11. I think it comes down to this...the Dems can't come to terms with what

is hitting them, with what is happening to this nation on all levels, particularly the media and the risew of the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media.

For years (and even now) they cotinue to operate under the paradigm of the Old American Republic as it was for most of the time since post-WWII.

But that nation is gone, even IF (and that's quite a big IF) the Old American Republic still lives, and how things work are dramatically different than they were.

This includes the formation of a well-financed, well-organized Party-Loyal right-Wing Sub-Media with the same kind of dedication to the facts as Old Soviet Pravda. The men who beat Hitler created the FCC regulations after seeing what Hitler and Stalin did to their medias, trying to insure that it couldn't happen here, as a Party-Loyal Sub-media is antithetical to democracy and freedom.

And I tell you it's no coincidence that the Busheviks have been working VERY hard indeed to gut and destroy FCC regulations for 20 years.

The Democrats are only now, after 20 years, coming to grips with that.

Other than that, we can say the Democrats have fallen for every Bushevik trick and Right-Wing Fantasy that they have been fed. because they failed to answer, counter, or even show some backbone on this front, these unchalleneged lies have become "conventional wisdom", just as Hitler said in 1933 and it's just as true now.

Now, still the Democrats fail to understand the scope and magnitude of the Greatest Propaganda Machine in Human History. By now, said machine can now literally obfuscate any truth, no matter hopw factually supported, and can launder any lie, no matter how ridiculous.

Orwell was right and his vision is coming ever closer to being fufilled. Not by the Commies, as he foretold, but by the Emperor.

[damnraddem]

16. Orwell didn't limit it to the Communists.

His 1984 was really 1948, and he saw evil empires West and East. He rather overstated his 1984 case for 1948, but not for 2004.

[Silverhair]

13. This is the first time in about 70 years...

that the Democrats have been in the minority at all levels. Until now they have had power at some level. Now the POTUS is Rep, as is the majority of the SCOTUS, both houses of congress and most governors and most state legislatures are Rep. That's a big shock to the Party, and the leadership doesn't know what to do.

[K-W]

14. That is a gross oversimplification.

What exactly do you mean? On the issues, republicans get elected by pretending to be democrats in many cases. Atm the republicans control all three branches of government, so they get to set the agenda and control the debates.

[earthman dave]

15. Similar here in the UK

So although i know nothing about american politics, i'll happily generalize (take it with a pinch of salt). "Labour" seem to be enacting mostly policies from Thatcher's government. I suspect that there's no overt Tory influence on Labour, rather that both parties are beholden to the same big money interests. I'd guess it's the same over there. There's certain things you just can't do, certain groups you don't dare upset once you're in government. It's sometimes called the "Virtual Senate".

[Lostmessage]

17. Excuse me?

I have a question for you. How long has the media been owned by the right wingers? Your only getting the part of the story that they want you to have and the next time that you watch the news think about who owns the channel and if it's a one sided opinion only.

[Dhalgren]

19. I hate to say this,

because I am 110% pro choice and pro-LGBT (to the extent of full, unabridged equality in everything, period), but I think you can really mark the decline of the Democratic party to the day when that party decided to actually uphold the Constitution. Racial equality, women's rights, gay and lesbian rights - these are the issues that started to divide and whittle away at the Demcocratic hegemony. Republicans (never ones to uphold the Constitution) jumped at the chance to use these items as wedge issues and they have been successful. Just my two cents.

[tom_paine]

21. Ugh, I hate to agree with you, but honesty demands I must

You hit the nail on the head.

The Busheviks know it, too. It is the driving reason behind the Texas "Redistricting", to make every Democratic face a colored one.

Sad. Insane. Absofuckignloutely true.

I need a drink.

[library_max]

20. I'm guessing you skipped SOTU and the Democratic responses.

Or maybe you're too new to politics to know how scathing those responses were, in context. Generally, the president gets a pretty big pass on his SOTU message just because he is the president.

Most of the "Democrats laying down" talk is a myth. Obviously, when a party is so thoroughly out of power (White House, both houses of Congress, and the federal judiciary), there's not much it can do to push its agenda. But a lot of the people who are complaining actually want the Democrats to push a radical agenda never supported by any national party, full of programs that have never been tried and that the electorate is simply not ready for. In other words, they demand a "return" to a degree of opposition and a radical agenda that have never existed before.