Novel Idea: Dems could Earn votes by actually representing their base

[Q]

- No...I'm not a Green or commie or radical or extremist. I simply believe that politicians should EARN the privilege of representing the people by, well, representing the people.

- Considering that the Bushies represent the most corrupt government in the history of the United States...many Democrats are still at a loss as to why every humanoid on the Left won't jump on the bandwagon and vote for 'anyone but Bush*' (or anyone but Arnold).

- The answer may be this: there's an undercurrent of resentment that Democrats haven't done enough to resist and counter the corruption on the Right or block their far-right agenda from taking hold. No matter how it's rationalized...the Bushies have grabbed more unConstitutional power than any executive branch in history.

- Granted...it's not for lack of trying by a small group of Democrats including Byrd and Kennedy. Byrd warned us from the very beginning that Congress was relinquishing their Constitutional authority and responsibilities to the secretive Bush* executive branch. Byrd warned about the rush to sign on to the Patriot act and homeland security without debate. Kennedy just recently threw down the gauntlet and accused the Bushies of fraud and using 9-11 and 'war' to prop up Bush* and the Republican party. They lead...but the party refuses to follow.

- So then...why didn't the Democratic party listen to the millions of people that marched in the streets and protested the illegal acts about to occur in Iraq and other places? Why did they believe Bush* instead of listening to the people they supposedly represent? Why didn't the party listen to Byrd and Kennedy and so many other brave Democrats?

- Democratic voters didn't want the USA Patriot Act Sans Debate or the Homeland Security Spoils System or the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But they got it anyway...along with a government unwilling or unable to investigate 9-11 and the transparent lies about the need for 'preemptive' attacks against any country that won't accept the 'Bush* Doctrine'.

- Bush* has a very good chance of 'winning' the 2004 election if the Democratic party doesn't come together and expose him for the despot he is. Byrd and Kennedy can't do it alone. They have to have the support of the PARTY. Democrats can and will inspire the base of the party to turn out and vote in record numbers if they LEAD instead of following the Bushies into the abyss.

- Democrats crave a leadership that will represent them and not the oppressive corporate interests now in full control of 'our' government. Give them this type of leadership and show the Bushies out the door.

- End, Q's Sunday morning rant. Take care.

[CMT]

1. Well you summed up some of the reasons I support Dean

I know he isn't as liberal as some candidates but I have been impressed with how he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq and spoken out against the Patriot Act. He has also questioned portions of Homeland Security.

His hard-hitting attacks on Bush has I think defined the race for the nomination. It certainly has galvanized his supporters. It has brought lots of activists into the Dean campaign and provoked other candidates to take on Bush--except I find it difficult to watch some of the people who voted for Bush's economic program and resolution on Iraq now either try and justify why they did it or attack something they helped create.

[robcon]

2. I disagree with your thesis.

I think we are doing a great job of attacking a popular president. A good balance of attacks from the center (Lieberman, Dean and Clark) center-left (Kerry, Gephardt) and left (Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely Braun.)

The theory is that we cannot win by attacking from the left: Democrats only account for 32% of the electorate, and we are kidding ourselves if we think that an appeal only to the core of this part of the electorate will get anyone elected president.

[KG]

5. attacks on the chimp from lieberman?

heh. :eyes:

[NashVegas]

12. Consider the Following:

Appealing to an ignored RW base was what got Ronald Reagan elected in the first place. In 1976, Ronald Reagan tapped into those southern voters who resented the liberal agenda (which was FAR more to the left than most liberals are now), but too far towards the end of the primary season to get the Republican nomination. In 1976, as in 1980, conventional wisdom was that those on the far-right were few and so whacky that in no way could they achieve power. Reagan proved otherwise by winning their loyalty and rode into the White House.

We are now in a reverse situation. Public perception is that the liberal electorate are few and so whacky that no candidate appealing to this base can get elected.

Now, let's look at the Democratic candidates 1980 and later. Did Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, and Clinton set anyone on fire the way Reagan did for the right?

Clark has the military background to win votes from the wider electorate, but he needs Dean's populism to get the base fired up.

[library_max]

34. Reagan did appeal to the center

We're just going to have to accept it. As repugnant as we find those ideas, they were "center" in the 80's. People wanted to give the "Laffer Curve" and supply-side economics a chance. It's true that Reagan's optimism and movie-star charm played well against Carter's pessimism and engineer-like stubbornness and obsession with details. Supply side economics has largely been discredited since it tripled the national debt. But at the time, people wanted it - it wasn't some right-wing whacko notion. Likewise, the nation had compassion-fatigue after decades of advancement for women and minorities, and a backlash there was also inevitable.

The base are going to have to fire themselves up. That's what happens in parties that win elections. It'll help to have a charismatic candidate, but pandering to the base will kill us with the center. It always has.

[GOPBasher]

16. Good math.

32% won't win it. We need the majority of independents.

[KG]

3. um, you got to stop posting these ugly truths, Q.

the dem partisans hate it.

anything less than fawning praise for the dems pink tu-tu responce to the neo-facists in the WH is by definition 'dem-bashing'. :nopity:

but i, for one, appreciate your stepping up and taking on the role MoPaul so valiantly played on DU. :)

[Q]

6. I consider myself a 'Dem partisan'...

...but one who likes to examine reality over wishful thinking.

- Those millions of Americans marching in the streets before the Iraq invasion? Most of them lean towards Democratic politics and would vote Dem if given a reason.

- The Democratic party is suffering from a lack of leadership and direction. They can't get away with not opposing Bush* simply because the media tells us that Bush* is 'too popular'. They must oppose him because it's the right thing to do.

[KG]

13. the 'partisans' i refer to are the ones that

that accuse you of being a Green or commie or radical or extremist, coz you to dare to carefully examine the dems. actions and call them out on their collaborations with bushco.

[library_max]

35. Dupe, sorry

[library_max]

37. They're not ugly and they're not truths.

Otherwise, great post.

These statements are not ugly because they're what we would all like to believe. We can win by calling our opponents names and loudly and proudly demanding every scrap of our agenda. Boy, wouldn't it be great if that were true! Wouldn't it be swell if a chorus of DUers on the White House lawn calling Bush an assh*le and a murderer would cinch the election for Kucinich or whoever is far enough left to deserve our nomination to this sure-thing election!

And then we woke up. And politics was real. And the media was against us, and the great middle mass of voters don't read or think about politics and they don't understand most of our arguments and don't agree with most of the ones they do understand. And our base is at best about 30% of the people who will vote, and if we energize our non-voting base we will also energize the non-voting base on the other side to vote against us, while we alienate everyone in the middle.

I like the fantasy better. I think we all do. But we have to live in the reality.

[Ardee]

40. Heres a reality for you

You seem to find no middle ground between what you consider the leftist penchant for name calling and hyperbole and the democratic party's penchant for agreeing with Bush so very politely or ever so mildly disagreeing in part with the Bush agendas both foreign and domestic.

There is ,in fact, a wide area for attacking policies that are ever so harmful to this nation and the world, and, obviously, by agreeing with or not attacking these policies we give the voter a clear choice, vote for Bush or for his imitators......

[library_max]

43. "The Democratic Party's penchant for agreeing with Bush"

is a chimera, a hallucination brought on by disappointment over not being able to enact an agenda that commands the assent of less than ten percent of the American electorate.

There's dissent and there's political suicide. Professional pols and their campaign pros know the difference. As recently as last winter, the country was still on a paranoia kick after 9/11 and would hear no criticism of Bush. Now, the mood is changing, after the lies about WMD are being exposed and people are starting to feel the pinch of the Bush economy.

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians led the mood instead of following it? Maybe, but in a representative democracy politicians are supposed to follow the will of the people, not vice-versa. Also, the pros know better than you and I what is leadership and what is just pissing into the wind.

And as far as "no middle ground" is concerned, you seem to be the one insisting on an absolutist stance, characterizing the alternative as "vote for Bush or for his imitators."

[Ardee]

46. sorry but you miss a truth

That truth being that, once supporting Bush so wholeheartedly, not only in his desire to invade Iraq but in the lack of opposition to his domestic agenda, to his bleating about an education bill that he gutted and made powerless, the democrats now are trapped by their own cowardice.......

[library_max]

50. My response above stands. I wish you had read it.

[Ardee]

53. Of course it does poor dear

..as your entire fixation on finding apologies for the ineffectual democratic party seems to lie with blaming the left. You choose to ignore the main thrust of my question, and I do understand how difficult it must be for you, with the democrats displaying no spine, no message, no ability to get elected, no agenda and no appeal.

For those others who chance upon this thread, if one does not vigorously oppose that which one finds wrong then the assumption is that you support it....Think rose garden photo op, think all those votes for Bush's agenda, think the ousting of Gore because he wouldnt toe the DLC line and acquiesce.......think cowards, think losers, think weakening of the two party system.

This is not, despite the silly insistance of those vichy democrats who are simply apologists for failure, about a "purist or rigid platform, that is simply Rush talk ( funny that the right here adopts the far right tactics so readily aint it?). This is about differentiating oneself from the Bushistas, which seems to be beyond the ability of the democratic leadership, guess they are so focussed upon corporate funding that the nation can go to hell.......

[library_max]

59. There's really nothing left for you except name-calling,

is there? And the tragedy is that you probably think that all your invective is "analysis" that means something to someone other than yourself.

[Iverson]

4. Here is one specific suggestion.

Do not give the Bush administration $87 billion in appropriations for its occupation of Iraq.

There must not be any Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, for I read that that request was unanimously approved.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. There needs to be more party discipline

I don't know what the party leaders could do. Maybe pick a few fights carefully and designate certain pieces of legislation as really vital and tell the pink tutu types that if they don't stick together on this one they can kiss any re-election support good-bye.

I'm sure that's what the Repiggies do.

I have maintained for twenty years that the Dems began losing their traditional base when they caved in to Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers, did nothing for the family farmers who lost their farms during that same period, and began advocating for corporate-defined "free trade."

[Q]

8. From what I've heard and seen...

...the 87 Billion is a done deal. They don't want to look 'unpatriotic' by not giving the Bushies every dime they've demanded for the everlasting 'war'.

- The party was in trouble from the moment they signed on to the Patriot Act and invasion of Iraq. Worse...now that everyone on this planet knows that the Bushies LIED about the need to invade Iraq...the Dems still won't follow the lead of those like Kennedy who have come out and challenged them on their transparent lies and deceit.

- In order to defeat Bush* in 2004...we need strong leadership that won't hestitate to call the Bushies LIARS and call their bluff at every turn.

[Iverson]

9. follow-up question

Does that mean that it's officially "liberal" now to fund the military adventure in Iraq?

[Q]

10. Are there any 'liberals' left in the Democratic party?

- One could say that Byrd and Kennedy are liberal...but the party ignores them like the plague.

- Kennedy gave the party an opening. What did the party do with it? They pretended it never happened. Kennedy was left to look like a 'radical' that didn't know what he was saying.

- Leadership. Where has it gone?

[KG]

11. i've long since stopped equating 'liberal' with 'democrat'

anyone who still thinks dem. party leadership still wants to represent the liberals in this country is delusional.

[Q]

14. Where IS the base of the party?

- They've long ago given up on voting. For the most part...they're hard working people with families who have no time for politics. They've probably tried voting before...only to see their government serve itself instead of them.

- They're the welfare mothers trying to catch a break and get a job when few are available. They're the minorities and the poor struggling to keep their families together and alive in the inner cities. They're the 'common folk' who see public schools deteriorating from lack of funding and neglect. They're the workers who lost their unions and jobs to international corporations that would rather use child and slave labor than pay a fair wage.

- The Democratic base is gigantic...but most of them no longer vote.

[KG]

15. the dems have given up on the base.

instead of a massive get out the vote canpaign amongst their base - working families, minorities, women and immigrants - they've decide to focus on a shrinking demographic - white middle-class america.

and it shows in the the butt kickings they're getting at the polls.

[Q]

17. And this is amazing to me...

- I'd like to know WHY this is happening? People are really HURTING out there in real world land. These are people that would vote Democratic in a heartbeat if they felt their interests were being represented in DC.

- And you have many on the left who belong to third parties that would gladly vote DEM if they were shown a strong leadership and loyal opposition against what the world knows is a corrupt Bush* government.

- Democrats CAN win...but they're throwing it all away by not showing the type of leadership qualities needed to oppose the Bush* regime.

[LeahMira]

55. Thank you...

... Q and Iverson, for mentioning an issue that has me very concerned and confused. Why is Congress all for giving Bush everything he wants for the troops but balking about giving money for the reconstruction of Iraq?

Some of the reconstruction items do seem to be silly, i.e. zip codes.

Still, the appearance is that the U.S. is willing to support military occupation, but not willing to support undoing the damage that our military inflicted on the Iraqi civilians.

If Congress refused money for the military, wouldn't that force the military to wind down in Iraq and bring at least some of the men and women home?

As it is, it seems to me that the military is being given a blank check to continue occupying Iraq but limited in the ability to do anything to help Iraq get back on its feet. Won't the current situation just continue to fester that way?

I am confused here. I sent my e-mails and faxes asking my Congressmen not to give Bush the $87. billion, but I hoped that they would cut the support occupation, not support for rebuilding.

Someone please explain what's up. Did we "win" this round or not?

[John_H]

18. Bad new and good news for you, Q

Here's the ugly truth: The majority of the "base" was part of the majority that thought Saddam did 9-11, and who supported the war.

As one of those people who marched in the streets against the war I always realized I was in the minority, even among liberals. You have to remember that the base is not nearly as far left as many of us.

The good news: Since politicians follow the lead of their individual constituancies, The Dem politicians will go where their voters lead them now that even the media can't help the Chimp on Iraq anymore.

We need to turn up the heat on the press--and on th dems--to help them along.

[Q]

19. The Democratic base was never polled about 9-11 and Saddam...

- And I'm not suggesting the base is 'far left'. I'm suggesting the base is Democratic and that most of them don't vote because of the lack of leadership and direction.

- You can't 'turn up the heat' on a press owned or controlled by the other side.

- Democrats must drop the illusion that 'swing' voters can help them against Bush* in 2004. We must 'get out the vote' and give those who have given up on the system a reason to vote again.

[Cocoa]

20. the dems can't respond to incoherent rants

Imagine Terry McAuliffe logging on to DU and trying to follow what Q is asking for.

From a lot of it, he'd say Q would want what might be called a progressive dem. But then he sees that instead of supporting Dennis Kucinich, Q supports Al Gore, who is might be called a conservative, pro-busineess Dem, a quintessential New Democrat.

Terry would correctly conclude that Q probably is not really going to be won over, probably doesn't even want to be won over, just wants to rant, and would correctly focus on dems that have honest questions and criticisms.

[Q]

21. You show up like a bad nickle...

- If you don't like my 'rant'...then don't read or respond to it. It's not as if someone is holding you hostage to my threads.

- But you never seem to be able to offer a real counterpoint. Never seem to be able to explain the LACK of leadership in the Democratic party. You just can't seem to explain why Dems have lost their asses since 1994 and before.

- Yeah...it's my rants that's keeping the party from speaking out against the most corrupt government in American history.

- Have you ever considered that it's not me...but the party leadership that's causing Republicans to win? Could it be that a lack of leadership and vision has SOMETHING to do with it?

- Nah. Cheerleaders won't even consider such things. It's just their job to lead cheers.

[Cocoa]

27. I'm responding to it because I want to respond to it

I don't understand your asking for me not to respond. This is a discussion board.

I have problems with the dem leadership. But my opinion now is that it is much better and more unified these days than it has been in the past.

I often laud the various dem victories and very strong criticism of Bush. That's how I feel, the filibuster of Estrada was a really remarkable thing that I never expected the dems to attempt, much less succeeed.

I'm not saying your rants are keeping the dems from speaking out. I'm saying that the dems can't possibly act on them. For one thing, they don't completely make sense, and for another, they're not a call for action, they're just purposeless rants.

I'm not a cheerleader, I just value realism.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. With you 100% here

your original post was excellent.

[library_max]

38. They just wanted to talk to themselves

And you rudely interrupted. Shame on you. <sarcasm off>

[Terwilliger]

22. What a brilliant analysis!

:eyes:

I think Q wants the Al Gore that should have won in 2000, not the Al Gore that the DLC forced him to be.

[Cocoa]

26. Al Gore is DLC

the DLC can't force Al Gore to do anything, and anyway, Al Gore IS the DLC.

I'm not saying that as a bad thing. I'm just saying, if one is looking for an alternative to the DLC, Gore is not it.

[Ardee]

41. err not quite this reality

Apparently the DLC could indeed force Al Gore to do something rather important, namely drop out of the race, and after getting a damn good running start with his campaign speeches across the nation. After swerving from the DLC line of silence and acquiescence with Bush he "mysteriously " disappears from the campaign...oh no, no DLC interference here, you betcha!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

24. Here's the danger too many Dems refuse to recognize...

- The Republicans think they have a God-given right and duty' to rule this nation. They can accomplish this 'revolution' ONLY by keeping Democrats out of power. They can't do this using the normal processes of Democracy. They CAN do it by lying, cheating and stealing.

- This doesn't mean Democrats have to cheat. It means they have to finally acknowledge there is no such thing as an even playing field in modern American politics.

[Cocoa]

30. they know the danger better than you do

Judicial nominations were not on your radar screen. While you were ranting about unactionable things like the dems "not standing up" or whatever, they were filibustering Miguel Estrada.

They understood in a concrete way how the federal courts are KEY in restraining Bush. They have ruled against Ashcroft numerous times. Balance of power is not dead yet, and the dems are helping keep it that way with their fights over judges. They're talking about abortion, but it's about much more than that.

[Cocoa]

28. what are the lies?

The only candidate I've heard you support is Al Gore, even after he dropped out. If you are now considering supporting Kucinich, that's fantastic. He's my second choice at this point.

Yes, I and most other people here know about Gore's falling out with the DLC.

Does that make Gore the anti-DLC? Of course not. He was the DLC's candidate in '88 and he's been loyal all the way through, including choosing Lieberman as running mate.

Like I said, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. The Clinton-Gore administration was very good for our country, and Gore would have been an excellent president.

[Q]

29. Again...I don't support ANY candidate as of yet...

- You're trying to imply that not supporting ANY of the current candidates this early in the 'game' is some sort of sin.

- I support Gore because he's the legitimate president...despite everything the DLC says about him.

- The DLC threw Gore to the wolves when he (finally) realized they had not only led him astray...but they were an 'anti-Democratic' force. The DLC actually called him the 'anti-corporate' candidate. Another reason to like Gore.

- My gripe with you is that you always label my threads as 'anti-Democratic'...when they're actually a call to arms FOR the Democrats.

- It's becoming more and more CLEAR that Democrats are losing their base AND a chance at the WH by not taking these criminal bastards to task for their MANY crimes against the nation and people.

- It's not okay with ME and many other Democrats that the leadership is allowing Bush* to get away with so many things that not only harm the nation...but the Democratic party.

[Cocoa]

31. not a sin, it just doesn't jibe

Very strong "progressive" rhetoric, and at the same time very strong pro-Gore rhetoric.

How does it make sense for you to be so anti-DLC, and yet you are so enthusiastic about a candidate that is nearly pure DLC up until a last-minute populist move?

Your perception of Gore as a serious alternative to the DLC suggests that your ideas about Gore and the DLC aren't all that well thought out.

[Q]

32. It doesn't 'jibe' with you...

...and that means very little to me. I follow my conscience...not the dictates of robot cheerleaders.

- Gore wasn't DLC 'until the last moment'. The record shows the DLC advised Gore against his own wishes...promising a return of the great victories Clinton/Gore had previously enjoyed. But PART of their advice was to ignore the Bush* corruption so as not to become a 'target' of the right wing smear machine. Gore took their advice and regretted it later on.

- The fact that Gore finally rejected the DLC is indeed in his favor...and shows that an honest politician can admit it when he's wrong. (Unlike the DLC).

- Once again...I support Gore because he was elected president DESPITE all the obstacles put in his way by both the DLC and the Bushies. That's a great accomplishment for any Dem.

- I'd also like to point out that the same Dems that didn't support Gore when he needed them are the same Dems that now say we need to appeal to the right wing in order to win.

[Scott Lee]

25. ergo - Howard Dean!

THANK you for that spot on post. This is exactly why Howard Dean mystified the pundits and continues to pull in more money than any of his rivals.

Love him or hate him, Howard Dean has tapped into that seething rage and or distrust that the democratic majority of the people feel - and rightly so.

The remaining question is this - will the Democratic Political establishment get it??

[Terwilliger]

36. FORGET IT, Q!

Look at the other thread...It ain't even ever gonna happen! The only thing that will change the course of American history is a cataclysm of some kind.

[Mairead]

39. Oh Q, you fringe-leftist nutter! That's way too radical to work

:evilgrin:

[Q]

42. I'll make a bet that...

...we'll be hearing another round of excuses when the 'anyone but Bush*' crowd start crying in 2005 when they can't figure out why Bush* won.

- They'll find a scapegoat...someone...anyone to blame but themselves and their fencesitting politics.

[Mairead]

44. sucker bet, for sure

:( :( :(

[Q]

45. The year 2000 was a dream come true for RWingers...

...and the beginning of a nightmare for Democrats and those who depend on them.

- Democrats and Republicans have the rich and 'middle class' covered. But what happens to the poor and working class during a time when they're being ignored on both a state and national level?

[ElementaryPenguin]

47. I agree 100%, Q! If shitty conservatism can be made attractive - so can

Liberalism, for God sakes! FDR did it. JFK did it. Jesus Christ himself undoubtedly did it best! This is what we must do! We can't keep stashing liberalism in the closet for every election, as if it were a dirty word! Of course a progressive agenda can be popular - it's roots are populist, for cryin' out loud! Dean and Clark doing a very good job with this - and so, of course, is Kucinich! This is why Gore's new cable news channel simply can't be launched a minute too soon!! The one thing sheeple cannot be talked out of - is TELEVISION!! People WILL watch this new network!!!!!!!!

[Q]

48. It doesn't even have to be about 'liberalism'...

...just the truth. Hellfire...since when does telling the truth become a liability?

- Republicans are fighting a war in which they plan to take no prisoners. They don't have to worry about their base because they're on board no matter what the Bushies say or do.

- The Democrats seem to be treating this like any other election. There's no organized opposition or attempt to counter the Bushie offensive. We're becoming their prisoners without much resistance...which only encourages them to take even more prisoners.

- If we want to win...we have no other option but to fight. We fight with the truth backed up with facts.

- This is a war...with the future of our country and party at stake.

[ElementaryPenguin]

49. You're right! It is nothing less than a war for the future of this nation

And the whole bloody, over-heated, quickly dying planet!

[Q]

51. Now it looks as if the Bushies are gearing up to attack...

...the next country on their 'axis of evil', PNAC list. Will the Democratic party finally say NO to them? Stay tuned.

[HFishbine]

52. Amen Q!

Haven't always agreed with your posts, but damn you nailed this one.

[CWebster]

54. According to poll after poll

the voters didn't want the tax cuts either -but they got those too.

Great representitive government, huh.

[Q]

56. Kennedy's speech yesterday...

...and his refusal to vote for the 87B dollar friends of Bush* giveaway is a good example of 'representing the base'. The 'base' doesn't want war...especially a 'fraudulent' war...because THEY are the cannon fodder in that hell hole and shooting gallery.

- The Bushies WANT to bankrupt this nation...strip it of social programs and everything else not needed in an 'empire'. There's no one else in a position to fight this except the Dem party. How many Dems will join Kennedy and Byrd in resisting this fraud of a war on a noun?

[LWolf]

57. Interesting.

As a newly minted (last February) democrat, I've been following the battles raging here at DU with interest.

I've never been a repub; never registered with any party at all in 25 years of voting. I am a progressive/leftist, so dems got the lion's share of my votes. I registered with them so that I could have a voice in the upcoming primary. I think our current state of affairs is too dire to let other people narrow my choices for me without any say in the matter.

From my perspective, the democratic party seems to be in an internal civil war for the direction of the party; moderate or liberal?

I see valid points made by both sides, but I'm saddened. I thought the democratic party was supposed to be the "big tent;" big enough to not just tolerate, but welcome, all. Maybe as a nation we've evolved politically to the point where one party can't be that big; if so, I can really understand why so many have left for 3rd parties that more closely represent them.

If, in the end, the majority of dems decide that they are more moderate than liberal, I hope they accept the consequences graciously. I hope they don't "blame" those who find parties more suited to them.

I'll be with the dem nominee in '04 regardless. As I was with Gore in 2000. I lived through Bush I; I knew Bush II would be a disaster.

After that, who knows? Perhaps it's time for proportional representation and IRV. Maybe we need to put our electoral system where our mouth is. If we appreciate diversity and think it makes our nation stronger, we ought to include all of those voices in our government, rather than going with a "winner take all" system.

[Q]

58. Although we've had many screwed up Presidents...

...before Reagan/Bush/Bush* we always had a congress that would at least work with each other to get things done in the name of the people. Sure...there were always 'fights' and bitter battles...but they KNEW they were there working for the common good.

- This is no longer true. The Republicans act as if it's THEIR government and treat Democrats like they're unnecessary and unwanted. If Republicans don't want a Bill passed...they simply refuse to consider it or even bring it to the floor. It's a very one-sided government right now and the media has nothing to say about it.

- The Bushie Republicans have swung so far to the right that even some liberals look like moderates. But the legislative process breaks down when you have a group of politicos 'pretending' to be Dems that always end of voting with the Bushies on pivotal issues.

- Our party is in deep trouble...and needs a change in leadership. The same thing needs to happen with the 'free' press. The fat cats who own the media can break or make any politician by either attacking or praising their work. Everything is out of whack in DC...and it's all because we allowed an election to be stolen in 2000.