Here are some cold, hard facts that we need to deal with

[B0S0X87]

I'd like to know if anyone has a response.

-97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country went to Bush
-More people are registered Republicans than registered Democrats for the first time since the '20s.
-What was once the solid democratic south is now rapidly becoming the solid republican south.
-Democrats control 49.3% of state legislature seats; the first time that number has been below 50% since the depression.

You can talk all you want about how Kerry really won the election, and, while I believe we need some election reform, we also need to realize that more and more Americans are becoming Republicans every day.

So... any ideas?

[Sparkly]

1. Do you have a link for those stats?

Thanks.

[Leilani]

24. I know Tim Roemer used some of those stats

when he was running for DNC chair...especially about the fastest growing counties.

[B0S0X87]

25. here you go...

About the counties: http://www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/politics/messages/47.html
(Roemer actually mentioned something about it during his campaign for DNC chair, I was hoping Dean might give him some position)

About the South: Well, thats pretty obvious. We only have four deep-south senators left and carried zero Southern states in the last election.

About the state legislatures: http://www.harpers.org/DemocraticParty.html A thing at the bottom shows Dems had 60% of state legislature seats in 1980 and now have around 50%. (I might have been mistaken on the 49.3% number).

[Stand and Fight]

28. These are RIGHT-WING sources...

Hey there bub! Wait one damn minute. Your "sources" are no legitimate -- they're from right-wing biased websites! That's like us taking blind statistics from Randi Rhodes -- though I'm sure her sources would be a whole hell of a lot more reliable than your's -- and posting them as being valid. You've got to do better than this! You've got to be kidding us if you expect anyone to fall for this crap! Paaaahlllllleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeeeee.... :eyes:

[B0S0X87]

31. Paaaahlllllleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeeeee yourself

Roemer cited the counties statistic on the campaign trail.

If you consider Harper's to be a "right-wing source," then I really can't argue with you.

But, go ahead, ignore the facts

[Stand and Fight]

36. Facts?

Who the hell is Roemer? He could easily qualify as a Republican, so don't tell me about Roemer.... Tim Roemer is a Republican tool, part of the Republican noise machine. Roemer, riiiight.

[B0S0X87]

39. I can't argue with this guy

I gave you a legitmate news source. Someone else mentioned they heard the same. You could use the "It's not a fact unless it's published in 'The Nation'" defense for anything, and I don't care to argue that.

[Stand and Fight]

41. No argument here...

But I agree, if you can't handle the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. :evilgrin:

[B0S0X87]

43. I meant in arguing about sources

You can either call my sources "freeper nonsense" or we can have an intelligent discussion about what to do.

[Stand and Fight]

49. And you still haven't given sources for all of your "information."

I'm not asking to argue with you. I'm not attempting to, but you have yet to divulge your source for each of your bullet points. Give reputable, fair and balanced -- not Fox -- sources, and then we can talk. I'm definitely one who feels my party needs to undergo changes, but that does not mean going Republican-lite as some people around here seem to feel. I think the majority of people here on DU would agree with me on that.

[John_H]

119. These are all objective, verifiable #'s.Maybe you should count

the number of state legislature seats by party, the state by state registration numbers, and compare the list of fastest growing counties to how they went in 04 (the south thing is obvious on its face) and force Harpers to print a correction if the reporter--who probably counted them himself--is wrong.

[googly]

140. Show me when in the past 40 years a centrist lost election?

I am ofcourse referring to presidential election.
Extreme right wingers like Goldwater lost badly.
So did left wingers like McGovern. On the other hand
centrists like Clinton, Bush 41 & 43 (compassionate
conservative mantra) have won.

[frankly_fedup2]

125. Legitimate? Yeah, and the right parrot Limbaugh as a reliable . . .

source on Washington Journal every morning as well. A Jeff Gannon is a great source to use (or is it Guckert??).

Sorry. Need more than one source as well as one that speaks the ills of the Republican Party.

The propaganda the Republicans spread is outrageous at times.

Take Ann Coulter for example, she claims that teaching abstinence is the best way to teach our kids not to have sex. So Ann with her short skirts, bleached blonde hair is a virgin. Who'd of thunk it. I mean she surely wouldn't be preaching this unless she practiced it, right? Also, Michelle Malkin (the Ann-Coulter wannabe), must have been a virgin before marriage.

They claim all the "red" states and their "values" and Christian beliefs is why Bush is in the White House.

Well, I live in the south, and a lot of people that the right are so proud of their voting for them still handle snakes to test their faith in God.

[wyldwolf]

79. NO they're not!

geeze! Those sources are far from rightwing.

[Mairead]

50. Those ARE NOT facts -- they are suppositions

1. The evidence is that the election was rigged, so toss those numbers out to begin with. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that those numbers are valid. Zero. None at all.

2. If I trick or coerce you into giving all your assets to charity, does that make you charitable? No, of course not. You can be identified and categorised by the choices you make freely, but not by the 'choices' you are tricked, forced, or hoodwinked into making.



Whose interests are served when you declare the majority of US citizens to be less intelligent, less ethical, less worthy than yourself? Especially when you have no good evidence?

[SouthernDem2004]

85. What evidence?

[Mairead]

116. "What evidence" For rigging, you mean?

All the studies, and particularly the peer-reviewed one by Steve Freeman. He found that anomalous results could not have occurred by chance, and Mitofsky's 'explanation' is contradicted by Mitofsky's own data.

[googly]

139. You probably would ask for a link if I said motherhood & apple pie are

good. It is rude to ask for a link for well known facts.
It just shows you are not keeping current with what is going
on in the world. Also, a link to some 3rd rate source can
hardly be said to be an absolute.

[purduejake]

2. Lie, cheat, and steal.

It seems to work for them. Ugh.

[leyton]

3. Start standing up for the little guy.

1. None of this pro-corporate stuff. We should return to the economic values of FDR, though not necessarily to all the old liberal solutions that may be obsolete. But we should stand up for the worker, the teacher, the laborer, the farmer, the poor, the needy, etc.

2. Though we should be strict economic liberals, we should not restrict ourselves to social liberals. I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with this, but we get nothing done if we keep losing on things like gay marriage which simply won't happen either way. We should fight the battles we can win.

3. Build up a farm of good candidates. Let's elect more people at the local and state level, because they will eventually be running for Federal office.

[B0S0X87]

7. thanks

you got some good ideas.

[manic expression]

14. Stand for the little guy, but abandon gays?

That doesn't work for me. Standing for issues like abortion and gay marriage IS standing with the little guy. We should not ignore ANY social issue at all.

The real solution is to stand up for what we believe in and ONLY what we believe in. No excuses, no rationalizations.

[no name no slogan]

37. If you stand up for the economic issues, the social issues take care...

...of themselves.

The only reason people have been voting for social issues is because the Democrats have effectively abandoned populist economic issues, in order to appeal to corporate money and 'swing voters'.

It's very simple for many economically liberal/socially conservative voters: neither party is talking about their economic issues, so that leaves only divisive social issues left. And since the GOP is closer to them on those issues, they vote Republican.

The Democrats lost all credibility on economics when Clinton re-appointed labor-hating Greenspan to the Fed chairmanship. This is the same man who has said, repeatedly, that rises in workers' wages were BAD.

The old addage holds true: people vote with their pocketbooks. If you've got a good job, enough money in the bank to cover emergencies, good health care, and a bright future, you probably don't give a rat's ass about whether Adam and Steve get married or not.

[leyton]

73. Well, I worded my post poorly.

I don't think we should give up on gays and so forth. But that should not be the top of our agenda. The top of our agenda is to get back in power. Otherwise, the rest of the agenda doesn't matter one whit. We should focus on economics; push out fiscal Republicans, but not social conservatives.

[troubleinwinter]

56. "Things like gay marriage"?

"We should fight the battles we can win". WHAT... the ones the right SAYS we can win?

Well, we aint gonna win if we give up, and I will NOT give up fighting for gay rights, gay acceptance, womens' rights to their own bodies.

"we get nothing done if we keep losing on things like gay marriage which simply won't happen either way." I have NO clue what you might mean by this. Give up the things we believe in? NO. Just NO. NO.

Give em an inch so they can talk us into giving up the next issue, and the next?! NO. Just NO. No, these are NOT something to give up. NO, never.

[primavera]

120. Hear, hear!

Centrists keep talking about the urgent need to become more and more like Repukes, but that's exactly what we've been doing for the last decade and where has it gotten us? Where are the stunning electoral successes to support the claim that centrism wins elections? Meanwhile, if you read books like "What's the Matter with Kansas," "The Right Nation," and so on about the growth of conservative power in the US, the theme that keeps returning is that Democrats - through their drive to the right - have sacrificed most of the issues in their platform which distinguished them from the Repukes. Are workers going to support us, the party that pushed through Nafta, as champions of their cause? Are poor people going to vote for us, the party that "reformed" welfare? Are immigrant communities going to vote for us, the party that pushed through legislation eliminating due process protections for immigrants and instituting automatic indefinite detention for people who present themselves at our borders? How many constituencies can we afford to write off like that and still have the gall to wonder why we're losing elections?

[Bridget Burke]

4. Cold hard links?

Preferably to reputable sites.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

8. Then you should both have links.

And most people do support choice.

[Stand and Fight]

11. LINKS

Then where are the god-dammed links? Don't feed us this bullshit about "Like it or not..." Paste a link if you came across the same statistics or sit down and shut the hell up!

[Logansquare]

137. The 97 of 100 figure is from an L.A. Times article

Sorry, I can't link from it, I got this off of Lexis-Nexis. I don't think it hurts us to do a SWOT analysis (For you non-business people, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of the Democratic Party. One point the authors were trying to make is that the reddening of metropolitan exurbs brings in more electoral votes for the Republicans. The Democratic analysts had some good points as well, saying that "filling in" of suburbs with population will turn them more blue.


November 22, 2004 Monday
Home Edition

SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 1

HEADLINE: GOP Plants Flag on New Voting Frontier;
Bush's huge victory in the fast-growing areas beyond the suburbs alters the political map.
BYLINE: Ronald Brownstein and Richard Rainey, Times Staff Writers
DATELINE: WASHINGTON


<snip> Left-leaning analysts Ruy Teixeira and John B. Judis, in their 2002 book "The Emerging Democratic Majority," argued that the fast-growth exurbs aren't as much of a threat to Democrats as commonly believed, because most of them are still much smaller than the urban centers. They also predicted that as these edge communities fill in, their increasingly metropolitan character will make them more receptive to Democrats.

But Bush's enormous margins in the fast-growth counties suggest that, if anything, these places are growing even more solidly Republican.

And in some of the most hotly contested states -- Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Colorado -- that trend could leave the Democrats trying to squeeze out even more votes from static or shrinking urban centers and inner-tier suburbs, while Republicans are dominating the counties exploding in population several exits down the interstate.

Even in several states Kerry won, Democratic blue was concentrated in urban areas, with Republican red covering almost everything else.

"The Democrats just need to look at the map: Their constituency is very concentrated," said demographer Kasarda. "It's a wake-up call."

[Dookus]

12. No it's not

abandoning a pro-choice platform will kill the Democratic party. Most Americans want to keep abortion legal.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

19. Got links?

just don't jump on a thread to back up your pal.

[Stand and Fight]

23. Thanks...

I found that kind of curious myself... Notice how neither of them are responding to our repeated inquiries for links to the "information" they're trying to push on us. Strange... :think: Maybe, they're... Nevermind.

[Aegis]

70. I'd like to see a link corroborating the registration numbers.

I think Harpers is one of the best reads out there though.This is my first post and I'm wondering if there is anything I should know about Harpers. It is perhaps one of the only magazine I still buy.

[catzies]

6. What's the matter with Kansas?

That book addresses stats such as the ones you mentioned, and talks aobut how the GOP has skilfully manipulated facts and events to get people to vote against their best interests and vote for the GOP "agenda."

So for idea,s I'd say you should read that book.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[villager]

16. good luck and welcome to DU!

Best wishes in "painting the town" -- or at least your medical office -- blue!

[quiet.american]

10. Poll shows drop in Bush's job approval

Speaking of hard, cold facts:

The public's confidence in President Bush's job performance and the nation's direction has slipped in the opening weeks of his second term, particularly among people 50 and older, according to an Associated Press poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-11-bush-poll_x.htm

Vulnerability, anyone?

[mike_c]

13. stop being repub lite and start building support for genuine...

...alternative, opposition postions. Dems should be fighting for an end to the occupation of Iraq, a single payer health system, living wages or a basic income guarantee, strong and UNCOMPROMISING environmental protections, and so on. Stop letting the republicans frame the national debate in terms they are most comfortable with. No wonder the repig party is growing-- they're the only ones who are really getting a message to most Americans.

[googly]

141. Bill Clinton was repub-medium and he won easily, twice.

Bill was for Nafta, for welfare reform, and many other
repub initiatives.

[McKenzie]

15. "Beware the tyranny of the majority" Let's talk numbers...

The Sun is a shitty Brit tabloid. Yet it outsells the quality broadsheets by a factor of 4-5. Does that mean the rag in question is a quality publication? Rhetoric on my part, of course, because it has pics of "babes" (ahem) with their breasts hanging out on page three. All it means is that more people like shite news and loads of "whoarrr" rather than sensible and informed comment. It says nothing about truth.

Numbers add up to nothing (apologies Neil) and using them as a measure of what is right is pointless. Simply because more people do something, support something or subscribe to any given viewpoint means shit all. Numbers do not equal right, correct, appropriate, decent, optimum, ideal, correct, truth or anything similar; all they mean is numbers.

[Stand and Fight]

17. LINKS.

If you are going to paste "information" -- or disinformation for that matter -- be sure to reference your data with links to reputable sources. You cannot expect an honest and thorough discussion if you cannot accurately represent the sources for your "information." So, where are the damn links?

[deutsey]

26. At least the first stat seems to have come from the LA Times

The article is reposted in full here: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041201/REPOSITORY/412010347/1013/NEWS03

I did a Google search for this stat and, not surprisingly, rightwing sites came up.

For example:
http://boards.youthnoise.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/383295355/m/6134047052/r/80210903763

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t68819.html

But it seems to have originally come from the LA Times. :shrug:

[Stand and Fight]

33. Invalid biased sources...

I don't buy them... RONALD BROWNSTEIN and RICHARD RAINEY? Give me a break! Check out the rest of these "reporters" -- you'll see that they are all right-wing hacks...

[deutsey]

69. I ain't making excuses for the reporters and sources

Just providing the links that the OP apparently wasn't willing or able to provide.

I don't put anymore faith in the LA Times than I do the NYT, Washington Post, or other MSM.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Stand and Fight]

20. applegrove, friend.... Be careful.

Remove that reference to freeper out of your post, please. Though I might feel the same, we are not allowed to call them out. It's against board rules. I do agree with your sentiments in your post 100%; however, I do think the poster is posting blind statistics -- that is, his statistics have no basis in fact and are only conjecture... at best.

[applegrove]

60. I had no idea we were not allowed to call the feepers on their freeperness

That is a shame. What do you say when it happens?:shrug:

[uppityperson]

62. Hit the alert button or your message might get deleted.

Speaking from experience. I had one good response deleted once because I used the "fr" word so beware.

[B0S0X87]

30. "It will be obvious by the next election"

So we just wait until Bush screws up some more and then make a move? Face it, he had the worst record of any president in decades: a war going nowhere that was based on false pretenses, a tanking economy, a skyrocketing deficit, horrendous environmental policies, etc. Kerry should have won in a LANDSLIDE. And what happens? Not only does he lose, but Bush manages to increase his majority in Congress.

Bush won Arizona by over 10%. New Mexico went from blue to red, albeit by a tiny percentage, but you can't say Kerry did well there.

If the fundamentalists are going to be a solid Republican voting bloc, we can't just say "Too bad" and move on. They're going to be a major influence on elections for a long time! We either have to convince some of them to start voting democrat or try to improve our image with other groups we're losing, i.e. hispanics.

And why is it that anyone who says, "you know, maybe we need to rethink things is automatically called a freeper?

[applegrove]

63. I apologize for calling you a freeper. I meant it in half jest - but that

does not translate well. (I meant you could be a freeper with that 'looser' talk - are you) I just wanted to point out that the assumptions that followed your numbers were wrong. You seem to be calling for us to play dead & to not try and effect the heartland base who voted for Bush. That would be playing into the hands of Karl Rove. It would also be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The job now is to study the problem and teach each other about what it means to be a Democrat. We also need to look into our souls and flush out any of our own garbage. So we can fight the fight we need to with discernment. Accepting the way things are in your post is giving up because 1) things are not as you portrayed them 2) even if they were, it would be more reason to fight and prepare.

[B0S0X87]

66. I never said to play dead

My point is that we ARE losing the heartland and we need to do more than just calling for election reform and not being "Republican-lite."

[applegrove]

71. Much soul searching is going on. And we need to get to know

our party again. And punch through to the truth. And to accept the heartland republicans is to leave them to the dogs. We have to look at ourselves and connect with the roots of what it meant to be liberal. We have to not let ourselves be separated from ourselves (the market is what created middle class so all liberals like the marketplace even though some lefties will tell you that capitalism is bad - and then they buy something with case which is a capitalist loving thing to do). So we have to discuss all this stuff. And argue. And cry at the lost nation. And work hard. And read. And teach ourselves. We have so much to do we do not have time to make statements like "freeper will not change" or "we cannot become republican lite". We have not done enough work or soul-searching to even truly & deeply know what those concepts mean.

Now is the time to be digging deep. And we are all doing a great job at that. Stop it with telling people to not dig - stop it I say!!:kick:

[frankly_fedup2]

130. Your statements prove what we have been trying to say all along. . .

Bush is the first President to serve two terms and who has never been elected by the American People.

His first term the Supreme Court voted him into office. His second term, the Congress (Republican Majority) voted him into office.

I don't know why he worries about his legacy. He has no legacy because he is not an elected president by the people.

Your account of Bush's record proves it yet again. No one who has an inkling of intelligence would have voted for this man. He has all but ruined this country.

However, your take on "wait until he screws up some more!" OMG. Is there anything left that he CAN screw up?

He has been an embarrassment to this country since his selection in 2000. His recent Europe trip was another embarrassment. He wasn't mending fences. It was seeing who was with him before we go into Iran in June. He does protest this statement too much, don't you think?

[Wilms]

21. I'm afraid the populations attitude has been changing.

I think people are less informed, more selfish, more religiously deranged, less efficient in their use of resources, more in their bubble and afraid of what may be outside of it (not that they'd bother to look.

Given that, RED is the color to choose.

If you're willing to "work hard" and reach a certain income level, RED will reward you while burdening your neighbors who are less interested in cash per se.

If you want cheap gas for your SUV, RED is for you.

Want to take your anger out on something? RED will give you war.

If you don't want to deal with your insides, you can go Fundamental, hand it to Jesus and George to solve all your problems and deal with the evil doers. RED get's the nod.

[NMDemDist2]

22. the worm will turn if they keep pushing this SS thing

people "hate" gov. programs EXCEPT their gov. programs

the stats (that still need to be verified) are from the organizational army the Repubs have in the fundie churches.

this country has a long history of veering from conservative to liberal and back again. There is no doubt we are in for a long haul but the main thing we have to do is mobilize the people who think as we do like the Repubs mobilize the "born agains"

My DH who has voted in every election since he was 20 years old, is now telling me he's gonna sit them out. He has lost the belief that his actions matter. and I must add that despite Air America and Democracy Now! I lose heart when the entire MSM is going to the right as fast as they can.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Trish1168]

38. Those who are moving are BLUE

Besides.....how can anyone trust what is red and blue. I have no doubt this election was manipulated.

[NJCher]

29. waiting for the links

I want to see the poster's documentation.

The first statistic is iffy as to its importance. Fastest growing what? In population? So what. Until they get additional representation, who cares?

The second statistic is flat-out untrue. The Democrats registered more voters in the last election.

Everybody here knows about the republican south and racism.

Can't speak to the last figure.

I'm always suspicious of people who use the words "cold" and "hard."


Cher

[B0S0X87]

32. yes, growing in population

[Stand and Fight]

35. This message is full of crap...

This whole post is full of crap and you know it -- we're still waiting for reputable links to your posting. You've yet to provide any bub, and posting to right-wing websites or right-wing "reporters" is not going to cut it. If you expect us to buy that nonsense, then you'd believe Ann Coulter saying Canada sent troops to god-damn Vietnam. :eyes:

[B0S0X87]

42. So what do you believe?

That the Democrat party is in fine and dandy shape. That so long as we have election reform Barbara Boxer could take Mississippi on a platform of supporting gay marriage and gun control so long as we just stand up for our principles

Look pal, I realize the Democratic Party needs to change if we want to become the majority again. It might mean dropping a few policies (partial birth abortion), stressing others more often (end to corporate welfare, labor rights, environmental protection), or just phrasing things differently (stressing personal freedom and responsibility when it comes to social issues).

[Stand and Fight]

48. Gawd...

Get a clue, PAL! Democrats are not for partial birth abortions. For that matter, do you even know what a partial birth abortion is? It's agains the law and for good reason -- Democrats are not for that! You name one damn Democrat who is for that!

[B0S0X87]

51. How about all the ones who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban

Clinton, Kerry, Boxer, Edwards, and Durbin for starters.

[Stand and Fight]

53. Here we go again...

If you are going to initial a discussion bubba, make sure you do it in such a way that your sources can be verified. Otherwise it is nothing more than fluff and heresy. Give me a link and I'll discuss this with you -- it is your responsibility to prove the validity of your statements.

And a little help for you... KERRY and EDWARDS did not vote against it!

I'll make it simple for you since you're full of shit. You're misrepresenting the facts and lying, and now I'm calling you on it!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00048

[B0S0X87]

54. Now this is easy

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3332

The senate voted 64 to 34 in favor of the ban.

Dissenters included senators Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd and, believe it or not, Kerry.

[Stand and Fight]

55. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

Check my link above buddy.

[B0S0X87]

58. that was to express the view of the senate regarding the Court's decision

If you notice, all the hardcore Republicans voted against it, while most of the dems voted for it.

Now, are you going to ignore the link I gave you?

[uppityperson]

59. One is an an amendment, one is a bill.

Several people voted one way for the amendment (Harkin Amdt. No. 260 ) and the other for the bill (S3).

[B0S0X87]

64. what exactly was the point of that amendment?

[uppityperson]

65. I couldn't figure out the point of that amendment.

And I couldn't wade through all the other amendments that were added on also to come up with the final bill which included who all could tell what because a vote on a bill is not just a vote on the bill because all sorts of stuff (related and not) has been added to it in language meant to be legally confusing to all of us so we have to keep lawyers around to figure it all out. End of rant.

[B0S0X87]

67. Well, thanks for trying

maybe Stand and Fight can explain it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

75. "Partial birth abortion" is a RW term. It is 'Dilation & Extraction'

Please refrain from perpetuaing erroneous bullshit on a Democratic website.

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148

[B0S0X87]

83. wtf, your link proved absolutely nothing

and if our candidates refer to it as Partial-Birth Abortion as they did on the campaign trail, I'll refer to it as that as opposed to your term.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

87. The procedure is called Dilaion and Extraction

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS A TERM INVENTED BY THE RIGHT-WING

And if the ACLU link isn't good enough for you, I suggest you use google.

Excerpt from link:

Isn’t “partial-birth abortion” an actual medical procedure?
No. The term “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical term and it does not identify any particular abortion procedure.

Don’t abortion bans target only D&X abortions?
No. When the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's abortion ban, it did so in part because it found the law banned the most common method of second-trimester abortion, D&E.

[frankly_fedup2]

129. Partial birth abortion is a Republican propaganda tool to try . . .

to get people to think the left kill living, viable infants that would survive outside of the womb. It's a D&E of the remaining tissues of conception. That's it.

[Bluebear]

88. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, actually

It would help in framing the debate in medical terms, not right wing talking points, don't you think?

[B0S0X87]

99. good point

However, I'd never heard that term used before. Everyone, even democrats call it partial-birth abortions.

Q: Would you sign the partial-birth abortion bill, which is about to be passed by Congress?
CLARK: I don't know whether I'd sign that bill or not. I'm not into that detail on partial-birth abortion. In general, I'm pro-life--excuse me, I'm pro-abortion rights.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Abortion.htm

[Trish1168]

34. The number registered in each party seems in error

I had heard that dems out number republicans by 10 points. Not that it matters, because the south has gone republican despite that many haven't changed their registration (I think their voting republican is a race thing).

In any case.....the economy is about to go into a REPUBLICAN GREED INDUCED FREE FALL.

They cut taxes to the rich to the point where we're about to have the worst currency crisis and subsequent depression since the 30's.

Considering that the GOP is controlling government, it'll be hard to blame the dems (Bush got everything he wanted through the GOP congress)....it seems to me that the only way they'll hold power is massive, extreme voter fraud or a full on conversion to dictatorship. Even the elite and powerful don't want this type of recklessness. Regime change will come.

Its the poor and working class and middle class (me) I worry about.

[uppityperson]

40. I don't agree that those are valid facts so end of my response. n/t

[devilgrrl]

44. Wow, that's some serious cold hard bullshit

got any more to share with everyone?

[no name no slogan]

45. Say what you will about the OP's message, but s/he has a point

The numbers of elected Dems has been steadily declining since the late 80s. Coincidentally, it's also about the same time that Dems abandoned economic populism to appeal to the "swing voters".

Sticking our heads in the sand and crying "FREEPER!" will do nothing to change the situation. This party has lost its rudder, economically, and needs to STAND UP for REAL economic fairness, not a "kinder, gentler" version of Reaganomics that we've had in the White House since the 1980s.

Ignore the economic issues at your own peril, and don't be suprised when the working class votes Repub.

[B0S0X87]

46. thanks dude

and, btw, it's a "he."

[Stand and Fight]

52. You're missing the point "no name no slogan"

We're asking for links. No one here has said that the Democratic Party doesn't need to change some things, just as the Republican party needs to as well. (Those who espouse that so much is messed up with the Democratic party often forget the reality that our economy and federal budget are in a mess because of Republicans.) However, what we do want is a clear statement of facts and solutions to the problems that plague our country, because when it is the end of the day it is not about the damn political parties -- it's about America and what's best for America. Democrats need to work on getting their messages out to the people and exposing the Republicans for the scum that they are -- let the working middle class, the poor, the White Americans, the Black Americans, women and men, know what the Republican party is really all about... American's need to know that the Republicans have worked contrary to their interests -- not for them. However, I don't believe that there is a crisis for my party or that it is dead, but I do feel that we need to reevaluate how we market ourselves and our message. Let America know that we're trying to do what is best for the country and that we will stop at nothing to protect their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... Let's face it, we've got great ideas but the way we are selling them is all fucked up. The original poster is not helping us by posting facts and figures without reliable links and reputable sources. That is the argument being waged -- not rather or not there are problems that need to be fixed.

[BeFree]

72. Yeah, what he said, and

Election reform is the most important issue. If we get it reformed, we win many seats in 2006, and in 2007 we impeach. Just two years away.

[Vinca]

47. Geez - how about a thread with best sites for Canadian real estate? nt

[borg5575]

57. Maybe this is why Democrat registrations are down and Rethugs are up

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101404Z.shtml

"Democrat Registration Forms Trashed by RNC-Connected Firm."

I know that this has already been brought up in other threads here, but it deserves to be repeated in this context.

[blm]

61. Deal with the FACT that the GOP controls most of the broadcast media.

Did the people of this country hear about Bush refusing to read the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan 30, 2001?

Did the people hear that John Kerry was the FIRST lawmaker to go after the funding of terrorists and their banks while George Bush was adding to his bank accounts making DEALS with those same banks?

Nope. All we got from the complicit media was that noone could beat Bush on the terror issue. They NEVER told the American people what really happened.

The RW was clever to gain control over most of the airwaves, but, that doesn't change the fact they use LIES and innuendos to attain their goals.

Expose their control over the media and the voting machines or NOTHING can change.

[sendero]

68. I don't have anything to say..

.... about number 2, 3, and 4.

But the "100 fastest counties" is a perfect example of an utterly meaningless statistic.

Please explain to me why I should care about that. It is so unimportant, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why it matters at all.

Here's a hint - any rapidly developing area is BY DEFINITION going to be filled with Reps. People with high incomes VOTE REP. Who cares about them, they will never be a majority and in fact their numerical influence is dropping daily as the American economy slips inexorably deeper into the doldrums.

Really, it's like saying 97 of the most Republican counties voted for Bush**. No shit.

[union_maid]

86. That's a good point

My county is turning blue and it's days of being fast growing are pretty much over. It's full up. We're in a blue state anyway, but our county was always Republican. We now have a Democratic supervisor and a 100% Democratic congressional delegation. We've had more local Democratic victories in recent years, too. What has changed in recent years is we're more educated and more ethnically diverse. That's translated into more Democratic.

[FromTheLeft]

136. Because the fastest

growing counties quickly become 'redistricted' (I know thats not a word, but it sounds right) into 2 state legislature seats and 2 house seats.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. you don't have evidence for your stats

The only hard cold fact there is that starting with LBJ's backing of the '64 civil rights act the Democratic Party has been losing control of the former confederacy. Yup. That's a fact. Oh well.

[bush_is_wacko]

76. We haven't had a LEGITIMATE election in this country for a VERY

long time. Republicans have no idea what they are voting for most the time so it is up to US to INFORM them daily. Making them THINK is the key! I saw something quite different than what you describe here in Colorado though. Colorado went overwhelmingly for liberal issues, and replace two Republican seats with Dem's. Dem's control BOTH our state houses. Our Republican Governor is looking more and more like an ass every time he makes a public statement and the word is our Dem mayor MIGHT run for the position in 2006. he will likely win in a landslide because Coloradoans LIKE him immensely.

Maybe some other red states ought to be looking here for answers.

BTW, there is no way in HELL chimpy won this state! It would have meant a whole lot of people voting against EVERYTHING he stands for and then deciding to do a complete 180 and vote against everything they just passed! It didn't happen, no way, no how!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

77. There are some cold, hard facts you'll have to deal with soon

it's gray, made of granite, and has a personalized inscription.

:hi:

[Stand and Fight]

82. I hope you're right!

Hey Kathy! What do you want on your tombstone... pizza?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Stand and Fight]

98. Well...

Being an elitist liberal... Let's just saying that you're beneath me. ;)

[B0S0X87]

101. "Let's just saying your beneath me"

Brilliant!

However, you maintained that Kerry and Edwards were in favor to the partial birth ban. I posted a link to a site showing that they had indeed voted against the ban, which you ignored, and instead posted a link regarding voting on an amendment that may or may not have had something to do with abortion.

[CAG]

78. Here are some facts that , no doubt, will still be argued about

Presidential election popular majorities won since 68: Repubs 6, Dems, 4

An incredibly democratic-owned congress has shifted to an incredibly republican-owned congress over the last two decades.

The south has been lost. Someone argued this citing New Mexico and Arizona trends. They're in the Southwest. Give me a break... Everyone knows what a person means when they say the south (GA,MS,NC,VA,SC,AL, etc).

Within the last 20-30 years, Repubs have organized a massive grassroots following they've seemingly never had before and now own the media thru even blatant Fox news and AM radio.

This person was just trying to demonstrate that the republicans have been making strides, and we haven't. So far most people have been attacking the person without trying to debate the real points of the post.

[stillcool]

80. WTF?? If you are not going to see that our country...

is no longer ours, ,,,,what is the point? Partial birth abortions?..I think you can get those in Iraq.....

[SoCalifer]

81. At This Point

I am in the belief that this country's government isn't any I recognize. And dare I say that goes for a lot of the Democrat politicians too, therefore dare I further say that I think we are rapidly spiraling out of control to the point where we face the same extremely difficult decision that our founding fathers faced -- what do we do about the Plutocracy we live in, and the Oligarchy controlling it?

As for the right here and now? I am completely serious about this. I think ALL Democrats should choose not to participate in this perversion that has become our government and cast not one ballot -- not a one.. Not one single Democrat cast a vote for anyone.

The Fascists are going to fuck it up anyway, might as well give them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Then when all these stupid fucks who are voting for these Fascists start crying, maybe we can have us a good old tar & feathering party...

[More Than A Feeling]

84. For starters, we could stop with the DLC talking points n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

89. More like Fox News talking points

I don't see anything of that sort published by the DLC.

[More Than A Feeling]

91. a DLCer came to speak to my class

These are the things she said.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

92. Wow-that's pretty scary

the party is moving to the right of Barry Goldwater.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[SouthernDem2004]

93. Why post if you have nothing to add but an insult? Here is a quote for you

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US

[B0S0X87]

95. Can we refrain from using personal insults?

That seems very... fifth grade.

1.I've shown you that we're losing the state legislatures, I've shown you that we lost 97 of the fastest growing counties, and I think it's pretty fucking obvious that we've lost the south.

2. He's not my president. He probably is the worst president of all time.

3. Look, you can keep whining about how the election was stolen and how all Americans really love the Democratic Party as it is right now, or you can sit down and think what needs to be done to regain majority status.

4. See title of thread.

5. Apples are good.

[skippythwndrdog]

94. Assuming your info is correct:

The first stat is disturbing.
I attribute the fact that there are more registered Rs than Ds to the fact that we are in a post 9-11 world, and we are perceived as being weak on security. We need to work on that.
The South prides itself on its perception of self - sufficiency. They've grown tired of the Northeasterners and West Coasters whom they feel want to take their guns (some truth to that) and want to cram more regulations down their throats (as if the Bushies aren't guilty of that.
I attribute the legislature seat shift to the change in the South.
Also, Kerry didn't really win the election. He lost. We are a party that is foundering. We have no unified message, except for being against Bush. I want my party back, I want my party of freedom back.

[B0S0X87]

97. another article about the 100 fastest growing counties going for Bush

The lack of affordable & safe urban housing is turning young families into suburban Republicans? I don't quite get it, but it's interesting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-fast22nov22,0,4272509.story?coll=la-home-headlines

GOP Plants Flag on New Voting Frontier
Bush's huge victory in the fast-growing areas beyond the suburbs alters the political map.
By Ronald Brownstein and Richard Rainey
Times Staff Writers

November 22, 2004

WASHINGTON — The center of the Republican presidential coalition is moving toward the distant edges of suburbia.

In this month's election, President Bush carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, most of them "exurban" communities that are rapidly transforming farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls on the periphery of major metropolitan areas.

Together, these fast-growing communities provided Bush a punishing 1.72 million vote advantage over Democrat John F. Kerry, according to a Times analysis of election results. That was almost half the president's total margin of victory.

"These exurban counties are the new Republican areas, and they will become increasingly important to Republican candidates," said Terry Nelson, the political director for Bush's reelection campaign. "This is where a lot of our vote is."

[Kathy in Cambridge]

104. Biased sources: Authors are RW Shills

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1628380#1628493

Oh, and per DU copyright rules, I'd edit your post to four paragraphs.

[Stand and Fight]

106. Did you happen to read the RULES at all???

FOUR paragraphs bubba!

[Hello_Kitty]

100. 97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties

Not really meaningful. Could be talking about thousands of people, like Maricopa County AZ or it could be some podunk county where the population doubled because a family of four moved in. I agree with you that local Republican power has grown disturbingly but I'm not impressed by meaningless stats like the one about counties.

[B0S0X87]

102. read the article

It mentions:

"Together, these fast-growing communities provided Bush a punishing 1.72 million vote advantage over Democrat John F. Kerry, according to a Times analysis of election results. That was almost half the president's total margin of victory."

[Hello_Kitty]

103. Again that doesn't mean anything

I work with a guy who is Serbian and he claims that there are 2 million Serbs in the U.S. who voted for * because they were still mad at Clinton about the Balkans. He insists that the Serbs were the margin of victory for Bush. If that many Serbs really voted for him, I guess he's right too. Or maybe 2 million more guys named Bob voted for * than voted for Kerry. So the fast growing county thing still doesn't mean diddly to me. Just one of those "facts" thrown out by the RW media to cow us.

[rman]

128. repub counties that profit from Bush's exploitation of blue states,

..started growing only recently, lots of room for growth cause they've been mostly poor all this time.

[Stand and Fight]

105. LINKS LINKS LINKS!!!

We're still waiting!!! Give us, us LINKS... All your links are belong to us!

When do we get some real links?

[B0S0X87]

107. I gave you links

you dismissed them as Republican propoganda despite that they are based on facts. You could do that for just about any article.

[Stand and Fight]

109. Room for one more...

LINK

[B0S0X87]

110. Roemer quoted the National Committee for an Effective Congress

If they're a right-wing group, then you, my friend, are living in a fantasy world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12488-2005Feb9.html

[Patchuli]

108. And the lemmings rush to the cliff together

I think this will not be a problem as Bush's budget sinks into the
American public more and more everyday. His agenda is screwing all
of the regular folks. This is a class war. How long will these 'new
republicans' go on voting against their own best interests? If these
folks aren't rich, they're getting a screw job with no tenderness
from the republican party. :hurts:

The House of Cards shall fall.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

111. According to CNN

Dems and Rep have the same percentage of registered voters 37%-37%. I'm not sure where you got that there are more registered reps than dems?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[zann725]

112. What a 'downer' thread.

Are you here to convert, or work WITH us?

Welcome, Newbie.

[GreenPoet64]

113. Shady Statistics . . .

-97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country went to Bush By what percentage? Less that 2%? Less than 1%?
-More people are registered Republicans than registered Democrats for the first time since the '20s. In which States? And how do those States play into the electoral process?
-What was once the solid democratic south is now rapidly becoming the solid republican south. Was this poll taken before or after Bush's recent drop in popularity?
-Democrats control 49.3% of state legislature seats; the first time that number has been below 50% since the depression. Let's see, Dems recover less than one percent of the seats (.076 percent to be exact) and Dems are up above 50% again

I don't care who the sources are for these stats! Can you say "spin?"

[Disturbed]

114. "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

Dunno who said that.

The point that the Dem party needs to move more to the right is bogus. In my view it needs to move toward the Middle Class, the Working Poor and the Poor. I feel that Dean and Edwards, Kucinich,
Conyers,Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Kerry and a few more Dems are the ones that need to fight harder to bring the party back to it's roots.

[American Tragedy]

115. The shift of the South is not exactly a new phenomenon.

It has been converting rapidly since the Civil Rights Acts. Remember Lyndon Johnson's warning?

[VOX]

132. Exactly -- 4 deep-South states went GOP in 1964...

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana.

As you said, hardly a new phenomenon.

[demwing]

117. Yeah, listen to Howard Dean

He's been talking about rebuilding from the ground up for a LONG TIME.

[newportdadde]

118. Well the county comment doesn't hold that much water

others have broken down how a sparsley populated county can be fast growing yet have few actual voters.

You know how when one team wins the superbowl suddenly everyone is a fan, at least until the team does badly then they all disappear? Same for the RW, its cool right now. They are the New England Patriots of government.

Your other statements are interesting. All of these things occurred right before the depression... and guess what we didn't learn our lesson then.

Anytime a population starts getting a little to big for its britches just like in the roaring 20s were the money flowed like wine they get stupid and ultimately we all pay for it, its happening again right now. Did you know when the market started crashing it actually gained way back up to near were it had been before? Everybody thought it was all over then too.

[Jim__]

121. I think the Solid South is the big issue

Like a previous poster, I've always considered it largely due to the Civil Rights Act. After all, Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi; Bush, after losing the 2000 primary in New Hampshire, went to Bob Jones University.

I'm not from the south. I am curious as to whether southerners believe the south is going Republican because of the Civil Rights Act, or something else. If the south is going Republican because of the Civil Rights Act, I don't see very many options.

[zipplewrath]

131. The south IS the "issue"

  We can argue the numbers and their sources forever.  They
are constantly shifting.  But virtually all of the numbers
mentioned can be attributed directly to the long slow
conversion of the south (Fl, Al, MS, TN, VA, NC, SC, LA,
basically) from the solid south, through the Dixiecrat mode
into republicans. It started in the '60s and really maxed out
in the 90's when the republicans became the majority party in
congress. There was a huge shift of DINO's because they had
only been in the party to stay in the majority and have
chairman seats.

  There was little we could do about this.  We HAD to
integrate, we HAD to diversify.  To a great degree, the
republicans have come along with us on this issue, just about
20 years later.  They are now pursuing minorities.  You think
the shrubs Cuba and immigration proposals are philosophically
based?  

   Our other successes have also worked against us in the long
run.  The Great Society programs have created a society where
true poverty is uncommon and preventable.  And again, the
republicans, 20 years later, are on board.  They are running
around looking to add prescription drug coverage. The same
party that couldn't spell Medicaid is now trying to get on the
bus.  They tried, and failed, to get rid of the NEA, PBS, etc.
 They don't even try anymore. But it fails us because now the
poor don't feel threatened by the economy like the previous
generations did.  No one worries about living in "shanty
towns" or going to soup kitchens. They believe, because
of what liberals accomplished, that they will be protected. 
How many folks you hear talk about how "easy" it is
on "welfare".  The liberals have been so successful
at eliminating the most obvious and pitiful signs of poverty
that people no longer even believe it exists.

   And labor issues.  Labor unions BUILT the middle class in
this country.  The liberals fought, literally and figuratively
for these unions.  We were labeled in all manner of pejorative
ways for doing so.  And in the end, we got passed laws and
whole departments of government that now ensure for workers
certain rights they formerly had to negotiate to obtain. OSHA,
EOE, minimum wage laws, and all manner of laws now protect
workers.  Unions seem, because of our success, to be
unnecessary and counter productive. (Oh, I'd bet ya the former
Enron workers wish their pensions were in a union now, and not
wrapped up in Enron Stock).

  We are guilty of resting on our laurels.  There are still
issues galore available.  Health Care, job security, crime,
immigration reforms, international terrorism, the environment,
education are
all still relevant and ready to be supported.  But each must
be address locally more than nationally.  Dean is right on
that score. All politics are local and we need to rebuild and
maintain our local structures.  Labor unions can no longer be
counted upon (the republicans have done a good job of busting
them) to be the organizing structure of our party.  We need
local structures working local issues and creating local
solutions.  Seats in congress and voter registration and all
the other things these facts attempt to measure will follow.

[Gyre]

122. No credible evidence that your premise is true.

I think it's a "meme" (viral soundbite) put out by the repubes to lend the '04 election results some credibility. Amazing how people just take these numbers on faith, or gullibility.

Gyre

[Darkhawk32]

123. Small counties will always have a higher % growth than larger counties...

so that point is invalid.

[fishwax]

124. I don't see these "facts" as particularly troublesome

-97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country went to Bush

I don't see how this is relevant. Everyone gets one vote a piece, no matter how fast the county they live in is growing. And most of these counties seem to be fast growing b/c they are farmland (very few people) being ceded to encroaching suburbs (latest waves of white flight). It just doesn't seem relevant.

-More people are registered Republicans than registered Democrats for the first time since the '20s.

I don't believe this statistic, and haven't seen any link supporting it yet.

-What was once the solid democratic south is now rapidly becoming the solid republican south.

It hasn't been the solid democratic south for a long time, so this is hardly old news. We know we can't ever lose more southern states then we did in 2000, when we still would have won the election had the votes been counted in Florida (which, sociologically, wasn't really part of the solid south). And we'd have won in 2004 with Ohio. Plus '04 actually brought signs of life in southern states, with Arkansas and others appearing close. We didn't win them, but the state parties seem to me to be stemming the tide that has been rolling twards the GOP since the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

-Democrats control 49.3% of state legislature seats; the first time that number has been below 50% since the depression.

This is disappointing, but look at it in the context of the historical change in the parties since the Depression. This number is entwined with point 3. We've lost state seats all across the south, but a good share of those democrats were extremely conservative, and the new numbers reflect more a change in party realignment than a change in ideology. In Oklahoma, for instance, the repubs took the state legislature this year. But, while the democrats had the state legislature for decades before that, it wasn't exactly a liberal state legislature.

In a way, I see that realignment as a good thing. Getting rid of the might-as-well-be-repubs in the party allows us to focus on issues that energize the remaining base, which means we can then expand instead of staving off defections.

For years, the DP was large and had many stragglers and outliers that the GOP could pick off to build their own base. This was the case with many of the southern dems, and that is why points 3 and 4 have happened. But now, the GOP is large and fractious, and there are many groups in the GOP that are ripe for picking by the Democratic Party, including secularists who are worried about the influence of the religious right, civil libertarians who, like their counterparts on the left, are concerned about the infringements of the Patriot Act and other aspects of the Bush Administration, and people who are concerned about the bush administration's expanding government through NCLB, etc. We don't have to kowtow to those people, but we can bring some of them in by focusing on issues we have in common. I think a lot of McCain's followers fall into this camp.

[Legolassie]

126. A very thoughtful analysis. nt

[CTLawGuy]

127. we need candidates

who take stands and are proud of what they believe in .

This means we need a party that is willing to take risks, and put forth good ideas people can get behind.

[Hidden Stillness]

133. A Little of This, A Little of That

I think there are three different parts to this question: 1) The "DLC"/corporate Republican media-type of lie, that we are all of these horrible things, nobody likes us, we should become archcons, blah--easily dismissed; 2) An actual turn against us, that we must face, as described by people who wish us well, and therefore convincing; and, 3) An actual opinion against us, but based on a lie or smear campaign, which if people knew the truth, they would not oppose us.

People have to face the fact that there are different parts of this country, and they aren't necessarily like each other at all. Good, liberal/radical Democrats from the Midwest can hate the ones from the Coasts because the Midwesterners are sick of the self-absorbed arrogance, vulgarity and "show biz" triviality of supposed "cosmopolitan" types, and the fact that they are oblivious to our issues. We do have to face the fact that the phony, Republican non-issue of gay marriage was a ploy to turn people against us, it began with no popular support but only Republican ballot-placing connivance, and that it is not the same as support for gay rights or a strong stand against bigotry. We have to be clearer on why there are people who think we will not be good on national defense, (especially since it was Democrats--from FDR to Clinton--who built up the armed forces and veterans' benefits), an opinion I do not understand at all. There actually are people who still think of Democrats as "hippies" and the like, and we have to be clearer on educating, instead of ignoring and avoiding those parts of the country. Do NOT become more conservative, especially now that Republicans are seriously, chillingly, ripping the country and its laws apart.

There is a lot of overlap on opinions, and people will hold opinions for different reasons. For example, I like relatively harsh sentences for crimes, and am also for gun control, for the same reason--it fights crime. Is the first opinion "conservative" and the second "liberal"? No--I am a liberal and never want to be called the other. These are only contradictory opinions to some people; it is all the same opinion if you want a stable, safe society. The labels are not helping. Let's say you are tough on crime--"conservative"--but what you want the heavy sentences for are rapists, batterers, violent-pornographers, and the rest that there have never been real punishments for; then you are a feminist. The attitude of the feminist who fights for victims' rights will never go together with the "lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" group. It is not helpful to brand people because you don't even discover how they think.

We can learn from intelligent Democrats who, for example, run in certain parts of the country and lose. They often hear from people why they won't vote for a Democrat, "anymore." After the 2004 Presidential election, C-SPAN had many panel discussions on these issues, voting patterns, media, "The Future of the Domocratic Party," etc., and on one of these Democratic ones, from Dec. 3, 2004, Brad Carson, who ran for re-election to Congress in Oklahoma, and lost, made many really great comments. First comparing the current state of our party to Britain's Labour Party during the '80s, when there was real hatred of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, who then just kept winning, for a while, Carson believes that as things change from this to that, our day will come again. However, "The race turned for us, when there were multimillion dollar expenditures saying, 'A vote for Brad Carson is a vote for Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy,' " and that people in Oklahoma said, "You know, I think you'd be a much better Senator than Tom Coburn would be, but you are going to, you are going to deliver the Senate to the hands of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, and we can't have that happen." The word Carson used to describe them in that region of the country, is "polarizing," and as someone who grew up in a family that considered the Kennedys heroes and national treasures, I feel we have to understand why this is. It is offensive, but people are still thinking of something--what?

This is one thing we should really be having think tanks and Town Hall meetings and all the rest about: Learning from Democrats in areas of the country where we are not winning anymore, but who themselves won--Sen. Blanche Lincoln is another example--and who will tell us, honestly, and amongst ourselves, what some of the attitudes are, and what we want to do about it. Very often, the solution is not to "turn Republican," as we are always, only, told, but just the opposite--to become real fighters again. We have to hear it, though; from people who want to help.

Brad Carson quoted someting an earlier panel moderator, Larry Sabato, had said: "Until the last member of the Viet Nam generation dies, we're gonna be fighting that battle over and over and over again, and, that's what I see in Congress, I see it in Oklahoma, we're fighting the '60s social struggles, both the domestic and the international ones, over and over again. Oklahoma is clearly on one side of that divide, and they have come home to roost today, and until the last member of that generation dies, and new people come in, who weren't formed by those experiences, the Democrats are on the one side of those changes, that has a phenomenally organized and well-financed resistance to it, and we get beaten in every election, fighting those same battles, and, there's nothing you can do about it--it's the country, it's the world; the same way that the elections in the 1880s were still about the Civil War, you know. Till the last generation formed by that tremendously tumultuous moment passes, then we live in its shadow, and we reap the whirlwind."

Carson referred to the national DNC as "irrelevent" to Carson's regional campaign, that there was no support, no money, etc., the same complaint many have made. How many elections have we lost because of the long-term, DLC, top-down, "Presidential-campaigns-only" structure that froze out most of the country, and didn't even try? The Democratic Party allowed its local structure to decay and die a long time ago, and we lost it all then. It became a corporate structure issuing orders, messages and how they will be stated, etc., then gave no Party support. When the DLC types started using "strategies" to determine which slogans would be used, and not any longer the spontaneous expression of a thing, a promise or a pledge, then the whole sense of who we are philosophically, had to dissolve; it wasn't there anymore.

During this past election, Republicans lied about us, and did not pay a price for it. They passed out flyers that claimed we would "Ban the Bible," force gay marriage on the country, and many other lies. If people voted against us because of these things, then do they "not agree with us," "support the moral behavior of Republicans," or what is the actual statement of this event? This happens over and over now. When people are against us because of lies, then they are not necessarily against us for anything real. Also, the huge amounts of money that subterranean Republican groups pretending to be independant, and then slandering the Democrat, are destroying the whole system. Carson was defeated with it, especially the so-called "Club for Growth," which spent heavily to target and attack our candidates.

A staement Brad Carson made near the end of this panel may just be a key to a future hope. Giving the opinion that Bush's second term will probably be much like the first, Carson then said, "There is a certain side of you that almost says, you know, we should just vote no, but don't do anything heroic, let them get their way, let them take everything to the absurd, and half-cocked conclusions that it will no doubt lead to, and let the country have a referendum on it in four years. You know, there's a part of me that says that--if they want to get rid of the Department of Education, go for it; you know--abolish it. We'll vote 'no,' they got more votes, let's don't filibuster it, let's let 'em do it--and let's see what the people think. Same thing on judges and all the rest of that. I don't believe the agenda is one that the majority of people believe in--it's about a cultural orientation and how they vote, and other things. So let's let them implement their agenda, and, there's a part of me that says that's our best chance, for having the kind of epiphany that may lead to a change in the kind of fundamental dynamics that are going on and on and on."

[kentuck]

134. Why are so few people voting ??

Not just for Democrats, but overall ?

[CWebster]

135. Well sure.

It might help if Democrats had their own brand to promote.

Democrats can capitalize on successful strategies of the Right, but sooner or later, that cold harsh light of day will dawn, as it did for the German people, and what will the Democrats say then?

You tricked us? You misled us? You deceived us? We didn't know?

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. We should be seeking converts to our Party, and lost sheep returning.

I am struck by all the suspicion that Wesley Clark was greeted with, and still is faced with by some in our Party. Clark was an Independent with an early record of voting for Republican Presidential candidates and a later record of voting for Democratic Presidential candidates.

I am not talking about the hesitancy some felt about supporting Clark in 2004 for the Presidential nomination, given the obvious importance of the position and what many felt was an insufficient track record to gage Clark by. I can understand that. I am talking about the more overt hostility some expressed toward Clark for having once voted Republican and for having had a career in the military.

The Republican Party immediately embraced Colin Powell despite the fact that he held many positions far more moderate than their platform called for. Clark on the other hand holds positions fully in line with the center left mainstream of our Party. As a Clark supporter who works with a broad array of people in my professional world, I found many moderate Republicans and Independents were favorably impressed by Clark, along with my own far more leftist friends. There is a reason why Clark did well in places like Arizona and Oklahoma in the Primaries.

We have to think outside the box some to promote competent candidates with good progressive values but broad appeal. If McGovern and Carter can forgive Nixon and Reagan Democrats, we should welcome them back also once they see the error of their former ways.

[IndianaGreen]

142. Secede from Jesusland!

Let them sink further into the Dark Ages, and let's leave before they start burning witches and heretics at the stake.

If you think I am writing this country off, I am.