By Beauty Damned

One problem that John Kerry had during the election cycle was that while he said he opposed Bush, he sounded too much like him. He didn't draw enough differences and he backed down on issues that he should have been fiercer on. That is beside the point now.

The main problem Democrats face now is that they want to stay in office. To do that they have to find a middle ground on some of Bush's policies especially the ones that their constituents support. Democrat Senators and Congressmen represent their districts and many of them have more than just Democrat support. Their job is to do what their people want them to do. That is why you can have Nancy Pelosi act against Bush and why Mary Landreiu from Louisiana can't. Look at Arlen Spector he is a liberal Republican from Pennsylvania. He can be liberal and pro-choice because he has strong Democratic support from his constituency. He isn't beholden to the religious right, he is beholden to a very moderate electorate. He must represent their views and that is why he can continue to be fairly liberal.

Ultimately, those in office must act in the best interest of their constituents and that sometimes means they must compromise. If not they lose the next election, like Tom Daschle found out.

I have a question. Who (Democrats) do you think should run in 4 years? Not only that, who do you think actually has a chance of getting crossover success? As I see it, Obama probably wouldn't be ready to run. I see him posibly going for it in 2012 (that is, if another Republican gets elected in 2008) or 2016. However, I have a feeling that even in by that time, Americans will still be iffy about voting for a Black Muslim. That's not my personal view, just how I have a feeling the majority of people would vote.

Then there's Hillary. I don't think Hillary has near enough crossover success to garner the votes.

Those are the two obvious choices. Do you think Lieberman would try again? I think I read somewhere that he was quoted as saying that it's a possibility. I know a lot of independents and not-so-conservative Republicans that like him a great deal.

So anyway, your thoughts or hopes?

I wouldn't choose any of those people to run for president, girl, and to tell you the truth, I really couldn't give you an answer on that right now. What I hope for right now is not the next candidate, but that America itself will change. That the people will come back to progressive values rather than conservative nanny state values. Maybe that's a futile hope, but that's where my heart is. This election was a terrible disappointment for me. Not because John Kerry lost, but because people like me are forced to come to terms with the fact that this is a more conservative country than we ever dreamed and we have still not figured out how to redirect people's priorities towards progress rather than what I see as a huge regression in society.

I don't think the solution to the problem is for liberals/democrats to become more conservative or even centrist. Just the opposite. I think that democrats will move towards the upper hand when they start embracing and exhibiting as much pride in their liberal values as republicans do in their conservative values. Dem politicians need to stop falling into the trap that John Kerry and so many others have by trying to get up on to the high horse with republicans rather than spending twice as much time pointing out the utter hypocricy in their values and demonstrating how progressive values are better for America and the world that we so heavily effect.

What the fuck does it mean when John Kerry talks about his opposition to Bush's policies for an entire election cycle and then when it's over, it's as if it's all a game and now John Kerry is going to work with the president in his policies?

It means that Kerry knows he lost on his policy ideas and that he's gonna work with the President considering that the President won the election.

If you think he lost on his policy proposals, you overestimate the awareness of the American people and ignore statistics.

First of all, there is insufficient evidence of WHO won the election. The lack of a paper trail leaves it up in the air, and we saw in 2000 what Bush was willing to do to "win."

Secondly, polls are bullshit. Especially post-mortems. Everybody knows what they're supposed to answer now. And that's what they say, on cue. "BAAAAAAH." (Like Maria said, folks, lets quit making their arguments for them, or validating them.)

Third, only twenty per cent of all those who voted identified with the so-called "morals" issues, i.e., "I hate faggots, and I love foetuses more than women." Some morality. That leaves eighty per cent, of all those who voted, "amoral." Then there's the forty per cent of all those eligible to vote who failed to vote at all. I suspect many of them were sick of the whole process, and not at all stirred by Kerry or Bush. We'll never know what they thought, since they didn't vote.

But I think the Democrats should be asking that, of them. Why didn't the vote? What will it take to get that plurality, larger than either party's share, on the progressive side, and voting? There's something to work on for the next two years, when the House is up for grabs again.

Meanwhile, the Dems are grossly in the minority, in both Houses. They have to play ball with the Repukes to get any pork at all for their constituents. And they need to avoid looking like Gingrich's obstructionist "Republican Revolutionaries," or they'll get bounced out like them.

That said, I think the Dems are smarter at legislative politics, having run them for so long, in the past. They are lying low now, making nice noises. But count on them to make it an issue whenever the Repukes step on their dicks and annoy everybody by exposing their nasty agenda. If the Repukes go all Fundamentalist, it could cost them Congress in 2006. That's what the Dems will be playing for, in the next two years (and co-opting scared, moderate Repukes). Then, the White House in 2008.

It'll probably be a moderate white male Southern Governor for Prez, on the Dems side, in 2008. At least, I hope so, much as those guys sicken me. Just a guess. But Northern liberal Senators just haven't worked out as national candidates. (Some good men, too: Humphrey, Muskie, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.) Personally, I think it's the accents. A West Coast or Mid-Atlantic candidate mighta done better. Next time: Hillary for VP. Maybe Hillary for Prez & Obama for VP in 2012 or 20016.

In the meantime, there needs to be a sort of John Dean wing in the Democratic Party, or just outside of it, raising high holy Hell all the time, stirring up the base, and inspiring recruits from the great silent 40% who don't vote. Find their hot-buttons, and PUSH them: Jobs, taxes, whatever. The next Dem VP candidate should be one of them Deaniacs, and a real pit bull. Having two Mr. Nice Guys hurt them this year. Can you imagine Hillary & Cheney debating? He would have popped an aneurysm!

BTW, Daschle compromised like a MOTHERFUCKER. He was TOO damned accomodating. (His own overfed constituents were probably shocked to see him running as a Democrat. His ads all featured BUSH!) And so is that virtual Republican Lieberman; way too accomodating.

Lastly, OK, hey yawl, quit askin' "What are THEY gonna do?" THEY work for US! TELL them what to do. Fuck the focus groups. Ask US, we'll tell ya: KICK REPUKE ASS!!! On health care, social security, the environment, and this phony war on terrorism. (Story on NPR today: We are GOING to lose an American city to loose Russian/Pakistani nukes. Just a matter of where and when. Bush is doing NOTHING. If they nuke us, I hope it's in Texas, maybe Crawford, or Oily Houston. New York has bled enough for the Red States.)

MARIA FOR DNC CHAIRLADY!!!

First of all, there is insufficient evidence of WHO won the election.

Prove it otherwise....

The lack of a paper trail leaves it up in the air, and we saw in 2000 what Bush was willing to do to "win."
First of all, there is insufficient evidence of WHO won the election.

Yeah there is: every news agency validated the election results. Prove it otherwise....

The lack of a paper trail leaves it up in the air, and we saw in 2000 what Bush was willing to do to "win."

Really? Exactly what was President Bush willing to do?

Secondly, polls are bullshit.

You're right. And no matter how you tilt your head or smash it with a ballpeen hammer, the results are still the same.

Third, only twenty per cent of all those who voted identified with the so-called "morals" issues, i.e., "I hate faggots, and I love foetuses more than women." Some morality. That leaves eighty per cent, of all those who voted, "amoral."

Uhhh - see above for your analysis.

Meanwhile, the Dems are grossly in the minority, in both Houses. They have to play ball with the Repukes to get any pork at all for their constituents. And they need to avoid looking like Gingrich's obstructionist "Republican Revolutionaries," or they'll get bounced out like them.

You're right - to the victor go the spoils.
Really? Exactly what was President Bush willing to do?

First of all, there is insufficient evidence of WHO won the election. The lack of a paper trail leaves it up in the air, and we saw in 2000 what Bush was willing to do to "win."

wow. ignorance is bliss, apparently. I thought we were done arguing who won the election?

DONE? We haven't even gotten started.

well argue all you want. it's not going to change anything. how about you do something productive instead of bitching about something you can't change?

Because truth has value. That the same mistakes might not be made again.

what truth would that be? President Bush won the election fair and square, whether you like it or not. unless you can prove otherwise, your argument is moot. call it a "mistake" if you want. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Read 'em and weep, Freepers:

HOW Bush stole the election THIS time.

Too bad you don't care as much about your country, and democracy, and the rule of law, as you do about your Party, and your weird ideology, and your indefensible policies.

I asked for PROOF, not the opinion of a bunch of geeks kissing Kerry's ass. if you honestly believe that e-voting glitches gave the President 3.5 million more votes than Senator Kerry, then I honestly feel sorry for you. time to adjust your tin foil hat.

"what truth would that be? President Bush won the election fair and square, whether you like it or not. unless you can prove otherwise, your argument is moot. call it a "mistake" if you want. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one."

Girl, it's not just about stealing the election. It's about serious problems in our election system. There is far too much room for human and electronic error. Every state and county has its own rules regarding what constitutes a valid vote. Hundreds of thousands of votes literally GET THROWN OUT. It's called spoilage Girl. Look it up. There needs to be a more uniform voting system in this country.

It has already been PROVEN that a glitch in an electronic voting machine gave Bush 3,000 extra votes in Ohio. What on earth makes you think that democrats would ignore that or the glaring possibility that it wasn't an isolated incident? WOULD REPUBLICANS? I DON'T THINK SO. If a company that demonstrated a great deal of support for Kerry was the same company that manufactured the voting machines used in one of the most major deciding states, Ohio, and Kerry had won, you can bet republicans would be screaming about it.

You are really out of it if you think that our election just went super smooth and Bush's win was unquestionable. And you're downright naive if you think our election system is the best and most reliable that it can be. I'm sure you and every other republican would just love for democrats to shut up. In fact, you guys never get tired of telling us to do so. But if the shoe was on the other foot, you can bet republicans would not be backing off of the issue and after the Katherine-Harris-voter-suppression, Conflict-of-interest-laden-Supreme-Court-intervention, imperfect-voting-system and geriatric-incompetence debacle of 2000, I don't know what the fuck makes you think that we would let go easy this time while there was no shortage of glaring mishaps in this election as well. We need huge voting reform to prevent rigging, tampering and irreversable error, not to mention the abolition of "spoilage."

So sulk and pout and patronize as much as you want about how democrats should just move on and there's nothing we can do about it now, but I think we could have said the same thing when your shitwad party went for the jugular to get Clinton out of office, so suck it up.

And THIS my friends, is why the Democrats are unlikely to win in 2008, either. Instead of realizing that THEY lost, they buy into the conspiracy theories. Since it isn't THEIR fault the election was lost, they'll change nothing in their 2008 bid, and the American people will again speak with their vote.

Let the moonbats rant and rave. It only bolsters the average American's opinion that their nuts, which only helps our cause.

Mitt n Rudy 2008!

PS: I can't wait to see Ashcroft on the SC. Not because I think he'll be good, but because it will result in many moonbat implosions.

What conspiracy theory? Do you deny that voting machine in Ohio gave 3,000 extra votes to Bush? Do you deny the existence of spoilage? Do you deny that the NAACP filed a lawsuit against Katherine Harris and DBT in 2000 alleging voter suppression? Do you deny that Justice Scalia's son and Clarence Thomas's wife had cozy relationships with the Bush campaign in 2000 at the time they ruled in Bush's favor? Do you deny that there are inconsistencies and room for manipulation in our voting system that invite error and unfair voting practices?

Please tell me what conspiracy you're talking about. Because I'm talking about a little thing called FACTS.

Moonbats indeed.. and this from someone who regularly bays at the moon when he gets bumped for bad behvior. Think we'll call him a "moonatic".

well.. at least 'he' only gets to spout his moronic right wing phraseology here. There's a fair amount of comfort in that. :-)

Take Romney and shove him up your South Boston ass or is it Nahant? No matter same scummy difference. (Don't get jabbed in the leg with a syringe when going for a dip a Revere Beach..

The world is upside down: A moron like Romney governing the Commonwealth. The forefather's are doing pirouettes in their respective graves. Everyone don their Indian duds. It's time to dump the tea overbaord again.

So sulk and pout and patronize as much as you want about how democrats should just move on and there's nothing we can do about it now, but I think we could have said the same thing when your shitwad party went for the jugular to get Clinton out of office, so suck it up.

psst. *whispers* not that it'll make a huge difference to you, but I voted for Gore in 2000 and probably would have voted for Clinton in his second term prior to that if I hadn't missed the voting age cut off by a few months. luckily for me, I came to my senses. :-P

That just confirms to me that people like you and Mad Mikey have some form of schitzophrenia.

bahaha! "probably would have voted for Clinton in his second term prior to that if I hadn't missed the voting age cut off by a few months."

that explains it all for you girl! you are just a baby yet and don't know any better....explains A LOT!

ah yes. because age and wisdom are one in the same, right nunya? I think you've pretty much proven that wrong time and time again.

"What conspiracy theory? Do you deny that voting machine in Ohio gave 3,000 extra votes to Bush? Do you deny the existence of spoilage? Do you deny that the NAACP filed a lawsuit against Katherine Harris and DBT in 2000 alleging voter suppression? Do you deny that Justice Scalia's son and Clarence Thomas's wife had cozy relationships with the Bush campaign in 2000 at the time they ruled in Bush's favor? Do you deny that there are inconsistencies and room for manipulation in our voting system that invite error and unfair voting practices?

Please tell me what conspiracy you're talking about. Because I'm talking about a little thing called FACTS."

YOU TELL HIM!!! Right on!

Awesome website, fellow PBAer.

Why Are We Back In Iraq?

My point, and the point of those computer experts who've analysed the situation, is that NO election can properly be certified if there is no paper trail, and no way to examine the machines' code. I should think this would concern any American, of whatever party. But the Repukes are happy to let it ride as long as it's in their favor. The Repukes attitude pretty much says it all: They could care less about full, free and fair elections & vote counts. So why should anybody else accept it?

Obviously, all the chickens have yet to come to roost on this. Bush the Usurper is probably there to stay. Unless a more balanced Congrees, or an independent, responsible, non-partisan judiciary indicts him. But this can NEVER be allowed to happen again. That's what all real Americans should focus on: auditable, open election software, and full paper trails.

That, of course leaves out most Repukes, or, as they obviously wish to be known someday soon, the real Banana Republicans. Why not just move to Guatemala, or Honduras, guys? Save yourselves all the trouble of remaking this country in their image. The rest of us, the real majority, won't allow it, anyway.

You're 'link' is opinion, not fact.

You can sling alegations till the cows come home, but until you have proof, it's just you thinking that the mind control satellites are no overhead at the moment....

and your dink is opinion not fact

Nahant. Don't be envious. Not everyone can afford to live here.

Revere Beach? That's where your kind hangs out. I have a private beach.

private beach in Nahant? You jest. That's a contradition in terms. It's like saying Nantasket Beach is tony!

get a grip Nahant is nothing but some silt-ridden scummy bag back-water of Winthrop. Still the same old backwash of medical supplies dumped by Mass. General.

Nahant?? LMAO. Try Nantucket or Chilmark on the Vineyard girl. "You can fool some of the people SOME of the time... as the saying goes"

Heh. I love watching you slum dwellers churn with envy.

Save your welfare checks. You may be able to afford a day trip here.

Geoffrey got bitchslapped.

I've been to nahant myself. I don't see what is so special about it. Boring town, beatup houses, the beach is scummy.

Bitchslapped? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

He's obviously never been to Nahant. Beat up houses? If I get home before dark, I'll take a picture of the mansions around me.

I can understand him wanting to pretend he has, though. People like him always wish they could afford to live here.

Keep saving those welfare checks. You'll be able to afford the visit someday.

Geoffrey, you seem to easily forget that there's always someone richer, smarter and better looking than the you.

It's humorous to watch you feign arrogance and [geographical] elitism, when truth be told, you are just another little peon who thinks you got a piece of some special pie. There are people living in the ghettos of Rio De Janeiro enjoying prettier beaches than you live on. And there are richer suckers living in crappier neighborhoods than the one you live in. What is your point Geoffrey? What does this prove about you, except that you spend your "privileged" life trying desperately to make others feel less than you to avoid the fact that you are nothing yourself?

Geoffrey, you seem to easily forget that there's always someone richer, smarter and better looking than the you.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's humorous to watch you feign arrogance and [geographical] elitism, when truth be told, you are just another little peon who thinks you got a piece of some special pie.

It's humorous to watch you ignore the fact that Richard first put down a geographical location. What's the difference?

This "little peon" didn't just GET a piece of some special pie, I EARNED it.

There are people living in the ghettos of Rio De Janeiro enjoying prettier beaches than you live on.

Yeah? They aren't an easy commute to Boston, though. Ipanema is one of the prettiest beaches in Rio, but I can't drive or take the T to work from there.

What is your point Geoffrey? What does this prove about you, except that you spend your "privileged" life trying desperately to make others feel less than you to avoid the fact that you are nothing yourself?

Actually, I proved my point, then you bolstered it. Richard insulted a geographic region, thinking I lived there. First, I find it humorous when people pretend to loathe something rather than admit envy. Second, I enjoy watching your hipocrisy. You ignore Richard's attack, then focus on my defense.

No one would be saying anything at all about where you live if you didn't brag about it like it was some golden utopia while flicking boogers at all the "little people." You forget that this ridiculous subject did not begin here. It began a long time ago when you started with all your bragging - which if I recall correctly, was shortly after you started up your blog - and with you and Gordon snearing about Revere Beach in a previous thread. Richard did not start anything.

You invite his remarks by consistently placing yourself on a pedestal because you think where you live and who you are is extra special. If you are a pretentious schmuck, don't be surprised when people are prompted to ridicule you.

No one would be saying anything at all about where you live if you didn't brag about it like it was some golden utopia while flicking boogers at all the "little people."

BZZZZZZ. Thanks for playing. Richard brought insulted it. I defended it.

Richard did not start anything.

Spin Spin Spin Hipocrisy.

You started it a long time ago my friend. Why don't you take a looksee at some of your Braggy Braggertons archives for a reality check? You've always played the pretentious dick, don't cry because it got thrown back in your face.

-brought

You've always played the pretentious dick, don't cry because it got thrown back in your face.

Spin Spin Spin Spin...

:-)

Curious phenomenon yelling foul after all past affronts. But such be the lot of those who like to stir up the pot and then hide and watch the fracas. **yawn**

"dish it out but can't take it...." silt-ridden backwater I say! Now you want to see REAL New England beaches spend a summer at Madaket in Nantucket.

OH yeah... Nahant's worth a 'day trip'.... lmdgfao! (It's worth a match and a can of gasoline) The sea water's so thick with 'residue' from Boston Harbour they advise you not swim at low tide. If you wanna come out with both arms I'll add: "Don't swim at high tide either".

Plus... rumour has it... jellyfish (and various other invertebrates) have taken up residence on dry land! Imagine. Some even have COMPUTERS!

I understand your lashing out. Envy will do that to you. Save your welfare checks and someday you'll be able to afford a day trip out of your ghetto.

No one would be saying anything at all about where you live if you didn't brag about it like it was some golden utopia while flicking boogers at all the "little people."

I'm sorry, Geoffrey, but that was really fucking funny. I am easily amused by booger (and fart) jokes. I am so my mother's daughter sometimes that it scares me.