Vast oversimplification

Post #246,713 by bepatient 3/3/06 5:24:06 PM Reply	Vast oversimplification and quite possible just plain wrong But the real reason for their current power is that they have managed to make it the "Christian American" movement in the minds of many people. To the point where many people who agree more with the Democrats on specific posistions vote Republican because they think it is the Christian thing to do. At the core of the "family values" debate, the vast majority of Americans have judeo-christian mindsets. So, when the dems talk about "allowing gay marriage", this is immediately rejected by this part of the populace. BUT, if you were to change the term marriage and discuss equal benefits for same sex couples...you would get further. BUT, the dems allowed and flaunted the "gay marriage" thing...with the folks in San Fran making the news and allowing their "fringe" to drive this voting block away. Another part of this was the hammering in the debate of the VPs daughter. It was obviously a staged attack. It offended this block's sensibilities. Not necessarily by bringing out some "kneejerk homophobic response"..but for attacking a mans family to try and gain position. And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center. They aren't looking to vote for anyone because its "the christian thing to do"...their looking to place votes with a party that they think more representative of their ethic...and the dems have blown this lately because of their allowance of the fringe to make such a spectacle of themselves. The Repo side has their lunatic fringe too...but you don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention (as an example) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #246,717 by inthane-chan 3/3/06 6:45:30 PM Reply	Quite right about that. You don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention Yeah, they just get invited to the white house to make decisions behind closed doors... When somebody asks you to trade your freedoms for security, it isn't your* security they're talking about.*
Post #246,720 by bepatient 3/3/06 7:42:24 PM Reply	Aside from the fact... ...that you should back these things up when you throw them out there (nudge)...the point is about appearances, as that is generally what you are dealing with during elections. The dems have failed MASSIVELY in controlling what has been done in their name during the past 2 cycles. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #246,721 by ben_tilly 3/3/06 8:43:12 PM Reply	From my point of view Bush, Cheney et al are the Republican lunatic fringe. Yes, I know that they aren't really. But from my point of view they are more extreme than Michael Moore is. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #246,784 by Simon_Jester 3/4/06 11:01:38 AM Reply	Bull.... I'll take them one at a time... So, when the dems talk about "allowing gay marriage", this is immediately rejected by this part of the populace. BUT, if you were to change the term marriage and discuss equal benefits for same sex couples...you would get further. BUT, the dems allowed and flaunted the "gay marriage" thing...with the folks in San Fran making the news and allowing their "fringe" to drive this voting block away. First off, dems were NOT pushing gay marriage. A small group was pushing for "gay marriage" through the court system in state courts. However, that did not prevent Republicans and the fair right wing from claiming that it was being pushed by the left. Another part of this was the hammering in the debate of the VPs daughter. It was obviously a staged attack. It offended this block's sensibilities. Not necessarily by bringing out some "kneejerk homophobic response"..but for attacking a mans family to try and gain position. I'll grant you this one. She's a fair target since she is in politics (Cheney's campaign manager), but it was a stupid approach and stupid execution. Whomever was the advisor on that needs to be fired. And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center. Sigh. Michael Moore represents the Democratic party as much as Limbaugh represent the Republican party (and the Liberatians). They aren't looking to vote for anyone because its "the christian thing to do"...their looking to place votes with a party that they think more representative of their ethic...and the dems have blown this lately because of their allowance of the fringe to make such a spectacle of themselves. Actually, what they've allowed to do is for the Republicans to define their values and agenda and are suprised when they come up looking so bad in the eyes of the media and the public. The Repo side has their lunatic fringe too...but you don't see the head of the southern baptists sitting next to George Sr. at the convention (as an example) No, you see Kenny-boy, Scooter Libby, Perle, Delay, Duke Cunningham, and Abramoff all enjoying a night at the Whitehouse. The left hasn't defined their message....and they certainly aren't attacking like they should. (Although, they are slowly learning to improve.)
Post #246,786 by bepatient 3/4/06 11:39:06 AM Reply	Sigh And then there's Mike Moore. Giving him a promiment position in the party workings does nothing to swing opinion of those hoping the dems are closer to center. Sigh. Michael Moore represents the Democratic party as much as Limbaugh represent the Republican party (and the Liberatians). So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? And on the rest...who's responsibility is it to define the message? The Dems have let the message be defined for them. Is it the Republican's fault for being better at politics than the Democrats or is it a Democrat failure. I personally think the Dems are failing. They cannot define their agenda well enough to withstand a campaign. Hell, their leader couldn't define half of his own agenda and had to refer people to a website. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #246,845 by Simon_Jester 3/5/06 8:27:54 AM Reply	Well, on one issue we agree.... So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies. (Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?) And on the rest...who's responsibility is it to define the message? The Dems have let the message be defined for them. I agree with you that Democrats have failed to define their message. (Although I think Dean is going to change that).
Post #246,861 by bepatient 3/5/06 12:07:21 PM Reply	You keep missing the point So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies. (Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?) Theres a difference that you seem to want to sweep under. If Moore is so damned removed from the agenda, why was he afforded the position of sitting in the leadership box next to a former President? Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sitting him at the convention where you damned well know all the cameras will be focused IS promotion. So, the Dems promoted Moore's agenda...the Reps used Rush for his strength, which is audience reach...they didn't, however, invite him to the convention and sit him next to daddy (tacitly endorsing all his views). How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #246,893 by Simon_Jester 3/5/06 6:11:12 PM Reply	Again, we disagree on this point... Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sorry, total disagreement. Cheney has been in hiding since Bush was elected. I think he's giving something like 2 interviews, total. And one is to Rush? And they're NOT promoting Rush's agenda? <mocking Rush's voice> Folks...we have he an administration that has claimed to conservaties...and you know I know conservatives. Now, while they've been claiming to be conservatives and they've been doing a good job mostly and all. But..but..but <banging on the desk> there's something I just don't get folks. First they say they're against an increase in government...but they've increased it larger than any Democrat in history. In history. Then there's this Dubai Port deal. Now I know you people have been with me on this one. And I was very much against it and all. But now I've got the Vice President of the US to help explain to me why this deal is so needed (and improve my rating during sweeps).</mocking Rush's voice> <shrug> How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error? Campaign error? No argument, I wouldn't have put him on the podium. But I'm not claiming that he speaks for the Democratic Party. (I'm not even claiming that Rush speaks for the Republican Party...gasp!)
Post #246,921 by bepatient 3/5/06 9:51:59 PM Reply	The veep speaks quite a bit Watch some C-span. Its not all to CNN's Larry King so sometimes it may be hard to follow. No, he's not a blabbermouth and yes he could appear more on Face the Nation..but having a campaign appearance on Rush isn't that big a deal. Unless you think that the Pres candidates appearing on Letterman and Leno makes the same type of statement. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!