Man, it must be hard being a Democrat...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I mean, I look at recent history and see how much has failed to work out for them...

- Gun control is their pet losing issue, and not only is it a complete failure, they stick by it as though it has hope for winning in the future. (Can you say "STUPID"?) We sunsetted the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." We banned predatory lawsuits current and future, that were merely a ploy to bankrupt the firearms industry. Concealed carry legislation has become a reality in more than 3/4 of U.S. states! (in under two decades!)

- They lost the presidential election TWICE

- ...after losing control of Congress

- Now there have been not one but TWO U.S. Supreme Court justices selected by BUSH -- and there were ZERO for Clinton, right? Wow.


They just don't seem to be winning at ANYTHING. I don't like them or their policies and beliefs, but I still can vicariously feel that punch-in-the-gut feeling when they lose more and more and more... It's kinda sad...

Now, do all these Democrats honestly think that the losses they've suffered, and the gains made by Republican ideologies, happened despite some overwhelming American public support for Democrats and their ideologies? I think that's a bit too counterintuitive...

They are always talking about how popular they and their ideas are with the American people. But the overwhelming tide of progress has been made by Republican ideas... Explain how it's proof that Americans agree with Democrats.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

- Now there have been not one but TWO U.S. Supreme Court justices selected by BUSH -- and there were ZERO for Clinton, right? Wow.

I'd suggest actually checking your facts before posting

Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job):

John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75
Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81
Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86
Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88
David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90
Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93
Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94
John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

- Now there have been not one but TWO U.S. Supreme Court justices selected by BUSH -- and there were ZERO for Clinton, right? Wow.

I'd suggest actually checking your facts before posting

Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job):

John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75
Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81
Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86
Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88
David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90
Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93
Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94
John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05

PJ check facts first? Ha ha!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airfury17 0]

Hey chill all you...All jeffrey is trying to say is Democrats Basically suck.....so ya

Sorry no need to bust our all the factual information to try to convince us that they are somthing more than shit....because...when you all boil it down....There not!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

PJ check facts first? Ha ha!

Kallend be circumspect before postulating a theory? Ha ha!
(See your shredding in the thread about using guns to overthrow dictators.)


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

- Now there have been not one but TWO U.S. Supreme Court justices selected by BUSH -- and there were ZERO for Clinton, right? Wow.

I'd suggest actually checking your facts before posting

Here's the Senate voting for the SCOTUS justices. (Name, Appointed by, Senate Vote, First day on the job):

John Paul Stevens, Ford, 98-0, 12/19/75
Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan 99-0, 9/25/81
Antonin Scalia, Reagan 98-0, 9/26/86
Anthony Kennedy, Reagan 97-0, 2/18/88
David Souter, G.H.W. Bush 90-9, 10/9/90
Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush 52-48, 10/23/91
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton 97-3, 8/10/93
Stephen Breyer, Clinton 87-9, 8/3/94
John Roberts (Chief Justice) G.W. Bush 78-22, 9/29/05

Okay, so I'd forgotten the two that Clinton got and Ford's one, among the SEVEN that recent Republicans have gotten.

Would you care to now address the many victories that Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers (whatever you want to call them) have had over Democrats in the last two elections? (THREE elections if you care to go back to Dems losing Congress in 1994...)

I made some rather valid points, and you've shied away from doing anything close to addressing them. Why is that?

Appointing Supreme Court justices is not the only subject I raised.

If you have "victories" that the Dems have had (you'll probably want to pad your list with shams like "Campaign Finance Reform" even though it's a joke) then please share them and our sides will try to go head-to-head. I'm sure that JohnRich and others will have more that I have not thought of.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Okay, so I'd forgotten the two that Clinton got and Ford's one, among the SEVEN that recent Republicans have gotten.

Did you forget that Ford was a Republican, too?

Or that just over a decade ago, it was the Democrats winning left and right, threatening to make the Senate fillibuster proof?

Or that the margin of victory for Bush in each of his wins was rather small (one less than the range of vote count error, the other just over a point)? I'd love to win 50-50 and 50-49, but I wouldn't say I've been dominating the opposition.
----

The two parties cycles. One takes over, get fat and corrupt, gets knocked off. The GOP can easily lose power in Congress in the midterm election, and the nominee in 2008 will have very little capital to use (unlike Gore, who wasted a good lead in by Clinton).

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Okay, so I'd forgotten the two that Clinton got and Ford's one, among the SEVEN that recent Republicans have gotten.

Did you forget that Ford was a Republican, too?

Actually, yes. He is at the periphery of presidents who were around when I was politically aware. I was just a tyke then. Sorry.

But actually, doesn't his being a Republican stack things MORE in my favor, in terms of my thesis in this thread? Thanks for handing me my points.

Quote

Or that just over a decade ago, it was the Democrats winning left and right, threatening to make the Senate fillibuster proof?

Um, that went into the toilet now, didn't it.

Quote

Or that the margin of victory for Bush in each of his wins was rather small (one less than the range of vote count error, the other just over a point)? I'd love to win 50-50 and 50-49, but I wouldn't say I've been dominating the opposition.

Is 4 million votes a small number? I haven't taken math in a number of years, and I have forgotten.

Besides, I've been talking about DOMINATING WHAT GETS DONE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COURTS, not "how many percentage points did we win the presidency by."

Nice to nitpick when you have nothing to really say.

Quote

The two parties cycles. One takes over, get fat and corrupt, gets knocked off. The GOP can easily lose power in Congress in the midterm election, and the nominee in 2008 will have very little capital to use (unlike Gore, who wasted a good lead in by Clinton).

What's the likelihood that if in 2008 the GOP loses and the left gets to place two or more Supreme Court justices on the bench?

What's the likelihood of the GOP losing the House, Senate AND Presidency all in one fell swoop?

The reason for the left's failures at election time and in the legislatures is that NO ONE LIKES THEIR IDEOLOGY ANYMORE.

Only a few isolated whining liberal pansies who call in to Randi Rhoads' show to have a little hate-in.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Misternatural 0]

yeah- like i told a republican- national guard buddy of mine while he was razzin me when the Patriots were still in the playoffs...."Enjoy it while you can dink... (three quarters later) Oh whats that? nice game in Denver!!! HA.... shiny, perfect all american boy Brady has to go home WAAAAAHHH... better luck next year....not!" The lesson here is careful who ya razz bro. Unfortunately that goes for both of us...PEACE OUT!

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[ViperPilot 0]

Kind of funny how you actually feel bad for them in a way, huh? The problem w/ the Dems is that they're all focused on coming up w/ anything possible to destroy Bush and the Republicans, while completely ignoring the country. In general, the Dem party (mostly senior leadership) doesn't really give a shit about the country and only cares about one thing, wrecking Bush's and the Rep party's image. If they'd just put their petty, 3rd grade mentality away and actually try to work w/ everyone to do some good, then they're party wouldn't be so far in the crapper. They don't need to agree w/ the Republicans on everything, but for God's sake, stop the whining and just get some shit done. The Dems need more people like Obama before they'll see the top again. People like Kennedy...sorry buddy, you just need to get the fuck out.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Did you forget that Ford was a Republican, too?

Actually, yes. He is at the periphery of presidents who were around when I was politically aware. I was just a tyke then. Sorry.

There's no way to put this kindly, PJ. If you don't even know what party a recent President was in, how can you participate in a serious, no BS conversation on party power? That was only 30 years back, and it was only 10 ago that Clinton was appointing justices.

Quote

What's the likelihood of the GOP losing the House, Senate AND Presidency all in one fell swoop?

The reason for the left's failures at election time and in the legislatures is that NO ONE LIKES THEIR IDEOLOGY ANYMORE.

People vote with their wallets. Clinton won in a time when it seemed like the White House would stay Republican forever - from 1969-1993, there was only 4 years of Carter. But Bush Sr. spent more time looking outside our borders than within, and the GOP paid for it.

This neverending war in Iraq is costing the GOP. The constantly climbing deficit will cost, esp when it can't renew some of the tax cuts. How those two matters play out this year and in the next 2 will determine the results.

Given the small margins, it's quite possible for the Democrats to take all 3. Of course, they need a leader, and I'm not sure where they'll find one. It's a problem for the Republicans too - beyond McCain, bunch of ugly dogs. The party would do well to forget past grudges and go with a guy that could actually win. If they don't, I think that total loss scenario is quite likely. (If it doesn't start this election)

The SC will likely drift to the right for the next 10-20 years. It too has cycles.

[TrophyHusband 0]

unfortunately both sides have been pandering to the special interest groups because that is who is going to pay for campaigns. the problem is that mainstream america is left out in the cold wondering what the fuck to do. our representatives in washington have turned this into a battle between two side completely forgetting (or not caring) that they are supposed to be on the same team. our senators for the most part vote for their party and against the opposition instead of doing what is right. i think we should celebrate the one republican and five democrats who voted against party lines today. that said, it will swing the other way eventually. this is a good thing though, i wouldn't want the left or the right to keep all the power for too long. maybe this is a good thing though. the people may get fed up enough with both parties and vote in a third party.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

There's no way to put this kindly, PJ. If you don't even know what party a recent President was in...

Forgive me, Ford was president what, NINE election cycles ago? GWBush, GWBush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Carter, Ford, right? Forgive me, I was like 1 year old in '72.

Quote

Quote

What's the likelihood of the GOP losing the House, Senate AND Presidency all in one fell swoop?

The reason for the left's failures at election time and in the legislatures is that NO ONE LIKES THEIR IDEOLOGY ANYMORE.

People vote with their wallets.

Not me. I vote my ideology. I can't be the only one in America who does. Your generalization is quite silly. Try it on someone who does not view himself as living disproof of its validity, okay?

Quote

Given the small margins, it's quite possible for the Democrats to take all 3. Of course, they need a leader, and I'm not sure where they'll find one.

So, you're saying, they're all set to start rackin' up wins, as soon as they find an ideology and some people who will actually, um, win.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Forgive me, Ford was president what, NINE election cycles ago? GWBush, GWBush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Reagan, Carter, Ford, right? Forgive me, I was like 1 year old in '72.

PJ, you keep feeding the opposition. Ford was never elected and he assumed the Presidency in '74, not '72.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"PJ, you keep feeding the opposition."

Thats okay Chris, the opposition has a healthy appetite.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Who really gives a fuck?

The whole Ford-thing was a red herring they threw in to distract from the fact that they have not a fucking thing to say about the MAIN issues I raised.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[TheAnvil 0]

I think you've got a point, dude - and it's not just with gun control. Support for the following have been DNC staples for years: gun control, pre-natal murder, and pre-meditated racial discrimination for employment/collegiate entry. Support for all three has become harder and harder to justify as more and more statistics and better technology sheds light on these issues. Yet the Dems have not altered their positions in the least. They've dumbed down certain portions of their voting base so much that altering their position in any manner on these issues would alienate the very voting base they wish to capture by supporting such positions, however untenable when faced with the facts.

I really think the party will reform. Carville and Begala just wrote a book that is supposed to be pretty good. Liberalism isn't a bad philosophy - especially at local levels of gov't (I think it bad on the national stage) - but I think the party representing that philosophy has become so controlled by its special interest groups it is almost incapable of doing liberalism justice.

Conservativism isn't doing much better, the majority of Republicans having all but abandoned fiscal conservatism these days.

I do see your point though - it's very, very true.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

That was a very cool post.

Minus the "I see your point" part. If one feels so stringly that their side is superior, what exactly is the point of continually bashing the other side?

In my opinion, pointing out the +'s of one's own "side" without resorting to "well, look how shitty the OTHER side is" shows a greater amount of confidence in one's own position. Pointing out the negative's of the other side just displays more of one's own fear that their side may not be any better.

So, no, I DON'T see the point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Who really gives a fuck?

The whole Ford-thing was a red herring they threw in to distract from the fact that they have not a fucking thing to say about the MAIN issues I raised.

Your main point was proven weak from the onset. Clinton appointed justices. You're trying to make a conclusion based on a very faulty recollection of history.

And the notion that the recent 6 year (12 for Congress) slide means one party is toast is ridiculous. You need to look at a bigger picture than your voting lifetime. There are Americans alive that voted for FDR...in 1932. You would do well to know FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. You'll see several cycles for each party.

Mocking DNC ideology is pretty funny considering how the GOP has abandoned their's. The differences between the parties is pretty slight and is overcome by personalities both good and bad. That's how Gore was defeated, btw.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think you've got a point, dude - and it's not just with gun control. Support for the following have been DNC staples for years: gun control, pre-natal murder, and pre-meditated racial discrimination for employment/collegiate entry. Support for all three has become harder and harder to justify as more and more statistics and better technology sheds light on these issues.

Gun control will likely continue to grow as the population becomes increasingly urban, decreasingly likely to hunt. It definitely took a big setback in 2000 - I was of many who broke from the party in part for that reason - but I'm not optimistic in the long run.

Abortion rights will stay strong. Were Alito the difference to ditch precedent - Congress would be driven to legalize abortion in a hurry. The GOP wants to play lip service to the prolifers, but they don't want to pay the price for actually getting it done.

Quotas, otoh, may well fade away. Not sure the browning of the population could revitalize it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Were Alito the difference to ditch precedent - Congress would be driven to legalize abortion in a hurry.

I've been thinking about this. "How could Congress pass a law legalizing abortion." And I concluded that Congress would merely use the Commerce Clause. It's what they do to regulate everything else. If you grow your own zucchini in the back yard for your own use, you coul dbe held liable by the feds for it.

---

As far as why the Dems are having a hard time, I think it is because of a huge disconnect with the realities of everyday life. The Alito hearings bore that out.

Who testified on behalf of Alito? The ABA (who have never been my favorite group of folks) panel said the guy was stellar. His fellow appeals court justices, including the ideologically liberal ones. His law clerks. People who work around him and have been intimately acquainted with his work.

Who testified against him? Law professors and special interest groups. Erwin Chemerinsky is a brilliant dude. I'll hand him that. But "statistically speaking, he rules in favor of big government and big corporations" doesn't have the same ring.

Back in 2001, over 40 Senate Democrats went to a conference to listen to some legal eagles teach about how to block GWB's judicial nominees. AMong them was Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School. They all thought that Dems could block even exceptional nominees merely by saying that the court is being pushed conservative.

They were wrong. The Dems listen to the so-called elite too often. Laurence Tribe may be brilliant, but that's as a lawyer. His skill in politics is probably about as valid as his skill in playing poker. He's probably pretty good, but likely to bluff too often.

The Dems are being constantly pulled in the direction of the blogs. MoveOn.org has great pull in Democratic leadership circles. Other far-left groups, who are pretty damned loud, have too much weight and pull. This is not the centrist-appearing Clinton presidency (Clinton tried the fa-left wacko stuff in 1993 and 1994, which resulted in Republicans controlling the House for the first time in 40 years. The American public sent Clinton and Dems a pretty strong message in November, 1994). Clinton knew after 1994 that he couldn't stay in power and do only far-left politicking. So he moved centrist as a matter of pragmatism.

Democrats lack that pragmatism. They are still ideologues, which seems dishonest to so many

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

And that is a very intelligent way of putting it. bravo sir, bravo.

On the other hand though, I don't think Republicans are being very centrist either (or even fiscally conservative for that matter). They have plenty of ideolgy as well. Just not QUITE as wacky as the louder Democrats.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The American public sent Clinton and Dems a pretty strong message in November, 1994).

yep - the message was "don't balance the budget with taxes." Far safer to reduce taxes AND increase government spending.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Who really gives a fuck?

The whole Ford-thing was a red herring they threw in to distract from the fact that they have not a fucking thing to say about the MAIN issues I raised.

-

I thought it was to point out that your opinions are rooted in a demonstrated ignorance of US recent history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Misternatural 0]

GW's first election was a sham & Bush was a limp duck previous to 9 11...The Senate Dems had the majority thanks to the courage of Jeffords, and bush was hiding from the press on his ranch running his dull chain saw and dull mind desperately trying to figure out how to gain "political capitol" UNTIL 3000+ Americans were crushed and burned to death in NY.......Suddenly the republicans had reason to develop a boner fueled by the viagra of terrorism. To this day the republicans are usung 9 11 to gain control of the American people because as Goering once said when the nazi's were running Germany - It is an easy thing to gain power, simply tell the people they are being attacked, this works in a democracy,a communist country, or a dictatorship....
My father spent two years in a Nazi prison camp as a POW and warned me that it could happen in the U.S. if the American people were not vigillant. Oh, and lookie here what do you know...the Constitution is being eroded before our eyes! Are you questioning my patriotism?? Go ahead, do your duty & report me to the N.S.A for smearing your sacred republicans!
.......... I am an American and proud of it! ...So was my dad.



Blue sky, if I don't see ya in the future.I'll see ya in the pasture.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415