What I want to say to some Democrats

[Stefu]

I think that the Democratic party could benefit from a jolly fat man. I've heard he's also a womanizer, which is a definite plus - Democrats thrive with womanizers. Just look at FDR, JFK, LBJ, teh Clinton... On the other hand, what unites McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? THEY WEREN'T WOMANIZERS.

Clearly Americans like their Democrats with a penis.

[Ramo]

I agree about the South. The key to a Democratic win is the midwest. Being a yankee doesn't get you anything, but being a midwesterner, like being a southerner, is some currency that you can exploit. That means, you pick someone like Feingold, Durbin, Rendell, Vilsack, and one day Obama or Granholm (once the Arnie Amendment passes). Then, there's picking a black hispanic guy or a gal. So, Richardson, Ford, Napolitano come into play.

But the most important point is that this is a stop-gap measure. Sure, being charismatic, being from the right region is nice, or being an interesting ethnicity/sex is nice but it's not a long-term strategy for political dominance. As you pointed out teh big dog did absolutely nothing to strengthen the Democratic Party. The Dems will need to do some serious house-cleaning regarding their message, their leadership, their structure soon.

As for Senate Minority Leader, I completely agree. We're facing a President who's going turn the Supreme Court into a reactionary institution; and the only place where the Dems can oppose them is in the Senate, so they pick one of the most conservative members of their caucus? He's pro-life for chrissakes! How could they put a pro-lifer to be the single man to defend Roe v Wade? Heads ought to roll just for that.

I'd personally like to see Durbin (of the possible candidates). We need a man who will filibuster everysinglef*ckignguy that coes out of the Judiciary Committee. Sure, they'll be painted as obstructionists, will hurt them in 2008 (there's even a chance they'll lose even more seats), but they have to make a choice: gain as much power as they can or protect the Bill of Rights.

[Ramo]

Fundamentally, Kerry lost because this was never a speech that he made.

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=158769

The Dems need to be able to talk about their values (which is not the same thing as their religion), being able to say that defending the right of labor to organize is right and destroying civil liberties is wrong. And they need to be able to mean it. They doesn't mean vapid platitudes (like Kerry's comment in the 2nd debate that "everything is God's gift"), but a moral center that they can distill their campaign into. And they need to reframe the debate on this basis, so that a Democratic position can be articulated with a singly pithy phrase.

The Republicans have done this absolutely brilliantly. Take "tax relief" for instance. You can't argue against it with a two-word phrase of your own (in the current debate), you need at least a few sentences. George Lakoff has written a couple excellent books on this, which I highly recommend.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Oerdin


-Governor Bob Holden of Missouri who I know nothing about. He looks eldarly but has a full set of hair and is in shape.


Intersting non-southern governors include Governor Joe Kernan of Indiana, .

Both of these men are incompetent, I can speak from first hand knowledge.

Holden was defeated in this year's primary and Kernana was only Gov. because his predecessor died halfway through his term.

Holden was grossly grossly incompetent. Kernan was, well, more ineffectual than incompetent, I'd say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We need a Robert LaFollette style candidate.

I never knew he became President

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Oerdin
-Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma has an every man look to him and a cute wife which helps to bad Oklahoma
not worth much in EC votes.

He's a nice guy but he's media phobic. We refer to him as our phantom governor because we only catch a glimpse of him for about 5 minutes every 8 months or so.

Maybe he lives overseas and shows up twice a year to check on things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We need a nice centrist democrat

Why not just vote Republican then?

[DinoDoc]

Because they aren't Democrat.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why not just vote Republican then?

Isn't that what they do?

[Arrian]

[GhengisFarb™]

I thought their goal was to try to PREVENT people from voting Republican...........

[chequita guevara]

We must become the Republicans to defeat the Republicans!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We must become the Republicans to defeat the Republicans!

Maybe if you changed the party name to the Dempublican Party people would get confused and accidentily vote for you.

Heck, you've tried everything else.......

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Maybe if you changed the party name to the Dempublican Party people would get confused and accidentily vote for you.

They're already the Demipublican Party, or is it the Republicrats? Both parties are so similar it's hard to tell.

[Dis]

Originally posted by David Floyd




What you'd end up with is someone who would spend more money on social programs than Bush does on war. Try balancing that budget - and if you do it by jacking up taxes significantly, then you're looking at a one term Presidency and crippling your party.

Clinton did it