The beginning of the end of Republican lite?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Do you really think Kerry ran as good a campaign as he could or that Bush was the second coming of Regan? From where I stand, Kerry's campaign was awful and he still didn't lose by much.

Like I said, he's no Clinton, not that I'm a Clinton fan at all, but the liberals who keep voting for these moderates might as well change their strategy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jaguar

He's farther left than average for a Democrat, but just barely. Anyone with the idea that he represents the far left is mistaken.

I'd say he differentiates himself from the right. Certainly he isn't a left winger, but Kerry was just a spineless copycat flip flopper.

[Jaguar]

Dean isn't afraid of admitting it when he takes a leftist stance, but I wouldn't consider him left of Kerry at all.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, he is more vocal about disagreeing even though his policies aren't as liberal as Kerry's.

That would make him appear to be more leftist.

[Jaguar]

Ted Striker knows his stuff.

[Kidlicious]

What policies of Kerry's are so leftist?

[Jaguar]

State-funded abortions and the like. And I think he's fiscally left of Dean.

[Drake Tungsten]

Wouldn't "The beginning of the end of the Democratic Party" have been a more appropriate title for this thread?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What policies of Kerry's are so leftist?

none of them, but Rove successfully made people think Kerry's healthcare plan was governement run health care.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I made a statement. Screw these "populist" schmucks! I want highly intelligent, well read, cultured (call them elitists if you want) Presidents!

Like Nixon!

[Sava]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Like Nixon!

Imran should have specified, "not evil"...

unless that's what he wants.

[Admiral]

I was at the latest DNC convention, and I must say, that in terms of a articulated and concrete plan for reform of the party, Rosenburg excelled. Because of this, my chapter of College Dems endorsed him, and we may get our state board to follow suite (we'll work that out this weekend). However, from listening to what Dean had to say, and from briefly lobbying him, I can say that he is not likely to engender the civil war that Republicans like to think he will conjure up in the Democratic rank and file.
It may come as a surprise to some that Dean is, as has been said before, rather to the center of Kerry. He actually supports a number of state's rights positions, and has an A+ rating from the uber-liberal organization, the NRA. His sense of "leftness" comes from his tendency to not compromise on the issues that he does oppose the Republicans on, and as Bush tries to lead that party to the right, this will increase. I think that this stance will actually draw in supporters. For too long, the Democrat party has been seen as a party of whiners, people who complain that the Republicans are "breaking the rules," but don't really do anything about it. With Dean as DNC chair, we will see that change. We will see committment to fight for teh values of the center-left, and people will be heartened.
However, the role of the DNC chair is really primarily to bring money into the party, and to create a stronger party infrastructure. Given Dean's success with Democracy for America, and his foray into the hitherto-untapped resource of online fundraising, I think that he'll be very successful in both years.
Above, it was mentioned that Dean might retake the House. He will not do that. However, I think that in 2006, we will see gains for the Democrats, maybe even significant gains. There is still hope for the Democratic party, and maybe now, we'll start to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past thirty years.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Admiral
I was at the latest DNC convention, and I must say, that in terms of a articulated and concrete plan for reform of the party, Rosenburg excelled. Because of this, my chapter of College Dems endorsed him, and we may get our state board to follow suite (we'll work that out this weekend). However, from listening to what Dean had to say, and from briefly lobbying him, I can say that he is not likely to engender the civil war that Republicans like to think he will conjure up in the Democratic rank and file.
It may come as a surprise to some that Dean is, as has been said before, rather to the center of Kerry. He actually supports a number of state's rights positions, and has an A+ rating from the uber-liberal organization, the NRA. His sense of "leftness" comes from his tendency to not compromise on the issues that he does oppose the Republicans on, and as Bush tries to lead that party to the right, this will increase. I think that this stance will actually draw in supporters. For too long, the Democrat party has been seen as a party of whiners, people who complain that the Republicans are "breaking the rules," but don't really do anything about it. With Dean as DNC chair, we will see that change. We will see committment to fight for teh values of the center-left, and people will be heartened.
However, the role of the DNC chair is really primarily to bring money into the party, and to create a stronger party infrastructure. Given Dean's success with Democracy for America, and his foray into the hitherto-untapped resource of online fundraising, I think that he'll be very successful in both years.
Above, it was mentioned that Dean might retake the House. He will not do that. However, I think that in 2006, we will see gains for the Democrats, maybe even significant gains. There is still hope for the Democratic party, and maybe now, we'll start to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past thirty years.

Extremely well said.

[Jaguar]

Well said, but I don't think we'll see tangible gains for the Democrats until 2008. '06 will be about even, possibly with minor Republican gains. Dems have weak Senators up especially.