Wake up democrats!

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
What the OP describes as a radicalization of the Democratic party is really just a super standard play to the base primary campaign. Both parties candidates usually move away from the middle during the primaries. As for whether the Dems are painting themselves into a corner, a poll I saw yesterday suggested that Obama's position on negotiating with dictators is popular. Even among the general public, much less the Democratic base. I love it when there's a happy coincidence of being right and being politically popular.

Also, the Dems are perfectly capable of nominating a moderate: its Hillary. I know conservatives (irrationally) hate her, but she is popular among moderates, just like her husband. Also, I'll admit that I didn't pay close attention to the debates, but I can't imagine the Dems didn't talk about terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]


blah blah blah.

Iron, no one is listenting to you until you change your worn out avatar.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the SC/YT debate, so I stand corrected..it was mentioned once, and not in the context of how to handle the WOT.

[/ QUOTE ]
This admission irks me. I don't doubt your claim that you were thinking of the South Carolina/YouTube debate, but you just so happened to imply that terrorism hadn't been mentioned in any of the Democratic debates thus far--a construct that just so happens to paint Democrats in the worst light possible.

A more interesting topic for me: How did you come to your original conclusion that "terrorism wasn't mentioned even once" in the South Carolina/YouTube debate?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define "anti-war"
I mean i don`t believe in war for the sake of war,but if we are given no other choice but to wage war,like in the case of national security or what have you i`m all for it.
So does this make me anti or pro war?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Anti-war" means different things in different contexts to different people. Some use it as a means of delegitimizing criticism of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, kind of like "Well what do you expect? These people oppose any war, so their opposition to this war doesn't carry much weight."

Your indicated belief system mirrors the vast majority of Americans, including those who generally supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who continue to support the Bush administration's handling of the war, those who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and those who are critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of Americans who disagreed with your position as you stated it. It's kind of circular and leading to stipulate "..if we are given no other choice but to wage war..."

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
I love baseless allegations and unsupported generalities as much as anyone, but could you possibly provide any supporting evidence (anecdotal, statistical, mythological, etc.) for the claims you make?

Specifically, I'd like to see what makes you state the following. (I've bolded what I think are particularly dubious claims):

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans have the weight of the Bush presidency hanging around their necks with no one in the press giving them any credit at all, as if any position they take is shared by the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Barak Obama made a naive and irresponsible statement about his willingness to talk to anyone at anytime without precondition.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When Hillary Clinton calls him on it he responded with the accusation that her position was Bush-like.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this the same Hillary Clinton who stated:

[ QUOTE ]
"You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."

[/ QUOTE ]?

[ QUOTE ]
The democrats are painting themselves into a corner with irresponsible and dangerous polices, solely because it is the opposite of what Bush would do.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are these "irresponsible and dangerous policies" you refer to? On what basis do you make the claim that Democrats are "painting themselves into a corner...solely because it is the opposite of what Bush would do"?

[ QUOTE ]
If the adults don`t get control of the party we are all in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the "adults" in the party? What kind of trouble will we all be in?

[ QUOTE ]
The depth of Bush hatred will only be eased when a democrat is elected president...

[/ QUOTE ]
Framing opposition to the current administration as "Bush hatred" delegitimizes reality-based criticism as partisan bickering. Do you distinguish between the two? If so, in what ways?

[ QUOTE ]
The democrats seem well on the way to nominate another unelectable candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, specifically, are you basing this on? "Unelectable"? As far as I can tell this is not true. PollingReport, which aggregates polls from multiple sources, reports:

[ QUOTE ]
"Now thinking about the next election for president in 2008, if the election for U.S. president were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?" Options rotated

[Republican Candidate: 27%, Democratic Candidate: 51%]

[/ QUOTE ]

Multiple polls there show Hillary Clinton ahead of Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head matchup, Barack Obama ahead of Giuliani in a head-to-head matchup, and similar outcomes for Clinton and Obama against John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. (There are some exceptions to this trend, such as Giuliani beating Clinton in the George Washington University poll, Obama losing to Giuliani in the Gallup poll, and a few others.)

Does it seem reasonable that "The democrats seem well on the way to nominate another unelectable candidate"?

[ QUOTE ]
Their money and power base is so far left, that any candidate with even a slightly moderate view stands no chance at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

What positions, specifically, has the Democrats' "money and power base" taken that are "so far left"? Who are the Democrats' "money and power base"? What are these "slightly moderate views" and in what way do they "stand no chance at all."

[ QUOTE ]
Barak Obama can take a irresponsible and dangerous position with the knowledge that the left wing base in the party will support him, if only because the position he takes is opposite to that of Bush`s.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you basing this on? From the article I linked to before:

[ QUOTE ]
The Obama campaign, meanwhile, circulated a memo by Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying Obama's response to the question had played well with focus groups and that Clinton had changed her position on the subject — a claim her campaign denied.

Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton's administration, defended Obama's statements.

"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so — just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The democrats can hold a debate and not even mention the islamic fascist that are at war with us. Democrats act and speak as if the islamic fascist aren`t the enemy, Bush is!

[/ QUOTE ]
What debate has taken place where the issue of Islamic terrorism hasn't been discussed? Do Democrats have to accept the Bush administration's formulation of the "Global War on Terror" to count as "adults"?

[ QUOTE ]
It is looking like the adults won`t be able to gain control of the party,and because the republicans will most likely nominate a moderate, they will win the white house again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the "moderate" that the Republicans will nominate? On what issues are they moderate? On one of the most important issues for the upcoming election--the war on Iraq--the Republican front runners find themselves firmly outside the mainstream American opinion (but well within the opinion of Republicans.)

[ QUOTE ]
This will leave us an even angrier and more bitter democratic party, ensuring the cycle of ugly partisan politics that is hurting us all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, there's always a muddled bipartisan compromise out of any crisis.

[/ QUOTE ]

One problem with arguing with you bdk is that it's impossible to "win" with you arguing from a non-partisan standpoint. For every fault enumerated by some of the conservatives on the board, you point out some similar precedent from Republicans. The sad thing about those partisan stereotypes is that both Democrats and Republicans largely fulfill those stereotypes. If one points out that Democratic protectionism is a bad thing, you will point out the rural Republican senators and representatives that support farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. There's nothing inherently wrong about outrageous actions by Democrats because there's definitely some tit-for-tat. It really plays well to the politicians on the Hill to sort of demarcate some fighting as "partisan", to suggest that forces out of their immediate control lead to bad policies; indeed, nothing scares me as much as a highly touted and highly compromised "bipartisan" omnibus bill.

In other words, you often rebut conservative arguments as "right-wing talking points" - a phrase you use suspiciously often, in a partisan manner - but I hardly see you engage major Democratic "talking points" with that same tenacity. Are there really no destructive Democratic proposals you can think of? I can think of a couple that worry me, like Edwards' talk of raising the capital gains tax, the latent China protectionism in the Senate, and the ill-considered, populist proposals for withdrawal in Iraq (which Hillary Clinton has actually thought over quite well). I read a shocking op-ed in the New York Times by a liberal columnist supporting "packing the court", denigrating whatever judicial tradition we have into childish finger pointing using your exact same arguments.

And by the way, where was this sympathy for populism in 2004? Remember, I was a liberal then - I remember quite all the Internet memes about the collective idiocy of the American people, like moving to Canada, and decrying the ascent of the nefarious Religion Right. Now, via of the Iraq War, the tables are turned. Now the American people are now the righteous deluded, swamped by misinformation from Fox News because polls clearly show they know the right Way to proceed - these are no consequences of a flawed man's actions, but rather a fundamental recognition of the Democratic Truth. As always, there's nothing like the politics of convenience to highlight the farce that ideological politics really is.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
One problem with arguing with you bdk is that it's impossible to "win" with you arguing from a non-partisan standpoint. For every fault enumerated by some of the conservatives on the board, you point out some similar precedent from Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really try to avoid this kind of tit-for-tat justification, but I'm sure I'm guilty of it on occassion (as we all probably are.) However, in the post you're replying to here I don't think it's an accurate characterization of what I wrote. (If you're referring to other posts of mine, could you specify which ones? I'm not trying to be snippy here.)

If this is just a general impression you have of me that's fine, but I don't think it's really justified.

[ QUOTE ]
If one points out that Democratic protectionism is a bad thing, you will point out the rural Republican senators and representatives that support farm subsidies and other corporate welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I'm not saying that I haven't engaged in this kind of equivocation, but I'd be more comfortable dealing with specific posts than what you say I "will point out."

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you often rebut conservative arguments as "right-wing talking points" - a phrase you use suspiciously often, in a partisan manner - but I hardly see you engage major Democratic "talking points" with that same tenacity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I of course often refer to various unconvincing (to me, at least) arguments as "right-wing talking points" in a pejorative manner. However, I really do try to get to why I find such arguments unconvincing. Sometimes it comes down to ideological differences that are largely irreconcilable (but that I'm happy to discuss), but I admit that I have a tendency to focus on lies, distortions, and mischaracterizations--otherwise known as BS--emanating from those in power, who as of late have been Republicans and wishy-washy "triangulating" or "moderate" (a la Joe Lieberman) Democrats.

I self-identify as a liberal, social democratic, progressive type. I'm not a Democrat, though I do tend to find some common ground with some Democratic politicans, though not much. I do have a visceral dislike for the modern incarnation of American "conservatism" which to me seems justifiable and reasonable but I'm sure seems "partisan" and knee-jerk to others. C'est la vie.

I also have an interest in authoritarianism, and particularly in Right-wing authoritarianism in American political discourse. I personally found John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" to be particularly useful in figuring out what the hell was going on in modern American politics.

[ QUOTE ]
Are there really no destructive Democratic proposals you can think of? I can think of a couple that worry me, like Edwards' talk of raising the capital gains tax, the latent China protectionism in the Senate, and the ill-considered, populist proposals for withdrawal in Iraq (which Hillary Clinton has actually thought over quite well). I read a shocking op-ed in the New York Times by a liberal columnist supporting "packing the court", denigrating whatever judicial tradition we have into childish finger pointing using your exact same arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really, truly, honestly don't tend to have one view or another of "Democratic proposals" versus Republican proposals. I have a fairly well-articulated set of core internal beliefs that I try to use as a framework. Do I probably tend to be more skeptical or distrustful of Republican proposals than Democratic ones? Probably, but I try to reserve judgment on things until I feel well-versed enough in them to come to what I'd consider a reasonable, justifiable conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
And by the way, where was this sympathy for populism in 2004? Remember, I was a liberal then - I remember quite all the Internet memes about the collective idiocy of the American people, like moving to Canada, and decrying the ascent of the nefarious Religion Right. Now, via of the Iraq War, the tables are turned. Now the American people are now the righteous deluded, swamped by misinformation from Fox News because polls clearly show they know the right Way to proceed - these are no consequences of a flawed man's actions, but rather a fundamental recognition of the Democratic Truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
I get what you're saying here but, again, I don't think it applies very well to me specifically. I don't consider myself a populist (in the sense that you're using it here.) I like to think I don't make arguments justified on popularity unless said popularity (or lack thereof) is relevant to what's being discussed.

So, as an example, in my response to old dogg's post I quoted Obama's campaign manager saying "Obama's response to the question had played well with focus groups" because old dogg specifically was arguing that Obama's response would pander only to the "left wing base" of the Democratic Party and contribute to his being an "unelectable candidate." (And I even criticized iron81 for justifying Obama's position as "popular"!)

I posted head-to-head polls only as a response to old dogg's argument that Democrats "seem well on the way to nominate another unelectable candidate."

[ QUOTE ]
As always, there's nothing like the politics of convenience to highlight the farce that ideological politics really is.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is what it is. I don't consider ideological politics worthwhile for their own sake, but rather as a means to an end. For that reason I'm comfortable supporting a Democratic (or Green, or whatever) candidate who I consider to have some liberal, progressive bona fides. It's not because I buy into her or him wholeheartedly, or that I favor the positions of her or his party generally over another. It's because I see it as progress, however incremental and frustratingly compromised.

Excellent response--I appreciate being challenged to articulate core beliefs and think not only about what I think about, but why I think about it.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
One problem with arguing with you bdk is that it's impossible to "win" with you arguing from a non-partisan standpoint. For every fault enumerated by some of the conservatives on the board, you point out some similar precedent from Republicans. The sad thing about those partisan stereotypes is that both Democrats and Republicans largely fulfill those stereotypes. If one points out that Democratic protectionism is a bad thing, you will point out the rural Republican senators and representatives that support farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. There's nothing inherently wrong about outrageous actions by Democrats because there's definitely some tit-for-tat. It really plays well to the politicians on the Hill to sort of demarcate some fighting as "partisan", to suggest that forces out of their immediate control lead to bad policies; indeed, nothing scares me as much as a highly touted and highly compromised "bipartisan" omnibus bill.

In other words, you often rebut conservative arguments as "right-wing talking points" - a phrase you use suspiciously often, in a partisan manner - but I hardly see you engage major Democratic "talking points" with that same tenacity. Are there really no destructive Democratic proposals you can think of? I can think of a couple that worry me, like Edwards' talk of raising the capital gains tax, the latent China protectionism in the Senate, and the ill-considered, populist proposals for withdrawal in Iraq (which Hillary Clinton has actually thought over quite well). I read a shocking op-ed in the New York Times by a liberal columnist supporting "packing the court", denigrating whatever judicial tradition we have into childish finger pointing using your exact same arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely post here, but if bdk doesn't mind, allow me to address this:

The problem here is the inherent "equivalency view" you're bringing up isn't really true. Yes, the Democrats have plenty of bad ideas, and I'm perfectly willing to agree overly relying on China to solve our economic problems forever is one of those.

Here's the thing, though: most of those ideas from the Democratic side today rank somewhere between annoying and vaguely threatening in the 20 year timeframe even if they are fully followed through. On the other hand, the GOP is busy screwing up our country *now*, and their policies are immediately far more of an issue than the Dems'. Yes, if we overly rely on China for 20 years without ever doing anything else, odds are our economy will wind up tanking one way or another. Will it be as bad as if we keep electing pro-war (or at least not anti-war) Presidents and wind up still in Iraq, with a possible side helping of Iran, in 2013? No, and it's not close. If Hillary gets elected, bans violent video games, and a newly liberal Court affirms the ban, would that be bad? Yes, it would. Would that be as bad as the GOP candidate continuing to order the FDA, the Surgeon General, the EPA, etc. to lie through their teeth on every aspect of every topic the GOP doesn't like? No, it wouldn't.

Pick a subject; with few exceptions, today's GOP is objectively worse on it than the Democrats, even when the Democrat ideas on it amount to nothing at all.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about the SC/YT debate, so I stand corrected..it was mentioned once, and not in the context of how to handle the WOT.

[/ QUOTE ]
This admission irks me. I don't doubt your claim that you were thinking of the South Carolina/YouTube debate, but you just so happened to imply that terrorism hadn't been mentioned in any of the Democratic debates thus far--a construct that just so happens to paint Democrats in the worst light possible.

A more interesting topic for me: How did you come to your original conclusion that "terrorism wasn't mentioned even once" in the South Carolina/YouTube debate?

[/ QUOTE ]

From watching and not remembering it, again because it was not directly on topic, just a chance to slam GWB.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One problem with arguing with you bdk is that it's impossible to "win" with you arguing from a non-partisan standpoint. For every fault enumerated by some of the conservatives on the board, you point out some similar precedent from Republicans. The sad thing about those partisan stereotypes is that both Democrats and Republicans largely fulfill those stereotypes. If one points out that Democratic protectionism is a bad thing, you will point out the rural Republican senators and representatives that support farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. There's nothing inherently wrong about outrageous actions by Democrats because there's definitely some tit-for-tat. It really plays well to the politicians on the Hill to sort of demarcate some fighting as "partisan", to suggest that forces out of their immediate control lead to bad policies; indeed, nothing scares me as much as a highly touted and highly compromised "bipartisan" omnibus bill.

In other words, you often rebut conservative arguments as "right-wing talking points" - a phrase you use suspiciously often, in a partisan manner - but I hardly see you engage major Democratic "talking points" with that same tenacity. Are there really no destructive Democratic proposals you can think of? I can think of a couple that worry me, like Edwards' talk of raising the capital gains tax, the latent China protectionism in the Senate, and the ill-considered, populist proposals for withdrawal in Iraq (which Hillary Clinton has actually thought over quite well). I read a shocking op-ed in the New York Times by a liberal columnist supporting "packing the court", denigrating whatever judicial tradition we have into childish finger pointing using your exact same arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely post here, but if bdk doesn't mind, allow me to address this:

The problem here is the inherent "equivalency view" you're bringing up isn't really true. Yes, the Democrats have plenty of bad ideas, and I'm perfectly willing to agree overly relying on China to solve our economic problems forever is one of those.

Here's the thing, though: most of those ideas from the Democratic side today rank somewhere between annoying and vaguely threatening in the 20 year timeframe even if they are fully followed through. On the other hand, the GOP is busy screwing up our country *now*, and their policies are immediately far more of an issue than the Dems'. Yes, if we overly rely on China for 20 years without ever doing anything else, odds are our economy will wind up tanking one way or another. Will it be as bad as if we keep electing pro-war (or at least not anti-war) Presidents and wind up still in Iraq, with a possible side helping of Iran, in 2013? No, and it's not close. If Hillary gets elected, bans violent video games, and a newly liberal Court affirms the ban, would that be bad? Yes, it would. Would that be as bad as the GOP candidate continuing to order the FDA, the Surgeon General, the EPA, etc. to lie through their teeth on every aspect of every topic the GOP doesn't like? No, it wouldn't.

Pick a subject; with few exceptions, today's GOP is objectively worse on it than the Democrats, even when the Democrat ideas on it amount to nothing at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Adanthar: Couldn't agree more. Feel free to speak for me any time you want.