Is the NATIONAL DEMO PARTY .........


staggalee83

staggalee83

War & Thunder
REALLY THIS DUMB.

Demo Party Leader/ Howard Dean

What insane death grip do the Northeast and Calli have on this doomed party. They didn't learn anything from the last 2 election's. :shame:

I guess Bab's, Whoopie, and Moore are going to be his advisor's. :shame: :shame:
 



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :winkgrin: :smh:

The worst thing that happened to the DEMO Party..................( I said it before, and I'm saying it now) .............................. :fart:

HOWARD "The NUT" DEAN and the 2 coast "tunnel vision" National Demo Party. :retard:
 
I support Dean as the chair of the DNC. He will do a good job. The man has organizational skills and can raise lot of money. Many repubs will bad mouth Dean and this appointment but they do not support the party and will never support it regardless of who's at the top of the DNC. Quickly, can you tell me who currently heads the DNC? I don't think it really matter. Dean will push democratic party issues. He will not be republican light.
 
J C said:
I support Dean as the chair of the DNC. He will do a good job. The man has organizational skills and can raise lot of money. Many repubs will bad mouth Dean and this appointment but they do not support the party and will never support it regardless of who's at the top of the DNC. Quickly, can you tell me who currently heads the DNC? I don't think it really matter. Dean will push democratic party issues. He will not be republican light.
Click to expand...


Money is not the issue. It don't matter how much money he can raise. Both parties can raise million's just by saying "FUNDRAISER".

The question is, can he bring in votes outside of the Northeast, L. A., and San Francisco.

BTW: Terry McAuliffe is the DNC head. He has also raised millions and organized. What he could not do is deliver NEW VOTER 'S TO THE PARTY.

Dean will scare people off. Write these words down for 4 years from now.
It will be the same old "Politically Correct" demo party catering to 2 narrow regions. :(
 
Here's what the Dems simply don't or "refuse" to get.

There have been only 2 Democratic presidents in the last 35 years....Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Now what did these two guys have in common?? They campaigned as Centrists and they were both from the SOUTH.

The same sex marriage/abortion/takeyour guns stuff does not resound outside of California and the Upper East Coast.

The leadership of the DNC is basically conviced now that they need to move further to the Left so they can truly seperate themselves from the Center.

As I have said so many times before FDR and JFK are rolling over in their graves.

:(
 
As for the dems, most if not all of the dems who lost seats in Congress in 1994 or 2002 were of the "centrist" variety. People decided to vote for a real republican instead of a fake one.

The republicans (in the White House and Congress) have cut or eliminated a lot programs that were started under FDR.

BTW Howard Dean is not a liberal. He is a moderate. I would rather have him than someone from the sorry DLC. He will not run away from the traditional democratic issues.
 
Thanks EB. Many on TSPN allow the talking heads to formulate their opinions. All of you harpings on the South, forget it. It will take several generations to reverse that trend. LBJ realizes it when he signed the 65 voting rights act. Unless there's a total economic collapse, southern conservatives will continue to vote for candidates that advocate the three Gs. Another factors would be if more blacks joined the republicans party and demanded parity within the party, then you will see southern whites migration back to the dems. This is cycle that even a great politician like Bill Clinton could not break. The dems need to concentrate on the border states, the Southwest (hispanics) and any state where there is a population of less than 10% black.

Dean is a fiscal conservative and liberal on social issues. That's what the party needs.
 
J C said:
Dean is a fiscal conservative and liberal on social issues. That's what the party needs.
Click to expand...

And we in the Republican party are praying the dems stay the course in that regard.

:D
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
Here's what the Dems simply don't or "refuse" to get.

There have been only 2 Democratic presidents in the last 35 years....Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Now what did these two guys have in common?? They campaigned as Centrists and they were both from the SOUTH.

The same sex marriage/abortion/takeyour guns stuff does not resound outside of California and the Upper East Coast.

The leadership of the DNC is basically conviced now that they need to move further to the Left so they can truly seperate themselves from the Center.

As I have said so many times before FDR and JFK are rolling over in their graves.

:(
Click to expand...


I have to agree to Makaho. I am a Democrat, but I agree with this post. The South and the Midwest rule this country. If you look at the population growths you will see that. NY, Cali and the Northeast politics mean a hill of beans to the rest of the US. Until another great communicating Southern democrat runs like Clinton and has a moderate platform, we as Democrats can forget seeing the Whitehouse. I said that when Kerry won the nomination. I was pulling for Edwards to win it. Money aint never a issue. Hell Kerry and his wife had tons of it. So did Al Gore. If Al had of allowed Bill to campaign for him and of course spent more time in Tn while he was VP for 8 years then he would have won the electoral votes and we would not be looking at Bush now. Now the party is paying for it. They better look for a Midwest or Southern political star to run against whatever Republican surfaces in 08. More than likely ole Jeb Bush is getting ready for a run. He is popular in Florida and I think his wife maybe Hispanic. I am sure Mak knows.
 
JR said:
I have to agree to Makaho. I am a Democrat, but I agree with this post. The South and the Midwest rule this country. If you look at the population growths you will see that. NY, Cali and the Northeast politics mean a hill of beans to the rest of the US. Until another great communicating Southern democrat runs like Clinton and has a moderate platform, we as Democrats can forget seeing the Whitehouse. I said that when Kerry won the nomination. I was pulling for Edwards to win it. Money aint never a issue. Hell Kerry and his wife had tons of it. So did Al Gore. If Al had of allowed Bill to campaign for him and of course spent more time in Tn while he was VP for 8 years then he would have won the electoral votes and we would not be looking at Bush now. Now the party is paying for it. They better look for a Midwest or Southern political star to run against whatever Republican surfaces in 08. More than likely ole Jeb Bush is getting ready for a run. He is popular in Florida and I think his wife maybe Hispanic. I am sure Mak knows.
Click to expand...
That's true, but its not the Chairman's job to attract new voters. His job will be to raise money and build a better grass roots organization. The main thing for the Dems is to identify candidates that appeal to a cross-section of the country. That means spending more time and resources at the local level. As a former governor, Dean should be familiar with this. The repubs may have fun with him now, but I guarantee the voters won't care who the chairman is in 06 and 08. As for Presidential candidates, its more than just being from the right part of the country. Its also a matter of the office you hold. Its almost impossible in this day and age to be elected President from the Senate. There's just too many ways for you to be attacked. Right now, the best Dem candidate for 2008 is Gov. Mark Warner of VA.
 
On another note, Even though I'm a Southerner I think its really stupid for any region to disregard a candidate just because he's from a certain part of the country. Kerry faced a natural disadvantage because he's from Massachusetts. And we're not limited to just Dems either. Look at the odds facing pro-life, republicans like Pataki and Guiliani in 08. At some point I'd like to get back to electing candidates based on more than just what part of the country he's from. How bad off would this country have been if Northeasterners had shunned Clinton b/c he's from Arkansas.
 
JSU, it's not a matter of people dismissing a candidate because of where they are from...it has to do with their platform/ideology.

The mentality of Californians and Upper East Coasters differ from people in the heartland and even 20-30 miles outside their big city limits.

For example, people in Clinton think differently on a lot of tangents that people in the City Limits of Jackson. What the Democratic party has failed to do, is look past the borders of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc.

I knew the Democratic party was headed for a lot of losses this election cycle when they opted for Nancy Pelosi in lieu of Harold Ford for minority speaker. I'm not saying this because I was in favor of Ford....but what a better way to show the country that you are truly the the so called party of "Inclusion". Instead, they opted for an Ultra Liberal female over a moderate African-American man.

Again, I have told people in this forum too many times that the Democratic party is it's own worst enemy. I say this because I used to be one of you.

They could have scored a home run in my opinion by nominating Harold Ford.
 



Makaho 2.0 said:
JSU, it's not a matter of people dismissing a candidate because of where they are from...it has to do with their platform/ideology.

The mentality of Californians and Upper East Coasters differ from people in the heartland and even 20-30 miles outside their big city limits.

For example, people in Clinton think differently on a lot of tangents that people in the City Limits of Jackson. What the Democratic party has failed to do, is look past the borders of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc.

I knew the Democratic party was headed for a lot of losses this election cycle when they opted for Nancy Pelosi in lieu of Harold Ford for minority speaker. I'm not saying this because I was in favor of Ford....but what a better way to show the country that you are truly the the so called party of "Inclusion". Instead, they opted for an Ultra Liberal female over a moderate African-American man.

Again, I have told people in this forum too many times that the Democratic party is it's own worst enemy. I say this because I used to be one of you.

They could have scored a home run in my opinion by nominating Harold Ford.
Click to expand...


Dang Makaho we agree again. Ford would have been a good choice as long as his Uncle the pimp Ford in Tn stayed away.lol. Orack Bama is going to be the rising star in the party.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
JSU, it's not a matter of people dismissing a candidate because of where they are from...it has to do with their platform/ideology.

The mentality of Californians and Upper East Coasters differ from people in the heartland and even 20-30 miles outside their big city limits.

For example, people in Clinton think differently on a lot of tangents that people in the City Limits of Jackson. What the Democratic party has failed to do, is look past the borders of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc.

I knew the Democratic party was headed for a lot of losses this election cycle when they opted for Nancy Pelosi in lieu of Harold Ford for minority speaker. I'm not saying this because I was in favor of Ford....but what a better way to show the country that you are truly the the so called party of "Inclusion". Instead, they opted for an Ultra Liberal female over a moderate African-American man.

Again, I have told people in this forum too many times that the Democratic party is it's own worst enemy. I say this because I used to be one of you.

They could have scored a home run in my opinion by nominating Harold Ford.
Click to expand...
From a political standpoint you're right about Ford. But he faced too many odds in getting that nomination, Pelosi was well entrenched by the time he announced his intentions. Those leadership positions are more about personal relationships than they are about finding the best candidate.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
JSU, it's not a matter of people dismissing a candidate because of where they are from...it has to do with their platform/ideology.

The mentality of Californians and Upper East Coasters differ from people in the heartland and even 20-30 miles outside their big city limits.

.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

This is what I have been saying.

The ideology and platform ALWAYS come from these regions as far as the DEMO party is concerned.

Then to write off the rest as "hayseed's" or "not foward thinking enough" won't cut it anymore. Nobody is following blindly on a national level anymore.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
JSU, it's not a matter of people dismissing a candidate because of where they are from...it has to do with their platform/ideology.

The mentality of Californians and Upper East Coasters differ from people in the heartland and even 20-30 miles outside their big city limits.

For example, people in Clinton think differently on a lot of tangents that people in the City Limits of Jackson. What the Democratic party has failed to do, is look past the borders of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, etc.

I knew the Democratic party was headed for a lot of losses this election cycle when they opted for Nancy Pelosi in lieu of Harold Ford for minority speaker. I'm not saying this because I was in favor of Ford....but what a better way to show the country that you are truly the the so called party of "Inclusion". Instead, they opted for an Ultra Liberal female over a moderate African-American man.

Again, I have told people in this forum too many times that the Democratic party is it's own worst enemy. I say this because I used to be one of you.

They could have scored a home run in my opinion by nominating Harold Ford.
Click to expand...

Ford Jr. would have been a good candidate for that position because he is truly a politician. However, all the Fords in tennessee are losing the fire they once sparked in their voters. many people in memphis(his district) are not happy with him or his relatives. there was once a time when he would be straight to the real deal when it came to the citizens of memphis, but now......you can't reach him via email, phone calls, or visit to his office and we realize he is busy in washington but he has the nerve to call into the radio stations for Q&A and never answers a question......just long speeches. i am really disappointed with him because he showed such promise at first.
 
JR said:
I have to agree to Makaho. I am a Democrat, but I agree with this post. The South and the Midwest rule this country. If you look at the population growths you will see that. NY, Cali and the Northeast politics mean a hill of beans to the rest of the US. Until another great communicating Southern democrat runs like Clinton and has a moderate platform, we as Democrats can forget seeing the Whitehouse. I said that when Kerry won the nomination. I was pulling for Edwards to win it. Money aint never a issue. Hell Kerry and his wife had tons of it. So did Al Gore. If Al had of allowed Bill to campaign for him and of course spent more time in Tn while he was VP for 8 years then he would have won the electoral votes and we would not be looking at Bush now. Now the party is paying for it. They better look for a Midwest or Southern political star to run against whatever Republican surfaces in 08. More than likely ole Jeb Bush is getting ready for a run. He is popular in Florida and I think his wife maybe Hispanic. I am sure Mak knows.
Click to expand...

:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Co-sign frat.
 
I can't think of any dem that would have beaten Bush last year. Edwards couldn't win NC for the ticket. Clinton may have but he couldn't run. Voting patterns have been established in national elections. Changes will have to occur at the local grassroot levels. Dean promises the dems state chairs an infusion of staff and money. Events (Iraq, changes to SS, economic downturns) can change political patterns, but race has and will continue to play a role in determing those trends. Political parties don't change their ideology overnight. Harold Ford wouldn't have change a singular vote in AL.
 
J C said:
I can't think of any dem that would have beaten Bush last year. Edwards couldn't win NC for the ticket. Clinton may have but he couldn't run. Voting patterns have been established in national elections. Changes will have to occur at the local grassroot levels. Dean promises the dems state chairs an infusion of staff and money. Events (Iraq, changes to SS, economic downturns) can change political patterns, but race has and will continue to play a role in determing those trends. Political parties don't change their ideology overnight. Harold Ford wouldn't have change a singular vote in AL.
Click to expand...
Co-sign.
 
Makaho 2.0 said:
Here's what the Dems simply don't or "refuse" to get.

There have been only 2 Democratic presidents in the last 35 years....Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Now what did these two guys have in common?? They campaigned as Centrists and they were both from the SOUTH.

The same sex marriage/abortion/takeyour guns stuff does not resound outside of California and the Upper East Coast.

The leadership of the DNC is basically conviced now that they need to move further to the Left so they can truly seperate themselves from the Center.

As I have said so many times before FDR and JFK are rolling over in their graves.

:(
Click to expand...

thanks as usual, no need for me to even bother with this one,,,

out
 
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences.
Eugene McCarthy
 
JSU*Toi said:
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences.
Eugene McCarthy
Click to expand...


You do realize that the REVOLUTION will be televised. :teleport:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top